Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/March

On 'joke' words

Is it against the rules of Wiktionary to write pages about joke words such as "y'all'd've"? Thanks in advance. ElliottBelardo (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they are unattested, then yes. DTLHS (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:CFI. English terms have to be attested by three usages (and not mentionings). If attestable, they can be added. If unattested, one could add it to WT:LOP#List of English Protologisms. "y'all'd'n't've" - this is not the same as "y'all'd've" but it's similar to it - however "doesn't seem logical" (quoted from there). -84.161.53.36 21:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Y'all'd've" is a possible construction, and I believe I have actually heard it a couple times. Not sure whether it's attestable or not though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ElliottBelardo, DTLHS, 84.161.53.36, Andrew Sheedy: *Y’all’dn’t’ve (“you all would not have”), without the apostrophe between the d and n, makes logical sense; however, it probably wouldn’t satisfy WT:CFI. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, although I wouldn't be surprised to hear it in my dialect, given that "y'all'd've" is completely possible (at first, I thought there was no way someone could say it without it sounding really unnatural, but I realized it's not really that awkward when you read it out loud). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy: Indeed. I say things like that all the time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the language?

www.asterix-obelix.nl states that there are Asterix comics in the Attic dialect of Ancient Greek.
What language is that?

grc: Ancient Greek (including Middle Greek) which ends in the 15th century
- This includes Ancient Greek dialects like Attic, Doric etc.
el: Modern Greek which begins in the 15th century and is originally spelled with classical diacritics (spiritus, accents), at least by educated Greeks
- This includes Katharevousa Greek, Demotic Greek, and that mixed Very Modern Greek

The Asterix comics are said to have diacritics. So it's not almost diacriticless Demotic Greek (like from Psycharis) or Very Modern Greek, but Ancient Greek or some other kind of Modern Greek. Of course, it's also no Old Ancient Greek but at best some Modern Ancient Greek.
Furthermore:
Anglo-Saxon and Gothic are used in Wikipedia (ang:w:Hēafodtramet and got:w:𐌰𐌽𐌰𐍃𐍄𐍉𐌳𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌹𐌻𐌰𐌿𐍆𐍃; not durably archived, so it fails WT:CFI). Just like that, one could use these Old languages in printed books. In fact, every Ancient, Old, Middle language which has a grammar and a dictionary can be used to write texts which can be printed in books. Was any Ancient, Old, Middle language besides Greek used in printed books? And what language was it or would it be?
Maybe in advance: Modern or New Old languages etc. like Modern Anglo-Saxon or Modern Middle English would be LDLs, so a single citation instead of three citations would be sufficient. And it shouldn't be unlikely that there was one person who published something in a New Old language. -84.161.53.36 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say most of those are conlangs that are designed to be as close to the old languages as possible. We do have people trying to add translations in Gothic and various proto-languages for television and various other things that didn't exist when the language was alive. I would exclude from that "undead" languages such as Hebrew, Latin and Sanskrit, which continued to be used as a second language for specialized purposes after they were no longer anyone's first language. I'm a bit conflicted about Cornish and various other languages that are being revived by the descendants of speakers after they completely died out. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm protesting.

I just want to say that anonymous users SHOULD NOT be allowed to edit on Wiktionary (or Wikipedia). A lot of other community wiki, such as OpenStreetMap require logins for editing. This will be beneficial for many reasons:

Less chance of vandalism. Still some vandalism with some accounts may occur, but it will be harder for school students to vandalise, for example.
No need to show your IP address. If an editor does not want to show their location or private life, they can hide their IP address with a username.
More reliable sources. People who are registered usually make better edits than anon. users.

