Talk:tiro

Sorry to keep doing this; I'm thinking the Latin verb tirō (whence Italian, Spanish and possibly French ) is Vulgar Latin, or possibly Mediaeval. According to Real Academia, the etymology of the Spanish word is uncertain; according to Garzanti, the Italian etymology is from Vulgar Latin (with possible alteration/influence from classical ). According various French sources including Le Robert and Tésor de la langue français, the French derivation seems to be possibly via Spanish, but also possibly by elision of some kind of unrelated compound, perhaps with Spanish influence, gradually replacing the trahō derivative. A Gothic derivation or influence in the original word seems likely. Since it is not in Du Cange or NLW, I am led to think the word is VL, not Mediaeval, and most likely southern Romance. Would I be justified in moving this definition to a reconstruction page? Thanks, Isomorphyc (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably. The OED gives "Common Romanic" *tīrāre. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't think to check there; I've just moved it. Could you please take a look at my Vulgar Latin entry?  It is here: Reconstruction:Latin/tiro.  I don't think I've ever made one before, and I don't see very many, so I have no idea if I have done it correctly.  Thanks!  Isomorphyc (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Someone also has to go through Special:WhatLinksHere for tiro and tirare to fix all the etymologies. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was about to do that-- I just wanted to be sure the entry was all right I changed all the links. I appreciate your help! Isomorphyc (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder why the i is long in the OED, by the way. Perhaps a reason not to trust their etymologies particularly. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * One more question: I need to delete 78 non-lemma forms whose entries consist entirely of conjugations of tirō. Here are the titles: User:Isomorphyc/Sandbox/tiro_conjugations_delenda_-_titles, and these are the full entries: User:Isomorphyc/Sandbox/tiro_conjugations_delenda_-_full.  Is there a better way for the admins for me to do this than to mark all of them with ?  (I also have 48 forms which I can edit myself, because they have non-tirō information.)  I didn't quite realise how involved this would be when I started. Isomorphyc (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * About the long i: Le Robert omits macrons entirely, but Garzanti seems to favour a short consonant. The different forms could be consistent if different stages of the language are being considered or different assumptions are made.  I wouldn't find it a matter for general scepticism unless they missed important macrons on classical words.  Isomorphyc (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there are ways one can run a bot on an admin account, but I don't know how. You'd be better off using your bot to mark them all for deletion, and I guess I (or another admin) will deal with them all by hand. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I marked them all for deletion. I'm not sure if you use pywikibot, but the documentation for sysop login is here: mediawiki if you are interested.  It looks relatively easy, but I use the REST API so I haven't experimented with Pywikibot as much as I might have.  Isomorphyc (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I used pywikibot a while ago, but I stepped away from it, changed hardware, and then couldn't remember/figure out how to set things up again, being something of a bumbling idiot. I should probably look into dealing with that again. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing hardware can be awful. If you ever do decide to get back into it, please let me know if I can ever help with anything; I'd be very glad to.  Isomorphyc (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you perform searches for all those conjugated forms? You might've found attestation that du Cange et al. missed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am concerned this is too much burden of proof to correct what is likely a simple mistake. I am not saying this word was never used in the middle ages and preserved, only that it is quite unlikely this entry was meant as mediaeval lexicography.  I have tried using the RFV process for, but it is not suited to this task.  Do you think I would be better off rolling back my changes to ?  Isomorphyc (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see, which I created three years ago. Would you say that it is possible to add a similar function to Module:la-adj, Module:la-noun, and Module:la-verb for searching whole paradigms, perhaps by use of a 1 parameter? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It should be relatively easy to create a separate entry point to do this, as, at least for the verbs the names are stored in a Lua table prior to printing to the wikitable format; or one could have it encapsulate a single search query including all of the terms in a link. I have just always found Google Books to be too cumbersome to use for answering the types of Mediaeval Latin questions which come up on Wiktionary.  It would be hard to make a reasonable Mediaeval Latin section without initially defining a more rigid corpus around which more flexible tools could be designed.  Isomorphyc (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I know there's likely to be a lot of noise. Google Books Search's strength is the extensiveness of its corpus; if a word doesn't turn up anywhere there, we can quite justifiably have grave doubts that it exists at all. I figured Lua could take the enormous work out of creating search templates like . Would you be willing and able to add that functionality to the modules? It would be good if the 1 parameter also automatically included all the variants that sometimes occur (like the present passive infinitive). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes-- I was going to. It may be a bit of time as I am not so comfortable with these modules, but I am working on the poetic forms anyway.  If I can't find a way to limit the search by language, I may try some syntax like +est +sum in the search query to do this.  Isomorphyc (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's great; thank you. I was thinking that perhaps the parameter should be 1 instead, since we may want to search other corpora (such as the “more rigid corpus around which more flexible tools could be designed” that you mentioned) besides Google Books Search's. As for limiting the search by language, I believe including  in the URL restricts the results to Latin ones, and that doesn't have the undesirable effect of removing from the list results that lack the words  or  (as few as they are likely to be). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A note to interested readers: Such a search function was instituted by Special:Diff/41659190 and is discussed at Module talk:la-verb. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So, whether I should have or not, I've removed all the inflected forms. — JohnC5 22:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)