Talk:derivo

Shouldn’t the Latin definitions be in ”I do” rather than ”to do”?Jonteemil (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the idea is that we translate lemmas by lemmas (which is traditionally the first person present indicative in Latin, the infinitive in English). --Barytonesis (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But most Latin verbs has a I-definition. For example, which is the second part of derivo, is defined as "I lead or draw off.". Most verbs in Category:Latin verbs are also defined as "I " so it seems that this verb is a rare exception or just a typo.Jonteemil (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since "derivo" is the first-person singular present active indicative and not the present active infinitive of dērīvō I think the definition must be in the I-form. A "to do"-definition is more suitable for - the infinitive.Jonteemil (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * there have been several discussions about this, but I don't think any definitive answer has been reached, so you could bring up the question again on the Beer Parlour. What I'm absolutely opposed to is putting translations to the infinitive entries; please don't add anything to . --Barytonesis (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we don't do this for Sanskrit, which uses the third person singular present indicative. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "this"? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The practice for Sanskrit is to use the infinitive definition, even though it's not the infinitive e.g. . Same for Kannada, the stem form is used but still defined as the infinitive. I think Latin is the odd one out, as Jonteemil noticed. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * what I'm saying is that if he wants to make the "I ..." translations the rule for Latin, he should take it to the Beer Parlour, because not everybody agrees to it; that's why you can find English infinitives here and there. Personally, I think we should use the infinitive, as is done for Sanskrit. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't since the word does literally mean "I derive" (or whatever the English word is) and not "to derive". But as you said, since there aren't any apparent principles on en.wikt. our opinions don't mean anything before this "case" has been brought up on the beer parlour.Jonteemil (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's more accurate to translate with "I ...", but very little is achieved by doing this. It's even distracting, because people are used to see infinitives in translation dictionaries. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is en.wikt. the only dictionary that defines Latin (and Ancient Greek) verbs in I-form (excluding other Wiktionaries)?Jonteemil (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but and, our two main reference dictionaries here, use the infinitives. I urge you to look for the previous discussions about that topic; I know this question was addressed by someone. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's this and this. But the relevant discussion is this. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Depending on the meaning of the word it might be ridiculous or hardly imaginable if the first person is used. The infinitive should be used for English glosses simply because it is less marked in English. There is nothing incorrect about it: Citation forms are translated with citation forms; the lexical meaning is translated by the purpose of the dictionary, not the inflectional one. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 14:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the linking of the discussions. I guess both definition types have their pros and cons. What matters most to me is regularity and that all Latin, Ancient Greek and Old Armenian verbs are conjugated the same, eventhough I'd like to have the I-form definitions.Jonteemil (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)