There are many more reasons, but I gotta go now... — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 08:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: In case you're serious about this, the idea of prohibiting IPs has been brought up many times over the course of 16 years and struck down every time. If you wanted to propose this as a policy discussion, Meta is really the place to do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: But I'm actually serious about this! — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: Fair enough. But I just don't want to see you waste the effort. I've been using Wikipedia since 2003 and started editing through IPs. I have seen this discussion happen many, many times and at this point, it seems very unlikely to change. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Oh god... But it doggone frustrates and irritates me! — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of logged-in editors edit less constructively than your average anon editor. — Kleio (t · c) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And there have been plenty of times when I was browsing Wiktionary on another device and wanted to fix a typo or something. Would have been a pain to log in just for that (especially since I can't remember my password half the time!). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Letting anons edit is important for a billion reasons. List? What? Equinox ◑ 03:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I once went through and assessed the last 100 IP edits that had been made at the time, and found that the majority were vandalistic, unconstructive, or required cleanup by another editor. If we had a user with the record of our anons, we would block them, but we never seriously consider ending anonymous editing here. Our values seem to direct us toward allowing it, but it does get in the way of building the dictionary more than it helps to build it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does come down to "values", and the open-sourciness of Wikimedia. A bit like how most modern liberal political systems give everybody a vote, regardless of who they are. I have noticed very different responses to my Wikipedia editing as named user versus IP. There's more assumption that you won't be back, and can be reverted for not much reason. (And haven't we all had that "heartsink" moment when the person whose protologism we just deleted reappears with a username to battle for its inclusion?) I do also think it's important that we have the patrolling-flag stuff because yes a lot of IP edits are schoolkids messing around, or weird bots. Equinox ◑ 03:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

w:Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing —suzukaze (t・c) 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's less of a problem from a Wikipedian's perspective because anons can't create new entries there. We might consider that here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something to be said for steering newbie anons to pages like WT:REE and WT:LOP? Then again there's always a certain contingent that will never read anything you shove under their noses. Equinox ◑ 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of bad edits by IPs, but I also see bad edits by throwaway user accounts. Yes, you can permanently block those accounts, but the same person comes right back with another account. Without knowing anything about the IPs used to access an account, using the "block the IP" option when permanently blocking an account is a really bad idea.

The IP used to make an edit can provide lots of useful information through geolocation: you can often tell what part of what country they're editing from, whether they're editing from a company or a school, whether they're using a mobile provider, whether they're using the same IP, or a different one over time. If I see a UK Sky Broadband IP editing Japanese entries, an Indonesian IP editing Finnish or Basque, a northeast-London IP editing sexual or Muslim terminology, a Greek IP editing advanced physics terminology, or a Tennessee/Kentucky IP editing given-name entries, I know exactly who I'm dealing with. Checkusers have access to this information for user accounts, but they have strict rules about how they can use it- precisely because of how much it can tell about the person making the edits.

As for the value of IP edits: there are lots of bad IP edits, but lots of good ones, too. A significant portion of our translations are added by IPs from areas where the languages of the translations are spoken. A significant amount of corrections are done by IPs. We have over 5 million entries- no one person could even visit that many without taking years to do it, and looking through all the content would take far longer still. We have millions of people visiting our entries all the time, so most of the opportunities to spot something wrong involve IPs- it would be a shame to waste all of that. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the term 'you guys'

Your website says that this is okay to use for men, women, a combination of those genders. I disagree. I think even if you're talking to a gender-mixed group of people, and none of the women in that group mind being labeled 'guys' or being lumped under that label, still, somewhere in the world, that is insulting a woman. What if a few 'guys' or 'men' went out to a restaurant and the waiter or waitress came up and asked "What would you GALS like to eat? I try to use either 'you folks' or 'you people' when talking to more than one person where the genders are mixed. I think that covers all of us. Saying 'you guys' is just an expression can still be hurtful, and I suspect there have been many so-called 'expressions' that have caused tensions, divisiveness, and bad feelings for centuries. You should edit that definition to say that it only covers men, boys, males, or yes, 'guys'. Thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by Herzi67 (talk • contribs).

@Herzi67: You are certainly correct that there are other who will be offended by this usage—that's the nature of language. We don't say how words should be used (except in a strictly grammatical sense)—simply how they are used. We have many words defined here which are on the face of them patently bigoted, rude, or offensive. A lot of language is inappropriate in many contexts. What do you propose we do about this? Should we scrub all references to offensive language? Should we define who is allowed to use certain terms and in what context? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We won’t start adding fake information to Wiktionary just because someone is offended by it. Sure, we could add a usage note saying “some people are offended by how this word is used”, but unless you guys is exceptional, we would have to add the same note to half of our English content. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PMFJI a bit late, but I believe many of these colloquialisms differ by region and also change meaning and usage quite often. MykeS (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Inter-Wiki link

Hi, whenever I'm going to add any Inter-Wiki Link from BN Wiktionary, some editors suddenly revert this. But I see they are keeping Inter-Wiki links from the others wiki. Whats with problem? ‍‍‍‍~ Moheen ^(talk) 09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moheen Reeyad: Good question. Interwiki links here are for the same word defined at each Wiktionary, not the same idea in each language. So at book, we have an interiwki link to which is written in Spanish and describes the English word "book". We do not have a link to which is the Spanish word for "book". Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To build upon what I just wrote, the Translations header provides translations of a word. Inter-wiki links are just for the same sequence of characters (like "book" or "বই") that are defined in each edition of Wiktionary. There is an abuse filter tag called "bad interwiki" which is automatically made when one of these incorrect interwiki links is added to a page. Please understand that no one here thinks you were abusing Wiktionary—you are obviously trying to help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Thanks for your reply. I understand that point means there are no need to add BN Wiktionary page with non-slimier word. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moheen Reeyad, that's right, Wiktionary interwikis are not like Wikipedia interwikis. In Wiktionary, interwikis can only link identical words. For example, our English word India has a correct Bengali interwiki bn:India (same spelling, same alphabet). Also, our Bengali word সংস্কৃত (śoṅskrito) has a correct Bengali interwiki bn:সংস্কৃত. However, you added the interwiki bn:চুড়ি to bangle, but those are not identical and cannot have an interwiki link. Your Bengali entry be:চুড়ি can only have an interwiki to our চুড়ি (cuṛi). —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised Templates and Modules?

Hi, I know of regular pages as well as user pages being vandalised, but what about templates and modules? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzukaze-c: Thanks. What else? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 10:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1]? Special:Contributions/2A01:CB05:8231:A600:64CC:6B61:25F0:B8A2? —suzukaze (t・c) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most widely used templates and modules are semiprotected anyway, so they're less likely to be vandalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms for ear rape

Anybody know any synonyms to "horrible sounds or music"? If so, please add them, because I feel like there's a more common term. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

racket. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cacophony. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the etymology of noise is the same as nausea. It's a little afield but an antonym would be ear worm and an inverse for images would be eye bleach. Maybe that helps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using "horse" instead of "mare"

Please confirm if I'm right, or correct me if I'm wrong. If I have three female horses, I believe I can say "Here are my three horses." I don't have to say "Here are my three mares." I believe "horse" is gender-neutral, and doesn't imply that the horses are male. Right? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. If you want to specify that a horse is a male, you can call it a stallion (or a gelding, if it's castrated). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

…Or a colt, if it’s intact (uncastrated) and under four years of age. There are several hyponyms of horse. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red flower

What is the thing on their chests called? Wyang (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks kind of like a rosette, but I don't know if that's the best word for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, red sash. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or a red armillary sash (浑天绫). —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm thanks Stephen. I should have been clearer. Is there an English name for the red flower the kids wear in front of their chests? Thanks! Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were clear, but I don't think there is a set English term for it. All I can think of is a red sash (or red armillary sash). I realize that this ignores the flower itself. If you really need to specify the flower, I think you would have to describe it. Maybe something like a red (or vermilion, or cinnabar red) sash embellished with an ornate (or ostentatious, or ornamental) red rosette. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Added to 紅花. Wyang (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang: That sort of flower appears, specifically, to be a pompon flower or ball flower. AFAICT, botanists call that kind of inflorescence a compound capitulum. I’m no expert on this subject, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

en femme

I added a quotation to en femme, trying to follow info at WT:QUOTE and parrot, but when I preview or save, I don't see it rendered. Editing again shows the text was saved, it's just not rendering. What am I missing? (Please ping; not watching.) Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see what the problem is. The instructions at WT:QUOTE in the Raw code example are misleading. You cannot include the hash character in the raw code, as the example seems to imply; that will make whatever you type on that line not appear. This raw code example should be fixed on that page. (I guess I could do it, but being a newbie, maybe will wait around a bit before editing policy pages.) Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section you are referring to is for placing quotations under the definition line, as I have done to the entry in the latest revision. DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first article: small penis syndrome

I created small penis syndrome, which was deleted as an attack page in 2010. I may have been familiar with Wiktionary, but I have never contributed to Wiktionary before. What else can I do here about the page? --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I have made some formatting improvements; compare this diff — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I added some more info about the ref. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case sensitivity in wiktionary

I looked for the German word 'Stab' except that I entered all lower-case, and it did not match. I guessed that this might be the problem, and did a second search with the correct case, which succeeded. What is supposed to happen? Case-sensitive matching is highly unhelpful for German-language searches where the user does not know whether the word in question is a noun or not, or has only heard the word, or does not even know what language they are dealing with. — This unsigned comment was added by CecilWard (talk • contribs).

Yes, years ago we had long discussions about this. It was finally decided that case sensitivity was by far the best choice. If you type the wrong case (stab), just look at the top left of the entry and you will see the other case listed, Stab. You should become comfortable with this arrangement soon enough. Besides that, the interwiki links are designed to link identical words (identical in script, spelling, case) among all of the wiktionaries. If we did not have Stab in the proper upper case, it would not link to de:Stab in the German wiktionary. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CecilWard: Not only is case sensitivity necessary between languages but within them. Compare August/august and Polish/polish just in English. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin sufficiam

Latin sufficiam should say present subjunctive as well as future indicative (as regam). See Ovid Amores 2.10.24.

I have added that. Note that this is a dictionary anyone can edit, so next time you see something missing, try adding it yourself! Just copy the existing formatting and ask me for help if you need it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Lexicographer

Check this: https://longreads.com/2017/03/14/falling-in-love-with-words-the-secret-life-of-a-lexicographer/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you want a review: http://www.avclub.com/review/word-word-makes-surprisingly-convincing-case-irreg-252237?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feeds —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is not me was blocked

Where can one request admin attention for vandalism, uncivil behavior and the like, is there an analogue to Wikipedia's administrator Noticeboard? 91.66.15.106 05:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. We have a page for ongoing vandalism, but it sounds like you have some sort of beef about someone being blocked. You can discuss it here if you like. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive comments towards me have been made and repeated after a polite note to stop it, most notably by you. Attempts to remove the offending comments were reverted. This derailed an ongoing discussion that was practically ended by a block of my IP. I was neither warned beforehand, nor did I ignore an obvious consensus. Multiple commentators agreed that a proof of the disputed claim would be almost impossible. Add to that a loose moral when it comes to IP users and I can only conclude gross misconduct.

I insist the requirements for sources for oft disputed edits should be held to a higher standard, but that comes down to a policy discussion.

Comments from admins who are not involved in the Wiktionary Reconstruction: namespace would be most welcome, to maintain neutrality.

Given the aggravations against me, I assume you might take the highroad about what could be malignantly interpreted as block evasion. At least I took the lack of an immediate range block as token of grace. Concerning the lack of a fair warning of the block in the relevant thread I can only assume the prevalent disdain for IP users was responsible. So, I guess, I have to formally request permission to continue the discussion where it left off. 91.66.15.106 18:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible to extract the dictionary files used in Wiktionary?

hey guys just trying to get a csv of a dictionary and wondering if wiktionary allows me to do it?

also if it doesnt does anyone have any other sources of a possible dictionary csv or a file that can be converted to csv?

You can download dumps of Wiktionary here, but converting to .csv might be an issue. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or Google "dictionary csv". --Wiki Tiki 89 15:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of blocked Autropatrollers

