Template talk:Lang-grc

definition

Hardwire Template:Polytonic into this one?--Imz 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link

{{editprotected}} Dear administrators, please add the following interwiki link:

[[ia:Patrono:Lang-grc]]

Thank you in advance. Regards, --Julian (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek or Ancient Greek?

Several users have been changing the link text from Ancient Greek to Greek based on the argument that whether the Greek is Ancient or Modern is clear from context.

I disagree with this change. What context is it clear from? I suppose it's clear from context where the article has to do with Classical Greek culture (for example, in Plato). In these situations, the Greek must be Ancient, since Plato wasn't from the Modern Greek period.

But this template is also used (or is not yet, but should be used) in etymologies, where there may be no context in the article connecting it to Ancient Greece (for example, in Spermatozoon). Greek in etymologies comes from Ancient rather than Modern Greek. Sometimes this makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't, but clarity is a value on Wikipedia.

Also, in certain articles, both Ancient and Modern Greek translations for a word are included (for example, in Syracuse, Sicily). In such articles, the descriptor must be used, or there will be confusion between which word is Ancient and which is Modern.

For these situations, the descriptor "Ancient" should be included in the template.

But why remove the descriptor anyway? What's the point of simply saying "Greek"? Is it confusing for readers to see "Ancient Greek"? Then the confusion is an opportunity for readers to read the Ancient Greek article and discover that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are distinct. Or is the point to say that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are not significantly different? That isn't true. — Eru·tuon 22:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with those who would prefer the simple display string "Greek". (A separate issue is whether maybe even the link itself ought to point to the overview article Greek language rather than Ancient Greek, but let's talk about just the display string first.) In many instances, this template is used to give the Greek forms of proper names that have remained the same across all stages of the language (e.g. in Agesilaos: "Agesilaos II (Ancient Greek: Ἀγησίλαος)". In these cases, the specifier "ancient" is of no relevance to the point being made, which is purely one of script transliteration. The same is true for explanations of terms such as the explanation of aniconism (" The word itself derives from Greek εικων 'image' with the negative prefix an- (Greek privative alpha) and the suffix -ism (Greek -ισμος)" (here the editors have avoided actually using this template), or for placenames, where often the most relevant time period, that of the etymological link between an original Greek placename and its modern continuation in some other local language, reaches well into the (linguistically) "modern" era of Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What should we do for those cases where it is necessary to have the descriptor "Ancient", as in Syracuse, Sicily? Should we have a parameter in the template to add the descriptor? — Eru·tuon 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Greek to Ancient Greek, first of all, because in many instances there is no difference between the ancient word and the modern word. Secondly, the iso code grc is for the Greek language up to 1453, i.e. it encompasses all stages of Greek before Modern Greek. I came to this template after reading the article about Procopius where this template is often used. Although he wrote in Atticising Greek, I didn't feel that Ancient Greek is a template that describes well either his name or the titles of his works. Moreover, as Future said, hematology and other neologisms are not coined from ancient Greek words, but rather than simply Greek. There many cases where we cannot limit to Ancient Greek only.

As for cases such as Syracuse, we can write Ancient Greek: Συρακοῦσαι. Dimboukas (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The article on Ancient Greek defines it as extending from the 9th century BC to the 6th century AD, and Procopius was within the 6th century, so there is no problem calling his name Ancient Greek, unless we adopt a different definition of "Ancient Greek" from the one given in the Wikipedia article.

But I see your point, since grc also includes later periods than the 6th century, which are better referred to as Byzantine or Medieval. In that case, how about we remove "Ancient", but add parameters that add different descriptors (such as Byzantine, Medieval, etc.), as the IPA-la template does, which can be used for greater precision?

I don't know if I agree that the elements used in word-formation originate from just plain Greek and not Ancient Greek. Saying they are just Greek would imply that they are present in both Ancient and Modern. Some are present in Modern and Ancient (for example, ἄνθρωπος), but others are not present in Modern (for example, ὕδωρ). All or most are present in Ancient Greek, however, and it is Ancient Greek from which they would be borrowed, since Ancient Greek is a Classical language of the West, while Modern Greek is not. (As evidence for this last statement, consider that a Modern-but-not-Ancient-Greek word would not, I believe, ever be used in word formation.) If we label the Greek from which elements used in word-formation come from as a specific period of Greek, it must be Ancient. If we do not label the Greek, then it will be ambiguous between Modern and Ancient, and this ambiguity will result in inaccuracy in some cases (as with ὕδωρ, which is not Modern) and historical inaccuracy in others (as with ἄνθρωπος, which is also Modern, but as an element in word-formation was taken from Ancient). In the interests of accuracy in the few cases where it matters, and continuity across all cases, I would label all the Greek in etymologies as Ancient Greek. — Eru·tuon 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If we want both versions available in templated form, I guess two separate templates would be more handy than a single one with parameters. Shouldn't be a problem to create a clone, should it? Of course, Dimboukas is also right that any desired variant can still be produced manually too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if the template were more flexible so that we can choose whether to display Greek or Ancient Greek. And if we do that we can have the link point to Greek language or Ancient Greek too. The templates themselves can be something like {{lang-grc-anc|λόγος}} and {{lang-grc-gre|λόγος}}. Dimboukas (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is a stupid discussion. Use of this template should be deprecated. Most frequently it will be clear from the context that "Ancient Greek" is intended, so if there must be a default, use the pipe. But you will still want to pipe "Greek" to specific variants of grc, often Biblical Greek or Koine, since this is where most of our grc loans are from. If in doubt, don't use this template and specify the language link manually. I only ever come across this template when trying to fix people using "lang-el" mistakenly. If this continues, I am just going to slap a giant dispute template on it, so it will be glaringly obviousl in any article where the template occurs that it should be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why no Commas-Commata?!?!

I would do it now myself but better to discuss first:

Shouldn't we put commata in the coding between word_in_greek, transliteration_thereof and translation_thereof?!?

Doesn't

Ancient Greek: ἄτομος, romanized: átomos, lit. 'indivisible, an atom'

look weird to you?!?! Wouldn't

Ancient Greek: ἄτομος,, romanized: átomos,, lit. 'indivisible, an atom'

be better (and more easy to be automatically written thus without having me to manually add them as I did now)?
Or is this some MOS rule I can't find or some Anglosaxon convention that I don't know of?!?
P.S. The same for Template:lang-gkm.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Whether to separate words in non-Latin alphabets and their transliterations and translations by commas or by nothing, or to put one or more in a parenthesis is an unsettled question as far as practice is concerned. I personally like not having commas between them. It's kind of like not having a comma between a word and its pronunciation in IPA. Using a comma seems to indicate that the different ways of writing the word are items in a list, rather than simply forms of the same word. That causes complications when there is a list of words written in these different ways. I don't think there's any official Wikipedia policy on this; it seems to be left up to the people writing about the individual languages being transliterated. Different conventions (commas, no commas, parentheses, no parentheses) are used in different articles. It's anarchy. I guess this issue hasn't seemed important enough to have policy formulated about it. — Eru·tuon 21:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To me simply forms of the same word and list of words written in these different ways are not mutually exclusive and IPA pronunciation falls under the same category... It is a list of words, it is logical and I think empirical to have pauses between the words, therefore it's just a perfect place to include commas. But I guess it's a de gustibus non disputandum est thing and convention that I'll just have to accept... Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Koine

How about we add a parameter allowing "Koine" to be specified? I think some of the disagreement regarding using "Ancient Greek" to label Greek text is due to the fact that Greek words borrowed into Latin were borrowed during the Koine period, which is sometimes not included under "Ancient Greek" — or that's what I gather. (Other disagreement is due to the fact that many "Greek" words in English are compound words made from Ancient Greek and Koine roots, compounds that did not exist in ancient times.) If this template had an option like {{Lang-la}} does for the language variety, this would remove one of the two problems. — Eru·tuon 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I was thinking of {{IPA-la}}. {{Lang-la}} doesn't have a language variant option. So I guess to create such a thing here would be an innovation. — Eru·tuon 04:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Automatic transliteration

I have created Module:Ancient Greek, a copy of a Wiktionary transliteration module, which provides an automatic transliteration function (for instance, {{#invoke:Ancient Greek|translit|Ἑλληνική}} results in Hellēnikḗ. I would add it to this template, except many articles already have transliterations written out. Maybe I'll figure out a better way to proceed... — Eru·tuon 01:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Erutuon! That looks useful. I've added it to the see-also of this templates doc. HLHJ (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

quotes problematic

The quotes on the transliteration are problematic sometimes, as in the last example, {{lang-grc|ἄτομος| |indivisible, an atom (lit: 'that cannot be cut')}};

Ancient Greek: ἄτομος, lit. 'indivisible, an atom (lit: 'that cannot be cut')'

Here the "lit" is also misplaced. Could we have a separate "extra" parameter, as in some other templates, so that this can be separated from the transliteration parameter? HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

lack of space

"An older name for Lesbos that was maintained in Aeolic Greek
was Ἴσσα (Íssa)." produces no visible space after "was". Can this be fixed in the template's code, and is there a workaround until that happens? Even adding many spaces doesn't help:
was Ἴσσα (Íssa). --Espoo (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not about {{lang-grc}}.

Browser issue? Using Chrome latest on Windows 10 latest I see a space. Interestingly, when viewed in the wikitext editor, the > character of the <code> tag slips under the diacritics (odd for monospaced text):

<code>Ἴσσα</code>

While this may not have anything to do with the rendering issue, if the text Ἴσσα is really Aeolic Greek, shouldn't the {{lang}} template be using grc-x-aeolic:

{{lang|grc-x-aeolic|Ἴσσα}} → Ἴσσα

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Different separators when label=none is set?

Moved to Template talk:Lang § Different separators when label=none is set? (lang-xxx)

 –  — sbb (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Compare, default (with and without a |translit= parameter):

• Ancient Greek: κινέω, romanized: kinéō, lit. 'to move, to change'
• Ancient Greek: κινέω, lit. 'to move, to change'

... vs. |label=none:

• κινέω, kinéō, 'to move, to change'
• κινέω, 'to move, to change'

Without the |label= parameter, the extra comma separating the Greek word and its translation does not follow MOS:SINGLE ("Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes, with no comma before the definition").

Requested changes if |label=none is provided:

1. no comma after the Greek-language term. Desired output: κινέω 'to move, to change'
2. if |translit= is given, the transliteration is placed in parentheses. Desired output: κινέω (kinéō) 'to move, to change'

Alternately, perhaps a new parameter specifying separator format (default to current style, and some other non-default value would produce no commas, and put the translit. in parens) would be great. However it's implemented, I don't care, would be fine.  — sbb (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Only 14 editors watch this page. You might be better off finding someplace more visible to establish consensus for your request. Template talk:lang isn't much better with only 119 watchers.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Appreciated.  — sbb (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

Request: Change Ancient Greek language link to simply Ancient Greek as former is a redirect. Thanks. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This request needs to be made at Module Talk:lang - FlightTime (open channel) 21:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)