Rsvk

Hi! I notice you are formatting words and their glosses inline like χάλιξ pebble — I wonder if having the English gloss in bold might be a little strong, distracting from the actual word which is being looked at. Something like χάλιξ pebble might be more apt, putting the higher emphasis on the form. Usually in books you see it formatted thus, with the gloss having a weak emphasis and the word itself stronger (save for some scripts that don't italicize or boldface well)—some examples I have out of random books here:

• ya:hciyiniw “Blackfoot”
• íngens huge
• -ხს(-)ოვ- remember —Muke Tever 01:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're right--having the word itself bold and the gloss in italics does look better. Thanks. RSvK 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rsvk,

I see that you created a single entry for the English and Latin expression "per se". While this is strictly only a Latin phrase (as it has not been naturalised in English), the English and Latin entries ought to be separated (as is the Wiktionary policy for any word or phrase that is identical in more than one language). I have made this change. — Paul G 09:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I'll remember that policy. RSvK 02:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rsvk, I was wondering about your changes to the 'fuedalism' entry. 1/ addition of 'personal'. Good change. I'll come back to this later.

2/ 'and personal fealty between a suzerain (lord) and a vassal (subject)' I do not see this as always the case. For example, your description does not truly fit the situation in the the holy \religious (can't find the right word as Confucianism & early Buddhism were not religious but still performed the function of religion) orders, which parallel the situation described by you. These orders certainly had the strong loyalty as described by you between a suzerain & their vassal, but implemented in different ways. I did try to come up with a description that provided greater accuracy by generalising the loyalty relationships but found that any description I came up with could also describe the loyalty relationships found under capitalism. I would also say that the loyalty relationship was not a basis of feudalism but merely a result of the basis i.e. personal ownership. But it did need saying so I covered this with the phrase "heirarchical social structure reinforced by religion" as a characteristic. Though I do think this needs stronger wording to add emphasis, I originally considered 'rigid' but this would be untrue re. the European military & religious orders.

3/ 'Some social-evolutionary theories hold etc.....' Thanks, I do get too focused sometimes and end up with my head up my backside. <G>

4/ 'although these phases seem more characteristic just of Europe than elsewhere' Firstly this phrase is uneccessary. Secondly I can only say 'incorrect'. Just because China, India etc had only reached fuedalism, and the bulk of Australasia had not got beyond primitive communism, before Europeans arrived with capitalism does not mean they are not following the theory. The same could be said regarding Japan, where large elements of feudalism were brought by colonisation. Cheers, kimdino

Don't remove the "to" from the infinitive of verbs as you did on light. Ncik 20 May 2005

Why not? The verb is light, not to light. To light is the infinitive, but the verb itself is just light. RSvK 01:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean by "the verb itself". The infinitive is traditionally considered the "basic" form of the verb. We inflect the infinitive of a verb for syntactical purposes. That's why Wiktionary, like any other dictionary, gives the infinitive of verbs first, and then lists four other inflected forms of interest: 3rd person singular present tense, past tense, past participle, and present participle. This holds only for English entries, of course. Words from other languages might have other conventions (or none at all yet). Ncik 21 May 2005

This seems to be a mistake for Wiktionary, then. The main verb is light. To light is just the infinitive form of the verb light, one of many forms. We don't alphabetize under to light, just light, because that's the verb, not the infinitive form.

By 'the verb itself', using the same example, I mean light. Light itself is the word we are defining, not the verb phrase to light. To light is a verb phrase which happens to be the infinitive form of the verb in English. Adding the extra word to is superfluous when defining light. It just adds more verbiage.

Wiktionary doesn't give the infinitive first--it gives first whatever form of the verb we happen to be defining. There can be separate entries for every form of the verb, like light, lighted, lights, lighting. The basic form of the verb (at least in English) could just as well be described as the present tense.

Please don't add unnecessary verbiage by attaching to to every single verb in Wiktionary. RSvK 01:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Etymology entries have foreign language words in italics. The word the page is about (and other forms of only that word) are what are supposed to be in bold, last time I checked WT:ELE. --Connel MacKenzie 23:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

When I first started contributing to the Wiktionary, I put the etymological words in italics, but was then told by one of the more experienced contributors (Muke Tevor?) to put those words in bold, and the English translations in italics. So I switched. This seems to make more sense, because it makes the parts of the word being defined stand out more clearly. See the second paragraph on this page. RSvK 16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, Muke seems to be talking about the inflections of a verb and/or links to plural forms of nouns. The particular format of those has been under debate this year in WT:BP...specifically concluding that they should be bolded and wikified as glosses.