Hi Wiktionary, can you tell me of anyone that fits into these categories? (Whether being blocked could be edit wars, pranks, trolling etc). — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 23:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller is a title given to someone who is trusted, so that the other admins do not need to waste time checking up on his edits. Most often, when an autopatroller is blocked, the block is temporary, and when it ends, he still has the autopatroller bit. If someone who has the autopatroller bit is indefinitely blocked, he would lose the bit, since people who are blocked have no need of an autopatroller bit. By the same token, if an admin is indefinitely blocked (such as Wonderfool), he also loses the admin bit, since people who are blocked permanently do not need to be admins. So Wonderfool (and his many incarnations, most recently User:Quadcont) would fit in your category. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Stephen G. Brown, on that note, may I pretty please become an autopatroller? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? Just wait until someone nominates you. If you're overeager to not have people checking your edits, that doesn't exactly inspire other people with confidence. Just be patient and make good edits, and you won't have to wait long. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos, autopatroller does not confer any powers or privileges to you. All it does is tell the other editors that nobody needs to check your work anymore. As long as anyone, even one person, feels that they need to check your edits for whatever reason, you can't get autopatroller. You will get autopatroller when the editors who are checking your work decide that checking behind you never shows any problems, and that having to check your edits is a waste of their time. When they decide it's a waste of their time, they will gladly put you in for autopatroller so that they are no longer notified to have a look. My point is, autopatroller is not granted to you for you, it is for those who have to check on you. Autopatroller will do nothing for you, but it relieves others of drudgery. Nobody enjoys checking other editors' edits, and as soon as they trust you, they will nominate you ... so that they no longer have to waste their time checking on entries that are always good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lectotype

Apparently this word is also used in context of buildings or structures, but, as far as I can ascertain, only by Chinese authors. Please google "Lectotype optimization". I don't know what to make of it. — This unsigned comment was added by 202.83.166.114 (talk).

Misspelling of "tectotype" (to mean a type of roof)? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@202.83.166.114, SemperBlotto: For tectotype, n.b.:

2010 May, David Leslie Hawksworth (compiler), Terms Used in Bionomenclature: The naming of organisms (and plant communities), Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, →ISBN, page 198 s.v. “tectotype”:
tectotype: (zool[ogy]) any type comprising a microscopic slide preparation or section.

— I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

forem, sum

Are the entries forem, fores, foret and sum complete?
Georges has: "forem, es, et etc. [...] 1) = essem, esses etc. [conjunctive/subjunctive imperfect] [...]: [...] so auch in der Coniug. periphr. beim Partic. Fut. [...] – 2) = fuissem, es etc. [conjunctive/subjunctive plu(squam)perfect], Plaut. u. Ov. Vgl. Brix Plaut. mil. 49."
Brix (full title: Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von Julius Brix. Viertes Bändchen: Miles Gloriosus. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1883, in English Selected comedies of Plautus. For the use in schools explained by Brix. Fourth small volume. Second edition, p. 29) has

"AR. Quid ín Cappadocia, úbi tu quingentós simul, / Ni hebés machaera fóret, uno ictu occíderas?"

with the note

"49. foret im Sinne von fuisset wie Trin. 832 837. Truc. I 1, 73. [foret in the sense of fuisset] — occideras für occidisses doch wohl nur aus metrischem Grunde [occideras for occidisses but likely only out of metrical reasons], [...]"

Some translations of the passage from Plautus' Miles gloriosus:

"And how about that time in Cappadocia, sir, when you would have slain five hundred men all at one stroke, if your sword had not been dull?" (Paul Nixon, Plautus with an English translation, vol. III, p.128f.) — had been is pluperfect in 19th century English grammars, without if it's indicative and with if it's subjunctive.
"What feats did you perform in Cappadocia! Where at one single stroke you had cut off five hundred men together, if your sword had not been blunt" (Bonnell Thornton, Comedies of Plautus, vol. I, p.130)
"Und dann in Cappadocien, wo Fünfhundert du mit einem Streiche, wenn dir nicht der Pallasch stumpf geworden wäre, niederhiebst." (Wilhelm Binder, Lustspiele, vol. II, p. 17) — wäre geworden is pluperfect of werden

So:

Can forem etc. be pluperfect and not only imperfect? The answer seems to be 'yes'.
Are these Old Latin uses, or "misuses" out of metrical reasons? Plautus would be Old Latin.

-80.133.107.23 12:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@80.133.107.23: Neither L&S, Gaffiot, nor the OLD state that the for- verb forms occur in the subjunctive pluperfect. How old is Georges as a source? Might his assertions be founded upon a now-emended Plautine falsa lectio? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]