Saumache

इतः

What is the first parameter in the invocation of {{sa-adv}} meant to be? --RichardW57m (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It is meant to classify it as an adverb as is hence, whence... or did I misunderstand your point ? Saumache (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You've explained why you invoked {{sa-adv}}. But you also supplied a parameter. What is that parameter meant to be? Did you just think you had to supply the head word itself as a parameter? --RichardW57m (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't really familiar with the website back then, it really just was a rookie mistake, feel free to correct those. Saumache (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

coma

Latin coma and Latin cometes are only distantly and indirectly cognate (that is, only in another language and not without 2 derivational steps within that language) and not in a way that would justify the mention of cometes in the etymology section of coma. Instead, such relations can be presented in other sections, such as "related terms", if at all. But I don't see which value can be in even mentioning cometes in this entry, so I would delete it altogether. If anything, it will be interesting to learn that the English word comet comes from a Greek word meaning hair, which, though, ought not to be the business of any Latin entry. Imbricitor (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you: first in saying that they are but distanlty and indirectly (what ever that means) cognate; second, I find it quite interesting and do think whoever reads this section may have it that way too; the English argument does not hold its own as the Latin entry is the only place we can state the coma-cometes link. It strictly comes down to "better more than less" or better "as complete as possible" (although it is my own policy... it will never hurt to add more to such a small-sized entry). But if it really seems so trivial to you, I can always put it in a Related terms heading. Saumache (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The derivational link can be displayed in the entries of κόμη and κομήτης.

To my understanding, a cognate of one word is another word in another language that shares an ancestor with it. e.g. English heave and Latin capere both trace back to the same PIE word. Not only are Latin coma and Latin cometes both words of the same language (and both loanwords, even though cometes displays itself clearly as such while coma does not and was certainly borrowed earlier), but do not have a common ancestor either. They are not cognate, but one is derived from the other (via the intermediate verb κομᾶν), however not in Latin, but in Greek. Imbricitor (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I was certainly thinking of a broader sense that the word cognate does not necessarily have, and that our definition (see cognate) does not in fact agree with. What do you think of such a phrasing: "See also cometes/coma, ultimately both loanwords derived from the same Ancient Greek root"

Also, coma being borrowed earlier or not, the etymon of both is nonetheless—and doubtless—an earlier form, or not, of Ancient Greek κόμη.

And I will nevertheless add that, in the rare case of two words sharing the same language and derived from a same source, both would be cognates according to our definition (e.g. the queen/quean pair, though more appropriately called doublets). Saumache (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

My main point is that comētēs is not a part of a comprehensive etymology of coma. On the other hand, coma is indeed part of a comprehensive etymology of comētēs. But I wouldn't call it a cognation. See the edit that I just made in comētēs. I would place comētēs under "See also" or "Related terms". Imbricitor (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I just accepted I was wrong as for the cognation in my latest reply and I'm ok with the edit you just did. I just don't understand your "comprehensive etymology" thing as, if one is "comprehensive" counterclockwise so would be the other clockwise. If it's your wish to have it placed in some other header than the etymology header, have it your way, as long as it is but mentioned somewhere, somehow on the coma page. Saumache (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"Etymology" literally means "doctrine of the true essence", referring to the core and basic, "true" meaning of a particular word. You might as well call it "genealogy" or "doctrine of origin". An etymology states how the particular word was formed or born and what it meant in the beginning, of which kind its ancestors were, etc. The etymology itself does not contain information about the descendants of the word, and if it does, it is more than an etymology. Imbricitor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

One could uphold your point, but you have according to me a too narrow and classically-driven way of seeing it. Mentioning cometes in the coma etymology section, when the latter is in the former's, seems outright the correct thing to do. I think we allow ourselves things more outlandish (that is, in view of your idea of what is etymologycal) in these headers. Saumache (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

colloquial un coup

Hi. Are you familiar with colloquial French use of un coup in an adverbial way and/or to soften requests? See Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic#un coup if so. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

contabescentia / comedo

I see where you are coming from, however I am quite sure that the contabescentia here refers to the very "weight loss" or "atrophy" that is mentioned elsewhere. It seems that there was a disease where comedones or at least something that was called such, occurred more frequently, thus the comedones were thought to be the reason for the disease. Also if you look up contabescentia you will find atrophy as a synonym. I don't think it refers to any sort of putrefaction there since that word would have been readily available for the author. Imbricitor (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Imbricitor Excuse my being so cursory, I didn't take a closer look to what was meant and hadn not crosschecked it, but your "wasting away" did not seem right either, I also see how "atrophy" might be better than the "shrinking" I put lower. Saumache (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

labilis

Hello! I'm confused by the removal of the suffix id "deverbal" from this entry. Is this not a deverbal formation, comparable to agilis, facilis, fragilis? Urszag (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw the link was yellow and didn't give much more though to it, I'm adding it back as well as senseid's. Oh and by the way, what do you think of the would-be text for the t-suffixes appendix? I am not used to do such things hence my not being entirely satisfied with it, but I think it is quite good content-wise, a little more reading might make me add some two-three things more. Saumache (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I see you've done some more work on it! I think it is good to mention cases like -ilis/-bilis. I'll try to give more detailed thoughts later.--Urszag (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Urszag I've tweaked a lot of things since last time, have you come to read it through? Saumache (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I did, I made my own rough version here User:Urszag#Supine_stem and you can see if you want to take any examples or structure from that when editing User:Saumache/Sandbox.--Urszag (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Your version is to be the definite one? I'll add from what you made but I see little to no point in doing so if mine doesn't end up being used. Wouldn't it be easier if we both worked on the same too? Saumache (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't mean that. I was unsure how to edit yours so I wanted to leave it to you to decide what to incorporate or not in terms of differences in examples, structure, wording etc. Sorry, I realize that having two versions isn't very convenient, I just didn't have the energy to think through what specific parts I felt certain enough about to edit your user pages (which felt like a presumptuous/aggressive move, though I see that creating my own can also have that feeling in its own way).--Urszag (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, as I already told you in previous replies, feel free to edit it away, and I mean anything really. Otherwise, leave it to me and I'll write down what you have. Saumache (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

-trum, -tra and flustrum/flustra

Since flustrum is attested in the singular (even if late and rarely), I think it should not be deleted. Are you OK with just removing that template? I think the plural forms can be explained at that entry without having a separate entry for flustra.

Second, I'm not sure I agree that it is necessary or desirable to have a separate category for Category:Latin terms suffixed with -tra. This is extremely small and it mixes together the neuter second-declension plural ending (flustra) and the feminine first-declension singular ending (mollestra, mulctra) which I don't think are especially more linked to each other than the first is to the neuter second-declension singular -trum. So my preference would be to keep all of these words in Category:Latin_terms_suffixed_with_-trum and leave the short, very manageable list of the specific words with the feminine variant at -tra. Does that make sense to you, and do you agree? Thanks, Urszag (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Editors had a bad habit here to ditch pluralia tantum in favor of singular forms if attested, and these are bound to be found; see here how this leads to entries not even referring to the most common use of the word being in the plural and not in the singular (the lack of quotes doesn't help either), I have already edited a bunch of them. So no, I would keep flustra as the lemma and add flustrum as an alternative form if I find this quote. As for the categories, what you said is sound, wantonly editing I didn't even check the gender for these nouns... Saumache (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, based on the CFI for Latin, we are supposed to keep entries even if there is only one attestation. And from what I can see, there may be more. I don't think an RFD has much chance of succeeding, but marking flustrum as a late alternative form and having the main entry at flustra is a possible alternative.--Urszag (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm removing the RFD and setting flustrum as an alternative form. This might be hard for some but the idea that post Late Latin attestations bear the same value as Old to Late Latin ones isn't dear to me, I would personally lematize flustra even if only attested once classically. Saumache (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! After writing my message to you I started rethinking my objection to the -tra category: although small, it is consistent with the existing separate categories for -ula, -bra, -bula. Maybe it's actually better to standardize on keeping them separate, and create a new category for -cula nouns. I'm not sure, so I think I'll wait before editing these categories more.--Urszag (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of not including a header for noun bases in Appendix:Latin t-suffixes?

Hi, I wanted to suggest and discuss a larger change to the structure of Appendix:Latin t-suffixes. Please feel free to accept or reject it, since I'm not trying to steamroll anything here. I think that it would make it easier if the short section on "Nouns and adjectives" did not need to be included on this page. While there are some cases of non-verb bases for a range of t-suffixes, I don't think that the amount that can be said about them is anything comparable to what can be said about the supine stem (and I think they could just be mentioned in passing in the introductory section, rather than having their own header at the end). And I think it might be helpful to have that extra level of headers available for organizing the discussion about verbs. What is your view on removing that section and leaving the notes about non-verbal formations to individual pages such as -tus, -ātio, -ātor? One other question: is -tūdō used to form derivatives from verbal supine stems? I think this is at least rare; for example, I don't see any nouns ending in -sūdō in Latin dictionaries. Urszag (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the problem might perhaps lie in the page's naming, "t-suffixes", not "the supine stem". I think calling it as we do now alone calls for the non-removal of the nouns and adjectives section. There's no single page where the analysis given in the section might fit as of now, I wouldn't create an extra one just for it either. I furthemore deem its proper place to be there as these are not only nouns suffixed with extended denominative suffixes (-ātiō) but also generally verb-appended ones (-tim), it's part of the bigger picture. I grant you it does seem strange having a level 2 header tenth the size of the other, couldn't we just make multiple lvl 2 headers for verbs alone and a final one for nouns and adjectives?... or is it stricly verboten formatting-wise?

You're absolutely right about -tūdō, I basically went and sought every verb-appended t-suffixes when starting the page, -tās and -tūdō have limited to no weight in the whole discourse (which has since logically shifted to supine stem matters) apart from being listed and specified not being of the party. Saumache (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd even argue adding the suffix -tūs to the list if we keep the nouns and adjectives section since discrepancies occur when onustus, egestās (but not tempestūs‽) and the likes are there to be covered, this leads to heavy reordering and other changes as we now need to explain our non including -tinus, -tris..., well, tell me. Saumache (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

ready#Adverb

Aha, "prepositive". I couldn't think of the word I wanted to put on that. Good fix, thanks. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:40AC:CBD6:D751:777D 17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Strange that we don't have a [[Category:English adjectives commonly used as postmodifiers]] and label to glossary link for prepositives, as galore does. Might work on that. Saumache (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"syncope" of -ētum

I know a number of dictionaries/grammars give that explanation, but is it really plausible and worth giving as an alternative etymology in entries such as salictum? Latin does not normally syncopate long vowels like -ē-, and there is no etymological reason to suppose that salictum is a secondary evolution from salicētum rather than an alternative primary derivation. The shorter form is already found in Cato the Elder and Plautus, whereas the longer form seems to be attested only later and infrequently, so I don't see any chronological support for the "syncope" hypothesis either. Overall, the syncope hypothesis seems very dubious to me (at least in the case of this word) and so I feel like we shouldn't even mention it. Urszag (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I lazily copied from the big authorities; then, levelings from (c)tum to (c)ētum seem even more plausible! Saumache (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Plautus quotation templates

Hi! I noticed that you have been working on editing quotations and the Wikisource texts of Plautus plays. I don't know whether there is a specific larger principle that you are following with regard to formatting and so on, but I wanted to comment because personally, I find it most convenient to refer to locations in Plautus' plays using plain line numbers, without any further subdivisions by act or scene. That is the convention followed by many sources that I commonly use. For example, Hypotactic uses one set of line numbers across an entire play (aside from the Argumentum); Gaffiot 2016 cites "Pl. Rud. 745"; Fortson 2008's "Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies" quotes lines such as Men. 877 (in V.iii) and Mos. 656 (in ACTUS III.i); the PHI corpus uses line numbers without act or scene numbers; the "Meters of Roman Comedy" database uses line numbers without act or scene numbers. I only really have noticed act and scene numbers in Lewis and Short, which is not a very recent source.

I guess it might be technically possible to have the templates take either type of input, depending on how many parameters are used. If so, I would not object to that, and I wouldn't mind if the display format is normalized to the one with act and scene divisions. However, I would find it inconvenient if the goal of this project is instead to make it mandatory for entry editors to refer to act and scene divisions whenever adding a quotation from a play of Plautus. Sorry I didn't bring this up sooner; I had not noticed it until recently. Urszag (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Urszag The formatting is quite free since we don't really follow a regular edition, the texts are all from the Latin library. I already noticed the issue and lately started to add the starting and ending plain line numbers at the start of each scene, I have not yet found a satisfying way to include them along the others. I am following Perseus's line-count as I though it was the place were people would be most likely to take Plautus quotes from. Also, Perseus's editions won't in some cases follow exactly what we had from the Latin library, bringing its share of trouble. I'll tinker a little more, though I might simply add every 50th verse or something like that, if you think it's fine. I'll have a lot to review and level when finished, so give me any thoughts on what you think I should change/add/remove. Saumache (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Can we even give a work different format's at Module:Quotations/la/data? I tried having both linkable verses on Miles Gloriosus but the result is quite ugly as is. I made a new template to have linkable verses in the left margin so we just need to able having both formats for each play.

Otherwise I would add plain number verses to the left margin, non-clickable. Best, I think, would be in citations to display them alongside the ones per scenes. But that would make others have to refer to acts and scenes again; it's not likely people start flooding the project with Plautus quotes anyway, I'll monitor it and regularize them to whatever design we will have agreed upon. Saumache (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the entry for "obsecro"

Hello, I see you've removed "polite" from the first interjection definition of obsecro. While I understand it sounds kind of weird to have "polite" and "colloquial" coexist, I modeled those tags (not sure what you call them, sorry) after the 1879 L&S entry which lists both the polite "please" usage and the exasperated "for God's sake" usage as subsections of the definition "In partic., in colloq. lang., obsecro." Can something not be a polite expression while also operating within the colloquial register? I ask this as a genuine, non-combative question - I find it hard to convey my tone properly.

Also, I noticed how you went through my page and adjusted many of my entries. I do apologize for the extra work caused by my italicizing of Latin quotes - I've always made it a goal to find all the formatting rules and templates, but I've had a difficult time locating the really specific rules. I never found anything saying that quotes cannot go in italic, and in my years browsing Wiktionary I swear half the Latin quotes I've seen have been italicized - though I guess that means those are errors. Anyways, long-winded way of saying I wasn't aware but I know now. My bad. Same thing with putting the date on citations. Sometimes I've had the template not assign works their date, so I just fell into the habit of manually adding the dates anyway - I didn't know it was against the rules to type dates when not necessary per the template.

I strive to be a useful Wiktionary editor since I love to help, but being new and learning mostly just by looking at the wikitext of other entries (I do wish there was a complete, very detailed rulebook- maybe it exists and I haven't found it) has evidently caused some errors.

Zarsi (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zarsi Hi! I personally can't see how a polite word may also be colloquial (that is for a single meaning). But I'll answer your first point by numbers: enter incategory:"English colloquialisms" incategory:"English polite terms" on the WT search bar: one find. If I could not find but a single English word meeting these criteria in the thousands we host, then I guess it isn't a thing.

Don't worry about me having to check your input, it's quite mild and little chronophage compared to other cleanups I still have or set myself to do. No one expects you to peruse Wiktionary:Entry layout, Wiktionary:English entry guidelines (I never did), but if something as basic as italics weren't automatized, there's a great chance it isn't a thing either; this goes for many other little quirks on this beautiful project, it's all about emulating.

It isn't "against the rules" to add dates manually, but it's virtually useless if the module does it itself; Module:Quotations/la/data handles it all, if you have any issue with it, just text me and I'll fix it, if need be. Saumache (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Etymology headers

When you add or remove an Etymology section, you need to follow the rules in WT:EL:

• If there's only one etymology section, it comes after the Pronunciation section, with a plain Level 3 (3 "="s on both sides) "Etymology" header followed by POS headers also at L3.
• If there's more than one, all the Etymology headers need to be followed by numbers, still at L3 ("Etymology 1", "Etymology 2", etc.), and all the headers that are part of a given etymology section need to be one level lower than normal so they will nest within it:
  • Pronunciation specific to a given etymology after that etymology header, at L4. If one pronunciation applies to all the etymologies, it can stay where it was, still at L3
  • POS headers at L4, and all the L4 headers nested under them changed to L5 to stay nested under them
  • References, Further reading, etc. that apply to all of the etymologies stay at L3, otherwise they can be added to the relevant etymology sections at L4.

I was somewhat surprised to find you repeatedly making mistakes with this, given the level of expertise you've shown otherwise. At any rate, I figure it won't hurt to explain things, in case you missed this part of the documentation. Thanks!

@Chuck Entz I thank patrollers like you to always look behind back, sometimes I just don't check on what I write. Saumache (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

About L&S's internal jargon

Hi Saumache. I see that in several pages you have changed how references are shown, specifically replacing references like these

• “translātus, -a, -um”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879), A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press
• “translātus, -ūs”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879), A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press

with

• “translātus¹”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879), A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press
• “translātus²”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879), A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press

I wonder. what advantage do you think removing a standard identification and replacing it with L&S's internal jargon (“¹”, “²”) will bring to Wiktionary? --Grufo (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grufo These numbers don't necessarily follow Lewis and Short's ordering but ours. Honestly, there is no agreed-upon way of doing it, I prefer this one and so started using it, and, given I'm going through every non-yet-categorized action noun there be, chances are you've seen some of it. As for why: I prefer having references ordered by sources; some pages may show several lemmas with the exact same declension patterns and so are better told apart by a simple superscript; I deem the use of numbers clearer overall.

This is of course open for debate and the best thing would be to formally dicuss it withing the Latin-editing community. Saumache (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grufo So please don't revert edits to entries I have made changes to that you don't agree with just yet. Saumache (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Saumache: The question is: If someone wants to read the meaning of translātus, -ūs on Lewis&Short, how are they supposed to know that they have to click on translātus² instead of translātus¹? The reason you can find a few edits of mine in which I removed L&S's look-up page (the page that in the past allowed you to click on either lemma), is that until not long ago the look-up mechanism was broken (you could not click anywhere). Now however it seems it has been fixed again. Between the old look-up page and translātus¹/translātus², I honestly prefer the look-up page—at least I know on what I am clicking. Consider also that the number are not always consistent: -us, -a, -um is expressed by 1 and -us, -ūs is expressed by 2 in the case of translātus, but the numbers become 1 and 3 in the case of strātus, so switching to L&S's internal numbers is not reliable. --Grufo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grufo As I said, the superscript numbers I use don't follow any source's ordering but our ordering by etymologies. I feel strātus is a bad example as you have here a link to a sense we don't have in our own entry, that is, strātus, -ī. Here I would also write the Elementary Lewis ref as {{R:la:Elementary Lewis|strātus¹|stratus1}} even though this source has only this one sense (which is associated with etymology 1 in our entry).

This might rightly be called obscure or what you will, I used it because I myself thought it convenient, I'll ask around to get consensus. Saumache (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it, our order and not the vocabulary's order. I think it is still a regression that encourages visual memory instead of a deeper and more practical one for learning a language, but I am not going to fight over this. --Grufo (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Another consideration is that our order may change without notice. All it takes is for someone to add something, rearrange things, or both. That's why we came up with IDs in links. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That is also a very good point. --Grufo (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

About splitting Category:Latin terms suffixed with -us

I'm not sure this split is a good idea. Etymologically, it's a single suffix. A split by sense/function could be straightforward if these subcategories were exhaustive and clearly distinct, but I think they actually overlap: words like ignivomus, frugilegus, cornupetus are both compound adjectives and deverbal adjectives, aren't they? Also, I don't think it's very accurate to call an inanimate noun like fustibalus an "agent noun". Urszag (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I had prefered analyzing them frugi-legus, igni-vomus (otherwise only found in flammivomus), etc... These share the pattern foo-verb-ing, the remainder is comprised of—mostly—possessives/relationals (not numerous, at least when not counting New Latin, and the list at Category:Latin terms suffixed with -us is far from exhaustive) such as inanimus, honōrus, bīmus and others. I would favor moving every adjective following the pattern foo-verb-us to the "deverbal adjective" category, so I would have miscategorized ignifluus and others; we also have an entry for -volus (“flying”) boasting of no more than one derivative, whereas many an adjective ends with -fluus, we should do something about this too. The other category could be renamed "denominative adjective"? as compoundability is rightly more of a common trait. These changes should clearly separate them, what do you think? Saumache (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

At agent noun, One who, or that which, [does X]. fusti-bal-us → "that which throws a stick". Saumache (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Putting all -us adjectives where a verb stem precedes -us in one "deverbal adjective" category is a relatively clear criterion. (Though the title of "Category:Latin terms suffixed with -us (compound adjective)" seems like it would be relatively misleading in that case.)