What I was referring to was the ===Etymology=== section, where none of a word's glosses appear! Only related terms, primarily from other languages. These therms should be in italics and optionally(?) wikified. --Connel MacKenzie 15:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's try this again:

Muke seems to have been talking about Wiktionary entries for non-English words. The Wiktionary syntax in that case is not to have translations (even to English) bolded.

Within the etymology section of an English entry on Wiktionary, rather than detracting away from the definition, the terms listed are supposed to be in italics and wikified. Most people do not bother wikifying the foreign terms, instead leaving them only italicized. --Connel MacKenzie 16:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeing your edit not five minutes after the latest Ass Pus vandal struck, I almost blocked you for deleting "==English==" as a common vandal. Please restore that line. Also note: you added a typo of "\" to the Korean translation. --Connel MacKenzie 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Recent changes commingled your changes with User:205.188.116.14's vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 06:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just rolled back your marking of those derived terms as obsolete. I asked a Roman Catholic friend; this terms are very much still in use, with these meanings. --Connel MacKenzie 05:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not mark those terms as 'obsolete'; I marked them as 'obsolescent'. Different meaning. I am Roman Catholic, and studied in the seminary for six years, including several years of graduate theology. I worked for many years as a liturgy director and liturgical music director.

The terms 'high mass' and 'low mass' referred to the Tridentine Mass as it was celebrated before the Second Vatican Council, with or without music and incense. Since the revision of the liturgy after the Council, there is no such thing as 'high mass' or 'low mass', just various degrees of solemnity. So the terms are falling out of use and are no longer accurate. They are still used to some extent by 'Tridentine Catholics'--those who oppose the changes of Vatican II and plead for the restoration of the Latin Mass. Please restore the marking of these terms as 'obsolescent'--they are indeed falling out of use. RSvK 19:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Perhaps this belongs on its talk page? --Connel MacKenzie 20:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps--or perhaps on the pages for 'low mass' and 'high mass'. The explanations probably don't belong on the page for 'mass'. Cheers, RSvK 22:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you start your English language entries with a ==English== line please. Cheers. SemperBlotto 21:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but I thought English was the default. When did we start putting ==English== on all English entries? What did I miss? RSvK 15:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The most recent time it resurfaced in WT:BP archives was October 2004. There are several reasons for including the language header:

1. Introduces newcomers to wiki* syntax
2. Indicates (by implication) to newcomers that a single entry can have more than one language
3. Indicates that which parts are English
4. Allows someone to add other languages (since they see the convention example)
5. Helps with automated tools' parsing of the article
6. Helps with auto-indexing bots
7. As a community, we have agreed to (as spelled out in WT:ELE)

Whereas the only advantage to not including it is saving a couple characters typing or mouse pasting. (If using a template, then it takes effort to remove it!)

Other recent conversations that touched on this topic were consolodated into Wiktionary:Policy Think Tank - English Wiktionary, Foreign Words & Translations.

--Connel MacKenzie 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

As you can see I re-edited your etymology on "collect", "collector" because although its generally correct its misleading, since all the Latin words you mentioned are the Latinised forms of the historically attested primary Ancient Greek roots and words as seen:

Latin "col-", "com-", is the Latinised form of the Ancient Greek prefix "συλ", "συμ", "συν", (syl-, sym-, syn-), "along with, accompanied by, by the aid of, by means of, through, at the time of, with, together, under the influence of, in, at the same time".

Latin "ligere" is actually an inflected form of Latin "ligo", "to tie, bind, bind together, bind up, bandage, bind fast", which is the Latinised form of the Ancient Greek verb "λυγόω" (lygoo), "tie fast, bend, overpower".

Latin "colligere" < "colligo", "to gather, to collect together", is the Latinised form of the Ancient Greek verb "συλλέγω" (syllego), "bring together, collect, gather, compile" < "συλ-" + verb "λέγω" (lego), "to gather, pick up, to choose for oneself, pick out, to count".

