User talk:JohnC5/2014

fibula
Extra heading levels are used when there are multiple etymology sections. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Suffix forms
When adding inflected forms of suffixes, can you please use instead? 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Laryngeals and vowels
We only follow the modern laryngeal reconstructions on Wiktionary. That means that many of the edits you made are not correct and reflect outdated linguistics. For example many of the PIE derived terms listed at and  are not correct, because they are missing the laryngeal of the root. Also, any reconstructions with "a" in them should be treated with a lot of suspicion. 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you. Could you please correct them and recommend a more modern PIE reference grammar for me to study so that I will not make these mistakes again? Also, I again very much appreciate your help. JohnC5 20:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to fix it but many of the descendants just don't match up with the root. For example, a hypothetical form would never give  in Germanic, but rather  because a sonorant that is not adjacent to any vowels will be vocalised in PIE. Likewise, a form like  could never derive from a root  in any language. I'm guessing that you are primarily relying on Pokorny's dictionary, but it's 50 years old and is very much out of date. I would urge you to find something more recent. Better still is to study some of the basics of modern Indo-European reconstruction yourself, like Fortson's "Indo-European Language and Culture" or something that deals with specific branches like Ringe's "From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". Without at least some basic knowledge of the modern linguistics behind the reconstructions you are entering, you will inevitably be able to do nothing more than blind copying, which is how errors creep in.  21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fix your signature
Templates in signatures are not allowed by WT:SIG for numerous technical reasons. Please change it to a plain one. — Keφr 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of this I was not aware. Thanks for pointing this out, and I will rectify the problem immediately. Shall I fix all of the entries that reference it? And could I ask you to remove the page User:JohnC5/sig, please? —JohnC5 (Talk 06:28, 03 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. (I see you did it already. Thanks.) — Keφr 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome

 * :) —  LlywelynII  15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Er...ok? :) —JohnC5 (Talk 18:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronouncing New Latin
I'll pass along awareness of an old problem in Latin, that I notice cropping up in some of your entries. When we label a pronunciaiton "Classical", we mean the pronunciation that the word had in the Classical period of Latin. So, a New Latin term cannot have a "Classical" pronunciation. One might argue that the pronunciation is merely given according to the classical rules, but New Latin words had no existence at that time, and the biological terms are usually not pronunced with any attempt at Classical rules. In fact the pronunciation will vary markedly by the country and modern language of the speaker.

As a result, I never added a pronunciation to a New Latin term that I created, because Wiktionary is supposed to be descriptive, and giving a Classical Latin pronunciation to a New Latin term would instead be prescriptive. I have no solution for this difficulty, but thought I would pass this along, as you seem to be creating a number of New Latin entries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that makes total sense now that you say it. Trust me: I'm well acquainted descriptive-over-prescriptive labeling&mdash;it just slipped my mind me that this would be a problem here (though it obviously is).  I wish we could make a module that were a mix of la-pronunc and grc-ipa-rows that would display several different historical Latin pronunciations (Classical, Vulgar, Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical, German Church Latin, French Church Latin, American Academic Latin, British Academic Latin, sundry Medieval, etc., and the option to choose which to show). I know this would not necessarily account for all modern pronuciation habits, but overrides could be added, and it would go a long way to help.  Do you think this would be a useful task to consider?  And again, sorry for the fuss. —JohnC5 (Talk 01:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that would be helpful. For one thing, we intermix IPA and audio recordings, so we end up with a right mess if we try to put multiple IPA forms into a single module. There's also the fact that British and American aren't the only Latin pronunciation traditions to cope with; there's also German, Swedish, Spanish, etc. and that becomes too much to try to handle, particularly when you consider that not all the pronunciation rules run parallel across all traditions. We've tended to focus on providing Classical, Late Latin, and Ecclesiastical pronunciations only--for the sake of sanity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, are there modules providing Late and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciations currently? —JohnC5 (Talk 22:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not modules, no. The Classical Latin module is a fairly recent addition, and as far as I know, no attempt has been made to systematize Late or Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Those pronunciations have been inserted the old-fashioned way. The Classical also has a few limitations, and in those circumstances, the pronunciation for the Classical must be added manually as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be a useful project to try writing a Late and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation template? Also, what limitations in the Classical template can you identify that we might be able to fix? —JohnC5 (Talk 22:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:R:OLD
Hi JohnC5. Re the two editions, I'll make separate templates later, OK? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly fine with me. I was considering doing the same thing but wasn't sure what the de facto policy was (i.e. one template for both or one template each). I only changed it in poppyzon because I happen to have a physical copy of the 2nd edition in front of me and thought I would use the newer version. Of course, you were right about the copyright issue though. Incidentally, I am enjoying the avalanche of citations that page is receiving. I also appreciate your edit to the la-headword module, though I wish it didn't place a comma between the first and second genitive, but I can't think of a better way to fix it without making some big edits. —JohnC5 (Talk 09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since is currently transcluded in only eight entries, I decided to engineer a more elegant solution than having two separate templates for the different editions.  now specifies the edition with a positional parameter; I've written documentation for the template, which should explain the tweak. Re, feel free to cite the second edition as well; there is no harm in having both editions cited in one entry — I have occasionally cited the NED (1st ed.), OED (2nd ed.), and OED (3rd ed.) all in the same entry! (FWIW, the first- and second-edition OLD entries for  differ only in minor punctuation, and are to all intents and purposes identical.) Re Module:la-headword, CodeCat very helpfully fixed the comma issue, so that's all sorted now. BTW, thanks for the work you've been doing answering so many of the requests at WT:WE. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agyrium and adōnidium
Those entries are great. I'm thoroughly impressed with your work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! If there are any other entries on WT:WE you want done, just tell me because I've just been doing them willy-nilly. —JohnC5 (Talk 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind offer. I'll give it some thought. May I get back to you about it tomorrow? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If you ever want anything done (that is, in a language you think I can handle), just tell me. —JohnC5 (Talk 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do. Cheers. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JohnC5. Would you mind turning your hand to creating and, please? The citations I've added to Citations:ναζιραῖος should be helpful in such an endeavour. Thanks for your time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done! Tell me if you need more. —JohnC5 (Talk 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I recently created an entry for the Ancient Greek verb . Would you mind taking a look at it and correct any errors you find, please? In particular, could you add conjugation tables for it, please? Thanks for your time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done my best. I normally try to avoid verbs since I always worry I'm missing some rule.  ObsequiousNewt, perhaps you could check it? —JohnC5 (Talk 04:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! You can be sure that your expertise is greater than mine… I've gone ahead and created entries for and, that verb's two present mediopassive participles, which I had hoped that I could manage myself. Would you mind checking to see that they're a-OK, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. I've made quite a number of modifications; if you have any questions or reservations about any of them please do not hesitate to ask. (Also, regarding showing both the contracted and uncontracted inflection tables... I intend to modify Module:grc-conj to do that; I've just been really busy lately.)ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the corrections and additions and for percolating the changes throughout the whole entry! —JohnC5 (Talk 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings again, John (if I may call you that). Would you care to turn your hand to creating an entry for, please? I've added a citation of one of its forms,, to Citations:διαίρεσις. You're more comfortable with nouns, yes? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Could you figure out a better word for heads in definition 8? This appears to make some mention of the concept, but is there a better term? —JohnC5 (Talk 04:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly. Re your concern about "heads", the OED (3rd ed., June 2013) has, for “head, n.¹ III.30”, the sense "A chief or principal point or division of a discourse, subject, etc.; each of a set or succession of such points or divisions; (more generally) a point, a category, a topic, a matter." Would you agree that it is in this sense that LSJ uses "heads"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly would agree. It's so strange: I could have sworn that I skimmed the OED entry for head last night looking for that definition, but my eye must have jumped right over it. Thanks for the confirmation. I have updated the entry to be a bit clearer (I hope) and to have some more antonyms. —JohnC5 (Talk 15:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, it is clearer; I too found "head" to be a somewhat opaque definiens. The addition of antonyms is also valuable. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple things
Firstly, let me say that I'm glad of all the work you've done, both in Ancient Greek and elsewhere. Secondly, let me point out a couple things you can do differently: Thanks! ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 00:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The   parameter isn't actually necessary; polytonic is coded as default.
 * 2)  is being replaced by.
 * 3)  is being replaced by.
 * 4) It's, not.


 * Thank you so much. I will start using these immediately, and I apologize for the inconvenience of having made these errors. Someone should probably update WT:AGRC to reflect these changes because it seems a bit out of date. —JohnC5 (Talk 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No big deal. And I'll see what I can do about WT:AGRC. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 12:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

δῆμος
What was your source for this edit? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, an interesting question. Perseus's inflection tool certainly provides that form, though that can't have been why I added it... Honestly, I can't find my source now. :/ If you can't find anything, feel free too remove it, and sorry, if so. —JohnC5 (Talk 03:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for expanding the entry. What's sense 7 about? Does that mean that, as I infer, can be used to mean the same thing as ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I apparently wasn't thinking clearly... but it appears that sense VII in LSJ actually refers to the second definition of κᾰτᾰνάγκη, i.e. Ornithopus compressus. I've fixed the entry for accordingly. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 03:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I do have one question concerning . Isn't normally the practice to put alternate forms that have a different lemma under a new entry as opposed to under the main entry?  Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of the alternative forms links?  I'm unsure... :/ —JohnC5 (Talk 04:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been putting them under both, frankly... my reasoning is mostly that when this is done with verbs, you'd end up adding alternate/dialectical inflection tables for every tense but the present, and it seemed silly to leave it out on those grounds. Then again, that's not a problem with nouns. I'll go and bring up a discussion in the Beer Parlour. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

εὐώδης‎
Hello John. Would you mind checking the entry I just created for, please? I'm not very confident about its declension. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. :) I notice how you represented the comparative and superlative in the notes, and I have often wondered what the best way to do this in AG would be and whether it should be in the inflection or after (a similar question arises for Latin).  Should we suggest the modification of the base templates (grc-decl-blank-...) in order to take the parameters comp= and super=, which append the comparatives and superlatives to the notes section?  Also, should the Latin templates be altered similarly? —JohnC5 (Talk 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Accordingly, I have created an entry for ; does everything with that also look in order? Re displaying comparatives and superlatives, I believe these (as well as corresponding adverbs) should appear in headword lines, rather than at the bottom of declension tables. I have for quite some time intended to write a general-purpose headword-line template for Latin adjectives which would also present adjectival degrees and adverbs (though I've yet to get round to that). Do you think that would be a good idea, or are you of the opinion that those words should be presented elsewhere? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re, yes, everything seems to be in order, except for the ~1,112 entries we have to add now. :/ Re degrees, I am of two minds:
 * Mind the first: It would be nice to have the headword also display the degrees and adverbial degrees, but this seems like a lot of work then to go through and change every adjective afterwards.
 * Mind the second: If you put the degrees into the templates, you can probably get them to auto-generate a great number of correct forms, thus obviating the need to go though all the previously made entries. This, however, hides the forms further down the page, and we will still need to go through removing redundant mentions of adjectival and adverbial degrees.
 * Regardless, is this a question we should bring up on some other page/in the sight of some other people? —JohnC5 (Talk 04:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I had my reservations because the inflexions generated by for  differ from those given in Ancient Greek grammar (tables). My ultimate purpose in all this was the creation of, which I ask, one last time, that you check for accuracy, please. (Besides the declension, I have my doubts about the etymology and the definition.)
 * Back to the topic of the display of adjectival degrees and corresponding adjectives. Re it "seem[ing] like a lot of work then to go through and change every adjective afterwards", there are currently at least four headword-line templates for Latin adjectives in widespread use. If and when I finally get round to uniting their functions all under one template, it would be necessary to update all the Latin adjective entries to use the new template anyway. This is indeed something worth discussing with the wider community, but I suspect that any discussion we might have would come to nought unless there were some specific, concrete, and imminent change we were discussing. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your reservations about the declensions, but the contracted forms do agree with those tables—it's the uncontracted forms for which I cannot attested. I will assume that they are correct, if not extant for every form.
 * As for the etymology, I can't decide whether I wouldn't list, , and under the lemma  with the etymology "From the perfect stem of ."  —JohnC5 (Talk 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't clear; I wasn't hesitant on account of the uncontracted forms. There are differences between the contracted forms generated by the declension-table template and the forms listed in the Wikipedia article; they are 1) gives the nominative neuter singular form *, whereas Wikipedia has *; and 2) the genitive plural in all three genders is * according to the template, but * according to Wikipedia. Which of these are correct?
 * I completely understand where you're coming from with regards to 's supposed derivations. However, the LSJ explicitly states in its entries for both Κεχηναῖοι and κεχηνότως that they derive from ; the entry for κεχηνώδης, meanwhile, presents the headword hyphenated as Κεχην-ώδης. Presented with merely hyphenated forms, I would interpret their derivation in the same way as you; it's the explicit statements to the contrary that make me hesitate (again). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. I was looking at the Perseus declension tool (which I know  distrusts), but it seems to split the difference by listing neuter nominative singular as εὐῶδες but genitive plurals as εὐωδῶν (which is more in line with what I normally imagine).  I seems like the template may need a second looking at, just to make sure everything is kosher.
 * I still think that the use of is merely out of lexicographical convenience, since it allows them to refer to an entry that has the intended form without then saying it comes from  in the same etymology.  I'd be more inclined to believe the current method if  had some separate meaning or were a lemma of its own.  LSJ seems to be littered with these stubs for oddly conjugated forms, and I think this is just fortuitous use of a preëxisting stub.
 * I also concur with your views on adjectival and adverbial degrees. —JohnC5 (Talk 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've decided you're almost certainly right about the derivation of those κεχην- words; the entry for κέχηνᾰ probably only exists to help pre-digitisation readers find the lemma from an unpredictable conjugated form. I've moved the list of derived terms and edited the etymology for κεχηνώδης accordingly. Regarding the forms of εὐώδης, please see my response to ObsequiousNewt below (timestamped: 20:05, 7 December 2014). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop here before anything else happens. First of all, is not an alternative form of, it's from  (see Smyth grammar section 833a.) The genitive plural is εὐωδῶν. On the subject of the two words in κεχην-, I think this is Perseus confusing its system of using a preceding * to mark capitals with LSJ's system of using a preceding * to mark words that aren't actually attested. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, so that means that does need to be altered, because εὐωδῶν is not correctly generated.  Also, this version of LSJ lists those κεχην- lemmas as capital, though only Κεχηναῖοι is capitalized in the actual text of the citation.  I will update the etymology of  to reflect this change.  What do you think of our adjective degrees question?  —JohnC5 (Talk 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would vote against putting the adjectival degrees in the headword, partly because we don't do it with verbs, but mostly because they're not an important part of the adjective. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At least as far as I'm concerned, I was thinking more about Latin in my advocacy of presenting adjectival degrees in the headword line. Then again, things are done differently with Latin, whose verbs' headword lines do present their four principal parts. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re “So -ώδης meaning smelling (ὄζω), as in εὐώδης fragrant, acquired a range of meaning originally inappropriate to it by passing into the general idea of ‘full of,’ ‘like,’ as in ποιώδης grassy (ποίᾱ), λοιμώδης pestilential (λοιμός), σφηκώδης wasp-like (σφήξ). This suffix is distinct from -ειδής having the form of, like (898 a).” — Jeez, that couldn't be any less ambiguous. Thank for clearing that one up for us; =  didn't make sense in the context of  being a mere form of  suffixed to omicron-terminal words. Re, I've now corrected the erroneous contracted genitive plural forms in . Re the wierd capitalisation, JohnC5 has already shown that this error is not restricted to Perseus and  does exist (as ) — the LSJ cites a scholion of Dionysius Thrax by Prophyry ("Sch.D.T.p.146 H."), which scholion I've quoted at Citations:κεχηνώδης. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)