I guess it makes sense after all to call fustibalus an agent noun.--Urszag (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said, renaming the "compound adjective" category to something like "denominative adjective" would indeed make sense. I will create -fluus and similar suffixes, from at least 3 sightings onward? I am also just as ready to do away with them, these suffixes make the Category:Latin terms suffixed with -us (deverbal adjective) less accurate, the exceptional productivity of a single verb with -us furthemore does not entail any idiomaticity, and the need of a separate suffix page thereof. Saumache (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

For now, I'm generally in favor of keeping the existing compound suffixes (e.g. -fer, -vorus, -loquus), even though I can see the argument for getting rid of them. Some have descendants (e.g. -vorus) and ones that are productive in taxonomic "Latin" might be thought of as single units by users of that sort of Latin. But I think there should be a high bar for creating new ones such as -fluus; I think just having 3 uses isn't a strong enough reason to make an entry. Maybe clearer criteria can be hammered out eventually.--Urszag (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Some further thoughts, since work on these categories/labels still seems to be in progress. The "deverbal adjective" category remains relatively straightforward, and it can be distinguished easily enough from the "agent noun" category, although it does seem to me that they are closely related formations. It's a bit trickier to give notes about the deverbal formation when it's split across two sections.

I see Category:Latin terms suffixed with -us (compound adjective) is currently a redirect. As I mentioned earlier, "compound" is ambiguous as a sense id because a deverbal formation like urbicremus is no less a compound (e.g. it properly belongs in Category:Latin compound terms), so I think this name should just be retired. Are you OK with deleting the category? I don't see the need for "senseid|la|compound adjective", but if it seems necessary to distinguish denominal formations like altispinus from those like Hibērus, some other terminology, such as "possessive" vs. "relational" or something like that, would I think be better. I might be most inclined to just leave denominal formations in the same category, though: "having" isn't necessarily a clearly distinct sense from "of/related to". E.g. even in English, "having two years" can be expressed as "of two years", and there would not be much difference between saying a plant is "silver-leaf-having" or "silver-leaf-related" (e.g. in English we can say "of two years" with the sense "having two years", or "silverleaf nightshade" with the sense "silver-leaved nightshade".--Urszag (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

For the deverbals-agent nouns close relationship, see -legus and the ambiguity in dictionaries over the hapax nesapius being a noun or adjective, do whatever you see fit, I am just used seeing suffixes of a particular POS separated from ones of an other by a header. I didn't think about what the redirect implied, it should be deleted. I had no further intent of making more categories, this id is simply for linking between pages, e.g., from -is. I cannot clearly see where you're going with your last point, even though both meanings are related, one is clearly set apart from the other by its productivity with proper nouns, what would you even want to change? or is this mere semantics? For example, possessive -is seems to have never formed this type of relational adjectives, but doublets inanimus/inanimis are most common. Saumache (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Saumache proofread

thouroughly → thoroughly; it's categories, the → its categories—the; Celtic  tribes → Celtic tribes;  etymologyzing → etymologizing

. ~2026-23921-56 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

yes, my orthography is often bad, thanks for correcting any typo you see Saumache (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

|title= param in Latin verbs

Thanks for the fixes. You could have waited until the next monthly dump for the fixes. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 14:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really know what you mean by montly dump, I'll finish it up anyway. Saumache (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

OK for the subject, now what is the object of waiting till the next dump? There are lots of things I'm not aware of. Saumache (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I added a tracking page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary:Tracking/etymon/lang/la/title/pagename-mismatch-after-strip-diacritics. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 17:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)