User talk:Ser be etre shi

Sandbox, Entry layout explained, Criteria for inclusion, FAQ, Glossary, Discussion rooms, Information desk.

Most Latin nouns in the fourth declension will be masculine, so this isn't a particularly remarkable category. In the past, we've generally created categories like this for groups of words that deviate from the norm, such as masculine nouns in the first declension, feminine nouns in the second declension, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not arguing against having a category, just point out that the way you've named it makes those nouns look like exceptions to the norm in Latin. Why not simply have the category for "Latin nouns in the fourth declension"? Why single out "masculine" as something weird? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding these pronunciations. I'm not around as much here as I used to be, so these requests aren't getting done like they should. However, please take a look at this revision. (1) The time period for the pronunciation should always be marked, since there is often a difference between Classical and Ecclesiatical Latin. (...and be careful never to give a Classical pronunciation to a word that did not exist in the Classical period!) (2) Do not use a syllable separator immediately before a stress mark; the stress marker implies a syllable break, so adding the dot to separate syllables is redundant.

I also noticed that you separated ne.u.tra.lis between the "e" and "u". This may be right, but I'd always believed, and was implicitly instructed, that this was an instance of the rare Latin diphthong "eu". Our pronunciation and sound file for neuter also treats this as a diphthong. However, the etymology suggests you may be right to separate them. I don't have any authority that explicitly states one way or the other, so I'm merely bringing my doubts to your attention, in case you have something more authoritative. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info from Vox Latina. At least we've got an authority stating it's one way or the other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think you forgot to include the language on the context template. —CodeCat 19:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I made some fixes to an entry you created: diff. (You forgot the gender, and the plural is now specified without "plural=") —CodeCat 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Glad to see a new person working on Spanish around here! I just got back a couple days ago from a trip to Latin America (I passed through San Salvador airport but didn't stay there, unfortunately). I've been adding some more Spanish vocabulary, but one of my problems is Spanish regionalisms; I generally just rely on the RAE dictionary for guidance, but that's not always as helpful as it could be. Recently, I created entries for all the varieties of manjar it lists, but many of them are not marked for region (unfortunately). I've also created entries for some words like tunco which could likely use improvement. Anyway, thank you for your contributions! (PS: Please respond here. Thanks.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I looked at the entries of manjar, and I don't think I can contribute much else to it... As for tunco, I have no idea why the hell the DRAE says it can mean 'somebody missing a limb' in El Salvador. I've never heard this, and my parents are equally weirded out by that. They have probably confused it with cuto, which has the two Salvadoran uses they list... I just made some little improvements to both, including the addition of the phrase Mató tunco tu tata (which according to this YouTuber is "one of the most culturally enriching sayings in El Salvador", hehehe...)

Yeah, the DRAE is sadly very unreliable for regionalisms, both in terms of including regionalisms (especially from Latin America) and defining them properly. Hopefully we can do some more accurate work at Wiktionary...--Serafín33 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, when I can I use books.google.com.es to verify definitions I take from the DRAE (but with things like the manjares, it's often difficult to tell which one they mean). Just a quick note, entries like that should begin with the lower case, so mató tunco tu tata. (No, my father didn't kill a pig, and yes, if he did I would definitely have fear, especially because he's vegetarian. For some reason, Salvadorians always are surprised I know this one...) Anyway, thanks for the improvements! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I removed this category that you created: it was redundant to Category:Latin fourth declension nouns. --Fsojic (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ser be etre shi,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, on this edit: I'm afraid this word can't mean however, and neither can the English word be used the way you're using it in your translations. It's normally used to continue one's own train of thought and when used to answer a question, will be interpreted as talking past the other person - the result reads kind of like those Oblivion meme dialogues. Did you check your translations against others? They're not very accurate either. Brutal Russian (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Brutal Russian Meanings 1-7 are essentially summaries of meanings 1-7 in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Meaning #8, "however", came ultimately from a note in the LLPSI's Amphitruo, which translated the quīn of one of the examples as "at enim", and which I noticed I could not categorize in any of the existing seven usages. Fix the meanings as you may see fit: Wiktionary is free-to-edit in the end. Regarding the examples, I believe I checked some but not all of the translations against others' translations. I also may have used some slightly forceful English in them to exemplify the given equivalent, rather than give fully natural English: notably in the case of the Vulgate translation that goes "stop (himself from) pursuing him".--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 04:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've already gone through the adverbial meanings, though not the conjunctive ones so far - and these seemed to be correct, as well as their translations, which made me all the more surprised at that "however" one, hence this. The example found in the OLD under 2b. I agree that at enim is largely synonymous with these uses - it likewise expresses protest, only even more forcefully. It couldn't be translated with "however", which impassionately introduces an alternative proposition. —Now that you mention it, 'stop oneself from' in English means that the person wants to do something so much that they can't prevent themselves from starting to do it ('he couldn't stop himself from laughing'). It's normally a reference to the future; in this case 'did not want to stop himself from' it amounts to 'he decided to let himself'. omittere on the other hand means 'to give up', in this case 'to stop following'. Brutal Russian (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Brutal Russian I was looking at how you left the entry in the end, and seeing you macronized all the examples, I was wondering, is there a reason behind the tu without a macron, or was it just a little mistake? Just asking because I think I once saw another example on Wiktionary of non-macronized tu, which I also corrected (and whose history I didn't bother checking; may or may not have been you). It's interesting Pedecerto has an example of tŭ in Lucilius, but in that line of Plautus at least the metre requires a long ū (you can see how all the neighbour lines end in "– u x").--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 00:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just missed it, yeah - the Lucilius one is a regular (though not terribly common Classically) shortening through enclisis, as also in siquidem, quandoquidem. The preposition part you corrected though: I believe in English one digs either "the farm" or "on the farm", not "in the farm". Brutal Russian (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Brutal Russian Oh, I see. I got a bit interested in this, and asked the question in some group... To my surprise, the four native speakers that answered (from San Francisco, Sydney, a city in Texas, and York) agreed it's "on the farm", although the Californian at least elaborated saying he could conceive situations where "dig in the farm" or "dig the farm" would make sense:

"The farmer is digging in the farm". seems like it should have a reading with a compound verb "dig in" taking "the farm" as an object, rather than an object-less verb with an "in"-PP. it's hard for something to be located "in" the farm (including an act of digging) b/c I conceptualize the farm as the flat patch of land upon which farming takes place, rather than an enclosed building like "the barn" would be. "The farmer is digging in the soil on the farm" is natural. "The farmer is digging the farm" seems analogous to sentences like "The farmer is digging a hole/a trench", where something is being created by an act of digging, as if you are digging a hole in the ground in order to create your farm. that's a pretty weird reading though

...The other three agreed with him, and the York guy further said:

farm always takes 'on'.

'at the farm' is also possible now I think about it

but it conceptualises farm perfectively (lol what a metaphor) as a single undifferentiated map point

Hmm. Prepositional collocations, I swear.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 00:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to add that Pope Leo quotation, but found that the TLL says nothing about it. Can you please give me the source? I’d be happy to add it, you know that’s my thing. --Biolongvistul (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Biolongvistul: It's Leo I's De haeresi et historia Manichaeorum (from the year 461), chapter 14, section 8, which you can find by searching for "mangonio" on Corpus Corporum between the years 300 and 600.

Supplicamus (aiunt), sanctissime . . . , clamamus: Adjuva nos et sanctas animas (a Severo) occisas, quas astare cogitate prudenter, et ostendere vobis quod propter Christum traditae sunt morti a bestia multi capitis, ne rursus ex suo omnibus manifesto mangonio et Manichaeo errore, quo confidens iste iniquus ausus est intrare mundas regias aulas. In quam quidem opinionem, sive judicium, laudati episcopi, non alia ducti ratione descenderunt, nisi quia, spectatis Severi moribus istiusque doctrina, sedulo percunctati sunt cujus sectae assertorem propugnatoremque eum oporteret nuncupare.

The sentence looks hard to translate! Particularly thte "traditae sunt morti a bestia multi capitis" bit. Hrmmm...--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 02:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply