Caladon

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Words to create

I have the following several Latin words in my task list, collected from etymologies of English word:

• situo, situare - see situate // added, a strange case of its participle appearing before the verb itself, but the verb is attested
• obitus - see obituary // added, not sure about obituarius and obituarium, adjective said to mean of or pertaining to death, and the OED says there is a noun, a substantive of this, presumably masculine, but I can't find citations for this; there does appear to be a neuter substantive
• rumino, ruminare - see ruminate // added, not sure if this would have a passive, one would need to check citations, to see if the passive forms were from ruminor or rumino
• punctuo, punctuare - see punctuate // macrons are uncertain for this, see (deprecated template usage) pungo's supine; sources make -unct- long and short; however we seem to show (deprecated template usage) fūnctus as long, so why not (deprecated template usage) pūnctus?
• spicere, spiceo? - see suspect // there is an alternative form for (deprecated template usage) speciō, but I don't know if this is worth adding?
• effor - in ineffable // added, both effor (which is defective in Classical Latin) and effabilis; effabilis is attested too late to be an etymon of ineffable
• defungor (defungi) - see defuct; maybe from fungor // added

This is of course not so useful as SemperBlotto's list. I would be glad to see them created by someone who actually knows Latin, which I am not. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this will be useful to me, and I will see what I can do. It might be useful if a list of all red terms or blue terms with no Latin section was composed from English etymologies (or any other language), since it is quite valuable for these to be created to improve the English entries as well. The current page for requested entries (Latin) is so long that it is off-putting and some of the words are difficult to attest. Caladon 16:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! --Dan Polansky 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One another word is "sollus" seen in "solemn". --Dan Polansky 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This one is of dubious attestability, and I'm not sure if I should attempt to add it. It seems to only appear in Lucilius and glossaries, unless there is some evidence otherwise? Caladon 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

By randomly cliking around Category:Latin derivations, I have found the following missing terms:

• minatorius in minatory // done
• magistralis in mistral // done
• myrrha in myrrh // done
• morsellum in morsel // done
• morosus in morose // done
• mixtio in mixtion // done
• naphtha in naphtha // done
• cenit in zenith // added to requested list, but it does seem to exist (?)

More can be found by random clicking, but I admit that having an automatic way of generating a list would be better. --Dan Polansky 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely there must be someone with the knowledge to do this? Caladon 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have extracted a list of terms that are used in English entries, are currently redlinked, and are entered as Latin ones by being marked using "term|...|lang=la". These are around 2000 items. Tell me where I should place the list; possibly a subpage of your user page, like User:Caladon/Latin worklist? I can also post the list directly here to your talk page, if you wish. --Dan Polansky 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want one word per bullet? Or do you want a comma-separated list? Should the terms be hyperlinked so they appear redlinked? --Dan Polansky 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Caladon/Latin worklist is a fine place to put them. I would prefer a comma-separated list, with hyperlinks. Thank you for extracting it. Caladon 18:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Created. You're welcome. --Dan Polansky 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Orac. Pyth. ap. Pausan. Arcad. c. 42.

Hi Caladon. Please see the discussion at User talk:Atelaes#Ἀρκάδες Ἀζᾶνες βαλανηφάγοι, οἳ Φιγάλειαν Νάσσασθ᾽, &c. — Orac. Pyth. ap. Pausan. Arcad. c. 42. for context to this request. I expand the Latin citation given as the title of this section to "Orac[ulum] Pyth[iæ] ap[ud] Pausan[ian] Arcad[ian] c[aput] 42."; however, I'm not at all certain that I'm correct with my case endings, least of all in the cases of "Pausan[ian]" and "Arcad[ian]". Could you review and correct my expansion for me please? Thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot say more than the fact that, to me, the case endings look correct, including Pausanian, apart from Arcadian, which I don't really understand what you are making it as here; if it is the name of some book, dictionaries say that apud to mean in the writings of should take the accusative and in +abl. for the specific book, unless you are making it some adjective here, but I don't see what that would mean. Caladon 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the last two comments in the discussion I linked to (flyax's timestamped 15:43, 11 February 2011 and mine timestamped 19:59, 11 February 2011), that should explain what it's meant to mean. I translate that Latin (correctly or incorrectly) to "Oracle of Pythia in the writings of Pausanias in Arcadia chapter 42."; I wrote "Arcad[ian]", taking it to agree in case with "Pausan[ian]" (I was uncertain about how apud works). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at citations on googlebooks, I can only find apud + author in accusative + book with 'in'. The only other example, which might be relevant, is that in abbreviations, the 'in' is omitted, but both the author and the book are abbreviated, e.g. apud Hom. Il. etc., which would complement caput in the nominative for your case. Caladon 19:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. So do you think that an in or a de has been omitted as assumed between "Arcad." and "Pausan."? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From looking at citations, since I have not seen any other formatting for this use of apud after searching, I would say yes; I don't know if, for your purposes, you can just leave the author and book abbreviated, or whether you want to input an 'in' or 'de' yourself. Caladon 09:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to bracket in the full forms, if possible. So should the full expansion be "Orac[ulum] Pyth[iæ] ap[ud] Pausan[ian de] Arcad[iâ] c[apite] 42."? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want it to be appositional, then yes that would work for both Arcadia and capite. Caladon 10:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that as meaning "Oracle of Pythia in the writings of Pausanias on Arcadia in chapter 42." — does it therefore need to be expanded to "Orac[ulum] Pyth[iæ] ap[ud] Pausan[ian de] Arcad[iâ in] c[apite] 42."? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That was what I thought would make most sense. Caladon 10:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Great; I'll go with that, then. Thanks for your help. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

dilucesco

Is the conjugation OK? Or is it an impersonal verb? SemperBlotto 11:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The conjugation looks okay, even though I can't really find any other forms, I would probably just leave it. L&S says 'Pers' and the OLD does not list it as specifically impersonal, but it is used impersonally. Caladon 12:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I won't botify it, just manually add the forms that I come across. SemperBlotto 12:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

supervacāneus

That was quick! Sorry for the errors in my request. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and hopefully I did not make any errors as well for making it so quickly. The etymology is disputed and that is why I went for the 'or' option, and a number of Latin suffixes still need to be made, so hopefully -aneus is right here rather than -eus. None of the descendants have been made yet as well! There are still many terms on WT:RE:la that need to be made, but some of them I have no idea about (e.g. (deprecated template usage) aemidus, which I can only find in glossaries), so I just gave up. Caladon 13:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're there if ever you run out of things to do! TBH, I requested the Latin etymon to put ofF creating supervacaneous, which I've just now made. :-) Thanks, again. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ô & Ō Caladon

I use Ô for sound [ɔ], but O macron means [:o] long O, the ending verb is [ɔ] like Ancient Greek verb using -ιζω [izɔ] / -ω [ɔ] and not [o] (who is used for noun)... The sign Ô + Ō for long [:ɔ] don't exist in Unicode Charts (the only thing that looks like his Ṑ Ṓ, zoom page to see macro + accent). Gmazdên 14:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you are trying to say, but please see the respective Latin entries, which contain macrons in the positions where you are placing circumflexes; see Wiktionary:ALA#Orthography_for_Latin_entries and the respective Wikipedia page on spelling and pronunciation Latin spelling and pronunciation. Caladon 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for you link, all right I will read suggestion. In Old Latin V is [w/u] [v] is in classical, I is [j & i], G is [g & ʒ], O is [o & ɔ], E [e & ɛ], C is [g & q] and CH is [qʰ] and not [kʰ] and Q is [q] and not [k]... [1]. Gmazdên 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Latin gerundives

An anon has noticed (on our Feedback system) that we often omit gerundives. This is because I'm never very confident in an English translation. Most of the ones we have use the format "which is to be <participle>". Do you think that this is OK? Or should I use something like "fit to be <participle>" or "ought to be <participle>"? SemperBlotto 11:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just go for which is to be <participle> because that is the simplest definition. I always base my entries on the ones EP originally made (amandus for gerundive and amandum for gerund). Caladon 22:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Latin comparatives and superlatives

Just a heads-up. We have used the "infl form" template to create headwords for these. This is being deleted. Please see plenior and famosissimus as examples of what we now need to code. SemperBlotto 09:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It is a shame that macrons cannot be shown for the headword on the inflection line. I don't see why we haven't just made a specific template for this. Caladon 09:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, see plenior and famosissimus for the use of our own, simpler templates. SemperBlotto 12:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

hicine

L&S agrees that this word exists, but can't be bothered to tell me what it means. Any ideas? (related to (deprecated template usage) hic) SemperBlotto 15:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what it is but looking around [2], [3], and [4] all suggest it is some emphatic form of the interrogative with -ne added to hic, but I don't know if it this deserves an entry? Caladon 16:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

malleo?

Is this also the verb "to hammer"? (not in L&S) SemperBlotto 12:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, malleo, malleare apparently means to hammer or to beat, which [5] and [6] support; here is evidence for perfect as malleavi [7], and since it is transitive, it just seems like an ordinary verb. Caladon 12:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

probatissimi, probatissimum

These two words, forms of probatissimus, are in the Vulgate. But probo is not an adjective. Could they be forms of the present participle treated as an adjective? (If so, how would you translate it?) SemperBlotto 08:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Superlative of (deprecated template usage) probātus (there is a comparative also), shown in the citations listed under probatus as part of probō's dictionary entry in L&S and also in the OLD. If you were to translate it, it's just like a normal superlative of the definitions already added at probātus Caladon 10:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK - and what do we call the comparative and superlative of a participle? An adjective or a participle? SemperBlotto 10:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For acceptissimus and abruptissimus you have called them adjectives in the past, so I would just keep them as adjectives (since I do not know which one is more correct); if they need to be changed, it would not be very hard in the future. Caladon 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

odiens (and several similar)

According to the inflection table of ōdeō this present participle should have a genitive of ōdeuntis, but we have odientis instead. Is there something fundamentally wrong here? (maybe because it is shered with the verb odiō) (also, initial macrons are confusing in this particular case) SemperBlotto 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sections at ōdiō and ōdeō should be deleted, we already have ōdī and it is defective, so I do not know why we have all of those forms on ōdiō and ōdeō. As you said there should be macrons on the initial 'o', but not for the noun odium. The genitive of the present participle should be (deprecated template usage) odientis, I can't find (deprecated template usage) odeuntis, which is usually only for eo compounds. If one wants to add all of these alternative forms, then they should be added as a note to the inflection at ōdī or actually added to the table, because ōdeō is not found in dictionaries and no one would ever look up ōdiō; preferably, only the attested forms should be added. Caladon 11:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Botanical Latin

Please see (and contribute to) the discussion in the Etymology Scriptorium "What language is 'smithii'?". You might also like to view the history of (deprecated template usage) darwinii - this has changed from Translingual adjective, through Latin adjective, to Latin noun. (I'm in favour of the first, but please make up your own mind, and let us know). SemperBlotto 08:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, it appears a consensus has already been reached, but I would have probably have gone for Translingual based upon the arguments set forth, but I do not think I have much to add; if they are unattested in actual Latin text, I would struggle to see what the justification would be to use the Latin header, regardless of whether they follow Latin rules of grammar or not. Caladon 11:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorized Latin entries

I've categorized some of these using infl, to get the full list including the ones I've removed, use this link. Thanks, --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Latin verb alterō?

In my current Latin text (the Novum Organum) I have found :- alterandi alterantur alterari alteratur alterent and alterentur. It looks like it ought to men "to alter". It's not in L&S. SemperBlotto 11:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would go for "to change, alter" as the meaning and it obviously does exist. Caladon 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

novity < novitas

Hi Caladon. The OED [3ʳᵈ ed., December 2003] has "... < classical Latin novītāt-, novītās newness ...". Are you sure that the vowel lengths are (deprecated template usage) novitās and not (deprecated template usage) novītās? Perhaps new information has come to light in the past decade or so. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am only going by what the Latin dictionaries say (and I can't find the version with a macron). Going by the etymology, it would make more sense for it to be -itās, rather than -ītās, plus also L&S indicates a breve on that 'i'; therefore, I do not understand why the OED have shown it as having a macron or what new information they might have unless I am missing something. Caladon 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Maybe the OED made a mistake. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the OLD (Oxford Latin Dictionary) has novitās. --EncycloPetey 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info., EP. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

successere

Hi Caladon. What verb form of what verb lemma is successere? My thinking was that it is a present active indicative form of succēdō; however, that entry gives (as give other dictionaries I've consulted) succēdere as the pres. act. ind. form of that verb. Is (deprecated template usage) successere a variant pres. act. ind. form of (deprecated template usage) succēdō, or does it belong to another verb? For context, I have “Successere magis alii Homines quam alii Mores!”, “In Genealogia Christi interdum filii vocantur affines vel fratres quia scilicet in regno successere omittuntur quidem ex majoribus quia vel non adeo inclaruerant in regno, vel macula affecti erant, et filius in Catalogo appelletur qui nepos erat vel ab nepos.”, and these 7,230 raw b.g.c. hits. Any light you can shed on this, as well as the meaning generally of the example sentences, would be greatly appreciated. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

<butting in> My source gives it as a synonym for (deprecated template usage) successērunt. </butting in> SemperBlotto 08:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SB. So, does that line from Tacitus translate to “They have more closely followed other men than other rules!”? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like this discussion has already been resolved by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs); here is a source for it being an alt. form of (deprecated template usage) successērunt [8]. Caladon 21:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've created an entry for successere; is the information provided correct, or is the translation erroneous and/or have I missed any macra in the headword? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 07:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See note under the table at [9] which places a macron on the last 'e'. Translation-wise, if it is quoting Tacitus, using pre-existing translations, see 95 under [10] towards the end, bearing in mind the bit of Latin beforehand; this may also be interesting [11]. Caladon 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you meant that the macron was on the pænultimate 'e', I've corrected the vowel lengths accordingly. That translation ("they were succeeded by…other men rather than other characters") would seem to be best representative of an original Latin extract of the form "successi sunt a…magis aliis hominibus quam aliis moribus"; I don't think that translation is an appropriate one for that very short extract in isolation. That discussion of the sense(s) of mōs/mōrēs is interesting, but it leaves me unsure as to how to translate the final word in that Tacitan snippet; how do you suggest that I translate it? The original (otherwise English) context for that quotation is:

“And can there be a properer Æra for the Revival of Genius and Public Spirit than that of the Ad———n of the Great Man who has been recommended by the One to his diſtreſſed and aged K—g, (ſo familiarly ventures to ſpeak the Patheticiſm of Loyalty) and endeared to his exulting Fellow-Subjec‍ts by the Other; and to whom, ſhould we be unhappily and unexpec‍tedly diſappointed, we have a Right to complain, in the Words of Tacitus, that ‘Succeſſere magis alii Homines quam alii Mores!’”

Does that shed any more light upon how one ought to translate, in that context, those seven short words of Tacitus? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not really make much sense; therefore, looking for other translation of the original Tacitus, hopefully these are more helpful and appropriate (?): "a change of individuals rather than of outlook," "different men rather than a different morality," "a change of men but not of manners," bearing in mind that [12] suggests 'morals' or 'morality'. Caladon 16:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to decide on this, so I've taken out the translation. If you can think of what best fits, then please, by all means, add your chosen translation to the entry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Added one. Other dictionaries list the verb as mainly intransitive with dative of the person or thing succeeded. In order to retain the plural aspect, I chose not to go for 'a change of', even though that sounds better to me. No idea if it fits the context, as I didn't understand the original context of the said text, but this translation is supposed to fit the Tacitus. Caladon 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

adnuo

I have a had bad feeling that the andu- stem you've inputted into the template is a type for adnu-, for example we have andui instead of adnui. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that it was not originally my error, it was just carried forward when I made it the main entry and bot forms have been automatically created independently. They all need to be moved unfortunately. Caladon 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

gaster

Hi there. Can you fix the inflection please. I've run out of ideas (I think the headword is correct). SemperBlotto 10:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've converted the templates and changed the gender to feminine. I'm not sure about the layout (using two 'noun' headers) or if it should just be listed as an alternative genitive, but I consulted googlebooks as well and [13] seems to suggest both an alt. gen form and that it can be 'declined' like ager or tuber, which suggests more than just an alt. form. Caladon 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good grief! I was trying to fit adjective templates into a noun. I shall go and have a lie down. SemperBlotto 11:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

cephalote

Hi there again. Any idea how to inflect this adjective? (see Lewis & Short) SemperBlotto 12:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it just has only the feminine inflections of {{la-decl-1st-Greek}}, similar to ruricola [14]. perhaps requiring a new template. Caladon 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

tarsus

Is this really Latin? It's not in Lewis & Short, but could it be New Latin derived from the Greek? SemperBlotto 11:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from what I find it is New Latin or Modern Latin, presumably tarsus, -i. The meaning is probably sim. to A.G. meaning of the "flat" or "sole of the foot," in its most basic definition, but also [15] probably. It looks attestible if you search for "tarsorum", etc. in googlebooks as it comes up with a few relevant hits. Caladon 15:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

dichotomos

Sorry to trouble you again. Another adjective that I haven't got a clue how to decline. (presumably Greek) SemperBlotto 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It follows a Greek pattern, and I don't think we have a template for it. The nominative singular endings should be "-os, -a, -on" or else "-os, -e, -on", depending on the Greek source word. Lewis & Short confirm the "-on" for the neuter, but don't give a feminine. If Caladon doesn't have something at hand, I might, but this is a weird pattern and I may have to dig for something. --EncycloPetey 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Then this seems to have been solved now (I initially thought that L&S didn't list a feminine because both LSJ and our entry at διχότομος suggest the Greek word declines like ἄδικος; never seen transferred into Latin though.) Caladon 15:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It might not have had a distinct feminine form in Classical Latin, but it certainly has one in scientific Latin. The alga Dictyota dichotoma is pretty well known. --EncycloPetey 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I presume then that the reason L&S chose to show that it follows the Greek pattern was because the use of the word in the Somnium Scipionis by Macrobius follows your first comment, "it might not have had a distinct feminine form in Classical Latin," (although I'm still not sure what year has been decided for the Classical Latin period in respect to the other periods). Caladon 18:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Latin verb "to atrophy"

Hi there. I found (deprecated template usage) atrophicans in a (English) medical context. I have added the Latin terms (deprecated template usage) atrophus and (deprecated template usage) atrophia, but is there a corresponding verb? SemperBlotto 11:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't find any verb that corresponds to either (deprecated template usage) atrophicans or similar. This unrelated source [16] suggests using aboleō for 'to atrophy'. (deprecated template usage) atrophicans can just take the usual 3rd declension adjective template then if nothing comes up. Caladon 12:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

adnatus

According to Lewis & Short this is a past participle of (deprecated template usage) agnascor. Well, assuming they mean the variant (deprecated template usage) adgnascor, wouldn't the past participle be (deprecated template usage) adgnatus? To me, it looks like a past participle of (deprecated template usage) adno. SemperBlotto 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Structurally, it does look like a participle of adno, but it's the precursor of English adnate, which has nothing to do with swimming. I'd not be surprised to find evidence out there for a shift from adgn- (which is awkward in Latin) to adn- in the former verb and participle. --EncycloPetey 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

melas -> melanos

Hi there. Which templates would you use for this noun. From L&C it looks like it is from the Greek. SemperBlotto 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting the L&S entry correctly, this is a hapax legomenon. As such, it probably shouldn't use a template or inflection table. We'd need to look in Aurelius Cornelius Celsus 5, 28, 18 to see which specific form is attested. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is used as a taxonomic epithet - so maybe it has been twisted to become sort sort of adjective. SemperBlotto 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly; some taxonomic epithets are nouns. If you can provide a few names using the epithet, I might be able to determine more. --EncycloPetey 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Catalogue of Life has 152 species using "melas", but only 4 using "melanos". I have added a simple adjective entry with no inflection. That will do for now. SemperBlotto 22:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

cȳma

Hi Caladon. How would you re-present the headword line(s) and declension tables of our Latin entry for cȳma? Lewis & Short state that it can be declined both as a third-declension noun and as a first-declension noun. Is there a good way to show the necessary information without the present mess? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For a long time I was sure that I had seen an entry where the inflection tables were made so they could be put side by side, but I have forgotten the Latin entry in question. For the inflection line, there is a tidier way to format it but I have been off editing for a while so I have forgotten (although if anyone has my talk page on their watch-list, perhaps they might know). This type of problem seems to be perpetually annoying and unsolvable. Some Latin entries just include a note in the inflection of the alternative forms, some entries use two noun sections, and then others use the one you find on cȳma. If I find out then I'll re-update this message. Caladon (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Solutions! I've created {{la-noun-multidecl}} and {{la-decl-3rdN&1st}} and used them in cȳma; I think that looks a lot better. {{la-noun-multidecl}} can be used for any noun in two declensions whose by-forms have identical lemmata; I figured that it's impossible for a noun to belong to three declensions whose by-forms all have identical lemmata, but if you can think of an example (even just a hypothetical one), let me know, and I'll reëdit the template to handle such a triple. {{la-decl-3rdN&1st}} only works for that specific combination of declensions, but it'd be pretty easy to make templates for other combinations, now that we have that one for a metatemplate. Hopefully, I didn't reinvent the wheel when I made those! — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 06:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Were you perchance thinking of the entry for cucumis (“cucumber”)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it was a different word, but that appears to be the formatting that I had in mind. It's much better now; thank you for being the one to fix this issue, one of many other unresolved issues which still need to be fixed. Caladon (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. I've made a prominent note of {{la-noun-multidecl}} in the documentation of {{la-noun}} (actually, the note constitutes the entirety of that template's official documentation); hopefully, that will encourage its use in all such circumstances. Come to think of it, I'm going to mention it in Wiktionary:News for editors, which should help to disseminate it. The combined declension tables leave a lot to be desired; ideally, we'd have a template that could call other tables with its first couple of parameters, but my templatewrighting skills are nowhere near advanced enough for that. Still, {{la-decl-3rdN&1st}} is better than nothing. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

De-sysop proposal.

It has been proposed that you be de-syssoped for inactivity. Please comment at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-05/User:Caladon for de-sysop if you have any response to this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

actualité

Hello,

Is topic a synonym for topicality, or at least, a good translation for the French word actualité? I know that topical means d'actualité, but I'm unsure for topic. Thank you by advance, — Automatik (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Automatik Bearing in mind that I made that entry nearly 8 years ago now, I don't think topic is a good synonym for topicality here; I may have got it from fr.wiktionary.org at the time. Also topicality isn't a particularly useful word to use within the definition, since I don't think it is common nor particularly transparent in meaning in English. I think I only put it there as a means to explain the phrase d'actualité since topicality can mean a 'subject or matter of current interest', and it seemed to fit at the time. Caladon (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)