Latin "collectus", "a collection", is the Latinised form of the Ancient Greek "συλλεκτός" (syllectos), "gathered or brought together"< "συλλέγω".

Also, Latin "collectus", derives from "colligo", therefore the English "collector", "person or thing which collects or creates or manages a collection", derives from it and its not related to Latin "collector", "a fellow student".

To conclude, both English "collect", "collector" derive from Latinised Greek ""collectus, from Ancient Greek "συλλεκτός" < "συλλέγω".

With respect, Kassios 12:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, you are wrong, according to all the authoritative references. Latin com-/co- is not from ancient Greek, and neither is legere. I removed your changes. Alexander 007 06:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Alexander. I concur with your analysis. These co- forms look to me more like parallel formations than derivations from Greek. co- and cum are old Latin terms not derived from Greek. RSvK 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Didn't we ban Kassios indefinitely for vandalising etymologies?? Seek help from an admin if Kassios causes problems. Ncik 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you add non-Latin derived and related terms to Latin words. These sections are usually reserved for words from the same language. I think it is a good idea to link cognate (or otherwise related) words in other languages, but suggest you bring this up in the BP first. Ncik 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that you never got nominated as a sysop here? I'm a little amazed at the oversight. Do you mind if I nominate you now? --Connel MacKenzie 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please indicate your acceptance formally on WT:VOTE.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When giving the etymology from a Latin verb, please link to the lemma, which for Latin is the first principle part (e.g. amō) rather than the infinitive (e.g. amāre). --EncycloPetey 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, please take a look at the modifications I made to dictus to put it in line with Latin formatting standards. If you have a question about a particular change I made, let me know. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a general principle on Wiktionary for all non-lemma pages. We don't put definitions on the plurals, feminines, genitives, and all the myriad verb inflections. Part of the reason is that it's just too much to maintain. Notice that dicō has three definition lines. We can't afford to put those three definitions on every single inflected form of dicō and maintain the accuracy when someone decides a sense needs to be fixed. We keep all the definitions and other lexical information on the lemma page only, and link all the inflected forms back to the lemma. Keep in mind also that the infinitive in Latin typically functions as a noun, so defining it as a verb isn't really helpful anyway. --EncycloPetey 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do wish the format for Latin would be consistent with most of the European languages and use the infinitive as the lemma. I took six years of Latin, and we always used the infinitive as the lemma, not the first person indicative active. I don't see any reason for maintaining this quirky peculiarity. RSvK (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I say your query on Connell's page. I'd try the ISO 639 codes at: w:ISO_639. I think they're the right ones. In any event they are the ones used for the term and etyl etymology templates. Good luck. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poof! You're Wiktiomnipotent! Take a look at Help:Sysop tools for a brief overview of your newfound powers. If you have any questions feel free to contact me or any other sysop. Congrats! Atelaes 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see [1]. The standard headers are only capitalized on the first word. Also, the template {{AGr.}} requires the language of the entry be specified, or it will assume the word is English. --EncycloPetey 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. RSvK 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you added this term, do you know where you found it? I've added an entry to WT:RFV#civilizatio because it's not in major Latin dictionaries and isn't given in etymologies of Spanish or English words. --EncycloPetey 02:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good point, thanks. I'll check on it. RSvK 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. In this edit, you added English words to a list of Latin words. The Related terms section is always only for words in the same language as the current entry. See Wiktionary:About Latin#Related terms. --EncycloPetey 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget to place macrons on the inflection line as well regarding your creation of dominicālis. It would also be good if you could use {{term}} in etymologies. Thanks Caladon 10:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will look up the specs on {{term}}, thanks. I would have put in macrons, but I didn't know where they go for that word. People didn't actually use them when writing in Latin. I figured I would let some more knowledgeable person add the macrons. RSvK 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the etymology of "altar", you write 'From Latin altare ("altar"), probably related to adolere ("burn"); thus burning place, influenced by a false connection with altus ("high").'[2]

What makes you say that the connection with "altus" is false? L&S traces "alto" to "altus", so I am confused. If it can be shown that newer sources deny that "alto" stems from "altus", the entry "alto" would need a fix. See also “alto”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press. --Dan Polansky 07:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rsvk! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply