User talk:Graearms

Welcome and appreciation

Many thanks to you for your work on Faliscan on Wiktionary! Contributions like yours in obscure languages like that are well-appreciated. Hope to see you contribute more on Faliscan etc. in the future! — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleting entries, format

When you create an entry and later realize it was a mistake, you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{d}} rather than {{rfd}}. This only applies to pages you've created that don't have significant additions made by other users. When adding the template, please include a brief rationale such as {{d|created in error}}. With that in mind, I think I can close most if not all of the WT:RFD requests you've made.

Also, when moving pages, please tag the redirect page that's created for speedy deletion.

Finally, please note the format change I've made here: diff. Ultimateria (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

megálografico

You misspelled this. I moved the page. Note, also, that you formatted the "rhymes" template incorrectly in that page. Polomo47 (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing in multiple languages

I can see you are taking effort to make sure entries you make are of high quality - this is commendable! It's still recommended to stick to languages you are more familiar with. Don't be afraid to use things such as requested entries, and the like! Overall, keep up the good work. Vininn126 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-lemma forms

Hi - the point of non-lemmas is that they aren't the main entry (i.e. the lemma), so we categorise them separately so as to not flood the primary categories with entries that people aren't interested in. In languages with a large historic corpus, like Latin, we will almost always lemmatise at the same forms (nominative singular for nouns, the first-person singular present active indicative for verbs etc), even if a term is only attested in a different form, because we know enough about Latin to know that those forms existed. Deviations from this are also standardised (e.g. plural-only nouns, impersonal verbs, certain defective verbs etc.).

When it comes to little-attested languages like Volscian and Sicel, we have so little information to go from that we only create entries for the terms that are actually attested, because there is no way to reliably reconstruct the standard forms. However, that doesn't mean that these are non-lemma entries, because the "lemma form" is an arbitrary (albeit very useful) choice that we make so as to standardise entries for the sake of consistency and convenience. Given the only attestation we have for the Volscian word for "wine" is 𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌖 (uinu, ablative singular), there's nothing wrong with us lemmatising the word there, just like there would be nothing lexically wrong with lemmatising all of our Latin nouns at the ablative singular either. Theknightwho (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Ancient Greek

Very nice of you to organise ancient verbs!, attested and unattested. So now, why not add at your user page 'User grc' too. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 06:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not grc-zero! Perhaps you are now studying grc? Or, you had lessons some time in the past? ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 06:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• It is indeed grc-0. Although this is the bare minimum, I can read the alphabet; I've also familiarized myself with some of the basic grammar (like I know how augments and reduplication work) and I know certain grammatical concepts already from studying Latin (i.e. I know things such as what a genitive is). I've gotten more interested in the language and even know a few grammatical paradigms, as in, I know the present indicative, subjunctive, optative endings of λύω (lúō). However, outside of that, I cannot read or understand the language. Graearms (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have seen at your WP page that you love Latin and Rome! -I forgive you :) But your Greek is not zero! Believe me, it is much better than many "grc editors'". It could be grc-1 at least, and in a month or so, it will be grc-2!! (admin @Mahagaja, isn't this true?) ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 14:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps my Ancient Greek is indeed better than I assume and perhaps I have been misled by the sheer number of charts into thinking that progress in the language would be much more difficult than it really is. However, I feel being able to translate the box that says I have a certain level in Ancient Greek would be a necessary prerequisite to saying that I am of that level. I can understand the words τὴν (tḕn) ἀρχαίαν (arkhaían) ἑλληνικήν (hellēnikḗn), but nothing else. I wouldn't consider myself particularly competent in the language as I simply do not have the actual knowledge of the vocabulary or most of the grammatical paradigms to read anything at all. I could read basic sentences if I was told the meanings of all of the words and then also told the grammatical case and gender, but that feels a bit like cheating. Graearms (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• :) You could switch from Cato to a cunning Ulixes; half the phrase understood is adequate, no? I do not understand all words either. I copypaste at wiktionary SearchBox and at {{R:LOGEION}} all the time! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 15:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  I meant more so that I do not understand almost any words in the language at all outside of the few I have created pages for (and also remember) and also λύω. I could understand the occasional cognate whilst reading, like ἀρχαίαν because of English archaic. However, I maybe have a vocabulary of like 10-15 words in the language. I feel like a such a small capacity combined with only part of the present active conjugation for standard -ω verbs isn't really enough to say I have any reading capacity in the language. I suppose it would be worth "promoting" myself on Wiktionary if being "grc-1" on Wiktionary just means I can competently create entries and not that I can actually read any of the language. Graearms (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  But you are creating THE most difficult lemmata: dialectal and unattested forms! Where lies the lie? At your User-level, or at yourcreations? It is a truth or dare game. You are editing what an expert would dare to touch. ++ eg see how admin Mahagaja has corrected the dilectal feminine form. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Hopefully nowhere, I create the pages for the lemma forms as recorded by the various dictionaries Wiktionary likes to cite, and utilize the existing templates Wiktionary to establish the conjugation. While creating θνᾴσκω (thnā́iskō), I referenced the Slater and LSJ dictionaries which confirmed it was Doric and derived the conjugation from the forms Slater listed. When uncertainties arose, I avoided listing them as I do not wish to spread misinformation. Slater mentioned a form θανόντεσσιν (thanóntessin), but I was not 100% confident as to how to derive the stem from that so I just didn't add it. If you would simply prefer I stopped creating dialectical Ancient Greek lemma or Ancient Greek lemma at all, I would be willing to. If it does turn out that I have been adding misinformation to Wiktionary this whole time, which I am doubtful of, then I would be deeply apologetic and willing to contribute as best I can to any cleanup effort. I understand that I may have flown too close to the sun, I just like creating these entries too much, but I would still hate to compromise the integrity of any Wikimedia project. Graearms (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oh no, no! do not stop! You are very intelligent and careful. Thank you for your hard work! PS οὐ (ou, “no, nothing, none, kaput”) -useful to understand 'the whole phrase'. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 16:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Is that supposed to be a not joke? In which I understand and cannot be mad. Sorry, I suppose. Graearms (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I was serious and telling the truth: you are doing so well! (PS i had to look up no joke I didnt understand well you last phrase, I am an en-3) ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 16:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I feel it is very clear that you are messing with me now, although I do hope I am wrong and paranoid. I understand why you would want me to leave, I get it and feel sorry for any mistakes I have made with the Ancient Greek entries. I do hope you and Mahagaja have not found any other major errors and I will refrain from editing in Ancient Greek if that is what's best for Wiktionary. I do hate to spread misinformation. I just found it fun to piece together the conjugations of verbs and I couldn't resist. Graearms (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I never 'mess' with my co-editors. I have congatulated you on your work. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 16:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm still somewhat confused. I really want to believe that I am being congratulated, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm just being mocked. Especially with the reference to Mahagaja before mentioning that he corrected an error I made. I suppose it would be weird to keep the joke going as long as it has been going. Why would you highlight the significance of οὐ (ou)? The only reason I could think of would be a not joke. If I am just being congratulated, sorry for being so paranoid up to this point; I suppose I just get really anxious about the potential of having accidentally contributed to the spread of misinformation. Graearms (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Because it is a useful word. Things in wiktionaries are quite relaxed. I am sorry if I gave such an impression to you. Keep up the good work. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 17:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the compliments then! I see you make your own stellar contributions to Wiktionary as well. Just to provide a brief explanation for why I reacted the way I did, I feel I should clarify what a not joke is. I don't know how prevalent they are throughout the world so perhaps I shouldn't assume everyone just knows what it means. They are a type of joke that involves making a statement then ending it with "not" to imply the opposite. I figured that's what you were implying. Graearms (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sarri isn't mocking you. She's a naturally encouraging and enthusiastic person. Her compliments to you are sincere. Keep up the good work. 0DF (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)