text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/October

"Proverb" POS at Wiktionary
How exactly is "proverb" a part of speech? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Hmm, good point! Maybe they should go under Phrase (also not a PoS, but the best descriptor we have for full sentences)? Equinox ◑ 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I have always thought it odd that we listed "Proverb" as a part of speech separate from that of "Phrase", so I agree. I can understand why "Phrase" is a header here. I was just wondering if there was a good reason we did before I brought it up in BP. (BTW, I am not opposed to keeping Category:English proverbs or having "proverb" as an input in Template:lb) PseudoSkull (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also would like to know why the cake is a lie is listed as a proverb. That phrase only refers to certain circumstances (in this case, it refers those circumstances that have hopeless rewards, but not everything has a hopeless reward.) PseudoSkull (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * A lot of proverbs (I'd say most) are only applicable to certain circumstances. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * While we're talking about proverbs, I would like to say that in my opinion proverbs should always have non-gloss definitions that explain when they are used rather than a "gloss definition" that tries to restate its meaning. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * For example...? Equinox ◑ 08:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think gloss definitions for proverbs are usually fine: proverbs can usually be defined in a way that makes the definitions approximately substitutable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

How to have a link to a category without categorizing the page that links
Recently I added the categories for several of the categories like: " " to my page, so I would have links to them. But then my userpage User:Bcent1234 was categorized which was not my intent. I'm curious how to put a link to a category without categorizing. I know how to use the wiki/nowiki tags to just put a mention on my page. I'm going to try putting the full URL and see if that fixes my issue. Bcent1234 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Write out colon Category:name where " colon " is replaced with ":". —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I am not deleting this question, in case someone else needs the same thing I needed. Bcent1234 (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can use the  tags in your examples so that you can type out the actual example without it being parsed by the wiki.  For example  . - TheDaveRoss 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. I thought of that and then considered my method easier to understand but I am clearly wrong. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Of course you should pretty much never delete questions, but you should post them to the right place to begin with. If you just have a question asking how to do something, the Information Desk is the right place. The Beer Parlour is like the Supreme Court, in that it needs to be an important matter that affects everyone. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for moving this for me Bcent1234 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

parsing problem
I cannot make sense out of this sentence: "One pet peeve self have as an English major student is accents". Some help please? --Fsojic (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks as if "self" is the subject of the subordinate sentence, and that "have" is its verb. —CodeCat 18:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So I could (poorly) rephrase it as: "One personal dislike I have, in my quality of English major student, is accents"? But why is the verb "have" and not "has"? Wouldn't "self" require that "have" be conjugated in the third person singular? --Fsojic (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't generally use "self" like this anyway: it might be somebody's idiolectal made-up pronoun. Equinox ◑ 19:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like grammatical English to me, but it would be okay if "I" were substituted for "self" and a hyphen added between "English" and "major" (the latter is a subtlety that many native speakers miss). Or one could leave out "student", since an "English major" is (or was at one time) necessarily a student. If "English major" isn't modifying a noun such as "student", one doesn't use a hyphen. It's not a very good sentence, either way- someone must have been trying to illustrate something from an earlier discussion. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I think "self" is literally replacing "I" (in the speaker's non-standard idiolect): you say "I have", not "I has", so that's why he/she has preserved the verb form. Since "I" isn't gendered in English anyway, I can't imagine why. Equinox ◑ 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(pejorative) fearless
Is there a word that means ‘fearless to the point of being unreasonable’? The closest that I can think of is careless. — ((( Romanophile ))) ♞ (contributions) 19:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , ? Leasnam (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * implies no fear of restraint, as in: unafraid to say what you mean Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * maybe? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ? — JohnC5 03:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Asheville Wiki-edit-a-thon
Hello, I am looking into hosting a Wiki-edit-a-thon and would like to know if there is anyone in the Asheville NC area who may want to participate/advise. Thank you.

 * You may get a better answer if you ask at w:Wikipedia:Help desk. —Stephen (Talk) 11:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

surface etymology
Is the surface etymology of  + ? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the etymology in that section was entirely a joke. I just wanted to see if anyone would catch it. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your def is actually a bit puzzling. "The closest origin of a term": the closest to what? Equinox ◑ 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the closest compared to the other terms in other languages that the word could come from. For instance "Used before 1325 as erthen, from eorthene, presumably from Middle English erthe, eorthe ("earth").[1] Surface etymology: earth + -en." PseudoSkull (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

book rendering failed
hi there, I have just tried to download one page as a PDF file, but it failed. It is written "book rendering failed. There was an error while attempting to render your book". Is it problem of my PC, or rather of the programme itself?

 * I doubt that anyone here would know, but my guess is that it is probably your Adobe Acrobat program, or some Windows setting related to it. See if someone else answers with a better idea. —Stephen (Talk) 11:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Where/how are you downloading this page exactly? Equinox ◑ 11:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * "download as PDF on the left side of the site (print/export->download as pdf". it works on wikipedia, it works eg. on french wiktionary, it does not work here

 * I get the error too. This happens before any PDF is offered for download, so there must be a problem with our wiki... Equinox ◑ 16:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Ok, I get it. Thanks for checking it out.

 * I'm now creating a discussion at WT:GP in anyone knows the what technical problem is. Equinox ◑ 08:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Where does the h come from?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Rounos

I checked the original Welsh texts (such as the triads) that mention Rhun, and it's definitely given as Run. So where did the h come from? UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rh is a specifically Welsh development of word-initial r-, though I'm not sure of the details. The same development also happened to initial l-, giving the lateral fricative spelled ll. —CodeCat 17:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, Welsh underwent devoicing of liquids in word-initial position, so /r/ became /r̥/ and /l/ became /l̥/, which became /ɬ/. Devoicing is a kind of fortition, and fortition of sonorants in word-initial position is really common in Insular Celtic. Other examples are /w/ → /ɡw/ in Brythonic, /w/ → /w̥/ → /f/ in Old Irish, and /n l r/ → /n͈ l͈ r͈/ in Old Irish. There was fortition of word-initial /j/ in Romance languages too, first to /dʒ/ as still in Italian (e.g. ), then to /ʒ/ as still in Romanian, French and Portuguese, then to /ʃ/ → /x/ (→ /h/) in Spanish . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fun fact for Angr: Italian isn't the only one to retain /dʒ/, Valencian Catalan does too. See . —CodeCat 17:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. It wasn't mean to be an exhaustive list, just a representative sampling of the "big five". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I figured as much. It was just a random fact in case you didn't know and would find it interesting. —CodeCat 20:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's /dʑ/ in Romansh, and Franco-Provençal language suggests it's /dj/ in FP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The same spelling shift happened to a lot of Welsh names. The Dictionary of Medieval Names from European Sources (http://dmnes.org/name/Rhys) doesn't have any Rh- spellings of Rhys before 1600, it's always R-. JulieKahan (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sicilian resources
Currently taking an interest in Sicilian due to one of my acquaintances speaking it.

Does anybody know some good resources for learning Sicilian words? They can be in Sicilian and any other language. — ((( Romanophile ))) ♞ (contributions) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sicilian Wiktionary exists (scn.wiktionary.org). SemperBlotto (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 * You could try this online course. I have not used it, but I think it's free. —Stephen (Talk) 12:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

SVG Sumerograms
Is there any way someone could generate SVG images of the Unicoded Sumerograms, preferably to submit to Wikimedia Commons? This is unfortunately above my level of technical expertise. Right now, I can display Sumerograms as Unicoded text (e.g. "victory:" &, ), but I would like to have them also as individual SVG files. The (free/copylefted) Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary has them available as PNG images, but SVG would be a lot better, since then they can be scaled to any size without loss of image quality. I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on Wikimedia Commons, so feel free to move this post to another wiki if you think it is appropriate. Having SVG files available for Sumerograms on Wikimedia Commons though would definitely benefit Wiktionary, so that image files can be added for cuneiform entries, since not all browsers support cuneiform Unicode. SVGs are also smaller and quicker to load compared to raster graphics. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Frequency Ranges
For my opinion the definition of following frequency ranges in Wiktionary is partly WRONG nor not defined:

3 Hz - 30 Hz		ULF	 - Ultra Low Frequency	WRONG - Wiktionary: The band of radio waves between 300 hertz and 3000 hertz. 30 Hz - 300 Hz		ELF	 - Extremely Low F.	WRONG - Wiktionary: The band of radio frequencies from 3 to 30 hertz 300 Hz - 3 kHz		VF	 - Voice F. 		Wiktionary: No entry 3 kHz - 30 kHz		VLF	 - Very Low F.         Wiktionary: No entry 30 kHz - 300 kHz	LF	 - Low F.              Wiktionary: No entry 300 kHz - 3 MHz		MF	 - Medium F.           Wiktionary: No entry 3 MHz - 30 MHz		HF	 - High F.             OK - Wiktionary: The frequency area from 3 MHz through 30 MHz 30 MHz - 300 MHz	VHF	 - Very High F.        OK - Wiktionary: The frequency area from 30 MHz through 300 MHz 300 MHz - 3 GHz        UHF      - Ultra High F.        OK - Wiktionary: The frequency area from 300 MHz through 3 GHz 3 GHz - 30 GHz		SHF	 - Super High F.       OK - Wiktionary: The frequency area from 3 GHz through 30 GHz

 * OK? —CodeCat 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The definitions depend on what country you are in. Plus some of them overlap.  The electromagnetic spectrum can be fairly arbitrary, e.g. microwaves can be the same frequency as radio waves and x-rays can be the same frequency as gamma rays.  Which terms are used is usually based on context.
 * "radio spectrum"
 * "Commons:file:Frq_Band_Comparison.png"
 * Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas - Our idiosyncrasy?
The fanciful orthography seems to be confined to Wiktionary. , where's it from? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm developing it based on traditional Scandianvian orthographies. Compare Faroese orthography. Have you checked out Category:Gutnish_lemmas, Category:Scanian_lemmas and Category:Jamtish_lemmas as well? Maybe Category:Norn_lemmas? They also need attention. — Knyȝt (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gutnish entries are from and Scanian from . --80.63.3.167 19:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Unpickable word in a Youtube video
What does he say at 0:30 ("have you ever been [ ] based on the accent you have?")? --Fsojic (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 * stereotyped. --WikiTiki89 12:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * F*ck, that seems obvious now, even to my French ears... --Fsojic (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong transcription
Hi all, In Template:list:planets of the Solar System/el, all the modern Greek names of planets are corrected transcribed except Neptune's: indeed, "Ποσειδώνας" is transcribed as "Poseidónas", while it should be "Posidónas" (to be coherent with the others, or even "Posidhónas"), since "ει" is pronounced as /i/ in Modern Greek. Could someone please correct it? Thank you in advance. Best regards. SenseiAC (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I would prefer your method for Modern Greek, but we do it differently. We transliterate each individual letter as though it were separate. Therefore, "ει" is "ei", "μπ" is "mp", and "ντ" is "nt". It seems useless to me, but there it is. —Stephen (Talk) 05:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stephen : but you also transliterates "eta" as "i", i.e. in the same way as "iota". This is therefore not even a transliteration, since a transliteration supposes a one-to-one correspondance. This a nonsense mixture between transcription (~sounds) and transliteration (1-to-1 letter correspondance). Choose one or the other, but at least choose something that is logical. SenseiAC (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Transliteration can be done in two basic ways: manual and automatic. Only recently have we developed modules for the various scripts that will handle automated transliteration (Module:el-translit and Module:grc-translit). You can test it out using :, , , , , , , , . Note: I now see that there has been a change since we started using the language modules ... when we were doing manual transliteration, "μπ" was "mp", and "ντ" was "nt". That has changed now.
 * For Ancient Greek, we get this:, , , , , , , , —Stephen (Talk) 12:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stephen, your comment confirms what as said: for Modern Greek, we have an incoherent mixture between transcription ("μπ" as "b", "ντ" as "d", "ή" as "í") and transliteration ("ει" as "ei" and "οι" as "oi", while both are pronounced "i", and "αι" as "ai", while pronounced "e"). At least, for Ancient Greek, it's fully a transliteration. SenseiAC (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, this inconsistency for Modern Greek has bugged me as well. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the Modern Greek module had almost no input from Greek editors (that being User:Saltmarsh). I think you should discuss this with them at Module talk:el-translit. —Stephen (Talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The current table of Greek transliteration explains the rationale used - these values were a "best fit" from the various professionals' values shown in the Greek transliteration/Old table. There seemed no reason why we should depart from the system used by library cataloguers etc. It is transliteration with only a nod towards consonant pronunciation (μπ > b). — Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 18:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good enough reason; I'd much prefer that we be rigorous, even if that makes us depart from tradition. Wiktionary is a linguistic work. Btw, I'm mentioning this discussion in the talkpage of "Wiktionary:About Greek" --Fsojic (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I went through with it and edited the module myself. Now it should probably be rewritten (something which I'm incapable of), since it was written to accommodate transcription features. --Fsojic (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * However I don't know why αβερνίκωτος is still transliterated as "averníkotos". There are probably many such mistakes, because I don't know how it works --Fsojic (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How else would you transcribe it? Modern Greek β is always /v/, isn't it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He was referring to the omega. I just checked and Fsojic's version of the module would have worked correctly, transliterating it as "averníkōtos". It's probably that the page's cache wasn't updated. Anyway, the change to the module has been reverted because the Greek editors have not consented to it. --WikiTiki89 20:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Inflected form from an uncertain lemma: 𐌰𐌸𐌽𐌰𐌼
I've based the entry format on ᛗᚨᚷᚢ, treating it as a lemma with a qualifier clarifying that it is inflected, but this seems odd to me. Another format I tried is as a form listing both lemmata it might derive from, but that wasn't all too pretty either imho. By the way, does anyone know what the actual PIE etymon was? The Proto-Germanic page lists one spelling, the etymology section of its cognate lists another, and the Proto-Italic entry uses yet another spelling. — Kleio (t · c) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like what it boils down is simply that we don't know whether it was masculine or neuter. Can't we just leave it at that? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't really answer the question of how to format the Gothic entry..? — Kleio (t · c) 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Cab Calloway nonce
There's a curious phrase or what sounds like a long word at the end of Jitterbug:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfVvUwkMPbY

It sounds something like "alphadicansomlidiplomaneae", but I can't find any reference to a spelling, let alone what it means. Anyone have ideas? DAVilla 10:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I hear isodipinsomnidipsomaniae, i.e. alcoholism with lack of sleep. Equinox ◑ 11:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Cool, thanks! DAVilla 00:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to synonyms verbs with 'suru' in Japanese
Hello to all.

I'd like to know if there is a way to link the 'suru' forms of Japanese verbs to its synonyms since they are along with noun and adjectival nouns forms in their pages, and not each with their own page. Normally the verbs have a link but in this case 'verb'+'suru' is not considered one word only, having each word its own link.

I'm editing 生き返る page and it has 復活する (which is on the 復活 page) as one of its synonyms, but I can't link it because I don't know if there's some formatting option to do this to 復活 page... To clarify you could check the page I'm editing, of course.

I've found some related talk in archive but it didn't help. Someone could shed some light on this? Thanks in advance. Cpt.Guapo (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 * : . —suzukaze (t・c) 02:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did, suzukaze, but there isn't a way to make the link goes directly to verb section, like it's done when we pointing to a sub-section in Wikipedia? I know is a little nitpicking but it would be more organized... Cpt.Guapo (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I suppose you could change it to  but most links don't bother to do so, such as 蘇る→蘇る. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What is this kanji shown in an anime
What is the kanji written on Genkai's hat in Yu Yu Hakusho? Wikia does not seem to answer that question.

Picture here: http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/yuyuhakusho/images/0/0b/Vlcsnap-2011-02-19-23h11m10s217.png/revision/latest?cb=20110220050222

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * . Wyang (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * jisho.org has a nice 'build your kanji to look it up' system. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Diacritics question
Are you allowed to create a "diacritic-less" version of a word with diacritics for disambiguation? For example, say "sdfç" is a word in language, but "sdfc" is not a word in any language. Would it be okay to just create a empty page at sdfc with just a hatnote to pointing to sdfç?--Prisencolin (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't really do that. For example, we have an entry cabeça (with the letter ç = c with cedilla) but we don't have an entry cabeca. If you simply use the search box and type, you will be taken to the correct entry anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * [edit conflict] Only sdfç would be allowed, unless sdfc was actually attested. One would be automatically redirected to the form with diacritics anyway, if that was the only version that existed. What you could do is include an template on that page to redirect to other forms (for an example, see the top of tres). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I note that WT:APT requires diacritics if the word has any. This was done to prevent diacriticless spellings which are citable from lazy Internet users, cheap typewriters, text made in ASCII, etc. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * We do this only for English words that have diacritics, since many English speakers don't know how to put diacritics. For example,, which links to . Both and  are used in English. During the 20th century,  was used almost exclusively. —Stephen (Talk) 14:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Unpickable word in a Youtube video (again)
I'm asking for your help again. At 1:11, I'm hearing "Sorry, I thought you were gonna hit on me, so I was kind of like dissing on you." Is that right? --Fsojic (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 * "Death-staring you": giving the evil eye. Equinox ◑ 23:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/November

Proto-Basque notation
Basque linguists tend to use the letters ś and r̄ for Proto-Basque. It's a bit jarring to have both, wouldn't it be better to generalise it to s̄ and r̄ or ś and ŕ? UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you asked any Basque linguists if maybe there's a reason why they use those letters? Or should we just unilaterally tell them they're doing it wrong? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Old English Futhorc forms
Would it be possible to add Futhorc forms of Old English lemmate? A bit like how Gothic script entries often have a transliteration into the Latin alphabet, here it would be into Futhorc. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as they are attested. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just a script though. Why would they need to be attested when the latin alphabet version is attested? Futhorc was dead by the time of Harold Godwineson, but his name is clearly hægl/āc/rād/ōs/lagu/dæg. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's useless, in fact, worse than that, it's misleading to add terms in a script they've never used. Attestation is key, in determining meaning, we start with how the word is used. How the word is used should not be an afterthought. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We would be doing runologists a disservice if we started including unattested Futhorc forms. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard Plantagenet is clearly ᚱᛁᚲᚺᚨᚱᛞ ᛈᛚᚨᚾᛏᚨᚷᛖᚾᛖᛏ, and David ben Gurion is clearly ᛞᚨᛒᛁᛞ ᛒᛖᚾ ᚷᚢᚱᛁᛟᚾ. So what? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said everytime it came up, as far as I know, Gothic has only ever been published in the Latin script. Latin is the script Gothic and many other ancient languages is published in. I don't see how using a script for words from texts that were not originally written in or ever published in that script is comparable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Transliteration into Latin or Roman script is a service used today for those who use that script. Who would benefit from taking Old English words written in Latin script transliterated into Futhorc ? Leasnam (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Superseded or obsolete? (Dutch)
So, back in January, I asked you guys how to classify 'aktie'. It was suggested I use 'superseded', because a lot of people still use it. A lot words that were deprecated in 1996 are, however, barely used at all these days. You might find them on some old material that has been left unchanged for 20 years, but that's it. Should I classify works like akademies (no one spells it like this anymore) as superseded or obsolete? I find it kind of hard to know where to draw the line. Thanks! NINTENPUG (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I prefer obsolete. It sounds right to say that daß is an obsolete spelling of . It does not sound right to me to say that it is a superseded spelling of . —Stephen (Talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is a prescriptive notion. The official standard has changed the spelling, rendering the older standard obsolete. But everyone is free to use whatever they like. —CodeCat 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Our definition at WT:Obsolete and archaic terms is "Virtually no one would currently use the word or meaning, and very, very few would understand the word or meaning if it were used in speech or text." That certainly doesn't apply to daß, and probably doesn't apply to the Dutch words NINTENPUG is asking about. Daß is still actually widely used in handwritten and otherwise unedited/unproofread German. Indeed, for spellings (as opposed to meanings or whole terms) the second clause of our definition probably doesn't apply at all. Consider the following from the opening of The Faerie Queene:, , , , , , . All of those are obsolete in the sense of the first clause of our definition, but everyone understands them. So maybe we need to say that obsolete spellings are those that virtually no one would currently use, even if they are easily understood. But even the first clause doesn't apply to pre-1996 German spellings like daß, so they really can't be called obsolete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "formerly standard spelling"? —CodeCat 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that could work, but means to "displace in favour of another", which I feel like is exactly what's happened to spellings like daß. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the case of, it was formerly allowed alongside . In the spelling reform, the former was scrapped, leaving only the latter. So it's not really superseded in the strictest sense. —CodeCat 19:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's been displaced in favor of actie. That doesn't imply that actie was formerly deprecated. Which reminds me, deprecated spelling of is another possible name for forms like this. It's currently a redirect to superseded spelling of, but maybe some people would prefer its wording. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Alright, thanks everyone. I'm probably going to stick to obsolete for now, but as soon as there is more clarity or a different way to describe the status of these words, I'll make sure to change it, if necessary. NINTENPUG (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also no proof for labeling it nonstandard ("accepted by the majority of its speakers"). The German reform was and is not very popular and the only persons complaining about spellings like daß should be teachers, civil servants and 'grammar nazis'. Many normal people, especially older ones, don't have a problem with ß spellings. But even if it would be nonstandard nowadays, the label "nonstandard" (instead of "nonstandard nowadays") would be misleading and incorrect as it was standard earlier. Also, while ß as in daß became rarer, many reform changes were undone in 2006 or 2011 or the traditional spelling remains common anyway. Examples: superseded could fit, but there are also "supersedings" like eislaufen → 1996: Eis laufen → 2006: eislaufen (eislaufen being superseded by Eislaufen which was superseded by eislaufen) and daß/dass etc. → 1902: daß → 1996: dass (the spellings daß/dass etc. were unified to daß in 1902 thus all spellings except daß were superseded by daß, which then in 1996 was superseded by dass). So it might make more sense to add or use names or dates. That's more complicated, but it's more informative and more correct. Examples: Some old spellings were superseded in 1902 and some of the superseded spellings were reintroduced in 1996, for example:  before 1902: Orthographie, sometimes also Orthografie or Ortografie or Orthographi → 1902: Orthographie → 1996: Orthographie or Orthografie. (Well, it could be that there were some minor changes in that time, compare Duden-Monopol from 1955 till 1996.) (It could be that there will be some new changes as of 2017. For example, in it's report for 2011 till 2016 the Rat für die deutsche Rechtschreibung proposes to allow capital ß (ẞ) like STRAẞE for STRASZE or STRASSE. Quote from the report, where / represents a line break: "2. Zulassung des Großbuchstabens <ẞ> / 2.1. Vorschlag / [text of rules] / 2.2. Begründung / [rationale]".)
 * ,, : I don't know about Dutch, but in German ß as in daß is still in use. After 2006 (rather than 1996 or 2004) it became rarer, but anyway it's still in use. Thus it's not obsolete (Appendix:Glossary: "No longer in use [...]") - even though some users, prescriptionist or POV pushers use that incorrect label.
 * The reform spells the word einbleuen as einbläuen because they incorrectly connect it with blau. The FAZ (German newspaper) for example still spells it einbleuen even though it's not a correct reform spelling.
 * In 1996 the reform changed eislaufen into Eis laufen, that is like an intransitive verb having the object Eis with it. In 2006 this was undone.
 * In 1996 the reform introduced the spelling Myrre besides Myrrhe. But in 2011 the reform spelling was removed.
 * Examples like Eis laufen and Myrre show that some reform spellings were nonstandard, so the equations traditional spelling = nonstandard nowadays and reformed spelling = standard are not correct.
 * Orthografie was superseded by Orthographie in 1902 and reintroduced as an alternative form in 1996 - it's not just a superseded spelling or just an alternative form, it's both.
 * Myrre was a reform spelling from 1996 till 2011 - it's a superseded spelling and a reform spelling. So it's both ("prescribed" in the sense of "allowed as an alternative form", not as the only form) and.
 * BTW: For German one could differ between:
 * "Old spellings" from 1500 till 1902.
 * Maybe some old spellings were "de jure" superseded in 1902 according to the spelling rules even though they were "de facto" obsolete since some time. Orthographi for example could have been "de facto" uncommon or obsolete since ca. 1800, but "de jure" superseded in 1902. "Regeln für die deutsche Rechtschreibung nebst Wörterverzeichnis. Herausgegeben im Auftrage des Königlich Preußischen Ministeriums der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinal-Angelegenheiten. Neue Bearbeitung" (Berlin, 1908) in the Wörterverzeichnis on p.42 just has "Orthographie", i.e. other forms were superseded by this.
 * Maybe some spellings can be connected to famous authors and poets (Opitz, Zesen, Goethe/Göthe, Schiller, etc.) or more likely grammarians (Schottel, Gottsched, Adelung, Heyse, Grimm). Sometimes grammarians proscribed a spelling and sometimes it became uncommon some time after that, or they prescribed a spelling and other spellings became uncommon some time after that. But well, such connections are most likely just guessings, i.e. it would be something like "maybe or possibly because the grammiarian prescribed or proscribed something".
 * Regional official rules before 1902:
 * Official rules of Prussia before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichnus für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch in den preußischen Schulen. Herausgegeben im Auftrage des Königlichen Ministeriums der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinal-Angelegenheiten." (2nd new print, Berlin, 1883)
 * Official rules of Württemberg before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichniß für die deutsche Rechtschreibung, zum Gebrauch in den württembergischen Schulanstalten amtlich festgestellt" (Stuttgart, 1861)
 * Official rules of Saxony before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch in den sächsischen Schulen. Im Auftrage des Königl. Ministeriums des Kultus und öffentlichen Unterrichts herausgegeben. (Generalverordnung vom 8. Oktober 1880.)" (Dresden, 1880)
 * Maybe: Official rules of Bavaria before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch an den bayerischen Schulen. Im amtlichen Auftrage bearbeitet" (München, 1879?)
 * Maybe other official rules
 * Official rules from 1902 till 1996, following the II. Orthographische Konferenz from 1901.
 * Official rules of the spelling reform from 1996, (a) as of 1996, (b) as of 2004, (c) as of 2006 and (d) as of 2011.
 * It could be that Austria or Swiss have own official rules which could be slightly different. (Compare Österreichisches Wörterbuch and maybe Austria's laws as well as Swiss' lack of ß since some time and SOK.)
 * -84.161.19.62 12:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Template;template?
Hey, yeah, it's me again. Just a small question this time. I was wondering if what I did a couple of months ago in is correct. I used pl, and then acties after a semicolon. The latter of the templates also starts with a capital letter, and I've never seen any other page that had this, so should I remove acties? Thanks! NINTENPUG (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can use the parameter  to put it in lower case. You can also use the parameter   to remove the period/full stop, if you want to do that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about the desirability of giving every form of a lemma two definitions like that. Imagine if we had one Latin verb that was an alternative form of another, would we want to define each inflection of the second form as "alternative form" as well as "(...) form of"? —CodeCat 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do this all the time for Irish outdated spellings of nonlemma forms. I think it's very helpful for users to know both the corresponding lemma form, which is also an outdated spelling, and the current spelling. Maybe it would be beneficial to allow templates like superseded spelling of and obsolete form of to generate outputs like "superseded spelling of the plural of ". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While it's nice to know the superseded singular of a superseded plural form, I suspect most users will want the information found at the lemma of the current spellings, and many will resent having to click twice to get to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Help me parse this sentence
I can't parse this sentence in Fielding's Tom Jones (1749), in particular what the word "than" relates to. Context: Sophia's father has just discovered that Sophia and Jones are lovers; he is angry, because he wanted her to marry somebody of higher social status. "To say the truth, I believe the youth himself [Jones] would, from some prudent considerations, have preferred another place of abode at this time, had his terror on Sophia's account given him liberty to reflect a moment on what any otherways concerned himself, than as his love made him partake whatever affected her." Equinox ◑ 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 * …the youth … would … have preferred another place … [rather] than … whatever affected her. That is, the speaker believes Jones would have left (if he'd been able to think about his own interests) but remains for fear for and love of Sophia. The fear may be contextual, and may be fear for the status of his relationship with Sophia. An Amgine Explication™. - Amgine/t·e 22:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, I thought it might be "another place rather than", but then I thought "partake (of)" ought to be the verb whose object was "place" — but it has a following object of "whatever affected her"! ...unless "as his love made him partake" is a sort of parenthetical clause. Ah, maybe that's it. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, it looks like "as his love made him partake" is a parenthetical clause of the sort the author might have set off with commas if he hadn't used up all his commas earlier in the sentence. - -sche (discuss) 08:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Why is this in the Beer Parlour? Could someone please move this to the Tea Room? --WikiTiki89 23:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, it's not about a specific word. Maybe I should have used "translation requests"? Equinox ◑ 23:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't it really an info desk thing? I watch that page, but it hasn't been very active lately. Most of us should watch it, IMO. It might be a way to recruit contributors. This would be an above-average question for that page, but it could use some content-quality improvement. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with substantivised adjectives
In many languages, adjectives can stand alone without anything to modify, and take on the force of a noun. In Dutch for example, is an adjective form, but it can be used by itself to mean "the big one" as well. However, the word usually remains an adjective in form, and inflects like an adjective rather than like a noun. Therefore, morphologically, they are adjectives, even if they are syntactically more like nouns. What is the best way to deal with these? Should they be called nouns, adjectives, or something else? —CodeCat 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as their meaning does not deviate from the adjective, there is no need for a separate noun entry. If a substantivized adjective has deviated in meaning, it should be handled as a noun with an adjectival declension. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother making separate entries for substantivized adjectives unless they have some lexicalized meanings distinct from "a/the X one/thing/man/woman" or unless (as in German) they're spelled differently when they're substantivized. Note that we don't have entries for substantivized adjectives like "hungry" and "rich" in "He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Surely English does this too: "he offered me two cakes, and I took the larger". Equinox ◑ 21:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I have come to think one should create noun entries, but only when the substantivised adjectives have taken on peculiar meanings which are more specific than the underlying adjectives. An example in Latin would be granatus, which, in addition to our adjective definition, is also a pomegranate.  L&S has about 1500 of these, and I find the practice of burying them within the adjective definition with a subst. tag somewhat annoying.  Isomorphyc (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 * re entries for this phenomenon in English: we are inconsistent; we don't have rich but do have poor, Irish+Talk:Irish and deaf+Talk:deaf. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW: As for German I first was thinking that substantivated adjectives decline like adjectives. But then I wasn't so sure about that. Usually it's correct that substantivated adjectives decline like adjectives, though there could be one exception: substantivated adjectives could miss the endingless forms. For example, one can say "unser täglich Brot" (besides "unser tägliches Brot") - and this form is still used these days -, and substantivated one could have "das Tägliche"/"Tägliches", but could one also have "das Täglich" or "Täglich"? Even in the times were copating (syncope, apocope) was more common, these endingless substantivated forms could be non-existent.
 * Besides meaning and spelling, declension is another thing to consider. Latin serpēns as participle has genitive plural -ium, as a substantive it has -ium like the participle but also just -um like e.g. nōmen (stem nōmin-). In English adjecives do not inflect, but substantivated adjectives can have an -s in the plural like two Russian persons = two Russians.
 * @Equinox: That could be an ellipsis to avoid the repetition of cake, a short form for "he offered me two cakes, and I took the larger cake". In German one could spell it like "er bot mir zwei Kuchen an und ich nahm den größeren", i.e. "größeren" instead of "Größeren". That's different from "Ein Unbekannter klaute meine Tasche" ("an unknown [person/human/man] stole my bag"), where there is no substantive which the adjective unbekannt could modify. But English also has such substantivations.
 * More over, it's somewhat misleading/incorrect to place substantives in adjectives entries and that practice could lead to partly redundant entries like an entry in ...us (for the adjective which also covers the neuter substantive) and one in ...um (for the neuter substantive). -84.161.19.62 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The inflection is what made me ask the question, though. in Dutch has adjective inflection in the form of the -e, though it can pluralise to -en which does not happen with real adjectives. In Zulu, adjectives completely retain their adjectival inflection even when used as nouns. Moreover, nouns can be derived from possessive forms as well. The noun  is derived from the possessive form  of the noun . The initial o- of  does not occur with normal nouns; it exclusively occurs with adjectives and other words that have been substantivised. So the non-noun origin of the word is still very recognisable for substantivised words. —CodeCat 16:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

