Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Per utramque cavernam



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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Equinox 19:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. @Metaknowledge: I think I've just had the best idea ever: I'm going to create heaps of new socks, until you grow so tired of it that you'll nominate me for adminship just so I can give them the autopatroller status myself :3 --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If you aren't careful, I'll block them on sight. That's what you deserve for making me Google that line by Ausonius. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Haha is this WF? I was proper fooled, so I was. (I also looked up the dirty Latin line.) Equinox 02:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't whitelist WF. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
WF? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Wonderfool. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Who is this a sock of? User:Barytonesis? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Other than "I don't whitelist WF" this discussion suggested User:Per utramque cavernam could be WF so I mistakenly added it to User:AryamanA/Wonderfool, but "I don't whitelist WF" means this can't be WF and User:suzukaze-c graciously fixed the error.
If this is User:Barytonesis it would be nice if you declare your new socks at User:Barytonesis/Socks and User:Per_utramque_cavernam per User_talk:Barytonesis#Socks since it is especially difficult for "casual editors to recognise your identity" and so that the respectable User:Barytonesis is not misidentified as someone else. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch:   Done --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch: Thanks for making this clear... —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 21:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I find this "sockage" (socage!) quite confusing and annoying and don't entirely see why it's necessary. But user is good, A++, would co-edit again. Equinox 23:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I also find it very annoying. --Victar (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It appears that you are now the top Google and Bing results for the phrase you used as your username. —suzukaze (tc) 00:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Man, I've always wanted to be famous! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*infamous —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back, Puck (if you don't mind the nickname). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thanks, and no I don't (+1 word to my vocab) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: French etymsEdit

Hi, I understood that, but the spellings of the two words intelligence and intelligentia are quite different. So I don't see how this can be a case of borrowing. Are you sure of your claim? what are your sources? Drow (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drow: TLFi, but just because the spellings (it's more than the spellings, mind you) aren't exactly the same doesn't mean it's not a borrowing. Words are adapted to the language into which they are borrowed all the time. kidnapper has taken the usual French ending for verbs, and thus doesn't look exactly like the English kidnap, but that doesn't mean it's not a borrowing.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't know this you have no business fiddling with etymology sections. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. Drow (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Drow: No worries. I hope I haven't deterred you from contributing altogether! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No no, there's no problem :) Drow (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:French exocentric compoundsEdit

"whose none"? DTLHS (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: sorry, I read the description of Category:English dvandva compounds ("words composed of two or more stems whose stems could be connected by an 'and'."), "misparsed" that sentence (the antecedent of "whose" is "words", not "stems", right?), and applied that faulty construction somewhere else. Is this better? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


A projectEdit

I'm starting to think that for taxa like Saltasaurus, referencing the Ancient Greek is almost silly, and we should just have a Translingual suffix at -saurus (after all, the semantics have changed a great deal). But there's not much point to doing that unless someone wants to take on the project of converting all our current -saurus entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I guess I can do that, but there aren't that many links to the AGr. entry (less than 100), are there? Or am I missing something? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Eh, the main job is deploying it, I guess. I also wanted someone to assess my logic in making the change. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Well, I'm happy with whatever proposal might help to unclutter and tidy up CAT:English terms derived from Ancient Greek (not that I think I or anyone else will spend much time in there, but still). So I'd say go ahead. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Swadesh ListEdit

Some of the dialects in Korean and Japanese have larger difference than between several Indo-european languages put here. You can see the sources, they are being called 'dialects' because of politics. Effficientvegetarianpc16 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Effficientvegetarianpc16: As I said, I don't know anything about those languages; I don't even know what this is about. All I'm saying is that a Swadesh list is almost certainly not the place for what you're trying to accomplish. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent entriesEdit

Uh, etymology and pronunciation are L2 headings, they go before the POS. See diff. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 16:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: I'm aware of that, but I'm starting to find this ordering rather nonsensical; def and POS are the first thing a dictionary user usually looks for. So I've stopped using it when creating new entries. I usually don't change old entries though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, then you better get WT:EL changed, cuz User:NadandoBot will reorder all the headings anyways. I kind of agree with you tbh. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान)
@AryamanA: Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that... Well, it would be good to have a vote about it, but seeing that we're quite impermeable to change... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It's far easier to make new entries than to fix old ones... —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
My script would not touch this entry: I only rearrange headers at the same level, and would never promote a header from level 4 to level 3 for example. It would just go in the long list of entries that cannot be parsed. DTLHS (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS: That's unfortunate. I wonder if Wiktionary parsing tools will be able to deal with this kind of inconsistency... —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Etymology is the preliminary for the understanding of the meaning’s extent in multiple ways, for it explains how there can be such a word in such meanings – including by cognates, calques and semantic loans –, thus it comes at the beginning, and the alternative forms come even before it because the etymologies are based on them, as for example حِلْتِيث (ḥiltīṯ),‎ حِلْتِيت (ḥiltīt) which imitates begedkefet and is thus an obvious borrowing. But I agree that the pronunciation headers are annoying when the script or the transcription is clear – I would like the pronunciation being hidden and loaded by some Javascript, though I point out that sometimes adding a pronunciation section gives me more space to add an image in a fine size. Chinese can have its own rules of course. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Palaestrator verborum: "alternative forms come even before it because the etymologies are based on them" That's not always true. We sometimes use older, more etymological forms/spellings as lemmas (simply because they're still the most common ones); sometimes, alternative forms/spellings don't really have much to do with etymology.
About the etymology: well, yes; I didn't say it was useless information, just that it's probably not what a regular dictionary user looks for first. A related question is whether we want to order senses by their frequency (obsolete ones last), or by their history (obsolete ones first). I don't think there's a simple answer; different people look for different things. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam No doubt there are exceptions from what I have outlined, but there is a statistical distribution. And if it generally makes sense, then I am also willing to do it in the not-too-many other cases where nothing is gained by it because the reader expects the information in a certain order. Don’t underween the value of the ability to browse Wiktionary with knowing the order presented beforehand.
See field for how I order by conceptual closeness. Do you like this? I have transcended frequency and history (which does not matter that much either a reader might frequently read specialist books or old books which would be why a word is more likely for him but rare for your abstraction about frequency). Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

-tās formsEdit

So, you were splitting up Category:Latin words suffixed with -itas and Category:Latin words suffixed with -etas. They are strict allomorphs of -tās. I'm not sure why they should be split apart, so I'd like to know why you split them. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 10:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I didn't create the first one, which was already full of entries when I set out to clean this up. I plead guilty for the second one.
In general, I'm still hesitant on how we should go about with allomorphs (see this), but in this case I agree with you that they don't need to be split; usage notes in -tas should suffice. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I certainly agree that not all allomorphs should go to a single category (though this question should be considered carefully when creating new categories), but in this case, the reflexes are extremely (perfectly?) regular according to diachronic sound laws and later analogy. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Bruh, you for real??
Just kidding. I've emptied both cats. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Lol. Sometimes even the righteous are led astray. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

à la dureEdit

hello, could you tell me more about the register of your example please? I want to be sure about the translation. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I'd say it's rather informal, but to be fair I'm not entirely happy with it. If you feel like finding a real quotation, you could scrape that sentence altogether. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I'm using scrape correctly. I mean remove. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Thank you. :) What I have put is very UK-English and sounds very informal and possibly slightly regional. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
'scrap' :) Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

phony as a three-dollar billEdit

"It's hard/non-trivial to encode (why this, and not phony as a four-dollar bill?), but how will a dictionary entry help anyone to use it if (s)he doesn't know it yet?" — I don't quite follow. If I learn this phrase from a dictionary (or from anywhere: a phrasebook, or human conversation), then I have a new vocabulary item. Same as if I stumbled upon the word dysphemism and thought "oh, that's exactly the word I was looking for last week"! Equinox 02:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Equinox: I've rephrased that ("how will anyone find it if..."), but it does sound quite feeble. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If you already dislike something, and every argument entrenches you in "well, that's what I said, but what I meant was..." then maybe you were just wrong. But it's cool, nobody cares that much about three-dollar bills. Hugs. Equinox 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Why are you getting rid of this? I see no deletion discussion, and I also see no reason to do so; for a third-declension noun, the entire suffix has been added to the truncated stem. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I'm not getting rid of it, I'm cleaning CAT:Latin words suffixed with -unculus to avoid having diachronic and synchronic derivations bundled together. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Some convos: Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2017/March#homunculus; Talk:-ellus (no mention of -unculus, but from what I see, everybody prefers to treat suffixes in a diachronic way) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks for the links. I'm suspicious of the distinction you're making being valid for a native speaker, but I'll go along with it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Yes, as you can see on the etymscript convo, I've had the same misgivings as you :p I'd like to have a two-tier category system... Am I using two-tier correctly? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello, do you want to be an admin? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know if I'm ready... And beside there's already an admin vote underway, so I'm not sure I'm needed. @Equinox, Metaknowledge, Robbie SWE, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, thoughts? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what all this was for, so you could nom yourself to be an admin? You may have read what I wrote to you by email, but I don't think you really took it to heart, and this is part of what makes you still unfit for a position of responsibility. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I agree. Did you know all along? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I had no idea that your purpose was to nom yourself. I thought you were just having fun. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Did you know all along that it was me, I meant :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No, but it's because your Latin was so poor that I thought it must be someone without any classical education, which I had assumed you had. (By the way, if I hadn't known, Palaestrator called you out publicly quite a while ago.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Mh, I see. I'd better get back to work then. So long. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Erm, what’s going on here? — Ungoliant (falai) 11:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Trying to nominate myself under the radar was a thoroughly stupid idea, and pretty shady behaviour at that. I'm not proud of it.
Let it be known however that I did not make those other nominations for the sole purpose of making my own more credible; I truly believe the people I've nominated or tried to nominate are, will be, or would have been assets to the project as administrators.
I'd like to add that I find Metaknowledge's last comment needlessly insulting. Not groundless (it was poorly written Latin), but degradingly worded still.
Anyway, I'll leave that distasteful episode here for all to see. No point in trying to hide it. That should serve me right, and help drive the lesson home this time. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it was degrading, but it is emotional truth in unemotional wording. My thoughts on your Latin composition mirror my thoughts on your conduct: I expected better. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


So you think the association to Clotho bears no relevance at all? In wgich way youre getting old? Liedes (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Much more remote associations are recorded in here so please stop destroying peoples work for your own pleasure. Liedes (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not make any kind of etymological claim over the term and you cannot deny the interest in regards the deity. Liedes (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

regarding Liedes (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


You can probably use some better talk page decoration than the previous section, so I'll put up a request: Could you create an entry for lupeux? It is apparently a demon or imp in folklore with different characteristics per region, sometimes lupine and sometimes more like a bird. Probably related to lupus. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Man, I thought that was a Latin word at first (IPA(key): / "what kind of declension is that?!"). I'll look into it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Lol, yeah, I should have mentioned the language in running text. And thanks. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Hey man, adding side notes inside reference tags to discussions is super annoying and confusing. If you need to, maybe add a corresponding <references group="notes" /> so they aren't floating at the bottom of talk pages. --Victar (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: I can do that, but I'm not sure which post you're bothered with. I did this on Sagir Ahmed's talk page, but the ref isn't floating at the bottom? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've seen it on a bunch of talk pages, User talk:Erutuon for example. --Victar (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Victar: Ah yes, sorry about that. Fixed, I think. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks! --Victar (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: What's the point of synonym of?Edit

My view: it is good for words that are precise synonyms, e.g. scientific terms, and have a specific complex meaning. It is not good for words that are just vaguely similar in meaning. Equinox 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not so way back whenEdit

Now that was kind of a spooky simultaneity. -- · (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Talking Point: Yes it was. Mind you, I'm tempted to put it back because I'm very confused. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, temptation and confusion. Lordy, lead us not into either. -- · (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


I was in the middle of editing it. Please add anything you have to add now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Sorry for the edit conflict, I shouldn't have edited it so soon. Just a note: please don't use {{etyl}}, it's deprecated. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem--we're both just trying to make the best dictionary we can. Yes, I copied that from another entry. Note that I have also fixed the other templates on the entry. Thanks for the note and the edits. Do you want to incorporate the other citations into the proper entry itself? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I'm good, formatting quotes is one of those things I find really tedious :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

inh vs derEdit

I was sure to have read here that 'inh' was deprecated and we ought to use 'der' now, but it such weren't the case I can of course use 'inh': I have no personal preference thereamong. 17:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Tea Room revertEdit

I'm sorry, what was so objectionable in my post that you had to remove it? Just not answering would have almost the same effect and would leave the chance that someone might actually give a constructive answer.

I later had the genius idea to search for "phono-semantic-match Latin", but came up empty except for three Chinese terms. I can't imagine there are no historical examples of this at all, so I think the question is warranted. In fact, as time and time again I'm reminded that linguists are careful to follow sound laws, I'm affraid stuff like this was easy to overlook, and it's noted to be especially hard to proof, so the question is interestingly difficult and thus warrants a short reminder if nothing else.

I possibly should have left out my folk-etymology reasoning, as I am also always reminded that time's a-wastin', but the arguments throw up interesting questions themselves (e.g. "gradus" as military command).

Was calling "ex vs em" being contradictory out of line? i do note that people get offended by too much of an idealistic stance on literal translations. Solving that was exactly my aim of the post, because eggcorns can at times make more sense, and a double eggcorn could reinstate an original meaning, but I'm starting to ramble ...

"I'm not completely serious" means I don't have proof. If your revert implies it's non-sense, I think that requires stronger proof than my "could be". So that is kinda unfair and I intend to be understood as politely asking for common knowledge, not dragging anyone into doing research for me (althoug I obviously wouldn't mind that too much either).

In the same spirit, I shouldn't intend to drag you into a discussion for the sake of it, I just feel misunderstood and perhaps not expressing my self clearly enough or misunderstanding the spirit of the community, insofar this post is sincere. On the other hand, my justification for posting is that the tea room seems to have a broader scope than the etymology scriptorium (not to say it was full of non-sense, which however subjective wouldn't be justification to add to it) and that talk pages are meant also for social functions.

So, if I have offended you, please take this as an apology. Then pray say, did you think the post was getting at a wrong answer or just not meeting the purpose of the tea room? Rhyminreason (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

French translationsEdit

Thanks for the note about the syntax! Very appreciated. I will use it from now on!

There is an article "Agency_(notion)" on the French Wikipedia, but, well, I am afraid I am not sure whether the term is actually used in French. I have removed the translation for now. Thanks for that. --Edcolins (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Per utramque cavernam".