Puisque

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

Also, please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we can help you with the languages you'll be working in.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!

—Ruakh_TALK 20:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What was the purpose of this edit? —Ruakh_TALK 20:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

As far as I have understood, fi-noun is useless as the plain {{fi-noun}} categorizes the word exactly the same way as the generic {{head|fi|noun}}; I haven't seen any markings of declension types on the headword line (for which fi-noun has been used some time ago, if I remember correctly). Link me to the appropriate discussions about fi-noun if I'm wrong. -- Puisque (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. All standard texts (e.g. Wheelock, Allen & Greenough 148, etc) state that the Latin interrogative pronoun (quis) has singular m&f forms which are exactly the same. In that light your edit is incorrect. Having corrected this page in the past I'm left wondering whether people have downstream pages which rely on an incorrect definition of 'quis'. If that is the case then perhaps they should be using the template for the relative pronoun instead. Regards. Endithon (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The forms differ according to Puisque's change in the Oxford Latin Grammar, and the OLD identifies qua as the feminine for the indefinite pronoun, though not for the interrogative pronoun. This may be an error in Wheelock, as there appear to be two different declensions for the two pronoun usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, quā is correct depending on the pronoun type? Gotcha. -- Puisque (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely a murky/gotcha area even, it seems, if you're just talking about the interrogative pronoun (which I was regarding the quis page as being). 'All' was a dangerous word for me to have used. I don't have the Oxford Latin Grammar to hand, however a little digging shows that the Gildersleeve and also Bennett grammars agree with Wheelock and the A&G New Latin Grammar. That said, the compact Cambridge Latin Grammar gives the same nominative type but differences between accusative and ablative. Perhaps there is some recent argument raging across the pond of which I'm unaware. Certainly, with the grammars I have to hand, the consensus is that the m&f have the same singular forms but, as you say, that could be wrong. -- Endithon (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I note your edit of the present infinitive of "revereor" from "reverērī" to "reverēri" (this edit), and the same to the related pages "veveri", "revereor", and "revereri".

Against the change to "veveri" you added the comment "in the second-conjugation deponent verbs, the last I in the infinitive is not long".

Can you say where you got this "rule" from? It is not consistent with Kennedy or the Oxford Latin Grammar, both of which give a long i.

See also (FWIW) Wikipedia's own entry on this: Wikipedia::Latin_conjugation#Deponent_and_semi-deponent_verbs. DetectiveFuller (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Je viens de voir l'histoire de cette page, et j'ai decouvert que tu es en train de essayer quelque chose. Si tu veux, dis-moi pour que je puisse t'aider :) --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour! I suppose, if anyhow possible, English is mandatory on English Wiktionary, (?) so I kindly ask you to reply in English. The problem with the {{de-decl-noun}} was that it does not work properly with pluralia tantum (nouns that are, in one sense or all senses, used only in plural). By grammar, nouns in German do not have gender when they are in the plural form, as the personal pronoun referring to them is the genderless sie/die. -- Puisque (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your changes, but I am afraid that {{de-decl-noun}} is not to be used directly. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Remember to start a discussion here when you tag an entry with {{rfv-etymology}}. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply