Disputatio:Dialectus Ionico-Attica
Grammatica
[fontem recensere]I don't know the translation of 'masculine', 'feminine' and 'neuter', and 'article'. When you know that, please edit!
Edit: I found the abbrevation of 'masculine, 'feminine' and 'neuter' at victionarium
Lord Roman 11:27, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
- The lists you included on the page are in fact Attic Greek and not Ionic-Attic Greek. I'd suggest however that they be moved, not to Dialectus Attica, but to Lingua Graeca antiqua, reserving the dialect pages for information about the disctinctive features of each dialect or dialect group as compared to other dialects. --Fabullus 08:23, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
- So, sould I move it to Lingua Graeca antiqua?
- Before we start moving chunks of text about between different pages, it is good to hear what others beside myself might have to say on the matter. I will ask Andrew Dalby for his opinion. --Fabullus 14:22, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
- I think that in morphology the standard "ancient Greek language" is almost identical with the "Ionic-Attic dialect", but the page about the dialect has to deal with different kinds of questions: when did it exist? When did it divide? etc.; while the page about the language is where people would look for general grammatical information. So, I agree with Fabullus that this material would be better placed at Lingua Graeca antiqua. Lord Roman, you'll have to look closely at that page, which at present says there are five cases, not four. It depends how you count ... :) But, yes, I suggest you go ahead and edit this material into that page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed it from the page, shortly I should make the complete conjugation and post it into Lingua Graeca antiqua
- I think that in morphology the standard "ancient Greek language" is almost identical with the "Ionic-Attic dialect", but the page about the dialect has to deal with different kinds of questions: when did it exist? When did it divide? etc.; while the page about the language is where people would look for general grammatical information. So, I agree with Fabullus that this material would be better placed at Lingua Graeca antiqua. Lord Roman, you'll have to look closely at that page, which at present says there are five cases, not four. It depends how you count ... :) But, yes, I suggest you go ahead and edit this material into that page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
- Before we start moving chunks of text about between different pages, it is good to hear what others beside myself might have to say on the matter. I will ask Andrew Dalby for his opinion. --Fabullus 14:22, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
- So, sould I move it to Lingua Graeca antiqua?