What is the first parameter in the invocation of{{sa-adv}} meant to be? --RichardW57m (talk)08:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is meant to classify it as an adverb as is hence, whence... or did I misunderstand your point ?Tim Utikal (talk)08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you did. You've explained why you invoked{{sa-adv}}. But you also supplied a parameter. What is that parameter meant to be? Did you just think you had to supply the head word itself as a parameter? --RichardW57m (talk)08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't really familiar with the website back then, it really just was a rookie mistake, feel free to correct those.Tim Utikal (talk)09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latincoma and Latincometes are only distantly and indirectly cognate (that is, only in another language and not without 2 derivational steps within that language) and not in a way that would justify the mention ofcometes in the etymology section ofcoma. Instead, such relations can be presented in other sections, such as "related terms", if at all. But I don't see which value can be in even mentioningcometes in this entry, so I would delete it altogether. If anything, it will be interesting to learn that the English wordcomet comes from a Greek word meaninghair, which, though, ought not to be the business of any Latin entry.Imbricitor (talk)16:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with you: first in saying that they are but distanlty and indirectly (what ever that means) cognate; second, I find it quite interesting and do think whoever reads this section may have it that way too; the English argument does not hold its own as the Latin entry is the only place we can state the coma-cometes link. It strictly comes down to "better more than less" or better "as complete as possible" (although it is my own policy... it will never hurt to add more to such a small-sized entry). But if it really seems so trivial to you, I can always put it in a Related terms heading.Saumache (talk)16:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The derivational link can be displayed in the entries ofκόμη andκομήτης.

To my understanding, a cognate of one word is another word in another language that shares an ancestor with it. e.g. Englishheave and Latincapere both trace back to the same PIE word. Not only are Latincoma and Latincometes both words of the same language (and both loanwords, even thoughcometes displays itself clearly as such whilecoma does not and was certainly borrowed earlier), but do not have a common ancestor either. They are not cognate, but one is derived from the other (via the intermediate verbκομᾶν), however not in Latin, but in Greek.Imbricitor (talk)17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was certainly thinking of a broader sense that the word cognate does not necessarily have, and that our definition (seecognate) does not in fact agree with. What do you think of such a phrasing: "See alsocometes/coma, ultimately both loanwords derived from the same Ancient Greek root"

Also,coma being borrowed earlier or not, the etymon of both is nonetheless—and doubtless—an earlier form, or not, of Ancient Greek κόμη.

And I will nevertheless add that, in the rare case of two words sharing the same language and derived from a same source, both would be cognates according to our definition (e.g. the queen/quean pair, though more appropriately called doublets).Saumache (talk)18:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

My main point is thatcomētēs is not a part of a comprehensive etymology ofcoma. On the other hand,coma is indeed part of a comprehensive etymology ofcomētēs. But I wouldn't call it a cognation. See the edit that I just made incomētēs. I would placecomētēs under "See also" or "Related terms".Imbricitor (talk)19:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I just accepted I was wrong as for the cognation in my latest reply and I'm ok with the edit you just did. I just don't understand your "comprehensive etymology" thing as, if one is "comprehensive" counterclockwise so would be the other clockwise. If it's your wish to have it placed in some other header than the etymology header, have it your way, as long as it is but mentioned somewhere, somehow on thecoma page.Saumache (talk)19:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Etymology" literally means "doctrine of the true essence", referring to the core and basic, "true" meaning of a particular word. You might as well call it "genealogy" or "doctrine of origin". An etymology states how the particular word was formed or born and what it meant in the beginning, of which kind its ancestors were, etc. The etymology itself does not contain information about the descendants of the word, and if it does, it is more than an etymology.Imbricitor (talk)19:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

One could uphold your point, but you have according to me a too narrow and classically-driven way of seeing it. Mentioningcometes in thecoma etymology section, when the latter is in the former's, seems outright the correct thing to do. I think we allow ourselves things more outlandish (that is, in view of your idea of what is etymologycal) in these headers.Saumache (talk)19:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Are you familiar with colloquial French use ofun coup in an adverbial way and/or to soften requests? SeeWiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic#un coup if so.- -sche(discuss)22:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see where you are coming from, however I am quite sure that thecontabescentia here refers to the very "weight loss" or "atrophy" that is mentioned elsewhere. It seems that there was a disease where comedones or at least something that was called such, occurred more frequently, thus the comedones were thought to be the reason for the disease. Also if you look up contabescentia you will find atrophy as a synonym. I don't think it refers to any sort of putrefaction there since that word would have been readily available for the author.Imbricitor (talk)21:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Imbricitor Excuse my being so cursory, I didn't take a closer look to what was meant and hadn not crosschecked it, but your "wasting away" did not seem right either, I also see how "atrophy" might be better than the "shrinking" I put lower.Saumache (talk)22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm confused by the removal of the suffix id "deverbal" from this entry. Is this not a deverbal formation, comparable toagilis,facilis,fragilis?Urszag (talk)17:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I saw the link was yellow and didn't give much more though to it, I'm adding it back as well as senseid's. Oh and by the way, what do you think of the would-be text for the t-suffixes appendix? I am not used to do such things hence my not being entirely satisfied with it, but I think it is quite good content-wise, a little more reading might make me add some two-three things more.Saumache (talk)17:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see you've done some more work on it! I think it is good to mention cases like -ilis/-bilis. I'll try to give more detailed thoughts later.--Urszag (talk)18:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag I've tweaked a lot of things since last time, have you come to read it through?Saumache (talk)08:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I did, I made my own rough version hereUser:Urszag#Supine_stem and you can see if you want to take any examples or structure from that when editingUser:Saumache/Sandbox.--Urszag (talk)22:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your version is to be the definite one? I'll add from what you made but I see little to no point in doing so if mine doesn't end up being used. Wouldn't it be easier if we both worked on the same too?Saumache (talk)06:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I certainly don't mean that. I was unsure how to edit yours so I wanted to leave it to you to decide what to incorporate or not in terms of differences in examples, structure, wording etc. Sorry, I realize that having two versions isn't very convenient, I just didn't have the energy to think through what specific parts I felt certain enough about to edit your user pages (which felt like a presumptuous/aggressive move, though I see that creating my own can also have that feeling in its own way).--Urszag (talk)06:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, as I already told you in previous replies, feel free to edit it away, and I mean anything really. Otherwise, leave it to me and I'll write down what you have.Saumache (talk)07:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sinceflustrum is attested in the singular (even if late and rarely), I think it should not be deleted. Are you OK with just removing that template? I think the plural forms can be explained at that entry without having a separate entry forflustra.

Second, I'm not sure I agree that it is necessary or desirable to have a separate category forCategory:Latin terms suffixed with -tra. This is extremely small and it mixes together the neuter second-declension plural ending (flustra) and the feminine first-declension singular ending (mollestra, mulctra) which I don't think are especially more linked to each other than the first is to the neuter second-declension singular -trum. So my preference would be to keep all of these words inCategory:Latin_terms_suffixed_with_-trum and leave the short, very manageable list of the specific words with the feminine variant at-tra. Does that make sense to you, and do you agree? Thanks,Urszag (talk)18:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Editors had a bad habit here to ditch pluralia tantum in favor of singular forms if attested, and these are bound to be found; see here how this leads to entries not even referring to the most common use of the word being in the plural and not in the singular (the lack of quotes doesn't help either), I have already edited a bunch of them. So no, I would keepflustra as the lemma and addflustrum as an alternative form if I find this quote. As for the categories, what you said is sound, wantonly editing I didn't even check the gender for these nouns...Saumache (talk)18:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, based on theCFI for Latin, we are supposed to keep entries even if there is only one attestation. And from what I can see,there may be more. I don't think an RFD has much chance of succeeding, but markingflustrum as a late alternative form and having the main entry atflustra is a possible alternative.--Urszag (talk)19:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm removing the RFD and settingflustrum as an alternative form. This might be hard for some but the idea that post Late Latin attestations bear the same value as Old to Late Latin ones isn't dear to me, I would personally lematizeflustra even if only attested once classically.Saumache (talk)19:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! After writing my message to you I started rethinking my objection to the -tra category: although small, it is consistent with the existing separate categories for -ula, -bra, -bula. Maybe it's actually better to standardize on keeping them separate, and create a new category for -cula nouns. I'm not sure, so I think I'll wait before editing these categories more.--Urszag (talk)19:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to suggest and discuss a larger change to the structure ofAppendix:Latin t-suffixes. Please feel free to accept or reject it, since I'm not trying to steamroll anything here. I think that it would make it easier if the short section on "Nouns and adjectives" did not need to be included on this page. While there are some cases of non-verb bases for a range of t-suffixes, I don't think that the amount that can be said about them is anything comparable to what can be said about the supine stem (and I think they could just be mentioned in passing in the introductory section, rather than having their own header at the end). And I think it might be helpful to have that extra level of headers available for organizing the discussion about verbs. What is your view on removing that section and leaving the notes about non-verbal formations to individual pages such as-tus,-ātio,-ātor? One other question: is-tūdō used to form derivatives from verbal supine stems? I think this is at least rare; for example, I don't see any nouns ending in -sūdō in Latin dictionaries.Urszag (talk)23:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the problem might perhaps lie in the page's naming, "t-suffixes", not "the supine stem". I think calling it as we do now alone calls for the non-removal of the nouns and adjectives section. There's no single page where the analysis given in the section might fit as of now, I wouldn't create an extra one just for it either. I furthemore deem its proper place to be there as these are not only nouns suffixed with extended denominative suffixes (-ātiō) but also generally verb-appended ones (-tim), it's part of the bigger picture. I grant you it does seem strange having a level 2 header tenth the size of the other, couldn't we just make multiple lvl 2 headers for verbs alone and a final one for nouns and adjectives?... or is it stricly verboten formatting-wise?

You're absolutely right about-tūdō, I basically went and sought every verb-appended t-suffixes when starting the page, -tās and -tūdō have limited to no weight in the whole discourse (which has since logically shifted to supine stem matters) apart from being listed and specified not being of the party.Saumache (talk)12:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd even argue adding the suffix-tūs to the list if we keep the nouns and adjectives section since discrepancies occur whenonustus,egestās (but nottempestūs‽) and the likes are there to be covered, this leads to heavy reordering and other changes as we now need to explain our non including-tinus,-tris..., well, tell me.Saumache (talk)12:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aha, "prepositive". I couldn't think of the word I wanted to put on that. Good fix, thanks.2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:40AC:CBD6:D751:777D17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Strange that we don't have a[[Category:English adjectives commonly used as postmodifiers]] and label to glossary link for prepositives, asgalore does. Might work on that.Saumache (talk)18:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know a number of dictionaries/grammars give that explanation, but is it really plausible and worth giving as an alternative etymology in entries such assalictum? Latin does not normally syncopate long vowels like -ē-, and there is no etymological reason to suppose thatsalictum is a secondary evolution fromsalicētum rather than an alternative primary derivation. The shorter form is already found in Cato the Elder and Plautus, whereas the longer form seems to be attested only later and infrequently, so I don't see any chronological support for the "syncope" hypothesis either. Overall, the syncope hypothesis seems very dubious to me (at least in the case of this word) and so I feel like we shouldn't even mention it.Urszag (talk)18:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I lazily copied from the big authorities; then, levelings from (c)tum to (c)ētum seem even more plausible!Saumache (talk)18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed that you have been working on editing quotations and the Wikisource texts of Plautus plays. I don't know whether there is a specific larger principle that you are following with regard to formatting and so on, but I wanted to comment because personally, I find it most convenient to refer to locations in Plautus' plays using plain line numbers, without any further subdivisions by act or scene. That is the convention followed by many sources that I commonly use. For example,Hypotactic uses one set of line numbers across an entire play (aside from the Argumentum);Gaffiot 2016 cites "Pl. Rud. 745"; Fortson 2008's "Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies" quotes lines such as Men. 877 (in V.iii) and Mos. 656 (in ACTUS III.i); the PHI corpus uses line numbers without act or scene numbers; the "Meters of Roman Comedy" database uses line numbers without act or scene numbers. I only really have noticed act and scene numbers in Lewis and Short, which is not a very recent source.

I guess it might be technically possible to have the templates take either type of input, depending on how many parameters are used. If so, I would not object to that, and I wouldn't mind if the display format is normalized to the one with act and scene divisions. However, I would find it inconvenient if the goal of this project is instead to make it mandatory for entry editors to refer to act and scene divisions whenever adding a quotation from a play of Plautus. Sorry I didn't bring this up sooner; I had not noticed it until recently.Urszag (talk)18:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag The formatting is quite free since we don't really follow a regular edition, the texts are all from theLatin library. I already noticed the issue and lately started to add the starting and ending plain line numbers at the start of each scene, I have not yet found a satisfying way to include them along the others. I am following Perseus's line-count as I though it was the place were people would be most likely to take Plautus quotes from. Also, Perseus's editions won't in some cases follow exactly what we had from the Latin library, bringing its share of trouble. I'll tinker a little more, though I might simply add every 50th verse or something like that, if you think it's fine. I'll have a lot to review and level when finished, so give me any thoughts on what you think I should change/add/remove.Saumache (talk)18:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we even give a work different format's atModule:Quotations/la/data?I tried having both linkable verses onMiles Gloriosus but the result is quite ugly as is. I made a new template to have linkable verses in the left margin so we just need to able having both formats for each play.

Otherwise I would add plain number verses to the left margin, non-clickable. Best, I think, would be in citations to display them alongside the ones per scenes. But that would make others have to refer to acts and scenes again; it's not likely people start flooding the project with Plautus quotes anyway, I'll monitor it and regularize them to whatever design we will have agreed upon.Saumache (talk)12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply