Talk:πεδίον

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

πεδίον

Rfv-sense: "the female genitals". Ancient Greek. Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perseus has it: [1] (sense A.III) Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I see; that may be why Atelaes included it. The line Liddell cites is no more than innuendo, though, using the regular meaning of "plain": "νὴ μὰ Δία Βοιωτία, καλόν γ᾽ ἔχουσα τὸ πεδίον". - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved (RFV-failed but made into a usage note). - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

The following discussion has been moved from the page [[User talk:-sche]].

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

πεδίον

I just noticed your note on the talk page, and subsequently the whole rfv thing. I guess I'm a bit dissatisfied with how it was resolved. It seems to me that the sense in question should pass, seeing as it has the required cite. As near as I can tell, all that's happened is a valid definition has been moved to a usage note, which is not the best place for a definition. So, I thought I'd ask you why you did what you did, and hopefully we can figure something out. I'll watch this page, so feel free to respond here. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I stated in the RFV, the one use of the term is in innuendo, and from what I can tell (not speaking any more than basic Ancient Greek), it doesn't even seem to be 'set' innuendo (something like "endowment" in English); it seems to be one-off (like the various things the actress says to the bishop). Having a separate definition for that seems... unwarranted, but Ancient Greek is dead, so recording it in a usage note seems OK. Do you disagree? - -sche (discuss) 16:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In general, I don't know if we have good evidence that it is a one-off type of thing. Since we have such a small corpus, there's really no way to know. When dealing with such limited references, I think we simply have to (sometimes incorrectly, of course) assume that every use is typical of the language. If we put all the references which only have a single citation in usage notes, we'll end up doing that a lot; I don't think that conveys any useful information to the user, and will start looking very messy and unprofessional. The fact that the sense is an innuendo is, in my opinion, immaterial. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to run, but how's this [2]. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks excellent. Thank you. I apologize if I was overly whiny about all this. The Classics are kind of stodgy as a discipline, and I find that a lot of my sources are....uncomfortable with vulgar terms, and tend to ignore or obfuscate the less polite meanings. Consequently, any vulgar Ancient Greek definitions on Wiktionary generally required rather more work from me than others, and so I'm a bit defensive about them. Anyway, thanks again. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Inflection table

@Angr: Why is there a circumflex in the inflection table? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Cuz I forgot to mark the iota as short. Fixed now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)