User talk:Jbvlajbvkjfbv/2012-2016

I have to get away from here.

Appendix:Proto-Germanic
What is this page for, exactly? It seems redundant to Index:Proto-Germanic... 12:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

quasi
The tag was "dated or literary". The only reason to change it to just "literary" would be if you think that it was never a normal word, and has always been strictly a literary term. —Ruakh TALK 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
Firstly: does have a spot for glosses. To see how to use it, please refer to this change I made to vietininkas. Also, I have no idea how you made it this long without being welcomed. Therefore:

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions 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.
 * If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
 * 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.

Also, please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we can help you with the languages you'll be working in.

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! --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology "compare to" and "→ see".
Firstly — an English source writing about the Lithuanian word might say "Compare Latvian ", but never "Compare to Latvian ". (I admit, this is completely arbitrary — logically, comparing laikas to laiks is the same as comparing laiks to laikas, so the two phrases should be equivalent — but for whatever reason, one is common, and the other sounds bizarre.)

Secondly — in my opinion, even "Compare Latvian " is not a very good etymology, because it's not clear what you're trying to say. I think it would be better to say something like one of these: (depending what you mean).
 * Cognate with Latvian.
 * Presumably related to Latvian.
 * Unknown. Perhaps related to Latvian.

Thirdly — unlike the French Wiktionary, we don't use the "→ see" notation in etymologies (as you did at [[skaitvardis]]). We don't have a clear alternative that we use instead, but we don't use that. :-/  Is this O.K.?

—Ruakh TALK 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

lv & lt
Bonjour! Tu viens de me poser une question sur le niveau de similarité entre le lituanien et le letton. À mon avis (et c'est bien une question subjective), ces langues sont aussi distinctes que l'anglais et l'allemand. Si l'on connaît bien l'une de ces deux langues, on ne comprendra pas forcément l'autre, bien qu'il soit possible de reconnaître pas mal de mots cognats (comme laiks et laikas, qui n'ont pas le même sens...). Il est sûrement plus facile pour un Letton d'apprendre à parler lituanien que pour un Français (ou pour un Brésilien comme moi), mais il lui faudra encore quelques années d'étude pour arriver à lire et à parler correctement...

Tu t'intéresses au lituanien? Qu'as-tu l'intention de faire avec cette langue au wiktionary anglophone? --Pereru (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

HotCat
Please note that categories can be added much more quickly if you use HotCat, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

desmit
Voilà! C'est fait! :-) --Pereru (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Template interwiki links
Please add interwiki template links to the template's documentation page, not in the template itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

craindre
to suck in which sense? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Latin etymology dictionary
Do you have access to this book? I looked for it but it's prohibitively expensive. 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Module:la-verb
I started this module, and I'll try to see how far I get with reimplementing our current inflection tables. I don't know all the intricacies of Latin inflection though, just the basics (four conjugations and the io-type is about as much as I know), so is it ok if I ask you to be my consultant? :) 22:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure! Thanks for taking care of it. --Fsojic (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I converted, , , and  to use the module, and it seems to work ok. I'm not finished with it yet, there is a lot that could be improved, but it works at least. Could you check it to make sure it's all ok? 02:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

,, , and  have now been converted as well. 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

and are done. I noticed that the deponent verbs have both an active (-turus) and a passive (-ndus) future participle, but the semi-deponent verbs only have the active participle. Is that correct? 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I did the -pass3p templates now too. But I'm a bit confused by the -nopass templates. I left a question in the Tea Room, could you have a look at it? 02:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The templates are mostly finished now, see Category:Latin verb inflection-table templates. There are a few that I'm not sure what to do with yet:, , and. Could you look at these? The "redup" templates seem to be exactly the same as the regular ones, except that they add an extra category, so I don't know if it's useful to keep them at all. 22:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

cases of
Hello. You've been doing some tremendous work in Ancient Greek, but I hadn't had an excuse to come over and say hi until now. I noticed that you handled the "accusative of person" very nicely on one of your entries (I'm sorry to say that I can't recall which one at the moment). I've noticed abbreviations like "gen. rei" in the LSJ for a long time, but have only recently figured out what they mean, and truth be told still don't completely understand all the abbreviations. I was wondering if you possibly had a list of them all somewhere, and if you had any specific thoughts on their placement in Wiktionary entries. Thanks very much, and please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin shortened imperatives
The verbs, , and  apparently have an imperative that lacks the -e. I wonder two things: 22:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this also apply to derived verbs, or only to the base verb?
 * Does the regular imperative with -e also exist?

ἕωθεν
The quote from Homer came from here, spelled with an eta. Spinning Spark ''' 02:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ordinals
septimus is 7th, not 17th. In Latin, the next number after 12th that has it's own word is 18th. I don't think we have entries for phrases like "septimus decim" which is 17th

It's a tough call. We jump straight from 20th to 30th, and that seems OK. I agree it's disturbing, but I don't have a better idea.

While we're on the subject, there are also Latin words for 28, 29, 38, 39, ..., 98, 99. How do those fit in?

Looking at other languages, the ordinal/cardinal boxes usually disappear as soon as "next" becomes problematic. Latin cardinal 20 has a dead link to 21, which seems less useful than a live link to 30.

See also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/April#Previous_and_Next_in_ordinalbox_and_cardinalbox

Alternative forms
There was a discussion a while ago where it was agreed that the "alternative forms" category should not contain any entries. 18:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No passive?
Passive forms of perdo are easily attestable on Google Books. Why have you removed them from the conjugation table and tagged their entries for speedy deletion? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

cuiae, etc.
In a similar vein to the previous: the Perseus Latin Word Study Tool finds nothing wrong with most of the forms you've marked for deletion, and at least this one seems to be attested (I haven't checked the others, but I suspect the results will be similar). That's not to say all those entries are correct as written (I don't know Latin well enough enough to say one way or the other)- but marking an entry for deletion is equivalent to saying that you're positive that there are no terms of any sort that include that spelling anywhere in their paradigm. Please do at least a cursory check before marking things for deletion. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Well, it seems I was really mistaken this time. I have no mercy fo garbage, and tend to have no patience when I think I see some. My bad. --Fsojic (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

timeo
The inflection table is showing an error here, apparently because the supine stem is missing. But the headword line suggests there is no supine. So I'm a bit unsure what to do here... 00:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:kc kennylau has removed the passive forms instead. Is that correct? 22:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted this template which I think I originally created to match. &mdash; Saltmarsh απάντηση 06:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ποιέω
"For some reason, the model doesn't strip these words of their breves." I'm aware of this; there's been a discussion and request for Atelaes to change this. I figure, until that's done, it's better just to mark breves so that more pages will have them once the fix is implemented. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A. Greek prosody question
I have inferred that all Ancient Greek proparoxytones have short vowels in their ults and penults; can you tell me whether this is the case, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin question
At Beer parlour/2015/January, I mentioned a hypothetical Latin phrase, "a big dog and a small cat". If this were to be phrased using to join the two halves, and "small" (whatever the Latin translation is) precedes "cat", then which word is  attached to, "small" or "cat"? —CodeCat 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be any obligation. You could say magnus canis parvaque feles, canis magnus felesque parva or even magnus canis felesque parva, canis magnus parvaque feles. --Fsojic (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ἰσχίον
Hi Fsojic. Re, is the ἰ in long or short? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I unfortunately have no idea. --Fsojic (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Is it safe to infer from the Latin that it's short? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have some indication on the length of the first i in ? --Fsojic (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just that the OLD omits a macron, I suppose… Too flimsy? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't rely on that: Lewis and Short (I suppose that is what you mean by OLD) don't indicate vowel lengths in closed syllables. See for example and its entry on L&S. And even if the vowel length was indicated in this case, I don't think we could be a hundred percent sure it would reflect faithfully the Greek etymon. --Fsojic (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope; I meant the . I guess we'll just have to leave the vowel ambiguous, at least for now. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there an online version of it, or do you have it at home? In any case, does it give the vowel lengths in closed syllables? --Fsojic (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I've sent you an e-mail about it. 2) AFAICT, yes. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Ancient Greek
Just a friendly question - why have you been adding the to etymologies - while colloquially I might say "from the Ancient Greek", Wiktionary says for example "from Old French" (see science - not "the Old French"). You'll have a big job on if you're going to change all our etymologies! &mdash; Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 16:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * isn't it more elegant to add the in this case? I think usually does this, that's why I've taken up the habit. --Fsojic (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine! You'll have a big job.  &mdash; Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As with all matters of style, tastes differ. One person's elegance is another's pretentious clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I should explain my reason for prepending "the" before language names specifying originating languages of etyma:
 * I read etymologies as describing word-histories in natural language, albeit elliptically, in the form "[The lang-1 term term-1 derives f]rom the <tt>lang-2</tt> [term] <tt>term-2</tt>, [which derives] from the <tt>lang-3</tt> [term] <tt>term-3</tt> […]". Consider, for example, the etymology of the Bislama word (q.v.): Wouldn't saying "Bislama  derives from English " sound like one were saying that Vanuatu's water is imported from Britain? Of course, context (as do a few other considerations) makes such an interpretation absurd. Nevertheless, omitting "the" before language names is ungrammatical insofar as it diverges from utterable English; you can say "the Bislama  is from the English, from the Middle English , from the Old English …" (omitting "term", "which in turn derives", etc.) without irksomeness, but saying "Bislama  is from English , from Middle English , from Old English …" just sounds wrong.
 * I don't suppose it really matters, but it has been determined that we should use "from" instead of ⟨ < ⟩ in etymologies, on the basis of similar appeals to natural language. I just hope that my rationale at least makes sense. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that does make sense; I'll try and remember to save anyone the trouble of editing my (few) etymologies!  &mdash; <font color="#1e90ff">Saltmarsh <font color="#ff1493">συζήτηση-talk 06:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So you want to learn Devanagari
,, Wikipedia. Some links. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)