User talk:Esszet

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Your edit in Template:la-decl-2nd-ius (diff) has caused some problems in nearly 30 dictionary lemmas: These lemmas suddenly had an additional "i", for example the genitive of "Ovidius" wasn't "Ovidii" anymore but "Ovidiii". Looks nice, but unfortunately not correct. If you want to know where a template is used, you can open the template and click "What links here" on the left hand side. If you think that a problem is too complex you can discuss it in one of the discussion rooms (Wiktionary:Discussion_rooms). --MaEr (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Where did you find attestation for the plural? The Oxford Latin Dictionary attests several singular forms, but states that this word has no plural. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't find attestation for the plural; I looked at the plural forms on the page and assumed they were proper. I've nominated the plural forms' respective existing pages for deletion; I'll delete the plural forms from the ‘lac’ page if their pages are deleted. Esszet (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In fact, both are legitimate Latin pronunciations. Most books seem to silently favor one or the other, but a few of my resources do give both as legitimate alternatives. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Esszet (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

'Usage notes' is actually an approved L4 header. See WT:ELE for more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you're copying this inflection lots of times in Module:la-verb. Is one not enough? —CodeCat 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Prōsum takes a '-d-’ before what would otherwise be initial ‘e-’ in forms of ‘sum’ (e.g. prōdesse), and as the link I provided in the edit explanation shows, it turns out that the only ‘sum’ derivatives that have present active participles are ‘absum’ and ‘praesum’. If there's a way to work that into the conjugation of ‘sum’, please do so. Esszet (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

There probably is some way to handle it. Right now, everything is just being copied and duplicated, which probably isn't the best way to solve it, I hope you can agree with me on that. —CodeCat 22:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do, but we should just leave it until someone who knows how to condense it comes along and does so. Esszet (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think in the long run it might be better to use the autoinflect function from Module:pl-adj and provide declension patterns for all nouns with adjectival declension that would also cover radny, księgowy, podczaszy, radna, położna, etc. --Tweenk (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

As long as you can get it to override the -a for feminine nouns in the vocative singular and replace it with an -o (it's teściowo, radno, położno, etc.), that would probably be a good idea. I don't know how to do it, but I can try to figure it out if you don't know how or you can't find someone who does. Esszet (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done, I simply added the -o declensions to Module:pl-adj as the 15th table item. I also created the relevant templates, {{pl-decl-noun-masc-pers-adj}} and {{pl-decl-noun-f-adj}}. There could conceivably be a neuter template as well, but as far as I can tell such words are very rare - I can think only of names of taxes such as bykowe, pogłowne, etc. --Tweenk (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thank you, I'll get rid of the -owa pattern from the module, replace the relevant template with {{pl-decl-noun-f-adj}} where it's used, and nominate the -owa template for deletion. By the way, how does the override function you added work? It would be useful not only for words like teść and król, but for words with minor inflectional irregularities as well (ṡwiat/światu, dobro/dobru (in the locative singular), koń/końmi, chłopiec/chłopcze, bóg/boże, etc.). Esszet (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see you've already replaced {{pl-decl-noun-owa}} with {{pl-decl-noun-f-adj}} where it was used, thank you. Esszet (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I didn't see what you'd written on the Category:Polish noun inflection-table templates page. Esszet (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The -o singular genitive ending wasn't entirely correct, most adjective-like inflected femenine nouns seem to follow the general pattern "vocs = noms": 110 lexemes vs 547 according to the morphological dictionary SGJP. Apart from that, feminine surnames tend to fall into the last group (Kowalska, [1]). See also [2] (from 127 to 129), [3]. I've made some changes in the module and updated its transclusions where needed: Special:Diff/38847031, Special:Diff/38847195, Special:Diff/38847043... Regards, Peter Bowman (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do this, otherwise the link doesn’t work correctly. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a big deal; most of them don't have pages anyway. Esszet (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would also recommend to do this, since I think the task of adding inflected forms could be semi-automated through a bot. This kind of error would make this automation more difficult. --Tweenk (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the need for a page for every single inflected form of every word (its presence in the declension table should be enough), but I'll do it. It's not a big deal to do it, either. Esszet (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note, as of now, it's no longer necessary to manually add [[ ]] around alternative declensions - the module automatically splits the link at "/". --Tweenk (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI - I added the override copying feature that was required to obsolete {{pl-decl-noun-nin}}. See Amerykanin. --Tweenk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thank you. I noticed that some of these automatic overrides are actually wrong (e.g. the vocative singular of pan is panie, not panu), so I added to the Category page a note about it. After a rather annoying edit process, {{pl-decl-noun-f-softcons}} now appears to be completely obsolete; I added two additional parameters, |noms_softcons= and |nomp_end= to the f pattern so that if the nominative plural ending automatically generated for a feminine noun that ends in a consonant is wrong, you can either:

a) if the stem doesn't change, just use those two parameters to specify the nominative singular form and the correct ending for the nominative plural

b) if it does, use the first two parameters along with, as necessary, |noms_softcons= and |nomp_end= to specify the correct form of the stem, and if necessary, the nominative singular form or the nominative plural ending (note that for words that just end in ‘i’ in the nominative singular, |nomp_end= has to be set to ‘-’ if you aren't using |noms_softcons= as well)

It appears that {{pl-decl-noun-n}} still defaults to -o endings when the first two parameters are specified, but would you ever need to specify them as well as the genitive plural form? If not, isn't {{pl-decl-noun-n}} obsolete as well? Esszet (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

By the way, feminine nouns that end in -w currently don't decline correctly with {{pl-decl-noun-f}} (try using it on brew for an example); can you fix that? Esszet (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops, just realized that |nomp_end= isn't necessary as often as I thought it was…I fixed it, but oh boy… Esszet (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't expect the problem with pan, but I guess it is an exception. Let me know if it turns out that overriding locp is never useful and the only result is the extra parameter required in pan. Can't |noms= be used instead of |noms_softcons=? --Tweenk (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it could be, but since you're not specifying an inflectionally odd form of the word, it would feel weird to use one of the override parameters instead of a numbered parameter from within the pattern itself. Esszet (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking along the lines of

• If the pl-decl-noun-f template has 2 parameters, it specifies a word ending in 'a'
• If it has three, it specifies a word ending in a consonant
• genp / nomp overrides that were previously positional parameters are removed and left to be specified with named overrides.

A major advantage of using the named parameters |genp= and |nomp= instead of a positional parameter is that they are self-documenting.

Another idea is to take the noms form required for f-softcons from the |lemma= parameter (defaults to page name). --Tweenk (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW, it looks like nouns ending in -ka now have incorrect plural declensions. I'll need to undo some of your edits to the module to fix them. In the future, check the page unit tests page, i.e. Module:pl-noun/testcases, after doing nontrivial edits. --Tweenk (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I will. I don't know what you mean about the named parameters' being self-documenting, and I still think it would feel weird to use the manual overrides to do anything but specify an inflectionally odd form of the word (światu, końmi, etc.). Would it be possible to make one of the named parameters a positional parameter in certain patterns? If you can do that, the best thing to do would be:

|1=: as is

|2=: as is

|3=: |genp=

|4=: |noms= (although perhaps include a ‘-’ setting so that you wouldn't have to type out words like miłość, baśń, etc.)

|5=: nominative plural ending (to be added to paras 1 and 2, obviously)

Esszet (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Self-documenting means that you don't need to look at the template documentation page to figure out what the |noms= in {{pl-decl-noun-f|so|l|e|noms=sól}} does, it's obvious just from the parameter name.

So far I think the following set of parameters for {{pl-decl-noun-f}} would be the best:

|1=: stem

|2=: last consonant cluster

|3=: nominative plural ending. If not given, the word ends in is -a; if given, the word ends in a consonant.

|genp=, |noms= - named parameters.

Use examples:

{{pl-decl-noun-f|twa|rz|e}}

{{pl-decl-noun-f|hodow|l|genp=hodowli}}

{{pl-decl-noun-f|uprzę|ż|e|noms=uprząż}}

One other idea: if an override starts with a hyphen, it gives only the ending, e.g. {{pl-decl-noun-f|hodow|l|genp=-li}}. (Though this particular case may be handled automatically by adding -wl, -bl, etc. as stems.) --Tweenk (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see what you mean. I think that for the relatively small number of people who actually use Polish noun declension templates on Wiktionary, positional parameters are not too much to learn; we've been doing it that way for years, and it never seemed to be much of a problem.

Also, if you combine a positional nominative singular parameter with a nominative plural ending parameter, you can write the code so that if the former is present but the latter is not, the nominative plural is the same as the genitive singular; otherwise you'd have to create a set of conditions for |3=- for words like miłość, brew, etc.; learning to use that may actually be slightly more annoying than having to learn what two or three positional parameters specify. Esszet (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see that you asked for some cleanup on Module:la-noun/data, which I will gladly provide, but I wanted to make sure that you were done editing it so I don't create an edit conflict. Could you tell me when you are done? Also, thanks for all your help thus far! —JohnC5 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, and yes, I'm done for now. I added the ‘loc’ statements in the belief that the module either currently supports or could easily be made to support the addition of a locative row for any of the patterns in the module by invoking it with a |loc= parameter or something like that, so you may want to add support for that if the module doesn't support it already. Also, if we're going to incorporate into this module the automatic pattern detection from Module:la-utilities, we need to come up with a system for identifying the correct pattern for third declension nouns, which are obviously much harder to sort into the correct categories. Esszet (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, noticed a small mistake. Now I'm really done. Esszet (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll get to this soon. —JohnC5 06:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you planning on migrating the 1st and 2nd declensions to the module as well? I was working on a project to add Latin place-names but took a break because not all the needed declensional paradigms were supported; I'd be excited if this were to happen. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I actually just finished migrating the second declension templates. I can't migrate {{la-decl-1st}} at the moment because it's locked, so I'll wait to migrate the 1st declension templates until it's either unlocked or someone else migrates it. By the way, do you know how to add in named form parameters unlinked "—" characters to the declension table? I've been trying to do so on pelagus, but I've had to add a linked "—" instead. Esszet (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's unlocked now. I don't know how to solve that; perhaps Kc kennylau would know? Also, have you done the Greek variations of the 1st and 2nd declensions? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: It's all done now. I suppose the next thing to do is clean up the assortment of Latin noun declension templates we have; all the locative templates as well as the one plural template are now obsolete, and even most of the templates for irregular nouns can probably be deleted; individual forms can be overridden with named parameters like |nom_sg=, |dat_pl=, etc. Esszet (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet: Could parameters like |acc_sg2= and |gen_pl3= also be instituted, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

They could be, but a) I don't see why more than one alternate per form would generally be needed, and b) even when only one alternate form exists, just do [[form1]]<br>[[form2]]. The module could probably even be edited so that it automatically puts brackets around form1 and form2 in that case an any further alternate forms that may exist in other cases…Tweenk did something similar with slashes in Module:pl-noun. Esszet (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: It should currently be the case that gen_sg=foo/bar/baz should return the correct result. —JohnC5 19:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet, JohnC5: Slashes it is. Thank you both. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, Metaknowledge: What do you guys think of my proposal to get rid of unnecessary declension table templates? As I said before, all of the locative templates as well as the one plural template are now obsolete, and templates for irregular nouns can just be replaced with normal templates with overrides. Esszet (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet: Sounds great. I'm in the middle of overhauling the logic in module:la-noun/data; so please bear with me for a bit! —JohnC5 01:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't wait, Esszet. Sounds exciting. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet: Yes, I too think it's a good idea. That's just one more reason for me to learn Lua! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The templates should be ready for full conversion of all un-Luacized to Luacized templates and of all -loc to |loc=yes templates (we may require Kenny's bot for the latter).

