User talk:Doremítzwr/Archive/03

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!

I hope you do not mind.
¶ I edited the modern counter‐parts to include the alternative forms you recently included. I hope you do not have a problem with that. --Pilcrow 17:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your nine contributions made 17:04–17:17 yesterday? I have no great quarrel with any of them, and your adding the obsolete forms to them is unequivocally an improvement. That said, none of them should have been marked as minor edits (even though eight of them were); please see Help:Minor edit. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ Ah, thanks for the link, I thought minor edits were based solely on personal præference. Regardless, I should have used specific links to the entries rather than a list of recent contributions. I thought you would soon respond to that message which was written by me. ¶ I would like to add that myself does not desire to obtrude by performing tasks you would rather do yourself. Since I did not creäte those entries, I felt you would præfer adding the alternative forms. --Pilcrow 16:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To be completely honest, I'm glad you saved me the work; my Internet connexion is generally very temperamental, so I couldn't be bothered adding the alternative forms myself. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

encylopædic: error?
Hullo Mister Doremítzwr.

¶ I found this entry and I think it is a misspelling. Compare: encylopædic with encyclopædic, the former is missing an extra c; ‘encyclopædic’ is proper. Could ye please confirme this, sir? Gratias tibi ago. --Pilcrow 19:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's my thinking, too. I've nominated it for deletion. I have no idea why I created that. BTW, is exclusively plural in standard use; if you wish to use archaic–dialectal second-person–singular pronouns in conversation with me, please use  and its inflexions (as well as their corresponding verb forms). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ I am incertain as to what exactly you mean by ‘standard use’. ‘ye’ was (and occasionally still is) also used to refer to a single subject, especially in early Modern English. I would rather not use thou, thy, or thee since they would imply ye are inferior to me. --Pilcrow 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you conclude that, given that the Lord's Prayer uses the verb form once and the pronoun  thrice in its first three lines. I'd prefer it if you didn't ye me. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ Please considering reading the ‘T‐V’ distinction, as it may illuminate my præference. At any rate, it is not necessarily a goal of mine to sound archaic. --Pilcrow 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the T–V distinction, both in theory and in practice (I speak Welsh, which has and, which are used similarly to French's  and ). How are you to make such a distinction, if you never use the T-forms ( &c.)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ I am basing my distinction on my perceived cultural norms rather þan my personal norms. Neverþeless, I am willing to communicate in þe fashion þou desires mostly. --Pilcrow 16:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In purely pragmatic terms, you could probably get away with the Hiberno-English distinction between a singular undefined: and a plural undefined:… (BTW, correction: *þou desirest.) — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Question related to requested entries
Do you think that words that only appear in glossaries such as, which you added to WT:RE:la a long while ago should be added to some sort of appendix rather than have an entry in the mainspace? There are a number of these in dictionaries but when one adds a citation for them, it just looks odd, see. Caladon 11:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of something similar to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, with links thereto from the mainspace using and ? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, very similar to that. I believe that somebody has already started experimentally adding Vulgar Latin words in appendices. Caladon 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if appendices are deemed to be a suitable medium, then I'm fine with using them for this purpose; however, how are they able to include all the information on a word? What about pronunciations, inflexions, and related terms? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations:Stratosphære
Hi Doremítzwr. I believe "Stratosphære tårnet" is a misspelling. Tårnet should be capitalized in a two-word proper noun, or the words compounded as is seen later in the same text. The correct translation for stratosphere is "stratosfære", so all in all it is a bad example IMO.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK; thanks for the correction. Does φ always become undefined: in Danish? Should that citation be at Citations:stratosphære, rather than at Citations:Stratosphære? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As a general rule φ is undefined:, but sometimes it is undefined:. The letter is called undefined: or undefined: in Danish. The stratosphere: (part of the atmosphere) as a proper noun is in Danish, but it is usually just seen as a noun. The citation is about Stratosphere: (in Las Vegas), and I don't know the Danish name for that, but I'm guessing that it is most common to use the English name.
 * Ordbog over det danske Sprog (1700 – 1950 Sphinx) simply refers to the "F"-form. As you probably know, nouns were capitalized in Danish, until the spelling reform of 1942. I didn't find any examples, but my best guess is that is a genuine archaic form, whereas undefined: is a spelling error.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the meteorologic sense of undefined: is first attested (according to the OED, and which quotation I've added to our entry) in 1909; do you know what the date of first attestation of the same sense for the Danish undefined: is? Given that our citation of undefined: is a use as a proper noun, I expect it's most appropriate where it is. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * None of the dictionaries at hand has any information about first attestation. I found "Stratosfære" (noun, capitalized) in "Salmonsens konversationsleksikon" (1915 – 30), .--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 00:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Could you please add the earliest attestation you can find for it to our entry for undefined:? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

g=p
¶ Sir, may I please know why you include this information into entries of plural forms? In my opinion: it is redundant if the term is already defined as a plural form.

Thank you for reading. --Pilcrow 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the entry looks like it has an incomplete inflexion line without including that . — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

præfixt: a verb form?
Hullo.

¶ Could I please know if præfixt is also a past‐tense verb form?

I thank you. --Pilcrow 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, has been used that way, as evidenced by these four b.g.c. pages . I didn't look for past-form uses of undefined: (because of Google Books Search's OCR incompetence when it comes to ligatures and diacritics), but I'd assume that undefined: used as a past form would be attestable given enough trawling of Google Book Search's corpus. BTW, since we're on this topic, are you sure that "informal" is the best description of ? I imagine we could find a lot of uses (especially older ones) in perfectly formal contexts, especially in poëtry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ It appears to be a dialectical spelling, which is why I marked it as such. I can alter it to something else if you desire. --Pilcrow 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Every instance (bar this one from 1880) of undefined: amongst the first fifty hits yielded by searching falls within the date range 1708–1775; as far as I can tell, those uses are not restricted to any particular register of formality, and I see no dialectal bias. (BTW, distinguish the adjectives  and .) I therefore think that "eighteenth-century spelling of " would be the most accurate description of undefined:. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ There are a few results dating back from the 17th Century, so I altered both definitions to: “  ”. Is that still acceptable, sir? --Pilcrow 14:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The date is fine, but consider whether you really mean undefined:, or whether the word you're looking for is undefined:: an archaic term or spelling is one that is consciously used for agèd effect, whereas an obsolete term or spelling is simply one that is no longer used. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ I thought that understandability was utilised to determine which context tag should be used. I can recognize terms such as searcht (in analogy with burnt), but I have potential bias in tagging terms; I do not perceive the opinions from variöus readers (which is considerably time‐consuming), so I might rely on my own. --Pilcrow 10:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think our glossary's definitions are particularly helpful a lot of the time; I suggest you disregard the understandability criterion and depend instead upon usage. I agree that undefined: is fairly easy to understand, but the question is: Is it still used today (outside of quotations &c.), and if so, is it used intentionally to convey a ye-olde-Englische feel? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ To be honest, I did not make a lot of thorough observations in advance; I know it is a valid term that exists, but I did not check recent books (on Google) to see if contemporary writers use that term. Considering that some Google‐Books are restricted, that makes it difficult to view them. Would it suffice to simply mark words as alternative spellings if I do not know if they are still utilised? --Pilcrow 12:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I briefly checked with hits restricted to those from the 21ˢᵗ C., and the hits of undefined: all seemed to be reprints, republications, or quotations of much older works. Afterwards, I searched, and that yielded no Google-Groups hits of undefined: whatsoever. I concluded that undefined: isn't used any longer, not even archaically, so I edited the entry thus. I would admonish you to conduct cursory investigations when you create entries for spelling variants, for accuracy's sake, but I shan't jump down your throat for marking one as an  some other form, though I can't speak for anyone else. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quintation‎
Hi there. Did you mean for that to be capitalized? You added it when the system was translating initial lowercase letters to uppercase. SemperBlotto 13:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the initial majuscule was intentional. What happened there? Is everything OK now? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

novity
I feel like there is a copyright issue here. Not only are you using the OED's definitions verbatim, but the citations are also word for word from the OED. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 11:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, surely the OED doesn't own the copyright to its citations, but the rest may well be valid. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked beforehand: The definitions in the OED [2ⁿᵈ & 3ʳᵈ eds.; 1989, December 2003] are identical with those in the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1908], the latter of which is out of copyright. As for the citations, I've presented them differently from the OED, expanding their abbreviations and drawing out their ellipses. I'm confident that all that is, but if you're still concerned, feel free to consult our resident intellectual property lawyer, bd2412. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No but the citations are evidence that Wiktionary is simply copying material from the OED. BD has explained before that while information itself is not copyrightable, the presentation of that information is, so if our entry matches the phrasing as well as the examples of another dictionary, that is a Bad Thing. Obviously we have the right to cite the same sources as the OED, but here it is clear that we are not citing those sources, we are copying the OED. The OED punctuates citations very differently from the original sources, adding full stops etc to isolate the phrases they want; we are now repeating those editorial emendations. You can't do that. At the very least, track down the sources yourself and make sure you are actually citing them and not the OED's repesentation of them. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 12:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The 1460, 1569, and 1823 citations are all in the NED. The 1972 quotation isn't accessible on Google Books. If you're still worried, take it out. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

sextate
Yes, I know that most books show it capitalized - sometimes all capital letters. But I think that this is just a typographical convention. The same books (normally commercial rather than scientific) also capitalise other terms that should be lower case. e.g. "SEXTATE. — Methylcyclohexyl acetate. (Howards of llford Ltd.)", "Methyl Cyclohexyl Acetate Synonyms: sextate, methyl hexalin acetate", "Known also as Methyl Hexaline Acetate and Sextate." and "...solvent is composed of Xylene and Sextate as diluents." and so on. I think that we should have it as lowercase. SemperBlotto 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. There is also an adjective form and a biblical form, both of which I can't quite get my head around.


 * The verb and adjective you're talking about are in the entry now. I didn't get the adjectival senses either, so I left them with s. There's also a nominal sense distinct in meaning from "methylcyclohexyl acetate". I suppose we could put the "methylcyclohexyl acetate" sense in the same entry as those other senses, but we'd need to split the entry by etymology, and it would make it quite long; it seems both more convenient and more descriptively accurate to have the "methylcyclohexyl acetate" sense at . — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you got the noun. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange templates
Hi there.

Did you really mean to create templates and ? I can't see a general use for them, and you could have just copy/pasted the text into the relevant articles. SemperBlotto 08:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I created them following the precedent of . This way, any more such coördinate terms (such as * or *) can be added to every relevant entry in only one edit, rather than several. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Templatizing is a great contributor to reducing the wikiness of wiktionary, like hard-coding HTML. In this case the offsetting benefit seems trivial. DCDuring TALK 08:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with this thing you call "wikiness". It sounds to me like little more than a dogmatic imposition of a general principle without consideration for this particular case. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You should be. It has to do with the ability of newer users to make some kind of contribution, so that we avoid succumbing to ivory-tower elitism, at which we cannot outcompete OED and even the lesser unabridged dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The templates have not received any level of protection; they are currently open for anyone to edit them. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not make it a "list:" template? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Would that just mean moving to  and  to ? I'm cool with that. Could we get a bot to autoreplace every instance of the old template name with the new one? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no, the templates would need to be recast a bit. The result would look almost the same as now. Is that all right? As to replacing instances, there are some eight of each. Just do it by hand. Heck, I'll do it by hand if you like. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead. Also, if you can think of better, less undefined:- and undefined:-centric names for the templates, please substitute them. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, would it be possible to add parenthetic comments to each of the terms listed by those templates? I was hoping for something like this:
 * = (reduce proportionately, by single aliquot part): tertiate (⅓), quintate (⅕), sextate (⅙), septimate (⅐), decimate (⅒), duodecimate (¹⁄₁₂), centesimate (¹⁄₁₀₀), millesimate (¹⁄₁₀₀₀)
 * = (proportionate reduction, by single aliquot part): quintation (⅕), septimation (⅐), decimation (⅒), vicesimation (¹⁄₂₀), tricesimation (¹⁄₃₀), centesimation (¹⁄₁₀₀)
 * Is that possible? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AFAICT it's impossible to add those parenthetical explanations using a list: template. Of course, for a non-list: template, one can do what he likes. So perhaps leaving it as it was — with a non-list: title and syntax — is ideal, and adding the fractions. I've already converted the verb template to a list: template, but will be glad to convert it back (and, anyway, because of the way the list: templates work, the template needs must have a terrible name, so I've kept the redirect). What do you think? (Sorry to have brought up the list: issue.)—msh210℠ on a public computer 06:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The name is fine; it doesn't really matter, since only editors see it. That said, it has led to an ungrammatical sentence at Template:list:reduce proportionately, by single aliquot part/en, viz. "This template contains a list of reduce proportionately, by single aliquot part in the English language and written in the Latin script." That preamble is highly elliptical; its full form would be "verbs meaning 'to reduce (by a given proportion)', here listed by single aliquot part in ascending order of denominator value", but IMO that is too long. Nevertheless, that full form would at least make that sentence grammatical. Another issue: Why is there no colon after that parenthetic preamble? The presentation looks strange without it. The parenthetic fractions are desirable, but certainly not essential. Is there any way of changing the template's make-up to include the fractions whilst maintaining its (really rather useful) trait of omitting the listed term which would link to itself? That is, when the template is transcluded to, it doesn't list undefined:; can that feature be preserved whilst including the parenthetic fractions? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'll just have to undo all my work toward converting your template to a list: template. The list: templates do as far as I see (and contrary to what you wrote just above) cause a link to an entry to appear even in the entry itself. However, I think I can use in your own template to prevent that from happening (as in ); plus, your own template can display the fractions, which AFAICT a link: template cannot. I'll revert, and add the use of 'notself'. I don't have a chance at the moment, but will do so as soon as I do; sorry for making a temporary mess of things.—msh210℠ on a public computer 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine; I've learnt things from the exercise anyway. Let me know once you've sorted things. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the verb template, q.v. Note that only tertiate has an associated fraction at the moment. That's because I don't know the proper characters to put in, and their order, to add the others, I strongly suspect (from your past work) that you do, and I think you should be able to edit the template yourself so as to add them, so I didn't want to take the time to learn them. If you do edit the template, you'll see where "1/3" is in it, and the analogue to the others should be pretty clear. Otherwise, I'll do it, copying from the above list if you tell me those are in fact the correct character sequences or from such other list as you post in reply hereto. I'll get to the noun template. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fiddled with the noun template now sufficiently that the fractions can be added as to the verb template. As for the verb template, the fraction goes right after each  in parentheses, and if you have any questions or doubts, please bug me or post a list of the fractions. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done and done . :-) It all works perfectly. Thank you. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Some thanks go to Internoob, too, for fixing an error I made with the verb template (as you can see in its history). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, for removing that extra space ; that was good of him, too. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

sylfaen
Hi. Could you tell me how this Welsh word is pronounced? Thanks in advance. --Vahag 10:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ,  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

IPA-Question related to nothing
Hello Doremítzwr. I've got a question about the IPA and ask you because you are an Admin with IPA-4 and thus naturally first choice for help; hope you don't mind. I do Low German entries and Low German has an effect which is called "unorganic length". That is, two words are pronounced with the same vowel length, but one has a rising pitch and the other a falling one. The rising is perceived as shorter than the falling one. The rising tone is also usually depicted by double consonants (full and ful being actually fúl and fùl), hence further missperception. Is there any way to depict this in IPA, without using the length sign ? Thank you for the answerDakhart 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Low German or with this phenomenon of "unorganic length" you mention, so you should take what I write with the caveat in mind that I might not have understood your enquiry. You can denote a rising tone with a háček (e.g. ) and a falling tone with a circumflex (e.g. ); however, those suprasegmentals have no effect on what vowel length is denoted. If you think it's important and you want to avoid using, you could always use the IPA half-long sign — viz. — for the falling tone (e.g. ); however, if vowel length is not phonemic, it would be inappropriate to mark it in transcriptions bounded by slashes (i.e. ) — it should only be shown in those bounded by brackets (i.e. ). You may want to explain this phenomenon on About Low German or somewhere more appropriate. I hope this helps, but if not, I apologise. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I wanted to know and thanks for the nod to About Low German; makes sense to put it there.Dakhart 00:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

cærimony
Sir, you started cærimony based on a citation of a plural, but in the same book, the singular is spelled as cæremonie. Here.

Are you mad at me now? --Pilcrow 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I've amended and addended accordingly. Why would I be mad at you for correcting my error? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The one citation is actually a mention, and for the plural. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it refers to a use, whose respelt form I included in an editorial comment. It's a pity we don't have access to the original manuscript, but in its absence, I don't think it's unreasonable to regard that citation as standing for that use in the original manuscript. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

nonce words
You know already exists, right? I'm not sure that 'nonce words' can be a topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I did, but it and (which redirects to it) both display . I needed  for, quod vide. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And now you don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that'll be fine; however, I suspect this won't be the only time such a contag would be useful. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gkm
Hi,

On the french-speaking wiktionary, we’ve seen your template:gkm. We were about to copy it when we discovered that there was no such code in ISO 639. Is there a reason why you choose these letter ? (and why not gkb or the private code qgk ?).

Cdlt, VIGNERON 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The introduction of the code gkm was requested for Middle Greek in 2006 (see the documentation for request number 2006‒084); its adoption (as undefined:) is Pending the resolution of the impact of its introduction upon the existing ISO 639-2 and -3 code grc (see page 4 of the ISO 639-3 Change Requests Series 2006 Summary of Outcomes).


 * You may ask why I chose the name undefined: as opposed to undefined: or undefined:. The code gkm is meant to denote those forms of the Greek language in use from the time of the considerable changes it underwent in the seventh century (when, amongst other changes, it became the official language of the Byzantine Empire under Emperor Heraclius) until the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453; for that continuum, undefined: is a perfect designation. By contrast, undefined: means the "Greek of the Middle Ages", and the Middle Ages, according to the OED [3ʳᵈ ed., March 2002], were "[t]he period in European history between ancient and modern times, now usually taken as extending from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (c500) to the fall of Constantinople (1453) or the beginning of the Renaissance (14th cent.)…esp. the later part of this period, after 1000"; the OED further adds that "[a]t different times and by different writers the beginning of the period has been variously placed between 300 and 900". There is too much ambiguity in the term undefined: for it to be useful; moreover, even the more exact date range (476–14ᵗʰ C. or –1453) begins one or two centuries too early. As for undefined:, that term would make sense there were only three æras into which the Greek language was divided (i.e., Ancient–Middle–Modern); however, the division is in fact tetrachotomous, being Ancient–Koine–Byzantine–Modern. Is that explanation satisfactory? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you a lot for all these explanations ! It's far beyond my expectations !


 * I had suspected something like code-waiting-for-approval, thanks for the precious links. Did you have any clue when it will be approved ? (I don’t know the inner working of the ISOs 639).


 * Plus, I just discover the scripts templates on your user page, that's definitively something I will ask to the devs to add in the babel extension !


 * Cdlt, VIGNERON 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your guess is probably as good as mine vis-à-vis when they can be expected to finally adopt <tt>gkm</tt>; I for one am surprised that it's already taken them over five years since the date of first request. Anyway, I'm glad you found my response useful. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Commentary
For the French Wiktionary’s equivalent of, see fr:Modèle:gkm.

Etruscan
What is the point in linking every single letter to their entries in the inflection line? We don't do this for living languages such as English or German, why should we for Etruscan? There isn't anything useful in those letter entries, and really we should have an Appendix:Old Italic script to cover that.

Also, requesting a pronunciation is kinda funny, given that we hardly know Etruscan phonology! -- Liliana • 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the links for the individual letters to encourage entries to be created for those Old Italic characters; one already exists for . As for the s, feel free to remove them if there is absolutely nothing that can be added to those <tt>Pronunciation</tt> sections. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

ﬁrﬅ
Art ðou certaine þou deſireſt to conſerve this entry? --Pilcrow 02:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not. It now redirects to undefined:. The Lithuanian Wiktionary hath already copied our content, so I've preserved the interwiki. Thank thee for bringing this to mine attention. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

co-ordination
Thou markèd co-ordination and coördination as uncountable but coordination is countable. I detect a contradiction. --Pilcrow 02:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The word hath both countable and uncountable senses; I have corrected the inflexion lines of all three entries. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations:tare and tret
Looks like tare: (empty weight of a container) + tret: (weight after tare is deducted) to me. SemperBlotto 12:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that initially, but the phrase gets its own subentry in the OED. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

sny
Hi. I was reviewing this word for WOTD, and I don't actually know what an α-form, β-form or γ-form is. Would you mind creating a template for these that links to an Appendix:Glossary definition or something? Thank you. &mdash;Internoob 03:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Internoob. I added this definition to the glossary; does that make sense of the usage for you? I don't have time to create templates as well at the moment, I'm sorry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. I've also created . Does that do what you want it to? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, perfect! Thanks. &mdash;Internoob 06:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'll write documentation for the template when I get the time. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done and done . — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Pending message
I have replied to your query on my talk page and I am not sure if you noticed. Sorry for the late response, I don't even know if that reply I gave is any help anyway. It all feels so long ago now. Caladon 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd taken your talk page off my watchlist, so no, I hadn't noticed your reply. I have responded in turn. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

An epithet of Jesus
Does every description of Jesus to have to be in a dictionary? How would this be different from Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin. Not every epithet of Jesus has to be in a dictionary, but there's no reason why they ought not to be included. I see that they're prima facie similar, but whereas undefined: is a title proper, these various epithets often seek to refer to their referents explicitly without using the proper name therefor (for the same motivations that originally inspired interjections like ). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How about George W. Bush, Texan idiot or similar? Would you accept that, or reject it? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think more closely analogous is a nickname like ; if we treated people as we did gods, I'd accept something like it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well look at that. I didn't expect that to be there. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I seem to think we do have one for George Bush just it's in Russian, roughly translated as Fucking Cowboy or something. Anyway, I thought we treated words and phrases on linguistic merit, not how famous the person they refer to is. Apparently you disagree, am I right? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly decided. In what kind of contexts does that Russian derogation occur? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * , failed RFD it seems (see talk page). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the legwork to find that, but I'm afraid that the term seems disanalogous because it "never caught on", to quote Anatoli (timestamped: 10:49, 29 August 2011). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I added Heart Break Kid‎. By the way, I do take your point that they're not really sum of parts because the meaning isn't obvious. They're sort of "nicknames". Dubya is a good one as it's only one word. I still tend to think despite the non-obviousness of the meaning from the parts, these are not dictionary material... but... WT:CFI doesn't back me up on this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I added to undefined:, since it would be good to get an example of the kinds of context in which it occurs. Epithets aren't things we have any set policy or much clear convention on yet; perhaps it's best to allow their unregulated entry until we have enough such entries with which to judge which are wheat and which are chaff. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

citing Usenet
Fyi, "message 73" (as the case may be) that I've seen you cite when referring to a quotation from Usenet is not really a good way to refer to the message: that Google Groups lists a message as 73d doesn't mean it was posted 73d chronologically, or that newsservers received it 73d, or that newsreaders list it as 73d. Message-id, which I've also seen you use, is far better: that's intrinsic to the Usenet post. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition, Google will remove messages if the author asks them to (with a promise that they are the real author!). That would change the numbering. Equinox ◑ 03:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I only ever pipe the link to the plain-text form of the message in isolation as "message №" if the citation I've added to the entry is an abbreviated copy of one I've added to that entry's <tt>Citations:</tt> page (as in the case to which you, msh210, allude, where "message 73" in the 2002 citations in is called "Message ID: <Marcel-1.53-1105221907-bbaRr9i@waveney.demon.co.uk>" in <tt>Citations:inverted hat</tt>). In the case where a message has been deleted, Equinox, Google maintains the tab for the message with a note something like "this message has been removed by the author", so even in the case where a message is deleted, the original numbering and order of the messages is preserved. Still, since the message numbering seems to be such a relative thing, I may simply change my practice to re-pipe the link in question with a parenthetic "see the original message in isolation" or something. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

háček
FYI WT:TR.


 * OK. Thanks for the heads-up. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
Please clean this out; it's driving me crazy. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm unclear - I mean the category, not your talk page. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's empty now, but see WT:RFV. Also, LOL. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

intervacuum
See also SemperBlotto (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that kind of usage, but I fear I'm too tired and it's too technical for me to define. Right now, I'm just working on clearing out User:Doremítzwr. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why all the deletion?
"Have nothing in your home that is neither beautiful nor useful," someone said. But why all the deletion tonight? Depressed, annoyed, or on a minimalist kick? Equinox ◑ 23:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of my efforts here over the past few weeks have pertained in some way to my resolve to clear out the crap that has accumulated on my user page over the past few years. It’s been a bit gruelling, but I’m nearly finished. I intend to take a wikibreak when I’m done — I’m unsure for how long. I wanted to tie up loose ends before I did so. Once I do, I’ll focus on overhauling my life in an analogous manner. Perhaps it’s a sign of my malpriorities that I focussed on wiki stuff before real-life stuff, but that’s just the way I am, I suppose. I admit that I have tended to see my contributions here as something undeniably progressive — as some kind of meagre, but certain and indelible, improvement to the general state of affairs (whatever intelligible content such a notion might have); whereas I perhaps can’t shake the feeling that my endeavours in other spheres are ultimately futile or inconsequential. I suspect that further candour would be inappropriate to this medium, so I’ll stop there, except to add that, yes, I do have a strong minimalist instinct, and that that certainly inspires some of my current drive for a “leaner” user page. Thanks for your enquiry; I appreciate it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, good luck. I spend way too much time on here as well. By the way, emulatrix was added by me, after I saw it on your page! Equinox ◑ 23:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed. Thanks for saving me the work! <tt>:-)</tt>  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Uncategorized symbol pages
See Special:UncategorizedPages. DCDuring TALK 03:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That can't be right; my additions are all in Category:Translingual symbols. What's going on here? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They must not have been in at the time of some dump. They were not in at the time I checked a few of them either. The last time I checked they seemed to be categorized. I'll let you know if any appear the next time the special page is refreshed. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The was a problem with the template: . DCDuring TALK 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm glad the root problem's been fixed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't check for the template possibility first. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

becrave
"No, we don't want this entry to be autocategorised into Category:English words prefixed with be-" -- Hello! Can you please explain your reasoning? It is just that--an English word prefixed with be- (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Same for beknit, please. Leasnam (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The etymology of undefined: is "← <tt>enm</tt>  ← <tt>ang</tt> "; its  etymology is " + ". The same is true of undefined:, . Categories like Category:English words prefixed with be- are diachronical etymological categories, not synchronical ones. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of when the formation occurs, be-: is recognised as a prefix in: Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. At all three points, it is an English word with a prefix. Do you believe that this cat is only for words formed with in Modern English? That would not be true. Leasnam (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Categories like Category:English words prefixed with be- are diachronical etymological categories, not synchronical ones. " <-- This is exactly my point, and why it should be grouped with other words, like begin:, beget:, etc. as English words prefixed with be-. Leasnam (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the prefix was originally undefined:, then became undefined: in later Old English, was restored to undefined:, undefined: in Middle English, and then changed back to undefined: in Modern English; but yes, it's the same prefix, in the same way that and  are the same words. Nevertheless, those categories (as I understand them) are meant only for those words which were formed thus in the languages in question, irrespective of how artificial the chronological divide between them is. Consider : it derives from the Latin, which itself derives from  + ; it is equivalent to  + ; would it be accurate to categorise undefined: in Category:English words prefixed with in-? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We had a similar issue a few months ago when another user was doing the same: unlinking the lang args in prefix and suffix templates. The concensus was that we wanted them to count, as the words are continually re-analyzed as stem + affix in each period, remaining separate components, and do not blend into a single unit, as some borrowed words do (e.g. rapport:). Leasnam (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "would it be accurate to categorise undefined: in Category:English words prefixed with in-? " I would say Yes! (albeit there are at least two distinct prefixes with this form). Because the Latin prefix in-: has been borrowed into English and is now an English prefix. The word can thus be analyzed as . Leasnam (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide link(s) to the discussion(s) in which this consensus was reached. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here you go []. Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I no longer see any reference to undoing of the unlinking other than the page History of each term affected, but they were all reverted. Leasnam (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's just a 2:1 majority in favour of such conflation; with Ruakh and me, it's still just 3:2. I don't think these few discussions can represent a consensus of the editing community as a whole. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Leasnam and CodeCat. If a word uses a prefix, it should be categorized as such, even if the prefix is a legacy from either a genuinely different language (as in loanwords from French) or from what we arbitrarily classify as a different language (as in native words that originated before the Modern English period). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I still think that it's worth making this diachronic–synchronic distinction, but it's not an issue I have the time or inclination to pursue right now. I shan't revert such categorisations in future, although neither shall I make them myself. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is hopeless confounding of synchronic and diachronic thinking in our category system as the categorization works based on the templates and the templates are applied with "equivalent to" even in cases where the sense of the affix is not one for which the affix has ever been productive in English let alone is currently productive. It has destroyed the possibility of using en.wikt categories to identify productive affixes. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then clearly we need different templates and categories for synchronic equivalencies. How about template names like and category names like Category:English words interpretable as containing be-? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it makes more sense to create separate templates and categories for the diachronic version, since those are making the stronger claim. How about Category:English words that were formed by affixing be- to an existing word and are known not to have existed before our arbitrary cutoff date for Modern English? ;-)  —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 15:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is the stronger claim, really? That a word is created by affixation by speakers/writers or that a word is remembered/looked up before use? DCDuring TALK 15:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which of those claims corresponds to Doremítzwr's proposed Category:English words interpretable as containing be-?  —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I had always assumed that the justification for a synchronic view was that, whatever the history of occurrences of a word were, certain words formed by affixation were manufactured or invented by each speaker/writer. In the case of many words this seems true, at least for some speakers in some senses. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the justification, no. I doubt that "becrave", for example, is re-coined independently by each user. But this does not mean that the relationship of "becrave" to "crave", or of "becrave" to "bedazzle", is irrelevant. For one thing, when a word's senses evolve, the senses of related words frequently evolve with it; for example, LiveJournal allows users to list "interests", and users have frequently asked to be able to list "disinterests" as well, not because they're recoining the word "disinterest", but because they're employing the existing word "disinterest" in a way that makes sense analogically. (It also often happens, of course, that the senses don't evolve together, and sometimes we end up with doublets; sloth was originally slow + -th, but the connection there has been lost, and now sloth and slowness serve different roles.) For another thing, as CodeCat points out in the discussion that Leasnam links to, related words often influence each other phonetically, either protecting each other from phonetic changes or else dragging each other along. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What I should have said is that the rationale for using our affix templates for "equivalent to" cases where there is a different diachronic etymology (usually from another language, though possibly an ancestor language (eg, M.E., O.E.)) must be that the words are reinvented. Otherwise, their use in those cases simply makes a hash of the categories. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't see it as a big problem if a category is a "hash". A category is a good way to find entries, but inclusion in a category should never be taken as a specific statement. The fact that [[likeness]] is in Category:English verbs, for example, does not mean that is a good choice for a "verb" blank when you're playing Mad Libs. The fact that  is in Category:English words prefixed with be- means, or should mean, only that if you're looking for words that use the prefix, then  is one of the words you're looking for. If you then want to ask additional questions, like, "when was it coined?", then you click through to the entry. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be A Good Thing™ for us to have categories as unhashy as possible; it facilitates research of large word classes. I agree that it is useful for some purposes to have a category like Category:English words interpretable as containing be-, containing every English word that contains undefined: according to synchronic analysis; I nevertheless maintain that it is useful for other purposes to have a category like Category:English words prefixed with be-, containing the smaller set of English words that were prefixed with undefined: according to diachronic analysis. Do you not agree? I also think it would be great to have categories like Category:English terms first attested in the seventeenth century &c. We could always be doing so much more than we are. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding kljukica and že
Glad to help. Now about the issues: Thank you for double checking my edits and providing feedback, I really appreciate it. Don't hesitate to comment on my edits in the future. - bead-v 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. I will make the appropriate edits.
 * 1) The thing is, Slovene (consonant) letters generally have two pronunciations: one is by combining the sound it represents with [ə] and the other is the borrowed German pronunciation of the letters ( ⟨a, b, c, d, e, f, ...⟩ [a, be, tse, de, e, ɛf, ...]). Since there are no corresponding letters of š, č and ž in German, those only have a single pronunciation, as in the case of ž [ʒə]. Though it is true that /ə/ is sometimes represented by ⟨e⟩, it is also left unwritten, as is the case before r. As such, I would treat ž as the actual word for the letter, pronounced [ʒə]. Writing the word as že was actually misleading, since I thought it was pronounced [ʒɛ] or [ʒe] when I first saw it. There is also no entry for že in the Standard Slovene Dictionary, not in this sense at least. I hope I have succeeded in clearing this up.


 * Thanks for the very full response! That is certainly reason enough to exclude that entry for undefined:. I was interested to learn that the Slovene letter names, generally speaking, derive from the German letter names; could you perchance include such etymological information in the entries for the relevant Slovene letter names? Analogously, I'm pretty sure that there's a derivational link between the Latin letter names and the English letter names, but I don't know of any source that confirms that; besides, I imagine that there would be intermediate forms in Anglo-Norman &c., so I don't feel confident that I'd be correct in simply stating that most of the English names derive directly from the Latin names. It was good collaborating with you! — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I simply forgot to check your talk page to see whether you had replied. Will do so in the future. I agree with you concerning the origin of the English letter names, I think you could say for most that they ultimately derive from the Latin names. I should note that I too have nothing to back up that the second type of Slovene letter names derive from German, but it is very likely not only because of the similar (if not identical) pronunciation, but also the German linguistic influence on Slovene. Also, I have recently discovered that even though they are not widespread, the "german-type" pronunciation equivalents for č, š, ž, j, z have been standarized. Which means, next to [tʃə, jə, ʃə, zə, ʒə] also [tʃe, je, ɛʃ, ze, ʒe] are correct. This brings the question back to the table, since normally [e] would have to be written in Slovene. However, in the dictionary, these pronunciations are listed in the entries of the letters. What do you suggest?


 * You can always just say "Probably from the 🇨🇬." if you're uncertain. I'm unsure whether anything ought to be inferred from the omission of entries for those letter names; the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't list entries for letter names — it only gives them in its entries for the letters themselves. What does the Standard Slovene Dictionary do? Does it usually give entries for letter names? Ultimately, whether we ought to have entries for the letter names, , , , and depends on whether those names are attestable. On top of the fact that they're all such short words, I notice that , , and  already exist as basic Slovene words, so attesting them would be difficult. Do Slovene letter names inflect for grammatical case and number (like English names do for number) or are they indeclinable (like Latin names)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the dictionary, all letters can be either indeclinable or declinable. It gives an example of declension: NOM b [bə, be:], GEN b-ja ['bəja], béja ['be:ja]. This means that the dictionary makes a distinction between the two names in all but the nominative case. An interesting fact is that the dictionary has an entry for ipsilon, which directs the reader to the entry y, whose pronunciation is listed as [ipsilɔn]. I guess letters and their names have a similar relation to each other as numbers and their names (1 ~ one). In light of that I would personally do the following: the pages B and b would have Slovene entries as letters, while the page b would also have an entry as a noun, the name of the letters B and b, with the declension pattern, and the same for the letter name bé. This would be done for all letters, of course. What do you think? –bead-v, talk — 13:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I understand you properly, then I agree completely. For example, <tt>b</tt> would show the undefined: sort of declension, whilst <tt>be</tt> would show the undefined: sort of declension, yes? Just to make certain that I do understand what you mean, could you create the relevant entries for and  please? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, check these pages:, , . –bead-v, talk — 12:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I understood; those entries are great. <tt>:-)</tt> I have two suggestions: 1) include etymology sections noting the probable German derivation for the class of names, and 2) include the alternative names, not in <tt>See also</tt> sections, but rather in <tt>Synonyms</tt> sections. What do you think? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you agree. <tt>:-)</tt> I've used in the entry's etymology section to add <tt>be</tt> to Category:Slovene terms derived from German and I've specified the German letter name's pronunciation,, to illustrate more clearly the derivation. A good idea, do you think? BTW and FYI, I've nominated you for whitelisting. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

tetrachotomy
Please be more careful in extrapolating Ancient Greek words which may or may not exist. The first two from the original version of this etymology do not. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies. However, please consider this. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ummm....perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like the book you just linked to is from 1900, and is entitled "A collection of new words from learned crafters" (I'm sure there's a better way to translate it). Unless I'm very much mistaken, that's certainly not Ancient Greek, and I don't think I'd feel comfortable using it for Greek.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, fair enough. Blame my ! — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)