words in a declension table
Hi there, I'm still getting acquainted with Wiktionary. I often see pages such as tegat that act as placeholders for words that result from declining a word and thus contain links to that certain word. Are these pages made manually or through bots? Will I have to make my own for new entries in Latin? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of them are made manually and some are made by bots. For Latin and a few other languages, we have a bot that can make them. For other languages, you have to make them either manually or through ACCEL links (the green links that you may or may not see sometimes in the main entry). --WikiTiki89 20:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for clarifying! How do I use this bot? Icebob99 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe User:SemperBlotto runs such a bot, he should be able to help you. --WikiTiki89 21:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Used to. They don't work anymore after a Wiki software change to use https instead of http. It was just too much hassle anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know if anyone else currently runs such a bot? --WikiTiki89 14:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Recent Changes (with show bots, show minor edits, hide anonymous and registered users) shows, , . There are more, I'm sure. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to some diffs? I can't find any evidence that these bots create inflected form entries. --WikiTiki89 16:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, no - they do other things. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I sort-of volunteered to do this back in September (User talk:OrphicBot/Res Agenda), but it didn't seem terribly urgent. Sorting out some of the formatting details and disagreements surrounding them as discussed in the entries below this one particularly has kept me from this task.  Does anyone consider it an especially high priority?  Isomorphyc (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Taking your time and doing it right will save us all time later. --WikiTiki89 14:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Do you or have you got a place for say like three letters and the words they might make. I think that would help people find words faster and help people who play word games like I do and need a full word that contain those letters.
 * That would be anagrams. We have anagrams listed in some entries, but no central page that lists them all. —CodeCat 23:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 * It might be a superset of anagrams, since e.g. the letters QNX can "make" EQUINOX (depending on what else you have). If our search box supports regular expressions, that's one way to go — but tricky for non-technical users. Equinox ◑ 03:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Should be used with forms identical to the main entry?
I came across the entry for the Latin word, where the word is first defined ("fog, cloud, vapor"), and then followed by no less than two different elements listing case forms identical to the base form. Is this good practice? Personally I think seems both confusing and redundant. —Pinnerup (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be used that way. However, there are cases where the spelling is the same but the pronunciation is not, like in the ablative, so we should still allow for this. I would not format it the way it is done on though; I'd put the ablative in its own  etymology section, below everything else. —CodeCat 15:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer having the ablative the way it is, rather than creating a whole separate etymology section for it, but I would delete the vocative singular line from nebula. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Having multiple headword lines for one entry is generally discouraged, though, especially one that "floats" in the middle without a part of speech. —CodeCat 20:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

la-verb-form editing
Hi, I've never edited a template before and I actually don't know how to do so. Is there a general tutorial or guide that I could look at? My main question is that of the wikilinks in the result of the la-verb-form template. See subederunt; it has a wikilink to the glossary for all the terms except "perfect". The same is for pluperfect and future perfect words. Could somebody add that link? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tags of are controlled by Module:form of/data. —CodeCat 01:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, templates and modules are basically the most complicated thing you will interact with as an editor but I'm glad that you're interested. There is documentation on MediaWiki at our sister site, . Have you seen any of that yet? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * looking through mw:Help:Templates right now. I confess that this is all new to me but I'm understanding it. Hope I can dive in without too much difficulty. Icebob99 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The good news is that even if you mess up something, it can be reverted. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Latin perfect passive verb forms
Hi, you can tell I'm a newbie based on the number of questions I'm asking, right? I've been creating pages for the declined forms of subedo (it has been quite the slog!), and I've gotten to the perfect passive forms. I can't find any page for this kind of verb for the relatively common Latin verbs, so I'm assuming that we generally don't create those pages, but I'd like to doublecheck. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for your recent Latin contributions; they are much appreciated! I've rather enjoyed seeing some of your amusing words such as flagritriba.  In general, we don't have entries for the compound verb forms (amatus sum, amatus est, amatus erat, etc.), but we do have an entry for the participle which forms them.  I suppose the reason could be that at some point it becomes the work of syntax rather than the lexicon, but I don't know why we draw the line where we do other than word boundaries.  Also, I would point out that in general almost all of our oblique form entries are made by robots, almost entirely, indeed, by User:SemperBlottoBot.  Isomorphyc (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think mentioned that his bot doesn't work anymore after the MediaWiki switch from http to https. Is it still in operation? Could the accelerated links template be added to the Latin verb form templates and make this easier? Icebob99 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm not really familiar with the accelerated templates.  Do you need the links soon for some reason?  I assume accelerated link creation is still a lot of clicking for you, and probably won't merge information correctly onto target pages (multiple stems with overlapping forms, forms overlapping with lemmas, one stem with overlapping or overlapping-within-quantity forms), so someone will have to parse and fix the pages anyway.  If you need them for something specific (you want to wikilink Seneca, for example), I can try to do them sooner, however.  Isomorphyc (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * no, I was just asking out of curiosity, trying to figure out where accelerated links couldn't be used. What do you mean by wikilink Seneca? Icebob99 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that you could do something like this: User:OrphicBot/Sandbox/Aeneis1; but obviously it does not work so well if Wiktionary is lacking entries for the inflected forms of all the hard words. Isomorphyc (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * that makes sense, kind of like Perseus. No, I'm not planning to do something like that, and if I do, I probably will just do the parsing and fixing myself to learn how it all works. Icebob99 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a list of words that end in certain letters?
I'd like to see a list of words that end in -baby (as opposed to terms made of two or more words, the last of which is baby). I tried searching for *baby and there is no entry for -baby. Thanks in advance. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * yes--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Inflection section titles
Hi, is it commonly agreed upon that the heading of the section that lists the declined or conjugated forms of a noun or verb be titled "inflection" rather than "declension" or "conjugation"? Icebob99 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually it's titled "declension". --WikiTiki89 15:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I use "Inflection" exclusively. You're free to choose whichever you want, for entries you create. —CodeCat 20:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I use "Declension" for adjectives and nouns and "Conjugation" for verbs, exclusively. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Lua error
Hi, I'm attempting to affix conjugation of subedo by adding the subst: tool before the template la-conj-3rd, because I want to add in the extra present active infinitive. I get, however, this error message, which I put in my userspace. I looked through the module code and couldn't figure out where the error was coming from; the template la-conj-3rd seems to provide all the necessary parameters. Help? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Most templates on Wiktionary can't be substed, and generally shouldn't anyway. We only include raw tables in entries in the rarest and most exceptional of cases. What is the extra form you are trying to add? —CodeCat 19:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * good to know. I'm trying to add subēsse to the present active infinitive slot in the lang-conj-3rd template table on subedo, to be placed next to subedere. It's already included in the principal parts. Icebob99 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should probably take this up with one of the editors of Module:la-verb then. You can click on the history when viewing the module, to see who else has edited it. Presumably, the editors that have edited it a lot will know how to add this feature or explain how to use it if it's already present. The documentation of should probably be updated by one of these people too. ? —CodeCat 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Try this: . If you look in the module: Module:la-verb, you will see the codes for the tenses; they mostly have three or four parts.  Isomorphyc (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks worked well! Icebob99 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of the Citations page
Hi, I've been creating some citation pages for various entries, and I've noticed that even a lot of common English words don't have citation pages, such as sandwich, and that a word like drink only has one instead of the three ascribed by attestation policy. Is this something in the project that hasn't yet been completed or is it falling out of use? Should I go on a "citation crusade" with Quiet Quentin?Icebob99 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. I don't think we have much of a consensus: Beer_parlour/2016/September. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting to read. It looks like the citation page itself should be used copiously, though, so I'll be sure to include citations wherever possible. Icebob99 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, there should be three citations for every sense in well-documented languages such as English. In practice, though, there are better uses of everybody's time and resources than documenting the kinds of things that people would presumably already know if they're able to read the entries in the first place. Our WT:CFI has an exception for terms that are in clear widespread use, to keep us from having to cite common senses of the, one, dog, he, be, run, slowly, of, etc. whenever someone wants to waste our time.
 * The sheer volume of uncited senses is too great for any kind of systematic effort to make much of a dent, so the best area of concentration is whatever you happen to like working with- that way you can keep the volume up without getting tired of it. It's great that you're willing to help with the more boring work of filling in the holes rather than breaking new ground, but just about anything you do will be helpful, so there's no need to limit yourself. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Following Chuck, there is definitely still plenty of work to be done, some of it very menial. And I am personally fine with a handful of citations even for common words, such as first recorded usages or a few usages across centuries and continents that show some continuity but those are definitely better for a separate citations page than cluttering up the main entry for a or set or who. Thanks again for being so enthusiastic--a lot of the work here is more straight-forward or systematic than on some other WMF projects, so it may seem less appealing or fun but we've compiled a really great resource here and one that is useful for millions of readers. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 * A citation crusade sounds fantastic. Deus vult! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * There's no reason to use citation pages unless you plan on adding many (> 5) citations, or if you're adding citations for a sense that hasn't been added to the entry yet. Otherwise just put them under the definition lines. DTLHS (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Latin epithets
Hi, does Wiktionary contain epithets? Such as Sospita, an epithet for Juno? Icebob99 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We aim to include "all words in all languages". If is a "word" in "Latin" then we would welcome its addition. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - we are also missing the lower-case form though we do have  from which these terms are derived. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

HOT
Please turn off edit protection, so I can improve the page -- 65.94.171.217 07:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I've turned off edit protection. You have quite a few edits. You should consider registering a username. Then you would not have this problem. The protection only excluded anons. —Stephen (Talk) 10:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for turning it off -- 65.94.171.217 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

L&S dictionary vs. Latin precedent
Hi, I've recently created the Latin word suspectio from a redlink in soupçon. The redlink contained a long ō at the end to form suspectiō, but the Lewis and Short entry does not have that long mark at the end. Should I stand by the redlink based on Latin precedent for -ionis 3rd declension words or the dictionary? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about L & S not showing a macron there: a spot check of related words shows the same pattern of no macron for words that have a macron in the wiktionary entry. Compare, for instance, in L&S vs. in Elementary Lewis. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Both L&S and Gaffiot do not place the macra or breves on final syllable. The Oxford Latin Dictionary does, but you should follow the inflectional systems you see elsewhere on Wiktionary. A rule of thumb for Latin is that the only short vowels in which a native Latin word can end are effectively e and a. On a side note, all vowels followed by ns or nf in Latin are marked as long on Wiktionary. — JohnC5 22:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * [post-edit conflict]: L&S routinely omits macra from word-terminal vowels (except in adverbs); it should not be inferred from this that those vowels are short. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:homeless

This is missing `homeless` used an uncountable noun.
 * No. There is a general characteristic of English grammar that you can use adjectives as uncountable nouns - e.g. The poor are always with us. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. We do sometimes include the noun if it has a different translation. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 * A plural homelesses is attestable from Google Books, but is non-standard. Equinox ◑ 14:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:homeless


text:
poissard

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) coarse, common, vulgar
 * 2) unlucky

title: poissard


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2016/December

drahoma
Anyone know the Greek etymon? (See also Talk:drahoma.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's 🇨🇬, which is different from homonymous . According to Greek sources, the ultimate origin is . The sense development is unclear to me. --Vahag (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on some sources I've found ( for example), it seems that a dowry would be officially Church sanctioned and the trachoma would not. I could imagine that the semantic shift went something like “roughness, coarseness” > “some coarse deal” (“coarse” being figurative for secular actions similar to the meaning of “vulgar” as it relates to the Church) > “a secular dowry”. This, however, is idle speculation on my part. — JohnC5
 * According to modern Greek dictionaries, the intermediate step is 🇨🇬. According to The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, "The word means basically “rough” or “uneven” and was apparently applied to the concave coins in the sense of “not flat.”" See also . Still, your explanation may have influenced the sense development. --Vahag (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dang, I wasn't very close. :( — JohnC5 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

linx in PIE appendix
I asked CodeCat, but I rather hear everyone's opinion before desisting. Are we interested in transforming this into something like this (the beginning, and saving errors)? Or at least include the links without the display in columns, and also order the descendant languages always in the same whatever way (typological, code or English name). Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Really the huge lists of descendants, however formatted, seem like the least appealing part of either layout to me. They can already be found thru the PIE entries themselves anyway (where these exist…), and I feel like those should be the primary location of PIE data; appendices should IMO be limited to
 * Whoops, forgot to finish a paragraph here. What I was going to say is: appendices for reconstructed languages should IMO be limited to displaying generalizations that can't be seen from the individual entries. For plain indexing, things like Category:Proto-Indo-European roots and its subcategories already do the job. Things like Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots are a legacy feature of sorts, based on the model of paper dictionaries that cannot include a full treatment of the PIE lexicon for space reasons. As our coverage of PIE entries grows, they're becoming increasingly superfluous. (I have added e.g. a list of Proto-Uralic roots myself, but it's in userspace and not very rounded out because I think of it as a to-do list, not an index in itself.) --Tropylium (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some other options would be:
 * prune this to just a few representative descendants (for example: English, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite). The exact selection is going to be contentious though, and liable to slippery-sloping back towards the current state.
 * give major proto-branch terms for further clicking-thru options (so essentially: PCelt, PGmc, PBS, Latin or PIt., Greek or PGk, PII, maybe PAnat.)
 * give just the distribution & instruct readers to click thru to the proto-terms
 * Here's an example of the last; the check marks etc. could be linked to the branch-specific descendants. What this would also enable is comparison between different lexemes: given two rows for similar concepts, such as the various competing 'fire' or 'water' roots, it would be easy to compare which languages retain which. This is pretty much impossible with sprawling lists. --Tropylium (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree with Tropylium. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is PII? Tocharian? Armenian? Albanian? Indo-Arian? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Proto-Indo-Iranian. --WikiTiki89 21:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The same question prompts/pops when dealing with this. (I realised later while sleeping, I didn't know there is a explicit theory for a common root of Avestic and Sanskrit. What about the other 3 Arm/SQ/Toc I mentioned?) Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Armenian, Albanian and Tocharian are usually considered their own branches, and the first two are usually considered not very significant for PIE reconstruction (so probably not particularly illustrative in lists like these). There's some support for a Greek-Phrygian-Armenian grouping, or a wider one with also Indo-Iranian ("Indo-Greek"), but I've never seen anyone propose reconstructions for that specifically — and it would probably end up being very close to PIE anyway. --Tropylium (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We should also mention the very popular Italo-Celtic family, though it has not gained full acceptance. Also, in Armenian's defense, it is one of the few languages (along with AG and Hittite) where *HC- produces a vowel. — JohnC5 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

hercisco, herctum
Does anybody have an etymology for these Latin words? De Vaan doesn't mention them. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:2D60:EA59:36A3:DDA3 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * According to the "Elementary Latin Dictionary", they would come from a verb hercio which is not attested in Latin, and ultimately derive from the same root as in "heredity" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Albanian etymologies check
The user has been making a bunch of changes (~50) concerning Albanian etymology which I do not have the information to evaluate. Could someone take a stroll through them an make sure they are legit? I'm not really sure whom to ping about this (?) — JohnC5 16:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Hello John,I am familiar with Albanian etymology and am going to check it up

 * Well,they all look legit to me,except "lirë" etymology

mice
As is well-known, the synchronically irregular plural directly continues the Old English consonant-stem plural, which itself directly continues Proto-Germanic *mūsiz. But I thought inflectional forms besides the citation form do not usually receive their own etymology sections. Are there exceptions for highly irregular forms? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of a rule that stated that they cannot have an etym section. Am I mistaken ?. I oftentimes do add them, and would be a perfect candidate in my book Leasnam (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I added an etymology there Leasnam (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the term is simply a form resulting from the regular application of transparent inflectional morphology, there shouldn't be an etymology. When there's something interesting going on, as there is here, it may be worth the risk of inconsistency between the lemma and the form entries (note, for instance, the disagreement between the etymologies at  and  on the origin of ). That's especially true for suppletive paradigms made up of a number of completely unrelated roots and fossilized sound changes/morphology (e.g. /, /,, /). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, good to know. That certainly makes sense. By the way, add and  to the inconsistency-fest. At the very least we should acknowledge both possibilities equally, because both have their advocates, and there doesn't seem anything even close to a consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the etymologies of inflected forms, when necessary, to be placed on the lemma. That is why I introduced the template, to be used as a substitute etymology for nonlemmas. —CodeCat 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with CodeCat that it would be better to have the etymology of both the singular and plural at the lemma entry mouse. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so too. Kolmiel (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's something best decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case I agree. When there are suppletive stems, however, it might be sensible to have separate entries at non-lemma forms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

moitié
There's not only very surprisingly complete chaos in the opinions on the etymology of moitié and moiety in all English dictionaries i've checked, including those on onelook.com, but even more surprisingly none agree with http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/moitié, which is no doubt the most reliable and most carefully edited. --Espoo (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

bordello / brothel
Is it really true that these both come from the same PIE etymon? This is currently claimed in these lemmas' articles but neither the other word nor the common origin is mentioned in either article. --Espoo (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It does appear to be true. As such, what a striking coincidence ! Leasnam (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am actually very surprised that the nearest common ancestor of words of such a similarity has to go all the way to the PIE--Dixtosa (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason intervocalic /þ/ remains voiceless here? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm extremely sceptical regarding these root-anatomical speculations. FWIW, Kroonen gives PG *burzda- < PIE *bʰr̥zdʰo- for the "board" word and connects it with PG *barzda- (his reconstruction for ) < PIE *bʰorzdʰo- (I don't want to go into the details of his reasoning here, but this connection makes me wonder, keeping in mind that he does not give a PIE verbal root, if PG  is related, which would suggest that all the formations in question are derived from a root *bʰers- combined with a dental suffix that might possibly be ultimately identified with the root, or with  in the case of *burstiz). As for , this verb does not have any precise comparanda outside of Germanic.  fits semantically but not formally, but LIV lists a root  from which it derives , and I wonder if  and  perhaps too might go back to the same root (though  is only compatible with that root if it does not contain a laryngeal after all). But even if that is all correct, what we get is a root *bʰers- "to prick" (?) at the origin of bordello and a completely different root *bʰrew(H)- at the root of brothel. So, unfortunately, this does not seem to work out when we avoid Pokorny-era style root anatomies (LIV does list a root , but I doubt it helps). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Paris
RFV of the etymology:
 * From, from 🇨🇬, from 🇨🇬, in reference to the regularity of its leaves, petals, etc.

This generic name was published by in 1753, but can be found as herba Paris in Latin herbals by not just English and French authors, but Italian and German as well, going back to at least the mid-1500s. Given that Linnaeus was Swedish and wrote in Latin, and that the works he cited were in Latin, as well, I find it odd that it would derive from English. The fact that the whole etymology aside from the link to the English term is identical down to the language codes with the etymology of that English term doesn't exactly inspire confidence, either. It would be nice if we could confirm the other steps in the etymology, too- the English could have come from the Latin, and the Latin source would seem to be the genitive singular form of an adjective, though folk etymology was no doubt involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't know how to sort it out. See and . DCDuring (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

feminism
No-account newbie here. I was about to post this in the discussion page of the entry for feminism, but it suggested I try the Information desk and Tea Room. I found the Etymology scriptorium and it seems like the right place to post this.

The Etymology section of feminism currently states that it comes from French féminisme, which comes from Latin fēminīnus, which comes from Latin fēmina.

However, the entry for féminisme contains an external link to a source with an etymology, “féminisme” in le Trésor de la langue française informatisé (The Digitized Treasury of the French Language), and that source says that féminisme comes directly from Latin fēmina, and does _not_ pass through fēminīnus ("Dér. du rad. du lat. femina (femme*)").

This seems to make a difference to me, as fēmina is the noun, 'woman', and fēminīnus is the adjective, 'womanly' or 'feminine', thus making the idea something more like 'woman-ism' rather than 'feminine-ism'. Actually, I used to assume feminism came directly from modern French femme, which also would have made it 'woman-ism'.

I realize it's only one source, and maybe you all know whether it's highly reputed or not. Maybe more sources should be gathered before a change is made to the Etymology section?

Also maybe I misunderstand what the Etymology section of feminism is actually saying or should say. Or maybe the community does not view this as a significant matter. I leave it to you more experienced Wiktionary editors to decide, as I figured that were I to make an edit myself, it might be rejected for not going through discussion first, or else I might click the wrong button and break the internet.

Peace!

 * First of all, having no account doesn't make you no-account.
 * As to your question: the TLFI is a good source, and in this case it looks like it's correct. I notice that the Online Etymology Dictionary's entry says " from French féminisme (1837); see feminine + -ism", meaning that those entries would have more information. It would be very easy to mistake that for saying that 🇨🇬 was literally the result of combining some form of with some form of . It's always easier to explain direct derivation than it is to explain why it would have come from a form with an extra "-in", and how the "-in" then disappeared.
 * As for the procedure to make corrections: you're as welcome as anyone to edit the entry, but if your edit is wrong, or it seriously messes up the formatting, it may be corrected, undone, or rolled back. That doesn't mean you're in trouble, it just means you made a mistake- like we all did when we got started. Of course, if you make a whole lot of mistakes and keep on making those mistakes after having them explained to you, that might be a problem- but you don't seem the type to do that. I'll leave a welcome template on your talk page (User talk:75.115.90.84), so you'll have the information you need to edit here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that it doesn't make historical sense either to derive feminism from feminine. Feminism grew out of the women's rights movement, and was initially concerned only with people assigned female at birth (to use the contemporary term), or perceived as female by society's elites and ruling classes, regardless of their self-conception or feminine expression. It was not concerned with feminine or effeminate men (whether gay/queer or not), nor (initially, at least) with transgender people assigned male at birth, or perceived as male (in intersex people birth-assigned and perceived gender – by anatomical criteria – are not necessarily the same, that's why I'm differentiating here). Many feminists, especially in the second wave, were butch lesbian women – feminae – and had a dim view of what society defines as feminine, not only because they were themselves disinclined to it, but also because what society defines as feminine is considered inferior by very many people – a prejudice they replicated. It is only now that feminists, especially trans women like Julia Serano, want to "put the feminine back into feminism", as she puts it (given that anti-femininity prejudice and anti-women prejudice cannot really be separated: for example, there's nothing inherently "weak", "shallow" or "silly" in the colour pink; it is deemed so because it is associated with women, and that's a quite recent cultural development), but etymologically speaking that's not really accurate. Feminism is straight derived from femina, so a thoroughly unfeminine woman is still etymologically in the domain of feminism (leading to complaints that the term is supposedly "sexist" and "anti-men"). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you forget about definition #2 at feminine? --WikiTiki89 21:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, my basic argument stands: feminism has long been primarily concerned with women's rights (intersectional feminism being a recent development), so for that semantic reason (apart from the formal argument) it's most straightforward to derive feminism from femina. It's not about the rights of the abstract quality of womanhood, but concrete women. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Modern Greek in Module:etymology languages/data
Why is this necessary? Someone just used the code at for what appears to be the first time. DTLHS (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary, and I'm removing it. is certainly from the Ancient Greek word anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

etymology of early
Someone competent cud add the following info, alternative forms, and educated guesses from https://www.dwds.de/wb/eher to early and Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂eyeri: ie. *ā̌ier-, *ā̌ien- ‘Tag, Morgen’. Zur Wurzel ie. *ā̌i- ‘brennen, leuchten’ --Espoo (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are the same reconstruction, just written differently. —CodeCat 22:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, very confusing as far as the alternative forms are concerned.
 * But *ā̌i- ‘burn, shine’ is missing from both the lemma "early" (ere) and the lemma "h₂eyeri". --Espoo (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

graze
Currently it says "From Old English, from ." Isn't it more likely that there was already a verb in Proto-Germanic? German has and Dutch has. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The German is from 🇨🇬. Do the stems match? At first, I thought the Old English would have to be a different stem, but corresponds to, so I don't know. (I don't know very much about Old English.) Kolmiel (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Deutsches Wörterbuch calls it an "Old High German formation", though this need not be intended to rule out that it's even older. Kolmiel (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OE -ian should correspond to OHG -ōn. Do we have an Old Saxon/Old Norse cognate? Crom daba (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Old Norse has and  whose attested forms (grasaði, grǫsud, grosudum) are in line with *grasōną. — JohnC5 05:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can reconstruct a PGmc . A lot of older entries stop at OE because we didnt really reconstruct Proto-languages at that time, and many need to be reviewed Leasnam (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

architectonic etymology wiki request
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/architectonic See further https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AD%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek

Etymology:
 * 1) REDIRECT []

link to correct etymology not explained
Please fix forebear. --Espoo (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

fel
Questionable derivation phonetically... Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 02:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think that's problematic look at . Crom daba (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

🇨🇬 meaning cancer
So Mongolian dictionaries define as "July in the western zodiac", I couldn't find any uses of this on the Internet, but I did find that many horoscope sites do indeed use мэлхий to denote cancer (some use the more expected ), does anyone know any parallels to this in the oriental languages? Crom daba (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe will have the answer. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tibetan (karka ṭa, a Sanskrit loan), which refers to the constellation of “Cancer”, is represented by the frog (🇨🇬) in Tibet. It may be the source of the Mongolian use. Wyang (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Περσίς
It is odd that Old Persian yielded Ancient Greek  (from which ), with the long ā changed to e. I would expect a more faithful transliteration:. I wonder if there is a missing link in the etymology (a language in which for some reason the name of Persia had the vowel e), or if there's a Greek sound change, or quality of the Old Persian phonological system, that I'm unaware of? The OED doesn't offer any explanation. — Eru·tuon 23:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ionic raising + Osthoff's shortening? Although I don't get why it wasn't shortened before raising. Crom daba (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All the ancient languages had a there, see here, pages 16–17, so I would look for an explanation inside Greek. --Vahag (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I guess I considered the possibility that the sound change went thus: Pārs- > (non-Attic–Ionic) >  (Ionic raising) >  (some kind of shortening)., I wouldn't have thought Osthoff's shortening would be operative so late in the history of Greek, but interestingly, I searched for the sequence  in LSJ entry names, and there were only two results, both of them augmented aorist verb forms. (I imagine there are more examples that don't have their own entries.) So perhaps there was another later rule prohibiting certain types of over-long syllables like , except in verb forms where the long vowel was necessary to mark the past indicative. — Eru·tuon 19:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that, despite the attempts to extend the law to other Indo-European languages, Osthoff's shortening is primarily a Greek phenomenon, and might possibly be a more recent development check N. E. Collinge's "The laws of Indo-European" for details (a surprisingly witty abounding in stuff you don't normally find browsing the Internet) Crom daba (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

abgeschmackt
I'm going to guess the etymology here, but I do not have a proficient knowledge of German, so please correct me if I am wrong:

ab- + geschmackt, from ?schmacken? related to Geschmack and schmecken, cognate with English smatch ("taste, flavour") and smack ("to taste").

I can't help but feel that that etymology is faulty somehow, but I don't know where. Can someone with a better knowledge of German help here? Tharthan (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 * You're close. I would say that it is from, as it has an older variant form in . Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 * After edit conflict...
 * The etymology in the Duden entry derives from older  of the same meaning, and suggests a comparison to noun  and verb.
 * means and, as in good taste and bad taste (currently covered by sense #2 at ).  The prefix  can mean .  So  would literally mean off-taste, and idiomatically mean , in bad taste, ,.
 * (My German comprehension isn't the best, but the sense details in our entry at seem somewhat deficient compared to what's at Duden.)
 * , does that answer your question? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mostly, but where does the -t come from? It makes sense with schmecken (geschmeckt) because it is the past participle, but Geschmack is a noun. We don't seem to have a German entry for -t, nor does the German Wiktionary. The French Wiktionary has an entry for it, but even after reading it, I still don't see how it applies in this usage. Is it an excrescent? Please forgive my ignorance here. Tharthan (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that -t was added as an analogy with the past participle, presumably because that is the context in which ab-ge- occurs most commonly. Crom daba (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DWDS agrees. Crom daba (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Duden's etymology seems to be correct, which is not always case. (We should always rely on Pfeiffer and Kluge.) Just note not that the verb does exist. It's regional, but a generally known derivative is . Kolmiel (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Stems of tenses of Catalan poder
I'm puzzled by the forms of Catalan that have a stem containing in g (or  c from final devoicing), including  and. The Latin forms (from ) have t, and d would be expected due to lenition. Many forms have d (as do all the forms in the Spanish inflection table), but some have g. Where on earth did this consonant come from? It would make sense if there were another related verb, but there isn't. Or maybe it's some odd sound change: I was considering the possibility of dissimilation, but there's no clear motivation.

It's also odd that it only occurs in certain forms: first singular present indicative, preterite, subjunctive, imperative, past participle. The rest are more law-abiding, as far as their stem is concerned.

Anyway, I would appreciate an explanation if there is one, and the etymology section would also appreciate it. — Eru·tuon 09:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

🇨🇬 and Leberkäse
Does anyone know what "Slavic quas" is referred to here? Also "an obsolete usage of Käse to denote any pasty food formed in a mold (cf. English "case")" on wikipedia sounds suspect, could someone provide a citation (and add this sense to our Käse) or dispute it? Crom daba (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Slavic quas" is presumably 🇨🇬, but it doesn't mean "feast". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The true meaning of Käse has always been that of a dairy product. But since it was a very common and affordable food, other things (food and non-food) that were somehow similar to cheese were compared to it. I don't think this is surprising and I don't think it's obsolete either. Now, I don't know the exact etymology of Leberkäse, but our own entry simply says that the word Käse was used because Leberkäse "resembles cheese" (i.e. it comes in loaves, is cut in slices, has a smooth, light-coloured surface). This would seem obvious. Of course, obvious things are sometimes wrong. Kolmiel (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but the insinuation of there being a second sense meaning specifically things made in a mold cognate with English case and thus presumably cognate with 🇨🇬 is nonsense right?
 * I've also thought of kvȃsъ, but it didn't make any sense. Crom daba (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd think so, yes. Kolmiel (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Directly from Classical Nahuatl? Wouldn't there need to be a Spanish intermediate? DTLHS (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * added it, but it seems very unlikely to me. Words for "father" of this form have arisen independently many times, and you could just as easily point fingers at 🇨🇬 or 🇨🇬 — but none of those are the origin. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the etymology back in October but left out the one from Kaiser's Tagalog entry. The claims of a Nahuatl origin have been recurring in print though. Carl Francis (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On what basis? When did Tagalog speakers come into contact with Nahuatl speakers? DTLHS (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention 🇨🇬, said to be from 🇨🇬. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * turismo and kwentador, for example, sound and look Spanish but they aren't. As for the Spanish route, Spanish readily gets cited for the etymology when it was the poor Catalans who got sent to the Philippines. The Cebuano pinya could either be Spanish piña if not Catalan pinya. Same goes with Cebuano yaya, it is either from Spanish yaya or Catalan iaia. Carl Francis (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

piler
French ("to crush") is said to come from Latin, "to fix firmly", itself derived from , "column, pillar" (etymology 2). But wouldn't it make more sense to derive it from another (I don't know if it's attested), derived from  meaning "mortar" (etymology 1)? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D1C0:A14B:34FF:8038 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

lebkuchen
How much of this can still be trusted? --Espoo (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ramm
Can someone explain how Middle High German raben becomes Luxembourgish Ramm?

Are we sure that the Luxembourgish word wasn't influenced by one of its Old Norse cognates, hramn? Tharthan (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Assimilation of root final obstruents to following -en is a very common German dialectal feature, see for example Bairische_Dialekte Crom daba (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In Standard German, the plural is commonly pronounced /ˈʁɑːbm̩/; it's not very far from there to the Luxembourgish form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that simple. First of all, such a phonetic development would be typical of many German dialects, but very untypical of West Central German, in which there are no syllabic nasals whatsoever. Then, the underlying form according to the dialectal variants given by the Rheinisches Wörterbuch is MHG *ramb(e). The word is also a feminine. Most importantly, the Luxembourgish cognate of Rabe is Rof, which is phonetically regular (except for a minor problem concerning the vowel). -- So if the two forms are related, it would seem most likely that Lux. Ramm continues an ancient contraction OHG hram, whose -m is directly from the PG -bn- in . Kolmiel (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: I now see that this contraction is also attested in Old Dutch, which makes it likely that this is indeed the origin. Kolmiel (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PPS: I've adapted the etymology accordingly. Kolmiel (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Middle High German also has, which I have added to the etymology line, despite the apparent difference in gender Leasnam (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

𨤡
RFV of the etymology. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

cushy
I find the etymology very dubious. Isn't it from instead? --Barytonesis (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Online Etymology Dictionary and American Heritage agree with us, but dictionary.com agrees with you. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ganar
RFV of the etymology. Multiple things look iffy. Leasnam (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gothic **ganan is spurious, but Holthausen in his Gotisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1934) tentatively reconstructs a Gothic *ganōn "gähnen" as possible source of ganar ("vielleicht in span. ganar 'gewinnen'"). However, even if the word were really attested, the semantic development would be completely obscure (at least I can't make sense of it) and unparalleled (as far as I can tell). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

kaylied
This is my first submission to Wiktionary, and would be glad of advice/comment.

The entry for kaylied is this:

Adjective[edit] kaylied (comparative more kaylied, superlative most kaylied) (Britain, slang) Extremely drunk. He got completely kaylied last night.

I would like to propose an etymology along these lines:

Possibly from the sweet once sold in northern England as "Kali". Cf "on the pop" as another euphemism for drunk. Kali was confected from coarse sugar crystals flavoured with citrus, and may in turn derive its name from a resemblance to the ashes of Glasswort [|Glasswort] which, as used in glass manufacture, was also referred to simply as "alkali". To find a resemblance between alkali and alcohol may be stretching the point too far.
 * This book also suggests it comes from the fizzy drink called Kali. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

An excellent analysis. I’ve heard ‘kaylied’ on occasion in Birmingham and heard claims it’s used a lot to the North of there and didn’t know the origin but I didn’t know about ‘kali’ being another word for what are sometimes called ‘sugar crystals’ or ‘sherbe(r)t crystals’ until I looked at the Wikipedia entry for ‘sherbet’ and saw the accompanying pictures of what is purportedly ‘kali’. After a Google search I found out that not only Goodies of Lincoln (who make the crystals in the picture) but Pells of Birmingham still produce such Kali and on the talk page someone suggests a link with the term ‘kaylied’ and uses the fact that ‘sherbet’ is a slang term for ‘beer’ in support of this. Food for thought indeed (pun intended)Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

幼稚園
Etymology needing citation. ばかFumiko￥talk 12:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Added. See also the various entries at the Kotobank page for 幼稚園.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

stuurkunde a calque of English?
A calque is a word that is formed by translating the parts of a word. But the parts of cybernetics do not mean anything in English, their meaning is in Ancient Greek. So the calque is from Ancient Greek, isn't it? Except that the word didn't exist in Ancient Greek, so it couldn't be calqued from. How do we solve this? —CodeCat 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call, that's quite thorny. How about calling the word or its meaning derived from cybernetics and its components a calque of the Ancient Greek elements?
 * Judging from Google Books and DBNL stuurkunde was first mentioned in 1951 and first used in 1953 while the Dutch cybernetica was first used in 1952, so we can't really say stuurkunde derives from cybernetica. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's a calque of anything, because neither cybernetics nor its French and Ancient Greek ancestors has anything corresponding to . It's just a Dutch combination of and, with sturen being a translation (or single-part calque, if there is such a thing) of . We could say it's formed on the model of the English, perhaps, but I wouldn't call it a calque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Well put. Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * is more than just "-ology" but can also correspond to "-ics", like in and, or "-ry" in , and so on. —CodeCat 21:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean it always corresponds to -ology in the English translations of the Dutch words, but its semantics are those of -ology. Physics, mathematics, and chemistry are all ologies even though the words themselves don't end in -ology. But the fact that the words don't end in -ology does mean that natuurkunde isn't a calque of physics, and wiskunde isn't a calque of mathematics, and scheikunde isn't a calque of chemistry, and stuurkunde isn't a calque of cybernetics. But could be a calque of  or, more likely, . (Incidentally, I never realized before that 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬 are false friends, but they are: the German word means geography, not geology.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

時計
RFV of the etymology. ばかFumiko￥talk 10:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

（「時計」「土圭」「斗計」「斗鶏」「斗影」「辰器」など、さまざまの漢字が当てられるが、中国周代の緯度測定器で、後に日時計として用いられた「土圭」がもとであるという）
 * Shogakukan gives this:
 * Daijirin gives:

〔「時計」は，中国周代に用いられた緯度測定器「土圭」の当て字という〕
 * That said, I cannot find any Chinese term ., any chance you can find this term?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 13:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a valid Chinese term, attested plentifully in the Old Chinese period:, referring to a kind of sundial. Wyang (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wyang and Shinji. I have .  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)