Another question remains in that the un-Luacized {{la-decl-2nd}} used to contain a parameter |um= which would include the not-uncommon, contracted/poetic genitive plural -um with the normal -ōrum. Do we want to include with parameter in all the 2nd declension types, some of them, none of them, or do we want to generate this form normally with a footnote for all, some, or none of them? —JohnC5 14:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

By no means should they all have it. I think it should be something that must be activated with a parameter and I'd prefer if it generated an appropriate footnote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Then it's off to the Tea Room. Esszet (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've added the |um= so that is will add that genitive plural to the second declension templates. I've also change the logic so that |um= and |loc= do not have to say exactly "yes" but instead any non-empty string (e.g. |loc=by Odin's raven!) will work. Feel free to begin migrating things. —JohnC5 00:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5, Metaknowledge, Esszet: I believe we should call that parameter |genplum=. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Doesn't matter to me, so long as we have good documentation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Yes, much needed by those of us (I now include myself) who don't understand the code underlying everything! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Esszet. I support your general efforts to migrate the Latin nominal declension tables to Lua; however, please note the difference between {{la-decl-2nd-ius}}'s pre-migration and post-migration appearances. Can you restore the superscript red one, the comma, and the (shorter) footnote text through Lua, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was like that when I last edited it, but apparently the superscript red ones cause linking errors, so JohnC5 got rid of them and edited the footnotes accordingly. I'm not all that good at Lua, so I wouldn't be able to restore them without causing linking errors…@Kc_kennylau? As for the comma, commas appear to have been eliminated from Latin noun declension tables; see {{la-decl-3rd-I-ignis}} and {{la-decl-2nd-Greek}} for examples. Esszet (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. Noted in both cases. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, JohnC5 restored the superscript ones and I just made them red, so that's not an issue anymore. Esszet (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lovely. You're both great (@JohnC5). :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no j after vʲ in words such as "naukowiec". I think all most of the rules for j after consonants softened by following i which you are added are wrong. See [4].

In pronunciations such as [nawkɔvʲjet͡s], the j would sound like in pies, or as if the word was written "naukowjec", which obviously does not happen in most words. Explicit j sound is a rare exception. --Tweenk (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that says: ‘At least it looks that way in theory, because in practice, in the pronunciation of many (if not most) people, one can hear a faintly articulated j phone between a softened consonant and a vowel’. Esszet (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tweenk Did you see this? Esszet (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK now I did. I think that passage, which I missed, doesn't change the overall assessment: in standard pronunciation, there is no extra explicit 'j', but it may appear in colloquial pronunciation. --Tweenk (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright, then in that case, I'll just leave it the way it is. Esszet (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to let you know I tweaked Template:es-personal pronouns. Information about sí as a reflexive disjunctive (e.g., "...para sí...") still needs to be added somehow. I was going to add subcolumns for the reflexive titled "accusative" and "disjunctive" but thought it made the table look too complicated.

Cheers. Bruto (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be best to put se (and sí) back in their own row in the ‘Third Person’ section. All of the other options seem to be either too complicated or incomplete. Esszet (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Esszet (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Howdy, could you possibly fix this so it doesn't display an error on the template page? :) —JohnC5 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I tried to, but I couldn't figure out how. I asked Tweenk to, but apparently, he hasn't had a chance to do it yet. Esszet (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's fine! Just making sure someone was looking into it. —JohnC5 16:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re:Module:pl-headword

Hi. I'm sorry to say I'm not familiar with these terms at all (neither in Polish). Certain lexemes may result in more than a pair of perfective-imperfective verbs: the third entity is called the frequentative imperfective form of a verb, and represents a repeated action or habit (according to this document). It seems to me that such classification is comprehensive enough and uses terms most people actually use and understand; anyway, a quick search reveals that those additional aspect parameters are only found in "pogrzebać", where the main difference could be drawn from the role of the prefix "po-". Some dictionaries may place both definitions together under the same "roof". Peter Bowman (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it’s barely used on here (and there aren’t a lot of verbs like that anyway), I only came across the concept when I looked at the entries for nieść and nosić. I don’t think “frequentative” is always accurate; “abstract” verbs can also be iterative, such as chodzić. Polish Wikipedia groups them both together under wielokrotny, so “abstract” and “concrete” are probably the terms we should use here. Esszet (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Esszet, as far as I'm aware, there is no guideline stating that "From" should be removed from before derivational templates. Unless you can cite otherwise, please do not do so. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

a) It's not just me (see passer, for example) b) the (apparently unofficial) [page on etymology] doesn't say anything about whether "From" should be included for compound words and words formed by affixation c) Wiktionary policies can develop as the result of established practice, so etymology sections for compound words (as well as words formed by affixation) both with and without "From" are acceptable (at least for the time being). Esszet (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply