Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Start a new discussion

Wiktionary discussion rooms (edit) see also: requests
Information desk comment | history Newcomers' questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance.	Tea room comment | history | archives Questions and discussions about specific words.	Etymology scriptorium history Questions and discussions about etymology- the historical development of words.	Beer parlour comment | history | archives General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Grease pit comment | history | archives Technical questions, requests and discussions.

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

A place to ask for help on finding quotations, etymologies, or other information about particular words. The Tea Room is named to accompany the Beer parlour.

For questions about the technical operation of Wiktionary use the Beer parlour. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Archives

• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2003
• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2004
• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2005
• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2006
• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2007
• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2008
• Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2009

Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

{{rft}}s

discobolus clumsy dryth orientation orient de la yardstick whatsay web for all catacomb hinterland pull a Homer punter Heinz 57 ramen paradox caliber mails month of spare trivia update abiogenic give me hot dog uncountable noun stoutness V-1 fiscal dead or alive English vice gossypiboma three-fourths fatigues achromatic corporomental aggravated assault co-recursive yay fifth template -ferous Nihilarian industrial bad apple stupider douse metropolis tread

Contents 1 August 2009 1.1 bâteau 1.2 Outer Space 1.3 word to the wise 1.4 such as 1.5 gemeinschaftsgefuhl 1.6 a leopard cannot change its spots 1.7 suffix or interfix? 1.8 get into one's stride 1.9 keep someone in the dark 1.10 Statue of Liberty 1.11 white gold 1.12 drear 1.13 beryllium-9 1.14 barrater is mispelled 1.15 Meaning of a Russian word 1.16 1sandwich short of apicknick 1.17 bent as a two bob 1.18 shout 1.19 noughties 1.20 here you are 1.21 aspro 1.22 Proper grammar question 1.23 something fierce 1.23.1 something awful 1.23.2 something good 1.23.3 something bad 1.23.4 something terrible 1.24 noël 1.25 Fossilized forms 1.26 Do you speak English? 1.27 Word Misspelt 1.28 lew 1.29 Missing E numbers 1.30 bust a move 1.31 Public health problem 1.32 -logy 1.33 voucher 1.34 Collaberation of the Week - attempt to revive 1.35 Have vs. Have got. 1.36 taiwan vs tw-ESE vilages 1.37 No (determiner) illustration 1.38 etymology info on secret (Verb) - needs supporting documentation & Latin roots & general editing 1.39 bihourly 1.40 epididymal 1.41 take upon 1.42 deleted "forearm bones" (sum of parts) 1.43 hypothenar 1.44 heaven helps those who help themselves 1.45 a sea of faces 1.46 Subject of a biography 1.47 Emergently 1.48 to nitpick about words 1.49 have a seat 1.50 Swedish and Finnish 1.51 Left body part 1.52 confused 1.53 Another sense for jackpot 1.54 a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step / a single step 1.55 rote learning 1.56 Fishes 1.57 Mining Terminology 1.58 Security Service 1.59 shoop 1.60 make way 1.61 ahead of time 1.62 potted biography 1.63 prostitot 1.64 do aid,objective and goal mean the same 1.65 From Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Language: "Agamid toes" 1.66 Transmition 1.67 request 1.68 "desegregation settlement"? 1.69 -phone words 1.70 faccedilade 1.71 dolour 1.72 by ear and play it by ear 1.73 Shaku 1.74 squeaky-bum time for Portugal 1.75 Krung.. 1.76 be- 1.77 I haven't the foggiest 1.78 tomato juice 1.78.1 grape juice 1.79 circles around 1.80 Transwiki:Never Never Land 1.81 relevant 1.82 Tulyani 1.83 worse comes to worst 1.84 make an exhibition of oneself 1.84.1 make a spectacle of oneself 1.85 Do any of these exist? 1.86 utilize 1.87 xth 1.88 RfTerm: “the study of fortifications” 1.89 crash 1.90 average joe 1.90.1 flare up 1.91 lown 1.92 vale, second definition needed. 1.93 get on 1.94 alopecia areata (and similar) 1.95 shake or shake it? 1.96 again 1.97 secrete, 2nd sense (to conceal; to steal) obsolete? or at least dated? 1.98 Policy on ordering of spelling alternatives in definitions? 1.99 ∎? 1.100 (to play) good cop bad cop 1.101 chillaxin 1.102 Treating "Postposition" as a POS with its own header 1.103 meme 1.104 (in)transitive verbs 1.105 Definition of compromise in need of improvement 1.106 Shakespearean cowslip 1.107 爩 1.108 Please spell and create an entry (if necessary) for a phrase 1.109 Etymology of "whinge" 1.110 "digitgrade" vs "digitigrade" 1.111 Mitsein 1.112 agog 1.113 handy 1.114 trouble maker 2 October 2009 2.1 as#Translingual 2.2 sun/moongazer 2.3 French horn 2.4 back vowel word or back-vowel word 2.5 pighells? 2.6 gold 2.7 intrascapular 2.8 vampire, sense 2 2.9 vistilla 2.10 Mississippi 2.11 hurple 2.12 look down on someone 2.13 nonce second etymology 2.14 library 2.15 What is un potager? 2.16 nonvirile/virile 2.17 not the word 2.18 Template:proscribed 2.19 to go 2.20 of an 2.21 to the 2.22 Why was Maxxinista deleted? 2.23 Cogitamus ergo vincimus 2.24 open book 2.25 not 2.26 People’s Republic of China 2.27 twenty to 2.28 see it coming 2.29 indian giver 2.30 the fix is in 2.31 I am thirsty 2.32 reredo 2.33 luceat..? (Latin) 2.34 US pronunciation of haiku 2.35 wonder 2.36 pankration 2.37 -san 2.38 punter 2.39 words that punctuate 2.40 camel's nose 2.41 all the "good"s 2.42 gigaflop 2.43 still as an interjection? 2.44 tango 2.45 naughties 2.46 perra#Spanish 2.47 witness 2.48 name a baby muhammad? 2.49 cagot 2.50 one side 2.51 breeze 2.52 fishing term 2.53 dinna 2.54 wouldnae 2.55 PLC 2.56 pronunciation of Gaelic word 2.57 'meatloafing' (NZ term? Cat-related sense.) 2.58 like 2.59 normative 2.60 "That's what she said." 2.61 survey with a weather balloon 2.62 left back, right back and centre back 2.63 crepuscular wakefulness 2.64 arsed, be arsed 2.65 extranjerize 2.66 as much as possible 2.67 main page 2.68 per se 2.69 nāscor 2.69.1 nāscor — AEL 2.70 army 2.71 sweetness and light 2.72 grasshopper 2.73 thibilant 2.74 Animal noises as interjections 2.75 universalising mother 2.76 read 2.77 domestic cat et al. 2.78 douse 2.79 spreadeagle 2.80 article of dress 2.81 save oneself 2.82 code words 2.83 URL 2.84 Words found in an article about a Pharmaceutical Company 2.85 polar cone 2.86 as far as one knows 2.87 Snickers & Toblerone 2.88 cinemascope 2.89 runs in the family 2.90 leucismus ? 2.91 figured 2.92 Gabi 2.93 RPMs 2.94 us 2.95 〈 and 〉 2.96 postcode 2.97 sécrèter and sécréter 2.98 gather pollen 2.99 serve somebody right 2.100 let someone know 2.101 nearest and dearest 2.102 biotrauma 2.103 Audit schmaudit 2.104 Honorless 2.105 bullet as verb 2.106 at ease 2.107 cobbler 3 December 2009 3.1 lieutenant 3.2 love letter? XD 3.3 co-citation 3.4 boobocracy 3.5 cashew 3.6 child 3.7 alogical 3.8 translate 3.9 offing 3.10 eeny, meeny, miny, moe 3.11 cool, jewel 3.12 glamourous, clamourous, humourous 3.13 cDNA 3.14 ladies man 3.15 naïve 3.16 mental health problem(s) 3.17 œillet 3.18 honkin', honking 3.19 along the way 3.20 the real deal / the real McCoy 3.21 prophecize/prophecise nonexistent?! Yes? No? POV? 3.22 all very well 3.23 name after 3.24 word(s) for winged penis? 3.25 at last 3.26 box and whiskers plot 3.27 portaits 3.28 always 3.29 score 3.30 I need help in translating the words below and I don't know what language is it? 3.31 satanic vs. Christian 3.32 More score - music 3.33 Single character for 五百 3.34 previous spelling 3.35 fascinum and fasces 3.36 stay low, stand small 3.37 make 3.38 must, usage note 3.39 English vocatives 3.40 Timmy's stuck down a well 3.41 Pronouncing "ae" 3.42 hafta 3.43 "inkwell words"? 3.44 abroad 3.45 meandering 3.46 Once upon a time 3.47 ass into gear 3.48 intertube 3.49 arbolar 3.50 The Enlightened One 3.51 lexigraphical 3.52 Plaid Cymru 3.53 walks of life 3.54 perky 3.55 decrepit 3.56 word(s) for declaring something dying/dead or that we're post-(thing)? 3.57 to close ranks 3.58 cat person & dog person 3.59 da

[edit] August 2009

[edit] bâteau

The normal spelling is of course bateau, but I have found a lot of googles for this term. Not in dictionaries like this, but in some older books online. --Rising Sun 13:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide references? I can't find any. Very probably, they are misspellings. Lmaltier 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Outer Space

The secrets of Outer Space,i keep wanting to find out more. — Scott Bradley Wallace

That's great. Is there some reason you believe this dictionary web site can help you? --EncycloPetey 15:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

...you may want to try Wikipedia, it will help you more than Wiktionary can. L☺g☺maniac chat? 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] word to the wise

An adverb?! I don't think the example given ("have fun, but, word to the wise, don't let your sister take control") demonstrates adverbiality/adverbialness any more than e.g. "Before you go, piece of advice, don't have too much to drink." Equinox ◑ 20:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. C.f. by the way. Pingku 20:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How is that analogous? That definitely looks like an adverbial phrase to me. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the idea is that it is a "w:Sentence adverb". Many expressions set off by punctuation have similar characteristics. The other choice of PoS are not to my taste. It is not an Interjection. I prefer to keep "Idiom" as a context at the sense level so that the L3 header conveys information about how it fits grammatically. "Phrase" is the last resort for mulitword expressions and is the sole location for non-proverbial sentences and for subordinate clauses. "Piece of advice" is also a "sentence adverb", but IMHO wouldn't get an entry because it is SoP, even as a sentence adverb. I think that some (DAVilla ?) have taken the position that any sentence adverb could be included, but I'm not sure how far they would take that. (And why isn't adverbiality an entry? adjectivity is.) DCDuring TALK 21:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is now. ("I didn't know you had dandruff!" "I don't.") Equinox ◑ 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] such as

Would anyone like to hazard an analysis of the grammar of the uses of this term, or does it remain an unanalyzed idiomatic "Phrase"? DCDuring TALK 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I started trying to analyse this but got a little out of my depth. Something interesting is that Chambers has as as a pronoun for what corresponds to our sense 3: "Such as have already done their work..." Equinox ◑ 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how they get to that.

Combinations of words that are sometimes determiners, conjunctions, or particles in phrases with no nouns, verbs, prepositions, or modifiers would give me a headache, except for my giving up early. Some other ones that are not quite as bad give me a headache because my analysis is often highly questionable. I think I know a $150-200 cure: CGEL. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem is that such is not really a pronoun, despite what its entry says. The determinative can function as a fused head in an NP, and I think that's what we've got for sense 3. Senses 1 and 2 seem to be adjectives in comparative constructions (cf., Waterbirds (as) white as a dove are common in the area. I was never in a country (as) dull as that.)--Brett 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Stick with "Phrase". -- WikiPedant 05:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In sense 3 ("Such as have already done their work may leave.") "such as" seems to me to be exactly like "those who". That is, it is not a unit, it is not a "word". I think it is misleading to treat it in parallel to the other senses. This sense of the collocation seems dated to me as well in US English. Such few dictionaries as include "such as" as an idiom do not include this usage. DCDuring TALK 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consider (also dialectal) "Them as can rise, don't, and them as want to, can't." Equinox ◑ 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, those is also a determinative functioning in a fused-head construction in an NP. I would say none of the senses are "words", but if 1 and 2 are to be included as "words", then the only reason I can see for excluding 3 is frequency. The determinative such is typically restricted to legal language.--Brett 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For sense 1 "for example": it seems to me that "such as" is a species of written-out punctuation, like its synonym for example in its main idiomatic use and a bit like "quote" and "unquote". In that role it does seem to me to function as a unit to overcome a limitation of the elementary grammar of sentences. Such rationales must be behind the inclusion of this sense in some other dictionaries. It seems to fall in the category of w:discourse connective. We have called "for example" adverbial from its creation here. It might be handy to categorize some of the entries or label senses like this using some more contemporary categories so we can be somewhat consistent in treating them.

For sense 2 "like": it seems to me that it must be exactly as much a preposition as [[like#Preposition]] (which definition seems incomplete). DCDuring TALK 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's best to consider language to be primarily a spoken phenomenon rather than a written one. Calling words a kind of "written-out punctuation" may be an interesting metaphor, but care should be taken that it not be the basis for an argument. I agree that such as is a discourse connective, but discourse analysis is not typically the basis on which headwords are labeled in dictionaries. Tagging such words with a wiktionary category, however, is likely a useful thing to do, but I don't have a strong background in discourse analysis, and wouldn't want to be the one doing such tagging.

Although the meaning is similar to prepositional phrases headed by like, syntactically such as is quite different. For example, at the beginning of a sentences, a like-PP can function as an adjunct, but you couldn't do something similar with such as.

• Like many young people, at age eighteen I thought I knew it all.
• *Such as many young people, at age eighteen I thought I knew it all.

--Brett 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently words sometimes fail some of the tests for the categories to which we assign them.

We seem to find "adverb" acceptable when there is a fig leaf of justification. The sole not-oversized fig-leaves I've found are the parallel to "for example" and the use of "adverb" in other discourse-controlling terms. That such as can operate inside a noun phrase with no verb in sight makes that seem unacceptable (equally for many uses of for example). The parts of traditional grammar vocabulary in ELE seem not a good fit with this. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gemeinschaftsgefuhl

Appears to be capitalised even in English. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] a leopard cannot change its spots

Hi everyone. I've tried my first hand at creating an English (as opposed to Chinese) entry. Please take a look and offer suggestions. Cheers. Tooironic 00:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see we already have leopard_cannot_change_his_spots. Equinox ◑ 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One of these should be a redirect. -- WikiPedant 05:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose technically it should be leopard cannot change its spots - wouldn't "his" be considered sexist? I have no idea. At any rate, can someone deal with the redirecting stuff? (You will also have to merge together the translations on both pages.) I'd do it myself but I don't know the proper coding. Tooironic 08:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m certain it’s its spots, not his. It should be redirected to a leopard cannot change its spots, because in the case of proverbs, we use the full line including initial articles, just like a quotation. So redirected. —Stephen 08:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] suffix or interfix?

I labeled certain -X- affixes as suffixes, and s.o. objected that if it's a suffix, it has to have the form -X. I don't agree, but it does bring up a related issue.

The USAN guidelines for naming monoclonal antibodies uses a template:

[unique "prefix"]-[target "suffix"]-[source "suffix"]-[the mab suffix]

Now—besides the conundrum of whether you can have an affix without any root to affix it to—there's the question as to whether the target and source 'suffixes' are truly suffixes, or interfixes. I believe the double hyphen (-tum-, -o-, etc.) is necessary because a following suffix is mandatory. From my understanding, an 'interfix' occurs between two roots, which is not the case here. There are other cases of strings of suffixes, not all of which may occur in final position, and AFAIK they are still considered prefixes or suffixes. But they would be prefixes or suffixes with a hyphen at either boundary, which is where the objection came in.

There are plenty of similar situations in chemistry, esp. biochemistry, so it may be a good idea to come to a general consensus. kwami 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. The complete paradigm (as of the pub date of my sources) is at -mab. kwami

My experience with interfixes largely agrees with yours. It is possible for a word to have serial suffixes, but that does not (poof) turn them into interfixes. For purposes of labelling and naming entries, however, we do list suffixes with only a leading hyphen, and not with a following hyphen. On the other hand, I don't recall a previous situation where we've had to concern ourselves with mandatory following suffixes, so that issue certainly warrants a new discussion of how we handle such entries. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a pre-exisiting term that precisely, wouldn't the simplest be to add our own extended sense to the word "interfix", replacing the restriction to being between roots to being between "roots or other interfixes". Something parallel to this apparently arises in Hungarian and was discussed in the last month. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP also says that interfixes are semantically empty, though I don't know if that's a necessary condition or just the case in European languages. Maybe "affix" would be best for now; I don't know how you could argue that in a string of affixes A-B-C-D, that B and C are either prefixes or suffixes, unless we take A (the unique identifying affix) as the base. kwami 21:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat similar situation arises with Esperanto, which has inflecting suffixes. When we list them without their part-of-speech inflection, we leave a hyphen, as at -in- and -il-, which cross link to the full forms -ino and -ilo. There are also three "suffixes" which do not have an intrinsic p-o-s inflection, but inherit it from the stem: -et-, -eg-, and -aĉ-. These are considered suffixes (one might argue they an infixes, but sans ref that would be OR), but require the second hyphen, as the following affix is not inherent. kwami 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I would just use "affix", which I know is slightly vague, but perhaps usefully so. Ƿidsiþ 07:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I switched them all to, until or unless we decide differently. kwami 08:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I’ve looked at -mab, and have concluded that these various affixes are interfixes. We define the pertinent sense of interfix as “An empty morph inserted between two morphemes in the process of word formation.”; if we substitute “empty morph” with “affix”, then the definition covers those disease target and source affixes. These seem different because they’re not semantically empty and they only ever concatenate with other affixes; nevertheless, given the mandatory nature of the concatenation with the other affixes, these affixes only ever occur between two other morphemes, which make them interfixes, by definition. USAN probably uses “suffix” in place of “interfix” because the latter term is considerably less common and familiar than the former (for example, the OED does not list interfix) — there is no reason why we ought also to eschew its use. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I normally oppose using not-widely-recognized terms in Wiktionary, but no one has suggested a good alternative. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the principal users of this class of entries will be "normal" users. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Actually, they only concatenate with other "interfixes", which is not at all what is meant by that term: Interfixes don't concatenate with each other. kwami 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Some uses of "interfix" in the lit, where the meaninglessness of the morpheme (sometimes "phoneme") is stressed:

Trask, A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics:

"An empty morph occuring between a stem and a meaningful suffix [as in Glinkovskij from Glinka + -skij]

Yearbook of Morphology 1999:

"Throuout this report we employ the term interfix (created by H. Lausberg and Y. Malkiel 1958) which designates a kind of empty (= meaningless) affix .... Further studies have concentrated on derivational morphology, i.e. antesuffixal intefixes .... Interradical interfixes have been usually called "linking morphemes" (...) or "linking phonemes/graphemes" (...) or, in reference to German, "Fugenmorpheme" (...) or "Fugenelemente" ('elements at the seam/joint' ...). Mel'čuk ... defines an interradical interfix (the only class of interfixes he accepts) as "a confix [sc. an affix which neither divides the root nor is itself divided] which precedes a root and follows another root" and he continues: "Thus, an interfix is found only in compound words (composita) and has the function of indicating the combination of two roots to form a compound".

G examples: leben-s-lang "life-long", Beamte-n-tum "civil service". Sp. puebl-ec-ito

For glossing which uses + to mark compounds, you get derm-at+o+logy.

Catalan: an interfix "plays a dissimilatory role between repeated suffixes and thus prevents haplology": porc-on-z-ón (aug. of "hog"); another is used to keep stress assignment regular. [Proc. BLS, 1976 vol 2]

compounding "by a link vowel, or interfix"

[note again "link vowel", as "linking phoneme" above, suggesting the authors have trouble accepting these epenthetic bits as morphemes]

The Emergence of the Modern Language Sciences:

"It is Malkiel who initiates (...), within Romance linguistics, a concern with 'empty morphs' as a major theoretical issue. For those 'empty' elements which separate lexical stems from derivational suffixes ..., Malkiel devises the term 'interfixes'. His 1958 article asserts the autonomous status of 'interfixes' as contentless morphemes, against the dogma that morphemes necessarily have well defined functions, ...

But then there's Adam Ussishkin, "Morpheme position", in de Lacy, The Cambridge handbook on phonology, who uses "interfix" for Hebrew "transfix", as gidel vs. gudal

And in German, in Lesson from documented endangered languages,

"the prefixal part of the past participle morpheme ge- -t gets trapped between the preverbal particle and the base, thus becoming an interfix. The morpheme as a whole becomes a discontinuous interfix (or stem transfix). This is an instance of a general mechanism of the transition of a prefix to an interfix, and of a circumfix to a discontinuous interfix."

ex. auf-hör-en → auf-ge-hör-t "stop - stopped"

"If auf_hör is a root, then ge- -t is a root transfix ... and if the latter morpheme only consisted of the prefixal part, this would thereby become an infix. ... the two processes ... the reanalysis of the circumfix ge- -t as a discontinuous interfix, [and] the reanalysis of the latter as a root transfix"

kwami 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] get into one's stride

This is not in COCA, in contrast to take it in stride/take something in stride. Is it in (widespread?) use elsewhere? DCDuring TALK 00:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's pretty common in the UK. Ƿidsiþ 07:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Never heard of it here in the midwest U.S. - here it's always take it in stride or something very close to that. L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I've heard to find one's stride, meaning to get accustomed to doing a job. —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 23:21 z

[edit] keep someone in the dark

Hi all. I created another English entry. Can you please check and see if it's OK? Tooironic 09:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the actual idiom is in the dark, which has both a literal and a figurative sense. "In the dark" occurs with the verbs "be", "leave", "keep". Among OneLook dictionaries MWOnline, AHD, RHU, and Collins have "in the dark". Only Cambridge Dictionary of Idioms has "keep in the dark", presumably because it is much more common than collocations with the the other verbs. :I would have chosen to make this or a pronoun-instantiated version of this a redirect to in the dark or inserted a usage example including same at in the dark. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, replace it with a hard redirect.​—msh210℠ 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've enhanced (IMHO) in the dark with adj PoS and additional usage examples including all three verb collocations mentioned above and translation sections. DCDuring TALK 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statue of Liberty

Not the actual statue, but there's a juggling pattern called the Statue of Liberty shower. I assume this would meet CFI. I mean, can anyone tell me what it is just from its name? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many items of the form "Statue of Liberty X" where "X" is dropped in context. In the context of US football the "Statue of Liberty play" is often referred to as "the Statue of Liberty" (or "the old Statue of Liberty"). Proper nouns that are used attributively usually have a short list of characteristics that they are considered prime exemplars of. In the case of the Statue of Liberty, it may have more to do with the pose than with anything else. I'll bet the "Statue of Liberty shower" has to do with that (I haven't looked at the link and never heard of it before). I noted that a search for "Statue of Liberty shower" comes up empty. DCDuring TALK 13:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Books search for "statue of liberty" juggling does give a couple of pertinent results on the first page or two. Might be an attestable sense of Statue of Liberty. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 15:20 z

I know we sometimes have entries that are decapitations of terms that are arguably SoP. Tell the truth, I've added or defended some myself. I don't know at what point it is just something that flows from the rules of English that one can use a decapitated term, but only in a context where the missing head is readily understood (or intentionally obscured). I am reminded of EP's arguments about common nouns derived from Proper nouns. Of course, if we are going to dispense with extensive lexical treatment of such usage, we need to have an Appendix explaining it for the benefit of both contributors and passive users.

I wonder if these would work if presented on something like a disambiguation page, with "Statue of Liberty (dab)" referring users to wikt or sister project entries for "Statue of Liberty play", "Statue of Liberty shower", "Statue of Liberty pose", (" ...costume", etc). DCDuring TALK 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just been looking at Burgundy and burgundy. OED says that the name of the region was used attributively, from which comes Burgundy wine. That used elliptically became [B/b]urgundy, the wine. (That in turn was used attributively as a “Burgundy colour”, which gives us burgundy, the colour.)

But it may also be that we are tempted to say “a Statue of Liberty shower” in explanation, or in a general context, while in actual use a juggler might always have said “this is the Statue of Liberty.” Being a descriptive dictionary, we should try to use attestations and corpora to check actual usage. If it is only used by jugglers, then the sense should carry the restrictive label {{context|juggling}}, {{context|circus arts}}, or {{context|performing arts}}. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 16:53 z

In the context of a discussion of juggling (and no other ?) you could get away it. Under our attestation practices wouldn't we want to see that the first time the maneuver was mentioned in running text in a source, that it appeared in the elliptical/headless form? I guess, then, from my own experience, that "Statue of Liberty#Noun" should have as a sense "w:Statue of Liberty play". Maybe I'll put that one before the court and see who objects. To check myself I looked at MW's definitions of "white" as a noun. Our [[white#Noun]] seems to be missing a few senses, like "white wine". DCDuring TALK 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean. But there's ellipsis in conversation, like (I think) “I'll have a glass of the white,” and ellipsis in etymology, like “a glass of burgundy.” Which is which can only be determined reliably by surveying usage. There's not a lot to be found, but I see Statue of Liberty used for the juggling manoeuvre,[1][2] but I don't see Statue of Liberty shower (even though this may or may not be classed as a shower). —Michael Z. 2009-08-05 06:22 z

Great, I'll RFV my own article then! lol, Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] white gold

I just wanted to know whats the different between white gold and platinum? —This comment was unsigned.

See white gold and platinum. Equinox ◑ 10:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] drear

I am eager to contest the tag obsolete, which Zigzig20s (who has not been contributing for a year and a half) left when creating the article. I found two quotations from J. Thomson and A. E. Housman, the last of them being less than 90 years old. The tag obsolete is too strong and how could it possibly be applied to something which was a usual, common English word less than 90 years ago. I suggest replacing it with archaic. What do the native English speakers think thereof? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good as far as I'm concerned - or maybe rare instead of archaic (because you can still find this word in some poetry or songs or stuff where the "y" on the end of "dreary" doesn't fit) :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think archaic is better than obsolete. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

19 hits at COCA, all or mostly "literary". That would suggest not obsolete, not uncommon. Possibly archaic, but literary seems more like it. My favorite: "Oh, it's lonesome away from your kindred and all, with a couple of drinks where the wild dingoes call. But there's nothing so lonesome, so dull or so drear as to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer." DCDuring TALK 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also current dialectal usage in Northern England, along with dree (adjective). Dbfirs 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] beryllium-9

Do we do numbered isotopes? Should we? Equinox ◑ 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If forced to guess which one we were most likely to have, I'm sure that you would have guessed U-235. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only one I could remember was plutonium 239. I was born when Protect and Survive appeared! Now, as far as I understand it, there's a massive (no pun intended? does that work?) number of attestable isotopes, and their names are constructed entirely formulaically, and the name actually includes the definition (you know what it is from the element+number combo). So I tend to feel like we could do without them. Equinox ◑ 23:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Isotopes has 76 members. The form that we have is the notation that works as straight text and so might be useful for normal users coming across some terminology in sci-fi or pop science or a basic science text. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't normaly want to see entries like this, I can see a reason for having at least some of these. The pronunciation of the high-weight isotopes is specific and unusual. For example, U-238 has the numerical part pronounced as "two thirty-eight" and never as "two hundred thirty eight" which is the normal numeric pronunciation. So, at least for the high-value isotopes, there is an unusual pronunciation to consider. --EncycloPetey 00:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That rule you mention in not specific to the elements as it actually applies more generally when numbers in the hundreds range are used as identifiers. For instance the number part of my address is "three fifty-one" and never "three hundred fifty-one". However, with the hyphenation, I have no problem with inclusion. Certainly the SoP argument can be more strongly made with chemical names such as dihydrogen monoxide and carbon monoxide. — Carolina wren discussió 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] barrater is mispelled

The correct spelling is baratter (fr:baratter). All flexions sould be fixed too. Regards, Jona 09:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. —Stephen 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of a Russian word

I am trying to find out what the word "вольницей" means. I know it has something to do with freedom, but that's all I can find out. Yahoo translates it as "by freemen" but internet translators are unreliable. Wordgeek 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the instrumental singular of the collective noun вольница (“‘freemen,” or “filibusters’”). —Stephen 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1sandwich short of apicknick

wedont'v this1??--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could. We seem to not be rushing to include instances of formulas and don't have a good way to present the formulas as formulas. "One X short of a Y" is what I mean by formula, your suggestion being a good instance. A variant is "A few Xes short or a Y". My favorite: "A few vermin short of a plague". Another formula is "Not the X-est Y in the Z" < "Not the sharpest knife in the drawer". DCDuring TALK 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bent as a two bob

Entry needs cleanup - however that's not why I'm bringing it here .... :) On the page it has listed as "alternative forms} "bent as a two bob note" and "bent as a two bob watch", and in the inflection line it has "bent as a two bob bit". Which is the most common form of this idiom? (I had never heard of it before I saw it here, so all three of 'em are equal to me). In the entry it says (in invisible text) that "...bob bit" gets 6 G. hits, "...bob note" gets 12 and "...bob watch" gets 5. What do y'all think? L☺g☺maniac chat? 23:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a formula "X as a two-bob Y", where X ranges over {bent, silly, crazy, etc} and Y ranges over {watch, note, bit, etc.}. Any one of the full adjective phrases seems to be a simile. OED has one citation each for "silly as a two bob note" and "crazy as two bob note". In the US it is "phony/fake as a three-dollar bill".

Incidentally, I've never heard that one either. :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We have many such simile entries, including almost all the entries in Category:English similes. Some have expressed a view that we shouldn't have them. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about keeping similes per se.

The question of such formulas keeps coming up. See above "one sandwich short of a picnic" or "a few X short of a Y".

What about putting every one of this formula that we can find in Appendix:Formula:X as a two bob Y and putting a link to said Appendix at two bob or bob and at at least one of the specific instances that are attestable? DCDuring TALK 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Google books shows that Partridge's has a few expressions involving "two bob", which is the Australian (& UK?) equivalent of US two-bit as the money denomination most used in colloquial expressions. Maybe we should start with the idiomatic meaning of two bob. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

An aside: Partridge has it wrong, as far as Australia is concerned, apparently not realising that Australia and the UK decimalised in different ways. Notably, the UK kept the name and value of the "pound", while in Australia the old pound became two dollars. Thus, an old Australian shilling (one-twentieth of a pound) became redeemable for 10 cents, while when the UK later decimalised, their shilling became 5p. In effect, the UK used the pound as the invariant unit, while in Australia conversion was based around the shilling, which became 10 cents. Pingku 17:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the point, I believe the term "bob" (in the context of money), has fallen out of use in post-decimalisation Australia. The idiom under discussion is still understood, though, even if people are not quite sure how much a "bob" actually is... Pingku 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is wrong and/or dated, we should have it. Also, possibly, nine bob note, three dollar bill, wooden nickel. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not saying the idiom is not used or understood, just questioning "bob" as a current term for an item of coinage. And the Partridge "error" was quite minor; it had just got me thinking (always a dangerous thing). Pingku 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] shout

The 3rd noun sense "a call-out for an emergency services team." is currently marked as British and Australian slang. However certainly for the RNLI in the UK "shout" is the proper term, not slang, and from tv documentaries I gather that it is at least informal (rather than slang) if not standard for the fire brigade and RAF search and rescue teams. I have no idea about its status in Australia, but if it is slang there and not in the UK (as I believe) then how should this be marked? Thryduulf 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] noughties

It seems to me that this entry should be marked as mainly British, or perhaps Anglo-Irish. The root word nought is seldom used on this side of the pond for zero save in set phrases such as set at nought found in the KJV Bible. Can't say I've ever heard the word used and the Google hits indicate mainly British usage with some Irish based on the first few pages of hits where the country of the author could be determined. (Indeed, when I originally came across this entry, I considered sending it RfV, but the Google I did quickly caused me to drop the idea.) — Carolina wren discussió 04:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also found in Australian English, not that that has much to do with it whether it's found in US English. -- Kelly Holden 202.139.23.238 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] here you are

"Said when you hand something over to someone or do a favour to them, usually to draw the recipient's attention to the exchange; Equivalent to “thank you” when receiving something."

"Equivalent to "thank you"? I don't think this set phrase is at all a substitute for a "thank you". The attention-drawing function signaled by the word "here" (or "there" in the near-equivalent "there you are") seems to be the primary function. Does anyone believe that other associated aspects of the transaction should be part of this definition: offer? thank you? My own preference would be to strike the "Equivalent ... something." DCDuring TALK 11:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent is, "here you are":handing something over::"thank you":receiving something. They're "equivalent" not in that you can substitute one for the other, but that they play the same role (in different situations). That said, I'm not sure it's a useful point, and even if it is, this is definitely a poor way to express it. —Ruakh_TALK 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to cite this in print, but around here (south-east England) you often hear "chavs" using this in an inverted sense, meaning "Give it to me", reduced almost to a sound like "ear-yar", e.g. when holding out one's hand for a lighter. Equinox ◑ 11:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. That goes to the notion that it draws attention to a hand-off principally. All the other associations seem to be context- and body-language-based associations with the exchange: "give it here", "and thanks", etc. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note: here you go exists, meaning the same as there you go and here you are), but perhaps with more immediacy/nearness, as here vs. there. Equinox ◑ 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] aspro

I haven't been able to find anything more exact than 'a Turkish currency'- is there an English translation? Nadando 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

<WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS WRITTEN BY A TEENAGER. Please use caution while reading. >

Well... not exactly, but yes, but no. :) Anyhow, I found (and had to create the relevant sense of) a word, asper, that probably is semantically related somehow to the Spanish one (except that I can't read ancient Greek, so don't know if the word in the etym section of "aspro" is the same that was anglicized by the time I found it in W3, and it's not the same one in that webpage below . . .). I found it on this page, where you have to scroll all the way down to Asper but it's interesting. Does that help at all or have I only utterly confused myself? (which, honestly, I have) L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. If by "Turkish" you mean "Greek" and if by "currency" you mean "river", then Aspropotamos is a tributary of the Greek w:Acheloos River. Pingku 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I hope Nadando isn't that confused, but seriously, I was for a while . . . that is interesting though. Isn't etymology/roots/words just soooo much fun?! :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Aspro is, of course, the trade name of a particular brand of aspirin marketed in the UK, Australia and New Zealand for the last seventy years, and the word gained common usage (in the 1950s?), sometimes without capitalisation, to refer to any headache tablet. This usage now seems to have died out. Dbfirs 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proper grammar question

Which is more grammatically correct?:

"What's new?"

or

"What news?"

-- OlEnglish 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With your first example, the speaker is asking, literally, what is new?

With your second example, the speaker is asking and implies what news (is there)?

Based on that, it's hard to give you an answer, unless that there is something under there somewhere that my newly-13 brain (turned on Thursday) has failed to comprehend. L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They are both perfectly fine grammatically. In current speech, "What news?" would seem dated, in my opinion. It is used in fictional dialog where is often seems to add an old-fashioned flavor, unless it is in answer to a question like "Have you heard the news?" "What news?" "What news?" strikes me as a question about "news", whereas "What's new?" is at least sometimes about the person being spoken to. "What's new with you?" DCDuring TALK 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DCD completely. "What news?" would also sound strange in my ears (as in "what news (is there)?"), unless the speaker was trying on a (faux-?)medievalism to try to be funny (like what you hear in books) "What's new?" is a lot more familiar. (And I would say, "most of the time" for how often "what's new" is referring to the speaker or his/her personal life.) L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note: I've also heard "what's news" sometimes. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both :) -- OlEnglish 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah "what news?" does seem odd to me too but I know (being Irish) that in Ireland "what's news" is (at the very least colloquially) used as a synonym for "what's new". 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, nvm I missed Logomaniac's comment. >_> 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, it's good to hear from the other side of the pond. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] something fierce

[edit] something awful

[edit] something good

[edit] something bad

[edit] something terrible

Both of these are colloquial/dialectal adverb phrases. But many adjectives can fit in the slot after something: "bad" and "terrible" come to mind. This suggests that a sense is missing at something#Adverb or the single sense there should be reworded. Is there some other analysis of this possible? Or should be just insert all the attestable "something X" entries? DCDuring TALK 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW the valence of the adjective could be positive, I think: "He was beating up on him something good." DCDuring TALK 02:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my tentative analysis: The first part is about those "adjectives". Some adverbs are "bare" or "flat" adverbs (e.g., he ran fast.) They are taken from the adjectives without adding the usual -ly. I think fierce, awful, good, etc. are actually non-standard adverbs (e.g. he's real nice).

The second part is like this: something is a compound determinative. Like some other determinatives, it is functioning as a modifier in an AdvP (e.g., I don't take him that seriously. He's acting a little differently.) In standard dialects, some doesn't do this, but it does in some regional dialects (e.g., She's some better thi day.), and it does, even in standard dialects, in other fused words like somewhat (e.g., You may feel somewhat differently). In fact, in previous centuries, somewhat and something were basically synonymous.

I'm quite confident with the first part, but less so with the second. The CGEL has a note on p 424 calling something a degree adverb: "In non-standard English something extends into this degree adverb territory: !I loved her something rotten. 'terribly, greatly'."--Brett 13:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting, too, that some of the instances are with adverbs taking a valence opposite the standard English valence. The grammatical analysis gives me a bit more confidence in framing the lexicographic issues. The issues are:

1. What to do with the instances of the construction. Keep, redirect, delete?
2. What to call "something" in its use in this regional/non-standard construction: Adverb or Determiner. The combined construction entries are labeled as Adverbs.

I don't think we have been very consistent in providing "Adverb" PoS sections for "bare adverbs". (residual prescriptivism, I think.)

A mostly unrelated issue is that attesting this is really time-consuming. I cheated by finding quotes of "somethin' X". It would be nice to know how general this construction is, ie, over what type of modifier semantics can X range? All of our cases with the exception of "fierce" seem to be on the good/bad scale albeit sometimes reversed from standard. Maybe a two-step process: use "somethin'" to find X's and then check "something X" in corpora. It is possible that "something X" is less common in this construction than "somethin' X". DCDuring TALK 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say redirect the entries to something. Probably adverb is the best category for this use of something.--Brett 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your "bare adverb" explanation. It seems that "something <adjective>" is functioning as a degree adverb. You could never say, *"This smells something awfully." —Ruakh_TALK 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree thatI wouldn't say that, but that's because I'm a speaker of standard American English. Current use of something in this sense is a holdover from earlier English when flat adverbs were much more common. At that time, people did say something awfully. Consider the following quotes (from the OED):

1588 GREENE Pandosto (1843) 27 She began to simper something sweetely. 1611 SHAKES. Wint. T. IV. iv. 825 Being something gently consider'd, Ile bring you where he is aboord. 1707 Curios. in Husb. & Gard. 21 What he calls a Courtier he uses something roughly. 1713 BERKELEY Hylas & Phil. I, The inferences sound something oddly. 1822 SCOTT Nigel xvii, ‘I said Grahame, sir, not Grime,’ said Nigel, something shortly. 1859 DICKENS Christmas Stories, Haunted House i, ‘O!’ said I, something snappishly. 1898 G. B. SHAW You never can Tell in Plays Pleasant 211 Gentleman: Did you howl? The Young Lady: Oh, something awful. 1909 A. WOOLLCOTT Let. 24 Sept. (1944) 20 She gads around something fierce, as your friend Bert would say. 1915 J. WEBSTER Dear Enemy 300 When he was drunk..he smashed the furniture something awful. 1932 R. LEHMANN Invitation to Waltz I. iii. 58 Her husband drinks something shocking. 1963 W. H. MISSILDINE Your Inner Child of Past xv. 221, I was taken into the assembly hall. And beat up something terrible. 1978 D. CLARK Libertines ii. 41 ‘I'll put a plaster on that cut for you.’.. ‘Thanks, doctor... It does sting something chronic.’

--Brett 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] noël

I notice this just got deleted as a bad redirect. However it's good in Scrabble, so I figure it must be an alternative spelling or another meaning. I'll try and add it back with a citation (or two) later on. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Chambers has "(without cap) a Christmas carol". Equinox ◑ 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• As does the OED, although they prefer noel as the lemma form. Ƿidsiþ 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fossilized forms

I am looking for an English phrase to describe the etymology of words that originally were inflected/derived forms, but now the suffixes are a fixed part of the word, the word is a different part of speech and can be inflected. For example, éjjel (at night) was originally éj + -vel, the instrumental case of éj, but now it's an independent word that can be further inflected (éjjelente - every night). Possible variants: fossilized form, fossilized inflected form, fixed form? --Panda10 13:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Do you speak English?

I was wondering about the Japanese phrase for “Do you speak English?”. With my very limited knowledge of Japanese, I came up with the very literal 貴方は英語を話しますか。 (anatawa eigo[w]o hanashimasuka.); this was dissimilar from what my friend had been taught, viz. 英語が出来ますか。 (eigoga dekimasuka.). What is the difference here? Is my noob’s literal translation correct at all? Thanks in advance. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• (See also do you speak English. Ƿidsiþ 13:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Japanese would typically drop the subject when it is clear from context, so get rid of 貴方は. Next, if you think the person is likely to speak English, then your remaining question would be fine. On the other hand, if you're merely inquiring about the person's ability, then the 'dekiru' question would be better. Alternatively, 'hanasEmasuka' or 'shaberEmasuka' would also work. --Brett 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Word Misspelt

Hi,

I am not so pleased to see words like "uncompleted" in an official letter or conversation.
Is "uncompleted" an Adjective.
Does it hold a proper meaning.
Please advise me if you can!!!!!!!!

—This unsigned comment was added by 124.30.124.203 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it's an adjective, with a proper meaning. See uncompleted. —Ruakh_TALK 12:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Uncompleted" might have a slightly different meaning than "incomplete", emphasizing the process rather than the result. That raises the possibility of who might be responsible for the state of incompleteness.

Consider the following usage statistics from COCA:

Positive outcome: "complete": 35,022; "completed": 18,218; responsibility/state: 52%

Negative outcome

State: "incomplete": 2,803; + "not complete": 463 + "uncomplete": 2 = 3,268

Responsibility: "incompleted": 2 + "not completed": 199 + "uncompleted": 79 = 280

Responsibility/state: 9%

Could this be an empirical demonstration of the proverb "success has many fathers, failure is an orphan" or of widespread linguistic politeness?

Also this seems to illustrate "rose-colored glasses" with the ratio of completion/incompletion (13/1) far exceeding that in my experience. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] lew

According to ODS the English word lew is dialectal, but Webster considers it obsolete, therefore I did not add any tag whatsoever. Any native speaker, in whose dialect this word is common? Could you verify the gradation forms as well, since I added them at the example of new? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a native (American, FWIW) speaker, and no, I have never heard of this word (and still do not know what it means as i don't want to take the time to open the article (my browser/computer are soooo slooooow)) ... (few seconds later) I just looked it up in Webster's Third, my be-all and end-all dictionary resource (though I'm learning how incomplete it is) and it labels the term as now dialect Britain. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Lew warm" is common in (older) dialect of Northern England, but I have never heard the comparative or superlative used. Dbfirs 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the appropriate template for Northern England English. You are free to erase the comparative and superlative forms - I added them on the model of few and new, perchance in vain, if it is never used. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never heard lewer or lewest, and I can't find any usages, but they probably existed in the past. If I mark them as obsolete, someone is sure to find some citations! Dbfirs 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing E numbers

Wiktionary includes almost all E numbers but I have identified the ones I think we are missing.

missing E numbers

John Cross 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd worked on improving some of these with {{pedia}} links and improved internal wiktionary links, without any useful knowledge of chemistry or food and drug manufacture. They can all be brought to a reasonably high uniform formatting standard. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bust a move

Is this an idiomatic phrase? Is it a neologism? Does it mean something akin to strike a pose? __meco 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Public health problem

I hope to get "definition of public health problem" or "what is public health problem" or "how to define public health problem or issue", I have search related websites, but get accurate answer. Could help me? tell me explanation of "public health problem" (which website page?)? Thanks. George. —This comment was unsigned.

See public health + problem. Equinox ◑ 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] -logy

There is a discussion over on Wikipedia about the deletion of its entry -logy, some of the editors wanting to keep it, others saying that the information belongs to Wiktionary. Could someone have a look at the article and tell us whether its content would be appropriate here? Thanks for taking the trouble --Anypodetos 08:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be suitable for Wiktionary but it is a bit long for usage notes, perhaps some of the content belongs in an appendix, it would be good for Wiktionary to have either a list of studies or a list of words ending "logy.John Cross 09:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to use this old version of -logy on WP (as long as the article exists). --Anypodetos 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the VFD page.​—msh210℠ 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Anypodetos 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] voucher

what is the difference between voucher and invoice?

If company A sells a van to company B then Company A will create a sales invoice and send Company B a copy from Company B's point of view the invoice is a purchase invoice. An invoice typically includes:

• the amount to be paid (before sales taxes)
• the amount of sales taxes
• the amount to be paid (after sales taxes)
• a reference number
• the date of the sale
• the name of the seller an the buyer
• a description of the product or service possibly including a product code
• payment terms e.g. pay within 30 days or payment on delivery

A voucher can mean a lot of things: A voucher is a bond or token which is worth a certain monetary value an normally has that amount printed on. A voucher may only be spent for specific reasons or on specific goods. Examples include — housing, travel and food vouchers.

The term voucher is also a synonym for receipt, and is often used to refer to receipts used as evidence of, for example, the declaration that a service has been performed or that an expenditure has been made.

A voucher is an accounting document representing an internal indent to make a payment to an external entity, such as a vendor or service provider. A voucher is produced usually after receiving a purchase invoice, after the invoice is successfully matched to a Purchase Order. [3]

I hope that helps. John Cross 09:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collaberation of the Week - attempt to revive

OK, I registered on Wiktionary a while ago and then went away but recently I have come back and got a bit more involved. I think that Wiktionary has massive potential as it is not bound by the limits of being physically printed. I also think the community behind Wiktionary is great. I think we can all agree that there are thousands of missing words to add and new words are being added all the time. I would like to see two things as a sort of new user:

1. a sense of priority. Which words or appendices do we most need? I accept this is subjective but as a community I think we could set meaningful priorities.
2. a sense of completeness. Which areas can get to a point where we can say they are complete? as a trivial example we have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

I am hoping we can use WT:COW to try to meet these needs. I have added a few suggestions to the WT:COW page I am not sure these should be priorities but I am hoping people will edit the page an change things around. I think collaborating on a group of words that are related makes more sense than trying to all collaborate for a week on two or three unrelated words.

John Cross 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We could think about priorities, but I'm not sure that many editors would change anything to what they do...

Completeness cannot be achieved: new words are created every day, and no dictionary lists all existing words. But completeness might be measured in some cases: for dead languages, maybe, or areas such as taxa in biology.

On fr.wikt, this collaboration of the week exists: this week, it's about dance styles. Lmaltier 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of having this. (I've got a few categories on my own user page, e.g. minerals — an enormous list — and links to things like wine-tasting terms and organic compounds.) I doubt I'd contribute to the project page itself, i.e. by adding groups of terms, but I could definitely be convinced to research and create some of the missing terms suggested by others. Equinox ◑ 21:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly support doing (and perhaps, organizing) this sort of thing. As soon as there are enough people that are interested in contributing.... Should we bring this up at the Beer Parlour? L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Have vs. Have got.

Although I may only be a high school student, I am constantly bewildered by the discussion or argument concerning whether or not have or have got is the correct usage. What purpose necessitates the addition of the past tense verb got combined with the present tense of the verb to have? Why would one render this unrequired addition? As I have learned and discovered on my own, the verb to have has a few distinct tenses, each of which not including got in any circumstances.

Present- have or has. Past- had. Present participle- has or have gotten. Pluperfect- had gotten.

As you may have discerned, got was not included with any of these tenses, reiterating the fact.

So might anyone have the solution to my problem? Questions or comments? But please, only authority or experts on the subject. —This comment was unsigned.

• I was going to answer, but I'm not an authority or an expert. Good luck. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not an expert either, so I will just say that the rules vary with region, culture, and time. Dbfirs 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "authority or expert", but both "has" and "have gotten" are correct under their own circunstances which Im to tired to explain right now. and I'm not sure who we have around here for "authority or experts". (SB?!) L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I like to think of myself as an authority and an expert on every subject, and this being the Internet, there's no one to say different. ;-)
  So, here goes:
  • The past participle of "to get" is "got" in some forms of English, "gotten" in others. (Nowadays, "got" is more typically U.K., "gotten" is more typically U.S., but with exceptions. And, dunno about other regions.) And there are probably forms that use both past participles, either interchangeably or not, but I don't know. (Incidentally, despite this variation with "to get", the past participle of "to forget" seems to be fairly consistently "forgotten". Dunno why.)
  • Additionally, in some forms of English, "to have got" has the meaning "to have". This occurs even in some forms where the past participle of "got" is "gotten"; hence, in my dialect, "you've got a lot of mail today" and "you've gotten a lot of mail today" are both correct, but they mean different things: the former means "you have a lot of mail today", with the present tense of the multiword verb "to have got", whereas the latter means "you've received a lot of mail today", with the present perfect of the verb "to get". Broadly speaking, use of "have got" this way is more common in colloquial registers than in formal ones, but usage varies greatly between different forms of English.
  • The aforementioned usage does not apply equally to all senses of "to have"; in particular, "to have" is used in forming the perfect aspect, but "to have got" is not.
  • In some forms of English, the "have" in "to have got" can be dropped, as in "I gotta [=got to] go", or "I got no problem with that." These usages are not considered standard — especially the second.
  • As may be inferred from the above, there are many speakers who will never say "to have got" in their entire lives, preferring "to have gotten" exclusively for the perfect aspect of "to get", and "to have" exclusively for the other uses.
  Does that answer your questions?
  —Ruakh_TALK 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsure how useful this comment will be. However, the word gotten is very, very rare in British English; you'd probably only hear it in the slightly archaic idiom "ill-gotten gains". On the other hand, "I've got" (I already own, or have just acquired) is very common, where US English might prefer" I have". Equinox ◑ 21:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] taiwan vs tw-ESE vilages

iLEARNTlatter,butCformer[adj=NOUN,uh]i/engl.media-wotsrite/practice??--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 01:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is not the former just the attributive usage of the noun? I suppose there might be a subtle distinction between Taiwan villages meaning villages in the country, and Taiwanese villages meaning those with a distinctly Taiwanese character, but I don't think this distinction can be consistently maintained. Dbfirs 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No (determiner) illustration

A very long time ago, I had an English professor who thought a good dictionary should contain a little humour, and I appreciate a gag or two as much as the next guy. But does the illustration for no as a determiner (added by User:msh210 on June 23/09) go a smidge too far over the top? Or not? I have mixed feelings. (BTW, doesn't that image look more like a picture of no determiners than of no bricks?) -- WikiPedant 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should go. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That was for the solstice competition. As you say, a bit of a gag. As the guy who added it, I agree: it can go.​—msh210℠ 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Genius, I love it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I'm moving the picture to nothing. ; ) L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually I say a word should contribute something to an entry, but in this case, I think it's rather appropriate for it to contribute nothing. I'm considering copying it to [[אין]]. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 02:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of one of the classic philosophical questions: How can something come from nothing? Hmmmm. -- WikiPedant 04:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] etymology info on secret (Verb) - needs supporting documentation & Latin roots & general editing

Etymology 2
Back-formation from reading secreted as secret + -ed instead of secrete + -ed by influence of the above senses of secret.

Why is "secrete + -ed" implied to be a more correct reading (or a reading more consistent with the original meaning or roots)? I think it needs some supporting documentation and dates.

Usage notes 
This word is not in standard or formal usage, where secrete is used instead.

I disagree with this because it is in standard usage amongst people I know (probably because the 'secret' interpretation/usage makes more sense than the 'secreted' interpretation/usage, based on the accepted meaning of 'secret'). I propose removing this Usage Note.
Also, this usage is hardly ever seen without 'away' after it (i.e. 'secreted away') and I propose to add this as a Usage note.

The only Latin root we mention (for secret; there is none for secrete or secretion) is 'secretum' (a non-existent page) and this differs from what's at etymonline [4], which says:

1378 (n.), 1399 (adj.), from L. secretus "set apart, withdrawn, hidden" originally pp. of secernere "to set apart," from se- "without, apart," 
prop. “on one's own” (from PIE *sed-, from base *s(w)e-; see idiom) + cernere "separate" (see crisis).

I propose to change "secretum" to "secretus" and to add "secretus" as a new entry, and also to add secretion's root (from etymonline), unless anyone objects.--Tyranny Sue 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I don't doubt that your pronunciation is common where you live, are you sure that the secreted you hear is not an alternative pronunciation of past participle of the verb secrete? If you are correct then you will probably hear secrets (hides) and secreting with the stress on the first syllable. Dbfirs 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no pronunciation is 'common' where I live (or amongst people I know, including my family, and that means various international geographical locations, so it's not necessarily an isolated regional phenomenon) because it's not frequently used in speech, but I've been asking around about how people interpret it when reading. But yes, the stress is definitely on the first syllable. (My theory for this is that since the 2nd verb sense of 'secrete' is effectively obsolete, and has been reabsorbed(?) by 'secret' - in my circles anyway - and the modern meaning of 'secret' fits the purpose perfectly, why would people interpret it as 'secrete', i.e. an involuntary biological process where something goes from a more hidden place to a less hidden one, when 'to hide' - which is what our contemporary use of 'secret' is all about - is what's obviously meant?)--Tyranny Sue 05:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bihourly

So, which is it? [5] Equinox ◑ 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Both, I think. I tweaked the adverbial defn and added e.g. sentences to help distinguish the adverb from the adjective. -- WikiPedant 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, you mean is it "twice an hour" or "once every two hours". In the case of bihourly both the Random House Dictionary and the OED say once every two hours, but the OED acknowledges that there are many terms (e.g., biweekly and bimonthly) which can be used with either meaning and the OED recommends using "semi-" instead of "bi-" if one means "twice a ...". -- WikiPedant 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think biannual might be our best effort with respect to the two meanings of "bi-". I don't know where there are reliable statistics as to how common the "proscribed" senses might be. As I understand it the ambiuguity goes back to Latin. Bis (“‘twice’”) is an adverb. Used as a prefix it means two. So "twice an hour" or "two-hourly". From a usage stand point the bi-words seem best avoided unless you want a portion of the readers to miss your meaning. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] epididymal

canIPAbechekd pl?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 10:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ta!!:D--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] take upon

It seems "take upon" would be better located at take upon oneself; what do you think? A form with "himself" is used in the example sentence. For comparison, OneLook:"take upon" and OneLook:"take upon oneself". An aside: The figure that I see behind this idiom is of a person taking a burden such as a bag full of potatoes on his back, thus on himself, as it were; which can easily be a misperception. --Dan Polansky 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would need to be take upon oneself, as you say. As to your reasoning about the idiomaticity, I think it would not be sufficient. Among the many meanings of take and upon are many figurative meanings. A mere combination of figurative senses does not make something an idiom within the meaning of WT:CFI. The meaning is figuratively taking the "burden/weight of responsibility" "on/upon one's shoulders". We often seem to use arguments other than true idiomaticity to support including such terms.

In this case only RHU includes the term as an idiom.

It is interesting that "take it upon oneself to/take it upon oneself" is nearly 5 times as common as "take upon oneself". DCDuring TALK 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] deleted "forearm bones" (sum of parts)

mytake:add.info=ulna+rad.-thoughts any1?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on this is at WT:RFD#forearm_bones; please continue discussion there, to keep it together.​—msh210℠ 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thatp.soolong,mybrowsernolike..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] hypothenar

IPApl?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 18:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time just add {{rfp}} to the entry.​—msh210℠ 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

yup,ta!!:)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] heaven helps those who help themselves

Can someone create an entry for this idiom for me? I have some Chinese translations to add. Cheers. 114.78.202.110 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Adding some translations now! :D Tooironic 06:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] a sea of faces

Is this idiom allowed its own entry? Or is it considered a sum of parts phrase? 114.78.202.110 08:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have most metaphors. For "faces", "sea" is probably the most common, but "wall", blur", "crowd", "stream", "montage", "kaleidoscope", "gallery", "kitchen", "range" occur also at one large corpus of American English. Some folks like to include such metaphors, but not me. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subject of a biography

What is the word for the subject of a biography - the person being written about? It is biografato in Italian. SemperBlotto 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

autobiographer; biographee. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we would just use subject normally ("he's the subject of a new biography by so-and-so"). Not very satisfying, though.-- Visviva 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, where attestable I think any -ee words will handle this pretty well. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emergently

Is this actually a word or just a bastardization of emergency and urgently? I have a bet with my doctor son in law who uses it all the time. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by Tenlady (talk • contribs).

It's a word. See emergent. I think in medicine emergent things are even more urgent than urgent things.​—msh210℠ 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] to nitpick about words

How do I say "to nitpick about words", "to concentrate on minor semantic mistakes while ignoring the substance"? I thought it was something like "talk semantics" but I can't find it. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, an argument over the meanings of words is called a logomachy, whilst a person so engaged could be accused of pettifogging. OTOH, people often say things like “Let’s not discuss semantics.” as an admonishment not to get bogged down in such concerns as the meaning of terminology. Does that answer your quæstion? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know about logomachy. The term that I was probably looking for was google books:"argue semantics". I thought I had seen an example sentence in Wiktionary, sounding similar to "You are arguing semantics and completely ignoring my point." But I can't find it any more.

I thought "argue semantics" could be well worth entering, but the transitive "argue" with a direct object seems to apply broadly, including to google books:"argue politics". --Dan Polansky 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

YW. The OED has sub-senses for semantic and semantics defined simply as “In weakened uses.”; two of the supporting quotations for the “weakened use” of semantics are:

• 1966: N.Y. Post 3 Aug. 6/4

  Sen. Pastore said that everybody was engaged in semantics. ‘It comes down to a very fine point,’ he said, stating the obvious in a nutshell.

• 1978: Kenneth Hudson, The Jargon of the Professions, page 16

  Almost daily in the press briefing, whenever a newsman raises his hand to ask for clarification of some mealy-mouthed statement: ‘I am not going to debate semantics with you,’ the spokesman replies.

These, I believe, are identical with the sense in which you mean the word/phrase. I conclude that what we need are additional senses added to semantic and semantics. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] have a seat

I have taken a stab at presenting the non-idiomatic, the truly idiomatic (IMO) directive, and an intermediate sense that might be idiomatic. To me the polite directive is the principal justification for the entry.

1. Is this not used outside the US?
2. Is the intermediate sense truly idiomatic or is it just that it is hard to keep track of all the senses of verbs like "have", "take", "do", "get", "put", "sit", "set", "go", "give"?
3. Is this the best we can do?

Note that no OneLook Dictionary has this and that it is a new entry. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Common in UK. I'm not sure whether the intermediate sense is an idiom or not. Agree that sense 3 justifies the entry. Dbfirs 09:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish and Finnish

I just saw a show where someone spoke a language that, as he explained, originated because people couldn't speak either Swedish or Finnish very well. Therefore they came up with that language which is apparently some sort of mix of the two. His flag was from top to bottom white-blue-yellow. Can anyone tell me where he was from? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 11:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, i know this isn't what you're looking for, but I found an old Dutch flag with the colors in the wrong spots - still looking. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The only Google hits I'm getting are for the flag of the Marshall islands and the flag of Argentina, neither of which is right. still looking ... L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I recieved this response on wikipedia:

:He was referring to Meänkieli which is spoken on the Finnish-Swedish border in the Torne Valley. It's basically a dialect of Finnish with a lot of Swedish influences that has been defined as a separate language because of repressive Swedish policies towards Finnish-speakers during the 20th century.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This page shows their flag. I appreciate your help Mr. Maniac :D User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, about that Dutch flag. The colours are in the correct place, it's just an old flag based on the colours of Dutch royalty. (Those French changed orange to red) User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

whynotchangdbak?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because Napoleon Bonaparte's brother, forgot his name, was 'such a good king to us', people did not resent the French colours. Those colours were made official again as a reaction to the NSB. On certain days, orange is flown along with the red, white and blue. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the red was already in use long before our beloved "rabbit-of-Holland". Even in the 17th century both orange and red were used. The latter in part because the red dye did not bleach in sunlight as badly. On the VOC/WIC ships that was important. But yes with the Batave Republic it became official and with Willem I an orange vane was added. As a sign of reconciliation I suppose. It never became official though, until the Dutch nazi party started using the orange again in the thirties.

Jcwf 05:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the flag. Tornedalians are Torne Valley-dwelling Finnish people, who at some point settled west of the gulf to the Swedish side. They have lots of Swedish loanwords. See also: Helsinki slang for a similiar situation, in southern Finland. --Hydrox 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Left body part

When speaking of "left kidney", "left hemisphere" or any other body part, is it from the point of view of the owner of the body part or from the point of view of a person who faces the owner? Clearly, with "right hand", it is the former--the owner's right hand is seen by a facing person at the left--but I am for some mysterious reason unsure about other body parts. --Dan Polansky 12:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

owner--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote and bet owner's PoV. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as for "stage left", though there have been cases of the wrong kidney being removed. Might this be the reason? Dbfirs 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I guess the confusion can be seen on the picture that I am just posting. --Dan Polansky 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this picture is correctly described as "seen from behind", so the caption is wrong. Dbfirs 09:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops; you're right. I have replaced the picture with a fitting one. --Dan Polansky 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] confused

Is any one else confused by this entry's definitions? Chaotic, jumbled and muddled are, in my mind, quite different from each other. They also don't tell us if the word refers to people only (emotions) or other things (e.g. according to this entry "a chaotic work of art" could also be expressed as "a confused work of art", even though their meanings are quite different). Lastly, since when did it also mean "embaarrassed"? Tooironic 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered posting it to cleanup? L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One can be confused by embarrassment, or embarrassed by confusion. I would have removed sense 3 except that it was added by SemperBlotto who usually knows what he is talking about. I wonder what he meant? Dbfirs 00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that we also have the sense recorded at confuse. If it exists, I would regard this as a colloquial, non-standard usage (from confusing two related emotions). Should we mark this sense as colloquial?

... also, I regard chaotic art as confused, jumbled and muddled, but I'm not an art expert! Dbfirs 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another sense for jackpot

Wikipedia's language reference desk was discussing an alternate sense for jackpot at W:wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#"jackpot" meaning trouble. Does it meet CFI? RJFJR 20:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Also another sense, possibly linked. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step / a single step

Was surprised to find this was not in wiktionary. Why is this? Tooironic 09:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The longer the proverb, the harder to type. There are so many proverbs. Having all of them is such a major effort. It just doesn't seem worth it. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

...(edit conflict) ... because it is a sentence, not a word, and the meaning is exactly what it says, not idiomatic. Perhaps we could include it for translations. Are there idioms in other languages that mean the same? I would expect just word-for-word direct translations. Dbfirs 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is not precisely what it says: it's a metaphor. I agree it's not idiomatic, though. Once one understands that it's a metaphor, it's SoP.​—msh210℠ 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that proverbs are per se idiomatic or just get a free pass. For example, Rome wasn't built in a day uses the building of Rome as a metaphor for any large task. Category:English proverbs is mostly populated with metaphors, I think. I suppose we could try to have more formal criteria for inclusion, but it hasn't been an issue recently. Does anyone really think this shouldn't be included? a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step is my preferred wording but the other seems good too. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it's not to be included, nor did I mean to imply that. Our practice has been, as you note, DCDuring, to include such. I was only responding to Dbfirs' "the meaning is exactly what it says, not idiomatic". My preferred wording is yours, but citations rule.​—msh210℠ 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Do we include all metaphors? There are millions! Dbfirs 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We certainly don't include all in fact. I don't know whether there is any express reason why we would exclude any attestable metaphorical use of a common noun. I don't think we would include "the champagne of bottled beers", though we might have the metaphorical sense of champagne as used in that phrase: "anything expensive or luxurious" (as RHU alone among OneLook dictionaries does). The entry for head is a reminder of how much metaphor accounts for the proliferation of senses of many common polysemic words. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created the entry for a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step (by Confucius) and added a few translations, please check the English section, add translations, if you can and wish to do it. Anatoli 04:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] rote learning

I came across this while cleaning up the "English nouns" category in French - it has three other interwikis, but not here! Is it a bad import or just something I've never heard of. It's an uncountable noun, or so I'm told. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Only Wordnet (the most semantically inclusive reference) and Steadman's Medical Dictionary (???!!!) among OneLook dictionaries have this. It is not an idiom. It analyzes as attributive use of rote#Noun with learning#Noun as head. It is equivalent to "learning by rote". "By rote" is in three of the One look idiom dictionaries. COCA shows "rote learning" to be about 10 times more common than "learning by rote" (intransitive), but "learning something by rote" (transitive) is as common as the intransitive. Our searchbox yields "rote" as the top entry for searches for "rote learning" and most forms of "learn by rote", "learned by rote" and "learnt by rote" being the leading exceptions.

I think that strict application of WT:CFI would not lead to including any multi-word term including "rote" to be included. OTOH I see a little benefit from having all of the common collocations redirect to rote and making sure that rote is a high-quality entry. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[[rote]] needs some improvement. It misses the adjective (rote is gradable, comparable and can appear as predicate) and gives to much emphasis to "by rote". DCDuring TALK 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fishes

The Noun def is currently:

(US or when referring to one or more type) Plural form of fish. 

Don't we mean "when referring to more than one type" (or "two or more types")?

At fish we have: ... and when referring to two or more kinds fishes ... so is the "one or more type" from fishes just a typo?

Also I think an example (i.e. use in a sentence) would be extremely helpful for the verb entry (of fishes), which is "Third-person singular simple present indicative form of fish".

Thanks very much.--Tyranny Sue 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a typo. L☺g☺maniac chat? 13:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mining Terminology

I was watching somethign on television about mining and was amazed by all the specialized mining terminology. DOes anyone have an idea where we can get a list of words with special mining senses that we might be missing? RJFJR 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• You could try [6] for a start. SemperBlotto 14:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• A quick Google search will birng up hundreds of hits, so you shouldn't be lacking . . . I found this and this (which is a PDF document) as well . . . :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Security Service

Can someone please check this entry for me? I just created it and not sure if it should be capitalised or not. Cheers! Tooironic 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] shoop

For the second sense (humorous singular of "sheep"), are the citations acceptable? The bottom two look terrible to me; they are just speculating about what might be a word given some particular circumstances, like using "if quixingplorp was a word..." to back up an entry about quixingplorp. Equinox ◑ 17:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, those bottom two (now three) are just making facetious arguments from analogy for the use of shoop, asserting that such is the case, to humorous effect. The two from 2001 are less analytical in their uses, however. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] make way

This entry needs some work. "Make way" isn't just a nautical word - it can also mean "get out of the way" as an interjection or "get prepared for" (e.g. "make way for the next generation of iPhones"). Tooironic 01:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ahead of time

[[ahead of]] + [[time]] = early. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are asking if it's a SOP? (This should maybe go to RfD instead.) This seems somewhat idiomatic to me, since, taken literally, "ahead of" + "time" sounds like it should mean the same thing as what we mean when we say "before time." I'm not quite sure, though; I'd lean towards keeping it. Dominic·t 07:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it should be at RfD if anywhere. It might be one that we keep on Pawley's we call it X, they call it Y principle. I think I'll take it to TR. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[from WT:RFD I am very familiar with this common expression. It seems SoP. If there is a different expression (also possibly SoP) in widespread use somewhere with the same meaning, that would make it an ipso facto idiom to be kept. Dominic seems to be suggesting that "before time" is the right-pondian translation of this left-pondian term. Can we confirm this? DCDuring TALK 10:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I am in fact a left-pondian, too. I just meant that without any articles or other verbiage, "ahead of time" does seem like an argument could be made that it is more than the sum of its parts, since if I didn't already know what it meant, it sounds like it is describing something before time itself, rather than before a particular time (i.e., early). Dominic·t 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for any rationale to keep this. Sense 6 of time (“‘an appropriate moment in time for something’”) seems to be the exact sense. Some other dictionaries have this as an idiom. I'd like to know by what rationale. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that this expression's use of ahead of provides the best case for idiomaticity here. "Ahead of" seems to me usually to be used to refer to a spatial relationship, not a temporal or conceptual one, and Wiktionary does not give one sense for "ahead of" which is exclusively and unambiguously non-spatial. I've always felt that a multi-word term can be fairly be regarded as idiomatic if one of its constituents is used in a way which differs from its most common usage. -- WikiPedant 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be a deficiency of the definition of ahead of that I added one day ago. Some other dictionaries include an explicit time sense, others use synonymous prepositions that have both spatial and temporal senses. Of the simple prepositions that have a spatial sense, almost all also have a temporal sense. A few of the exceptions are across, {[term|beside}}, behind, up, down. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] potted biography

I heard a references to a book that contained "potted biographies". This could be the preserved sense of pot. Is a potted biography a short biography that can stand alone? RJFJR 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Potted history is common. It seems to suggest that it's a short summary or synopsis. Equinox ◑ 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] prostitot

After searching for Britney in Wiktionary, I have found prostitot. It seems quite POV (for start, Britney Spears won't be twenty something for ever!) --Rising Sun 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it. Better? Equinox ◑ 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly less inflammatory for Britney. Goldenrowley 04:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... its not a Britney thing, its the behavior of these young girls and the society we live in that exposes them to sexual context they are not ready to be exposed to.

[edit] do aid,objective and goal mean the same

do aid ojective —This comment was unsigned.

See aim, objective, goal. Yes, they are basically equivalent. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are synonyms, but in modern management speak an aim is more general, with an objective being a more specific goal. Dbfirs 17:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

They are synonyms, but synonyms do not have to have exactly the same meanings. "Aim" is a more general, open-ended term that either "objective" or "goal". Sometimes (especially in management) objectives are regarded as more general than goals (and sometimes goals are understood as quantified). It might be my objective to improve office morale and, to do this, I set 3 goals: (1) To tell a joke a day at the watercooler, (2) to compliment each employee for some positive contribution at least once a week, and (3) to use at least 50% of the time in each staff meeting for employee comments and feedback. -- WikiPedant 17:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting because the way it was explained to me (years ago) was that the aim would be to improve office morale and, to do this, I set 3 objectives ... The heirarchy was Purpose -> Aims -> Objectives. Perhaps different "experts" use the terms in different ways? Dbfirs 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A little empirical research on COCA suggests that "objective" as noun is preceded with one intervening word by a form of the verb "achieve" for about 8% of its total uses; "aim" about 2% and "goal" about 3%. I would guess that an objective is more often perceived as something that is achievable and concrete, which probably places it lower in the hierarchy than the others. If we make some subjective adjustment for the use of "goal" in sports, I would venture that goal is considered less achievable and concrete than "aim". And "purpose" at .2% seems considered even less achievable than "aim". Since this is the product of less than 30 minutes work, it is just suggestive, not conclusive. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Neat analysis. Thanks. Dbfirs 17:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I love facts and their analysis, especially the quick and dirty. I'd usually rather have ten of them than one of higher quality, though sometimes the high quality is essential. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Language: "Agamid toes"

The following is a request from Wikipedia's Language Reference Desk - I copied it here. L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What does this Latin term mean: Digiti inaequales, sublongi, non fimbriati. I am not really sure about the punctuation (comma) between inaequales and sublongi. How would change the deletion of this comma the meaning of that term? Is inaequales an adjective or an adverb? What do you mean is the correct punctuation in this term, maybe is the one or other not usable? Thanks, Doc Taxon (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

toes unequal, rather long, not fringed. Inaequales is an adjective, masculine & feminine plural. I think the punctuation is correct as it is. —Stephen 22:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone replied there right after I copied it here. Thanks anyway. . . L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Transmition

Is transmition a genuine word? It does not appear in Wiktionary or my bookshelf dictionaries. But Google books gets well over 600 hits and Google scholar gets over 3,500 hits. It's hard to believe they are all a mis-spelling of transmission, although some of them undoubtedly are, especially the papers written by non-English speakers. Although some may be archaic spellings or mis-spellings there seems to be a statistical cluster around using it as the adjectival form of "transmittance" in optics. That's where I first came across it, in the Wikipedia article on w:Filter (optics) and was wondering if I should correct the Wikipedia article or add the word here. SpinningSpark 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some of the Google book hits, and all of them appear to me to be misspellings. —Stephen 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The OED doesn’t have it either, FWIW. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] request

Does anyone have any source on this? Perhaps in an English-Dutch dictionary? The only translation I have that comes close to dying is 'pass away', albeit in the sense of elapsing. So that's nonsense. I've never heard of this meaning and an anonymous editor has added it. It seems to me that he has 50% credibility. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 20:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

{{rfv}} is a better place for this. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "desegregation settlement"?

Hi. We got in the mail a couple days ago a newsletter of sorts from our state senator and on the back it had a graph about where our tax dollars are going. It said 0.04% of the tax money is going towards "desegregation settlement", and for the life of us we couldn't quite figure out what that was. Anyone have ideas? Thanks. (On a humorous note, it also said that 9.11% of the money is going towards health care. Of all numbers . . . :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A settlement agreement on the subject of desegregation. Because it arises in the context of "desegregation" and government (and your state senator is almost certainly an attorney) he expects you to realize what kind of settlement he means. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what's a settlement agreement? :\ L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a "desegregation settlement" will be something like the state paying money to a the former victims of segregation (e.g. blacks who weren't allowed in universities). Equinox ◑ 21:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My first cut is is a [[settlement]] + [[agreement]]; A second pass would be w:Settlement agreement. It should probably be at [[settlement agreement. None of the definitions will specify what particular type of matter your state senator is talking about. We probably mentioned it elsewhere in the newsletter. Where I live there has been one relating to housing desegregation in affluent suburban towns. Equinox's might be another, but cash payments to individuals are not so common is such cases as I understand it. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Added, briefly. bd2412 T 03:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] -phone words

Just looking through the English -phone words, how come Russophone is always capitalized, but anglophone and germanophone are always in lowercase? I'd have thought both upper and lowercase were okay for all of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the [Perform+Find+Word+search 205 words ending in *phone] listed in the OED, the following are capitalised:

1. Blattnerphone
2. Dictaphone
3. Entryphone
4. Linguaphone
5. Porta-Phone
6. Stylophone
7. Trimphone
8. Vitaphone
9. WAP phone

None of those derive from country names. Words like anglophone and francophone aren’t capitalised, but the capitalised versions are listed as alternative spellings. Personally, I capitalise them, but there we go… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Each main entry should be independently capitalized according to its most common usage. CanOD lists both anglophone and francophone with initial l.c., indicating they are used that way in Canada. A brief Google Books search shows that Russophone may mainly have an initial cap. The capitalization is probably a function of the etymology, who uses the word, in what context, how common it is (e.g., the Canadian usage originates or is influenced by the lower-cased French). —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:27 z

I don’t think we should hyperregulate and micromanage like that. It doesn’t really matter where the entry goes, as long as both forms are attestable. Conversely to your suggestion, I reckon that if we’re going to make a rule either way, it should be to ensure that such entries are either all majuscule-initial or all minuscule-initial; this creates consistency, which gives a more professional appearance and means that users looking up multiple -phone words will know (or at least learn) to stick to only one capitalisation scheme (a consideration that becomes weightier the more of this class of entries there are). If you like, we could decide which capitalisation scheme to “favour” by opting for the scheme that sees the most frequent usage. Any etymological and other nuances can be explicitly expressed in usage notes, rather than leaving it to the implication of which spelling houses the main entry. All that said, I really don’t think it’s worth the effort bothering to make a rule on this; Google searches don’t distinguish capitalisations, which’ll make gathering usage-frequency statistics a pain. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] faccedilade

I've noticed faccedilade at http://www.laparks.org/dos/historic/campo.htm . It took some time to realize that it originated as an HTML storage/rendering problem, where the original term façade was stored as HTML as "fa&ccedil;ade", then somewhere along the line the ampersand and semicolon were lost, resulting in faccedilade. Searching for that resulting sequence of letters, I see it even in some documents inline with words that contain other accented characters, so it seems to have be written that way on purpose by some authors. I wonder whether some people have encountered the result of the failure of HTML storage and rendering, and committed the result to memory as an actual word. Does this merit a misspelling entry? —Rod (A. Smith) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh definitely. That is by far the most interesting misspelling I’ve ever seen, and I doubt that most people would guess that it’s a misspelling of façade. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. We now have the misspelling entry [[faccedilade]]. —Rod (A. Smith) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Well done. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the threshold for "common" misspelling? I can't find it in English running text. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1 groups hit. None elsewhere. It is an HTML artifact. HTML is not running English text. It is a good candidate for inclusion in the TypographyWiki, which, BTW, needs urgent and sustained attention. DCDuring TALK 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dolour

I am eager to change the template from the austere obsolete (which would have been appropriate, had there been found no citations newer than Shakespeare's) to poetic, as in dolour in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913, but being no native speaker I would like to ensure myself that no objections are going to be raised. The second quotation proves that less than 140 years ago this noun was in vivid use and for me personally it it hard to rate a noun which has quitted daily speech for less than 150-200 years as obsolete. Is the noun current in contemporary English? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Merriam Webster online does not use any tag soever, so perchance the noun has again become part of dily speech? Should one refrain from any context tag? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

dolour gets 0 hits out of 400 million at COCA. It seems to get some UK, Indian, and Australian use. I didn't see Canadian use, but perhaps you can find some to support including Canada among the using locations. Searching news is tedious because of the scannos for "dollar", "colour", and "detour" and Proper noun use which together constitute the great majority of hits. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As is habitual for Latin borrowings (nouns) ending in -or, the US standard spells them as -or, whereas in the rest of the anglophone world the ending is -our, so in US sites like COCA one must look for dolor. But the spelling is not important, what matters is determining how daily, poetic or archaic the use of this word is. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean not everyone spells English the same? Hooda thunk it?

As to "dolour", it use seems mostly "literary". "I appears in newspapers is in arts reviews and occasionally to make puns in other contexts. I haven't done the work on dolor, except to note that on COCA it mostly appears in Spanish running text, in arts reviews, or in puns like "Another day, another dolor". DCDuring TALK 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first quæstion. No, I was simply mindful of the differences between Commonwealth and US spelling. Ok, I shall change the tag to literary. Obsolete was obviously exaggerated. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds correct - one comes across the word occasionally in British English, so it is certainly not obsolete. Presumably dolor is obsolete in the USA? Would the word need to be translated into an alternative current American synonym for readers in the USA? Dbfirs 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems "dolor" is probably mostly "literary" in the US too. Of the 5o occurrences in COCA 42 were uses or mentions of the Spanish word. 2 were from science fiction, 6 were from high-brow literary/arts journals. 6/400MM is hardly less than 3/100MM at BNC. The spread of Spanish among students who are native speakers of English may widen its use in English. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed the tag on the entry at dolor to "literary". You seem to have an extra sense (as in the Catalan entry) connected with rheumatism. e.g. "In rheumatoid arthritis, it [Ibuprofen] reduces the duration of morning stiffness, and morning stiffness is a particular feature of inflammatory disease—a cardinal sign which seems to have been overlooked by Celsus. Alas, we have no adequate measures of the inflammatory response in man. Dolor, pain, may be due to other things." from the editorial of RHEUMATOLOGY AND REHABILITATION, (Vol. XVII February 1978). I haven't heard this usage in the UK. As you suggest, it is probably the influence of Spanish. Dbfirs 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It can well be the influence of French instead (douleur). In the US city La Nouvelle Orléans, in it's vicinity and in many locations in Maine French is spoken by hundreds of thousands of residents (as mother tongue) and it is the most widespread foreign language for US students, is it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Students who take French in the US usually miss the chance to speak it very much. Students who take Spanish can often speak it to fellow students and members of the school staff who are native speakers. To a lesser extent they can find chances to speak it elsewhere, but in any event much more than French. The can watch Spanish-language television if they wish 24/7.

And the "dolour" spelling goes against US prevailing practice, of course. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] by ear and play it by ear

I just created by ear and have noticed that play it by ear might be redundant. I'm not actually sure though, because in play by ear, it's not one of the common meanings of play. We might at the least rename it to play by ear, as the direct object isn't always "it". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As you note, by ear is mainly musical. "Play by ear" (intransitive) is also almost exclusively musical. "Play X by ear" is split almost evenly in citations at COCA between musical and non-musical.

But "play X by ear" and "play by ear" (which just looks like an intransitive use of "play" with "by ear") seem SoP in the musical sense. "Play by ear" doesn't convey the non-musical idiom. Play something by ear would seem to be more general than the "it" form, but in the overwhelming majority of cases where "it" is not the object the "something" is a musical instrument or a piece of music.

For the non-musical idiom, I could see either play it by ear or play something by ear as the entry, with the other as redirect, but the "it" form is both more common and more clearly idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shaku

Moved to information desk --Antilived 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] squeaky-bum time for Portugal

'gainOMISION[cos ev-b 2bizi talkin'?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC

This is what WT:REE is for. Added there. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Krung..

Couple questions. Sorry if the first one belongs in the Grease pit or something.

1) Is this our longest entry title? If not what is?

2) The Thai version of this in the etymology is so long it's fucking up the {{term}} template and won't link. I don't know if there is such an entry but anyhow . . .

Thanks! L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] be-

The etymology (!?!) section says that this prefix is "unproductive for most speakers". I have a few problems with this:

1. It belongs in a usage note, if true.
2. "Most speakers" don't invent words, do they? If so, the statement is vacuous.
3. One of the definitions suggests that it is being used to produce new terms, especially in discussion of fashion, which seems plausible and would contradict a claim of unproductivity.
4. The word "bewebbed" was uncommon before Spiderman and the Web and gained a bit of currency. Wouldn't that be one or two examples of reminting the coinage, since the term is not to be found in a dictionary in this sense? Isn't that evidence of productivity? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, be- and/or be- -ed is/are definitely productive in English. The one meaningful way in which “unproductive for most speakers” might have been meant is that be- is not semantically transparent for most listeners (cf. anti-, un-, -ism, -ing, &c.); however, I’d contest that — most people do get what be- (and especially be- -ed) mean(s), which is not the case for obscure ones like selen- (“‘moon’”). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the intelligibility of the occasional new word deployed is pretty high, partially because the prefix adds little semantically, but helps conveys an attitude. The last of the senses seems to almost have the productive sense right. It seems to me that it might be deemed "literary" (in the sense that a style article or column in a newspaper or magazine is "literary") or "archaic" in its uses. I have trouble imagining it in speech, in any event, and in more formal writing. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add that I think that most people do invent words from time to time, especially when there is a general rule to invent these words (e.g. adding -like to a noun). (assuming that invent a word means use a word never used before, or that they never heard nor read) Lmaltier 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I was wrong. Few English speakers don't invent using the highly productive prefixes and suffixes like "un-", "-like", "-ish", "-y", and "-ly". Actually I think people mostly "reinvent" words that have been used before but which are not in their memories, possibly because they never read or heard them. But aren't words that are formed regularly "reinvented" (in the sense of being formed by rule) instead of being called from memory each time they are used? In any event "be-" is not quite in the same category in contemporary English as these highly productive affixes that many use. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I haven't the foggiest

Haven’t the foggiest redirects to the form with I; cf. G.B.S.: "hasn't the foggiest". Delete I haven’t the foggiest or redirect to haven’t the foggiest? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My inclination for the lemma form is to the ugly general negative [[not have the foggiest]] with copious usage examples of and/or redirects from the forms in use. Many of the forms in use would not lead a user to my proposed lemma without such explicit support. I fear that all the pronouns, verb forms, and contractions might be needed among the redirects because the search engine seems to need them. (???) DCDuring TALK 12:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] tomato juice

[edit] grape juice

Could someone tell me why the former is afforded an entry and the latter is not? Tooironic 08:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because no-one has entered it yet. We have apple juice but not cranberry juice. I'll make the entries. How about cow juice? Dbfirs 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, adding translation as we speak. Tooironic 11:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have any of them, except the clearly idiomatic cow juice? DCDuring TALK 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The term grape juice (at least) passes our "fried egg test". It isn't simply juice squezzed from grapes, but requires additional processing that halts fermentation. If grape juice were not treated, it would be wine. I'm not sure that the same criterion applies to any of the other examples of fruit juices mentioned. --EncycloPetey 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that, but all involve some processing. Grape juice only turns into wine if it is allowed to ferment in controlled conditions for some time. It can turn into vinegar! What about orange juice? Dbfirs 15:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense! Wake up and smell the juice, gentlemen.

Every school child knows what grape juice denotes, even though they have no clue of the industrial processes and chemical requirements. It's juice from grapes. You're all fired as soon as I can find enough school children... —Michael Z. 2009-09-13 15:42 z

School child at your service, sir! :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the entry? Did you stop to consider the well-reasoned argument based on previous consensus? Every school child knows what a fried egg is too; you have to crack the egg open and fry its contents, not the entire egg whole. --EncycloPetey 16:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfermented is not defining; it is the default state. Squeezed is not defining, unless pulverized or blended grape stuff has a different name. What's it called if it is not used as a beverage, but rather to make jelly, or in baking, or for wine? —Michael Z. 2009-09-13 18:59 z

"Unfermented" certainly is defining, at least in normal use. I'm pretty sure that these schoolchildren of whom you speak would be quite surprised if they asked for some grape juice and received a nice glass of merlot instead. As would an adult, for that matter. I would agree about the other terms; it may be worthwhile to mention the typical referent, but that should be distinguished from the strict definition. -- Visviva 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, then following your logic we should define it as unfermented, without seeds, without skins, not containing potatoes, plums, oranges, ground beef, or limestone, because these are all of the things schoolchildren expect. And a few more from DCD's quotation below. —Michael Z. 2009-09-14 14:37 z

If you hand someone a glass of grape juice with seeds and skins in it, or ground beef, then the person might say "Ewww! This grape juice has [beef/seeds] in it!" In other words, it's still grape juice, just of an undesirable sort. On the other hand, if you hand them a glass of wine, they are more likely to respond "This isn't grape juice! It's wine!" Does that not seem like a significant lexical fact?

Back on topic, what are your specific requirements for entryworthiness here? At the moment it seems rather like you have entered the discussion determined that it must come to only one resolution. -- Visviva 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see simple English terms defined simply, without inappropriate additions inspired by someone's local agricultural, industrial, or public safety codes of law, or lexically irrelevant encyclopedic history. Juice is not booze. I can know what juice is without knowing of the celebrated Mr Welch. There's no need to define the general sense of tomato juice as anything but juice from tomatoes. There's no need to define grape juice as “juice from grapes; not wine.”

If you want to add a US legal definition as a separate sense, that's just fine with me, as long is it meets CFI and its scope of usage is clearly labelled. —Michael Z. 2009-09-15 00:00 z

(But separately, I am concerned that we are adding truncated legal regulations to the dictionary, as in ground beef (2). The result follows neither attested English usage nor the legal prescription, so what good is it to anyone, and why should it be in a dictionary? This is outside the scope of even a legal dictionary, by not just defining conventional terms but by directly quoting the regulation. Better to just link, so the reader can find the full and up-to-date regulations. —Michael Z. 2009-09-15 00:16 z)

Mzajac: Unfermented grape juice did not exist for sale until a clever person named Welch developed a new pasteurization process in 1869 for creating what we now call grape juice. So, "unfermented" is certainly not the default state. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So put that into w:History of tomato juice, where it belongs. —Michael Z. 2009-09-14 14:37 z

I looked at tomato juice, compared it with ground beef and find it wanting. As it stands it does not seem to meet the legal/regulatory definition standard, which, AFAICT, is the only basis we have for accepting such an entry. Other OneLook monolingual dictionaries do not have these except insofar as they copy WordNet.

For tomato juice, I have to agree that it does not seem to warrant an entry. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the entry now to make it less SoP. Dbfirs 17:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Padding the entry with encyclopedic facts doesn't make the term any less sum-of-parts (and why use a rare synonym for pulverized?). Not all tomato juice is cooked, not all includes the flesh, and an incomplete list of uses doesn't belong in the definition at all. Tomato juice denotes juice from tomatoes—decorating the definition with anything more just reduces its quality. —Michael Z. 2009-09-13 19:09 z

It appears that Random House, Merriam-Webster's and AHD have no entry for tomato juice. OED includes it as a run-in under tomato 3. attrib. and Comb., defined as “the juice from tomatoes; also, a drink of this”. —Michael Z. 2009-09-13 19:15 z

I've never seen just the juice from tomatoes on sale, though I suppose that it might possibly be available in some countries. It would be very pale in colour. Also, I've never tasted fresh uncooked tomato in the flavour, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I didn't create the entry, I just tried to match it to reality. I didn't know that comminuted was a rare word. I used it because it seems more precise than pulverised. It wouldn't worry me if you want to delete the whole set (except for cow juice), but there are thousands of other entries in Wiktionary that I would consider mainly sum of parts, with just a hint of an extended meaning. Dbfirs 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the reality of our daily experience of much food in many "developed" countries is more like the ground beef definition: the product allowed to be sold under the name in each jurisdiction. It is a meaning derived from the SoP meaning. Most people are oblivious to the facts of the matter. But almost all attestable current use of "tomato juice" is likely to refer to the regulated product available on grocery-store shelves. The Talk:ground beef discussion was continued at length in the Beer Parlour, which archived discussion is now at: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2009/June#Legal_definitions..

This is uncharted territory in many ways. Some casual introspection and asking a few people would probably show that "tomato juice" means "the thick red juice one pours from a container so labelled obtained at a grocery store, or a similar juice, assumed to be made from tomatoes." Our CFI eventually led us to that conclusion, when we realized that the only CFI-meeting definitions of "ground beef" were regulatory ones. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see any attestation in that entry, so I am left wondering which CFI our ground beef actually does meet. I have watched beef being ground in my kitchen, without realizing that Wiktionary requires me to call it something else until I qualify for a federal meat production certification in my jurisdiction. I suppose we need another English name for the beef they grind in France, too. —Michael Z. 2009-09-14 15:17 z

For our further edification here is the US FDA definition of tomato juice:

Tomato juice is the food intended for direct consumption, obtained from the unfermented liquid extracted from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties of w:Lycopersicum esculentum P. Mill, with or without scalding followed by draining. In the extraction of such liquid, heat may be applied by any method which does not add water thereto. Such juice is strained free from peel, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances, but contains finely divided insoluble solids from the flesh of the tomato in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Such juice may be homogenized, may be seasoned with salt, and may be acidified with any safe and suitable organic acid. The juice may have been concentrated and later reconstituted with water and/or tomato juice to a tomato soluble solids content of not less than 5.0 percent by weight as determined by the method prescribed in Sec. 156.3(b). The food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage.

Obviously a one- or two-line definition could be drawn from this by careful reading and artful writing, even without consulting an attorney.

A shorter definition might be derived from the immediately following section "Labeling": "The name of the food is:

(a) "Tomato juice" if it is prepared from unconcentrated undiluted liquid extracted from mature tomatoes of reddish varieties.

(b) "Tomato juice from concentrate" if the finished juice has been prepared from concentrated tomato juice as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or if the finished juice is a mixture of tomato juice and tomato juice from concentrate.

I'm sure you could see how much fun we would have with these. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't refer to things like this here, even in jest. I'm getting so tired of reminding our gang of the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. But I will take bets on how long it takes for someone to come up with three attestations which demonstrate the exact sense defined by the FDA. —Michael Z. 2009-09-14 14:37 z

By the way, the quotation above is a regulatory requirement, not a lexicographical definition. Bonus points for anyone who suggests adding “senses” per the requirements of UK, Pakistani, Philippine, and Nigerian food industries. —Michael Z. 2009-09-14 14:51 z

There is humor in it because we haven't settled on a realistic approach to this, but it is fundamentally serious.

I am in agreement with you that the common-sense definitions for these terms are not idiomatic. But, in the specialized context of US food manufacturing and marketing, the USFDA regulations define what is meant by "tomato juice" and many other food items. If we take seriously the Pawley test which gives an idiomatic status to phrases that define conventions (and singles out legal/regulatory terms specifically), then we are necessarily led to consider this kind of thing seriously. As a result of that consideration we determined that the ground beef entry with the regulatory definition (and no other we could come up with at the time) met WT:CFI.

Given that determination, other questions arise:

1. Can we come up with a mode of presenting such definitions that is useful for normal users?
2. Did we err in some way in making the determination?
3. Does CFI have to be amended to limit this kind of definition?

The ground beef entry is the culmination of one of our few efforts to grapple with this. It doesn't seem to me to be entirely satisfactory yet. IMO the implications of the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2009/June#Legal_definitions. would risk these entries eventually becoming useless for normal users, however useful they might be for specialists. These kinds of entries can be very useful for normal users because they provide a surprising contrast between the naive SoP definition that people believe obtains and the specialist definition which actually obtains.

As to attestation, I believe that any current usage of "tomato juice" in a US context that mentions the word "can" or "bottle" or "store" or "buy" or "shop" is necessarily referring to the regulated product, unless words like "fresh" appear and override conventional expectations. I believe that the SoP meaning of "tomato juice" is not what people actually mean: they mean the product they can buy. Perhaps the everyday definition is "The product sold under the name tomato juice in stores." As soon as we try to offer a little more content than that we are left with the CFI-meeting specialist definition. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This question falls in with technical and legal language. Many scientific and technical terms' meaning is prescriptive, and sometimes somewhat different than the term in common usage (e.g., a doctor's arm or a cop show's DNA).

But regulations also mandate precision. If the FDA takes 185 words to describe what's allowed to be called tomato juice, then is our 30-word definition equivalent? Do we risk liability by presenting a less-precise summary as a “definition” of a legal description? Can we define legal names in any way except by quoting in full or linking to the legal definitions (and note that outside the US, many legal codes are copyrighted)? Does this serve lexicography? Is the US FDA defining an English term, or merely regulating the way tomato juice for sale must be made and labelled?

But at the same time please keep in mind that the FDA's regulations apply only in a very limited domain. They directly concern, and legally compel, food producers, packers, and inspectors in their professional realm. But they are not at all relevant to the grocery shopper, restaurant-goer, or the kids at home who want to refer to tomato juice, and hardly even to the staff at grocery stores. The kids are asking for juice of tomatoes, and not for dictating the type of organic acids or proportion of solid content in their refreshment. And the FDA has nothing at all to do with the tomato juice that grandma makes in the basement.

It's common sense that we should define the common use of a term if we also define a regulated definition, no? Do our guidelines say so? —Michael Z. 2009-09-14 23:48 z

Actually, the FDA does have the power to regulate the tomato juice grandma makes in the basement, if she calls it tomato juice and in any way makes it available to the public (for sale or for free). If she just drinks it herself and gives it to family members, she can call it cranberry vodka for all they care. The FDA's definitions are, by the way, relevant to consumers - if you try to sell something in the U.S. as "tomato juice", and what you're selling is cut 80% with water, do you doubt that consumers will complain, and that those complaints will reach the FDA? bd2412 T 05:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the only truly simple definition "juice from a tomato" is non-idiomatic, SoP, and CFI-violating. It also only loosely corresponds to normal experience. I'm not sure about the right wording, but the everyday sense is something like "the red liquid that comes from a can or bottle labelled as "tomato juice" (or a translation thereof) bought at a grocery retailer." I don't know that we wish to have that kind of definition, even if in a better wording. I think that a definition of that general sort is supported by the quotations now at tomato juice and is not contradicted by very many of the vast number of durably archived uses. Hell, I'd even claim "widespread use". What stands behind that sense are the CFI-meeting, but narrowly used official definitions applicable in various countries.

It is entirely analogous to the situation with a word like star or surface. The everyday meaning of "star" is "points of light visible in the night sky". Astronomers have their high-falutin' definitions too. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong and a disservice to readers to include only a very restricted regulated definition, but omit the everyday sense. If there is a technical sense, then the everyday sense can no longer be taken for granted. Based on this, we should include it—I can't do it at the moment, but I'm sure we can gently twist something in the CFI to justify this view.

But your “everyday” definition is a bad one, in my opinion. I have have encountered tomato juice in a chilled glass, in a large stainless-steel cafeteria dispenser, and cooked into a roaster of cabbage rolls. Wikipedia writes about the early tomato juice that was squeezed, apparently, from fresh raw tomatoes. Clearly, the recipe, cans, labels, grocery stores, and other encyclopedic tidbits about this substance do not define its name. —Michael Z. 2009-09-15 00:54 z

It is almost as if the SoP definition belongs in the etymology. When a book talks about juice from tomatoes they seem to almost always call it "fresh tomato juice" or "fresh-squeezed tomato juice". The wording of the "everyday definition" was intentionally focused on the concrete realities of most everyday experience in the modern "developed" world. For some people their definition in the same spirit might mean "the red liquid that the help pours for me". The appropriately inclusive wording eludes me at the moment. Someone else may have a better way of looking at the everyday sense. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a common situation: there is a strictly correct, literal/SOP definition that marks the semantic boundaries of a word or phrase, and a more specific sense that underlies most use. This could be considered a case of a semantics/pragmatics distinction, as the first concerns correctness and the second felicity. Someone who gives you grape juice instead of tomato juice has simply erred; someone who offers you a tomato juice and then squeezes a tomato over a glass is not wrong, but definitely behaving oddly. We should of course seek to document both aspects of meaning where possible, but I've come to the belief that splitting these into separate sense lines is seldom wise or viable (especially since closer examination will almost always reveal further complexity). In view of this, I've taken a stab at a two-stroke definition of tomato juice, based on the cites and the discussion here. -- Visviva 05:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The current solution seems wrong to me. A good definition should be reductionist: saying enough to define the thing as broadly used, applicable in 90 to 99% of uses. I don't see phrases like “In modern use, this usually refers to” used in dictionaries, and it gives me a whiff of encyclopedia. Since when does a definition summarize some imaginary corpus study? —Michael Z. 2009-09-15 14:07 z

It is a bit wordy; I was going to just say "Often refers specifically to", but it seems clear that the more specific referent is limited to modern use. (And FTR, one does find almost exactly that "in modern use, often" construction in many OED entries.) I don't quite understand why you would think the data is "imaginary"; while the entry is egregiously over-cited at present, the citations do unambiguously show that some people understand "tomato juice" to refer specifically and exclusively to the thick red stuff that you buy in a can, while other people continue to use the term in the broader, literal sense. I don't see any real difference between this and, say, corkscrew (which needs to be dealt with); "corkscrew" may refer to any implement that is inserted into a cork in order to remove it, but it is often understood to refer only to the kind of corkscrew that actually has a screw-shaped "worm". A satisfactory entry needs to cover both of these facts (supported by suitable citations, of course). -- Visviva 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes we are tempted to overspecify. It's silly to try to redefine the tomato juice colouring rice in 1839, that strained for cooking in 1847, and that which we drink today, as if they weren't all just juice from tomatoes. Saying how it's usually packaged in 2009 is certainly encyclopedic, and I don't see any citations implying that one thinks that tomato juice only comes from a package, but if someone did, that wouldn't make it a different tomato juice.

For the other, one might consider “a screw or other implement for pulling a cork.” —Michael Z. 2009-09-16 05:09 z

To be clear, the Schmidt book is a reference for commercial chefs, wherein everything is purchased. The citation is simply saying that the tomato juice available to the commercial kitchen is canned, meaning, in the context, “cooked and sealed in a sterilized container” (cf. canning). Compare the entry for orange products, which says juice is available “canned, dehydrated, freshly squeezed, and as frozen concentrate”, and for fresh orange juice, for which “various packs are available. 12-oz (0.35-l) can is common. This shouldn't lead us to add another sense to orange juice (that would be the juice of oranges). —Michael Z. 2009-09-16 05:49 z

I would disagree about corkscrew, but after further review I have to agree about tomato juice; I can find no satisfactory evidence that it is used to refer specifically and exclusively to the red processed stuff. That is, it doesn't really appear that anyone would consider it incorrect to call other tomato juices by this name. At any rate, regardless of SOPness all these "X juice" entries are kind of a waste of time IMO, and I'm going to stop thinking about them now. -- Visviva 05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] circles around

This was formerly "[verb] circles around" (actually "X circles around"), which was RfDd. MGlovesfun gave it an Adverb L3 header at this title which I have amended to Preposition. My reasoning is that preposition is the closest PoS grammatically because this requires a noun as complement, which is not what a user would expect with an adverb. It clearly fails many tests to be a preposition. In the usage notes I say it behaves "as if" it were a preposition.

BTW, in COCA "run circles around" is as common as "run rings around".

1. Would it be better just to give this the lame Phrase L3 header?
2. Is there some other way to do this?

-- DCDuring TALK 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the grammatical problems with calling this a preposition is that a multi-word preposition should not be able to have a noun-like constituent be modified by an adjective. A review of COCA shows that "endless", "noisy", "quick", and "frantic" are adjectives that do so. And this is also not a phrase except in the loosest sense because its constituents almost always would be in separate phrases in a grammatical analysis.

The most grammatically satisfying entry arrangement would be to have both run circles around and run rings around. Forms of "run circles around" are 45 of the total of 57 figurative occurrences of this "[verb] circles around" at COCA. No other verb appears more than twice. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would favor having this at run circles around, with any equivalent verb phrases redirected thereto. Assigning any POS to "circles around" is problematic IMO, because the phrase chunks into "[run circles] [around X]"; 'circles' and 'around' relate to the verb and noun respectively, and do not form a unit of their own. -- Visviva 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We now have run circles around and run rings around (earlier, larger % of uses are figurative) and alt form entries run circles round and run rings round. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki:Never Never Land

Definitely ought to lose the capitalization in my opinion, but I'm not quite certain if this should be made into a redirect to, an alternate form of, or a synonym of neverland. Also going by the hits on b.g.c, the hyphenated never-never land should also be included. — Carolina wren discussió 07:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a redirect if we can find this spelling/capitalization/etc. attested. Any attestable form of a noun should have a page of its own, even if it's merely to indicate that it's an alternative spelling. Only phrases and long idioms are eligible to be redirected. I'd look in Barrie's novel and in the stage play to see what the original form(s) were, and proceed from there. As far as I can determine, the stage play used the expanded form in 1904, and the form in the novel was shortened to Neverland. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] relevant

I came across a few instances where the word relevant is used to mean "non-obsolete; up to date; current". See here, for example, as well as here (which also uses "relevant" in its classic sense: "related, connected"). Do you think it could be added as another meaning? Korodzik 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen similar usages, though I always think of them as meaning "directly related, connected, or pertinent to the present, or to the current generation" (implied topic), so not a separate sense. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 07:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It sure seems like a separate sense to me. It is hard to imagine "related" or even "pertinent" being used in quite the same way. -- Visviva 18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The entry could use a bit of improvement. MWonline has 3 subsenses. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tulyani

This is a surname used by a number of Punjabi speaking people in India; could anybody has more details on this surname and update on the page?

[edit] worse comes to worst

Why do we not have an entry for this common idiomatic expression? Tooironic 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Also, why does no other OneLook dictionary have this or any variant AFAICT? Some dictionaries include it, but not as a headword. The wonderful MW Dictionary of English Usage (1989) has an entry which I have consulted. I have also consulted COCA which has at least 73 occurrences of forms of this idiom in modern American use. 61/73 are preceded by "if", as was the first attested use in 1597 according to MWDEU. Only 2/73 are of the form "wors? [come] to the wors?" An adverb or auxiliary verb can precede [come] in 4 additional cases. There are 3 common combinations on COCA of worse and worst. worse/worst is the most common at 34, nearly twice as common as worst/worst at 19 and worse/worse at 18.

Your question assumes the answer to the question of whether it is idiomatic. Expressions of the form "if/when X [come] to Y" are not really idiomatic. This expression as a whole is not a set phrase because one can insert adverbs and substitute terms. But the forms without "if" seem to me very likely to be idiomatic, because the do seem fixed, with the verb not even inflecting in the small sample of 11, always being "comes".

• IOW, the very form of the expression you have intuitively selected seems to be the one most likely to meet WT:CFI. It has the additional virtue of being likely to be a the top of a search where the user typed another form, unless the user types "came". We might want some redirects to this. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, added Chinese translation. Tooironic 04:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] make an exhibition of oneself

[edit] make a spectacle of oneself

In the US this is uncommon, per COCA, relative to make a spectacle of oneself (close synonym) and make a fool of oneself (less close). Is this more common than the "spectacle" form in the UK, Canada, Oz? DCDuring TALK 16:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the UK - yes, much more common. SemperBlotto 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Now marked as UK and US, respectively. Canada, Oz, NZ, India, SA, Ireland, elsewhere? DCDuring TALK 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Do any of these exist?

Whilst trying to clear all the crap out of the English on the French Wiktionary, I came across these. Since I don't know what they mean, I can't propose them for deletion. If they do have some idiomatic, context specific meaning, they should be here.

Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The terms bladder campion and hedge garlic sound like plant names. However, I'll have to do some searching and checking to see whether these are "real" common names or just poor renderings of scientific or foreign names. I think free hand may refer to permitting freedom of action, as in "...allowed him to proceed with a free hand." At least, that's a possible meaning. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll vouch for athletic protector/athletic protector, both of which I remember as euphemisms for jockstrap. As a betting proposition, a vernacular plant name entry that has a species name in it is probably OK. Consider red clover and white clover. earth pillar looks real as a geology term but might be dated. bathing box doesn't sound like a US term and doesn't appear in a OneLook dictionary. w:Grounded theory might provide a clue about that one. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I waver on unusual common names of plants because there are field guide authors who invent "common" names for plants that don't actually have them. So, nearly every moss in the UK has a "common name", even though the vast majority of people have no clue about mosses. These invented names appear only in field guides, the way that some English words appear only in dictionaries. They are often clumsy translations of the scientific names made for the field guide. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most seem OK. manoeuvre margin is just the margin of manoeuvre. SemperBlotto 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add pheasant's eye then, it seems to be a plant known as adonide in French (fr:pheasant’s eye)

A free hand is a countable near-synonym to free reign, but implying a collaborative or non-exclusive responsibility. Probably a sum-of-parts construction of a common figurative sense of hand, which we don't seem to define. “Having a hand in the business;” “being given a free hand to run the company.” —Michael Z. 2009-09-20 18:28 z

[edit] utilize

We now have five senses of a term that most dictionaries cover in one or two. We have no usage examples or citations. This is all because of the use-utilize distinction, a favorite among usage guides. Entry has several ugly footnotes. Can this entry be helped? DCDuring TALK 10:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] xth

Having a bit of trouble writing a good definition for ixième - I put nth for the simple reason we don't have xth. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the proper translation. kwami 20:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How about umpteenth, which also carry the slight informality of ixième? Circeus 03:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfTerm: “the study of fortifications”

Hi y’all. What is the term (i.e., I’m looking for the -logy word) for the study of fortifications, especially those of castles? Thanks in advance to whoever can help me with this. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(y'all... what a wonderful word...) Unfortunately, I'm not sure a "logy" for this one exists. (A quick Google search didn't turn up anything, neither did my other dictionary.) AFAICT, the science is also called "fortification". L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the case. [7] -- Visviva 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

castellology is sometimes used, but does not extend to anything besides castles. The superordinate field would be "military architecture", I suppose. Neither seems like exactly what you are looking for. -- Visviva 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, curses. Thanks anyway, everyone. I was hoping for an etymological purebred, FWIW. I’ve requested that translations be added to our entry for fortification; perhaps I’ll get an appropriate Ancient Greek etymon thereby… :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When a person feels the need to do a reverse lookup on Liddell & Scott, there are few things handier than Perseus. It does seem that there would be a logical place in the language for something like *teichology or perhaps *teichismatics. But neither appears to have ever gained any currency. -- Visviva 06:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link; it’s been noted. You’re right — teichology and teichismatics get only a single citation each. But what citations; you couldn’t dream of sentences with more exegetic context. Teichology is almost certainly a nonce word in that citation, but teichismatics looks kosher. Teichismatics shall be the word I use for this! Thanks again, everyone. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] crash

There's some additional sense of the verb (and perhaps the noun) in activity planning, which I just came across while researching crashable. It seems that crashing is something one does to an activity to make it take place more quickly and minimise the critical path. Anyone know enough to write a good definition? Equinox ◑ 22:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got crash#Verb. I've looked at the noun before and could find use of a plural noun in this sense. The common uses "crash course", "crash diet", "crash program", "crash deadline" look like they ought to be attributive use, but I can't find any clearly non-adjective use. There is now a simple sense at crash#Adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] average joe

[edit] flare up

No entry for these two common idioms either? Tooironic 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See average Joe, unless what you mean is a cup of [[average]] [[joe]]. Which of average Joe and average joe should be the main entry for the idiom is an empirical question resolved at a corpus like COCA or b.g.c. A search for average joe yields average Joe in the search box and at the top of the search results.

See flare-up, flareup. But we miss flare up#Verb. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

average Joe is about 50 times as common on COCA as average joe, but the lower case form is attestable. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] lown

Please help determine whether the word is Scots or English. The example from Citations:lown endorses the last option. For more refer to User talk:Widsith#lown. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My copy of Chambers has two etymologies. Firstly, lown and lowne are Shakespearean variants of loon#Etymology 1 (which Wiktionary states is from Middle English but Chambers says "Origin unknown"). Secondly lown, lownd, loun and lound are variants of the Scottish word, for which Chambers gives: adjective (sheltered; calm; quiet), adverb (quietly), noun (calm; quiet; shelter) and intransitive verb (to calm); and the etymology Old Norse logn (noun). Pingku 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The section was aimed at the second meaning and at determining whether it is to be reckoned English (new evidence would be the entry in MW dictionary), what tag does it deserve - dialect, regional...? The first case is merely an obsolete spelling. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The header has been changed to English. Now the quæstion is whether the comparative and superlative grades are: lowner, lownest or more lown, most lown. Is there anyone with access to a dictionary which could resolve the issue? MW does not seem to have any clue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The OED doesn’t specify a comparative or superlative, but it has three quotations that use lowner and google books:"lownest" yields many hits showing use of the superlative lownest; furthermore, the fact that lown is a monosyllable adds weight to the claim that the comparative and superlative degrees are formed with -er and -est (since all monosyllables may form them by such suffixation, as a general rule). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] vale, second definition needed.

We seem to be missing a definition for vale, but I'm not sure how to define it or what part of speech to use. Twice recently I have seen something like Vale Bill Smith as the heading for an obituary. Dictionary.com list vale as having meanings similar, but not sure if they are exactly the same as I am thinking of. All help appreciated.--Dmol 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's under the Latin def. It might be a good idea to add a usage note under the English to mention this usage in newspapers.--Tyranny Sue 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought (& further research) I think it requires another (Verb) entry under the English, with separate Etymology & Pronunciation. I'm working on it now.--Tyranny Sue 07:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] get on

"Get your groove on!" Should this sense be included in this entry? Tooironic 12:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] alopecia areata (and similar)

This medical term is used in English language sentences without the use of quotation marks or italics - so I'm pretty sure that it is English. However, the second word (areata) does not seem to be used by itself in English language sentences, and seems to be Latin.

Does that make sense?

Would it be OK to add an English entry for it having, in place of a definition, "used only in the term . . ."?

There are quite a few of this sort of medical term, e.g. anorexia nervosa. SemperBlotto 08:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems kind of iffy to me. I prefer to just pass them by, figuring that very few people would ever search for "areata" or "nervosa" as an English word (and if they did, the appropriate entry would probably be near the top of the search results anyway). -- Visviva 09:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise for me. This happens in almost every scientific name of an organism as well, where the combination of generic name with specific epithet is a Translingual species name, but the specific epithet is not a Translingual word.

There is no reason to treat such components as "English", "Translingual", etc. when they do not function as words in those languages, especially so when you consider that alopecia areata is attestable in French, German, and Spanish as well. Does that mean that areata should have a "used only in..." for those languages as well? Doing so would generate whole new sections with lists of places where the element is used as part of a word, without actually providing any definitions or meanings. The combination was originally composed as Latin, so the components can simply be treated as Latin and this can be expressed in the Etymology section as well. --EncycloPetey 12:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is different from words found only in one expression, such as the French à brûle-pourpoint, where it is simply impossible to argue that brûle-pourpoint is a word, yet a reference of some sort is warranted,so it currently redirects to the latter. Circeus 03:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] shake or shake it?

Hi, I recently added a new verb definition for shake - "to dance". My questions are: (1) Is it transitive or intransitive? (2) Would it be more appropriate to be listed under shake it instead? Cheers Tooironic 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly needs a good sense at shake, both transitive and intransitive. "Shake" seems to refer to almost a wide range of kinds of dancing. The "it" in "shake it" is so non-specific that it no longer seems to barely be a pronoun. This use of "it" comes up a lot. I don't know that it is worth a specific grammar appendix or section. Also, even if it is a distinctive use of "it" it still seems SoP. But perhaps there is a leer associated with the "it" that would justify including this (with a proper reference to the leer). DCDuring TALK 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] again

Can someone please add the sense of again which is colloquially used to ask someone to repeat information, e.g. "What was your name again?" I wish to add the Chinese translation. Cheers. Tooironic 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a shot … not a very good shot, but it's a start, and it's hopefully enough to hang your translation on. —Ruakh_TALK 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to add a new translation table, but it looks awkward to me. Someone talented needs to get in there and sort out translation tables for all the definitions. This is giving me a headache. Tooironic 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] secrete, 2nd sense (to conceal; to steal) obsolete? or at least dated?

Just wondering if anyone out there actually uses this sense any more? In my experience it's obsolete, or at least dated, as 'secret' (whose meaning is much more appropriate) is used instead.--Tyranny Sue 05:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the 25 general dictionaries listed by OneLook (ignoring Wikipedia and Wiktionary), most didn’t list a verb sense for secret at all; those that did tagged it as {{obsolete}} and included a note stating that they got the definition from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1913). The one dictionary that listed the verb sense without an {{obsolete}} tag was AllWords.com, which includes as a footnote “Dictionary content provided from Wiktionary.org under the GNU Free Documentation License”. I’ve readded the tag, citing both the OED and Webster’s as supporting references. Conversely, Dictionary.com, MSN Encarta, the Compact OED, the American Heritage Dictionary (via Yahoo), the Cambridge Dictionary Online, Webster’s New World College Dictionary [4^th Ed.], the OED [2^nd Ed.; 1989], and many others all list the synonymous sense of the verb secrete without qualification (whilst most of their etymology sections note its derivation from the now obsolete verb secret). Clearly, lexicographical consensus is that secrete is perfectly current, whereas the verb secret had become obsolete by the eighteenth century. Consequently, the (considerable) onus is on you to prove otherwise. Appeals to unverifiable personal experience will not suffice, and neither will relying on the present participle secreting and past form secreted, since we have no way of telling to which verb they belong, owing to the two verbs’ synonymy. (And, FWIW, spelling rules for pronunciation are against their attribution to secret.) If you wish to show the verb secret to be current, gather citations for it spelt as secret, secrets, secretting, and secretted; I found one for secretting from 2003, so you may indeed succeed (though all the others are eighteenth-century uses). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never attempted to assert that 'secretting' and 'secretted' are in current use (and by the way, please do not delete perfectly valid quotations that wikipedians add to entries, as you did to both of mine on these entries - that is vandalistic behavior). As I pointed out previously, there is plenty of precedent for this being spelt with one 't'. I have now added quotations/citations under the verb sense of 'secret', unambiguously using the appropriate tense.--Tyranny Sue 11:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I suggested you attempt to verify the verb partly through secretting and secretted is that they can be unambiguously be attributed to the verb secret, whereas secreting and secreted could structurally be attributed to either secret or secrete. Sorry for deleting your quotations; I should’ve cleaned them up instead. I did do that ([8], [9]) eventually; please take greater care to get the details right with quotations (especially for older texts which tend to be reprinted many times) — you were off by 28 and 83 years with yours. You have indeed proven the currency of the verb secret now, to your credit. It would be good to have examples which use it without away, unless you think something like your original usage note is still warranted. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on ordering of spelling alternatives in definitions?

I'm wondering if we have any kind of policy on this. (E.g. alphabetical; oldest usage first; obsolete usage last.)
For example, "to secret ([...] present participle secretting (UK) or secreting (US), simple past and past participle secretted (UK) or secreted (US))"
(note: the spellings currently placed first are obsolete) --Tyranny Sue 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If "secretting" is in fact obsolete, while the verb itself is not, IMO there is no need for it to be in the inflection line at all; it can be satisfactorily covered in a usage note. We wouldn't put "doth" in the inflection line for "do", I hope.  :-) -- Visviva 06:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well 'secretting' & 'secretted' appear to be obsolete spellings of 'secreting' & 'secretted', which are definitely not obsolete.--Tyranny Sue 07:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The two-t spelling appears in many US 18th-century US writings so the UK tag doesn't seem right. The two-t forms "secretting" and "secretted" don't appear in BNC, COCA, or Google News. Whatever the past use, they are at least archaic if not obsolete. I would venture that they would seem a misspelling to most readers and editors of contemporary writings. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the policy question, it seems appropriate to have at least current US/UK differences. I don't know how often there are differences of this type that have other regional bases (Australia, NZ, India, Canada, South Africa, Southern US, Geordie) and what our practice has been. I would also argue to exclude rare and archaic inflected forms from the inflection line. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn’t clutter the conjugation line with all historical forms, though I do think we should list disused distinct past participles for strong declension verbs and list strong declension conjugations for now-weak declension verbs. As for the specific case of the verb secret, in my opinion (which is in accord with lexicographical consensus), the entire verb is obsolete, not just the double-‘t’ present participle and past form, so those forms themselves shouldn’t be tagged as {{obsolete}}. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a BP question about which current/recent regional or uncommon forms should appear in the inflection line. Whether obsolete lemmas are adequately marked is another question. Is sense line marking enough? DCDuring TALK 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if I think a form would be considered "wrong" by most native speakers, I would omit it from the infinitive root word's inflection line (e.g. babysitted, plasmalemmae). I don't know how realistic my idea of what most speakers think is, though. Equinox ◑ 11:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I use COCA to check forms because the operation of search is more straightforward than Google. babysitted and baby-sitted are google-books-attestable but don't appear in COCA, so we'd have come to the same conclusion. My intuition on American English is good, but I get surprised every day by something. COCA is one of the tabs I keep open in FF. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ∎?

In some magazines such as Time and The Economist, you see a black square at the end of an article. Unicode has several black squares, and which is the end sign? U+220E end of proof? - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what you're talking about. The character you selected however is only used in mathematical context and nowhere else. I'd look somewhere in here. -- Prince Kassad 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

w:Tombstone_(typography) suggests that the end of proof mark and the end-of-article mark are one and the same. I have no clue, myself. The online version of Time doesn't seem to use it, or I would just do a little cutty-pasty thing. -- Visviva 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The closest I can find in Unicode is under Mathematical Operators and is ∎ (end of proof, a.k.a. "halmos"). As Mjazac has commented, this doesn't seem semantically appropriate for closing an article, but it's probably the same thing visually. Equinox ◑ 11:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Unicode character is standardized for mathematical equations.

In typography, a designer can insert any character, dingbat, or graphic to serve as a tombstone, often a magazine's logo (e.g. the golden section in National Geographic, or, if memory serves me, the infinity symbol in the old Omni magazine). —Michael Z. 2009-09-24 00:33 z

Hm. I think in typesetting this has a different name, but I can't think of it. —Michael Z. 2009-09-24 00:57 z

It’s ■. We always just called it a square bullet, although there are different sizes of square bullets. Different typefaces often need a different size of square bullet. ■ should fit Times Roman, Univers, Helvetica or Arial on a printed page. —Stephen 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the Unicode for that? I don't know how to fish it with Firefox... Circeus 03:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is doing better than us by these at the moment: w:■ redirects one to w:Unicode Geometric Shapes, where this appears in the table as U+25A0, "BLACK SQUARE". This can be confirmed at Unicode.org (that file also includes some close variants, which might perhaps be the actual character used in some cases). -- Visviva 04:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

■ is U+25A0. —Stephen 04:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The unfilled square (U+25A1) is the version with which I am most familiar from mathematics. like the first of these. Dbfirs 08:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] (to play) good cop bad cop

Wow, wiktionary doesn't have this fairly common idiom. Help please! Tooironic 23:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are so many terms like this that we need that we have created a special place for such requests: WT:REE and its siblings for other languages. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but this idiom is so well-known, that's why I posted it here, rather than among all the dihydroergotoxines and follicles of Meibomius. Tooironic 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We need some good ones among the dross to keep people going there. I've lost all motivation to go there because I can just wait here for these gems. Don't skim the cream -- except by adding it yourself! DCDuring TALK 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add this one to the requests, as well as be right back (can't believe we didn't have an entry for this one!). Tooironic 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] chillaxin

Just come back to stir.

I see you guys still don't accept chillaxin as a real word, deserving its own entry, despite all the evidence.

Just throwing in a bit more ammunition

Google Search results

Chillaxin OR Chillaxing - 407,000

Chillaxin - 262,000 - 235,000 in the past year - 36,600 in the title of the page

Chillaxing - 150,000 - 126,000 in the past year - 16,100 in the title

Chillaxin NOT:Chillaxing - 254,000 - 233,000 in the past year - 36,600 in the title of the page

would seem Chillaxin is the dominant spelling!

And, by the way, Google accepts Chillaxin as a search term without suggewting it is a mispelling. compare with say "Fictography", where it suggests Pictography, and Fictorgraphy has only 2,470 Google Hits

Is in reputable dictionary

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
• Also in The Free Dictionary ...

Books

The Official Dictionary of Unofficial English by Grant Barrett

So we, no, Wiktionary is slower than the reputable dictionaries, slower even than print.

Newspaper

• The Washington Times
  

Jon Ward on July 27, 2009
...and so everybody's chillaxin.

• University Wire 02-17-2005 (The Dartmouth) (U-WIRE) HANOVER, N.H. --

"Where are the college kids these days?" So asks Thomas Friedman in his most recent New York Times column entitled "No Mullah Left Behind" (Feb. 13). To answer your question, Mr. Friedman, we're here -- just chillaxin'.

Used by Space Station Crew,
who wrote a haiku

Day of Freedom Launch
Leonardo and Spacewalks
Crew now Chillaxin'

as reported in:-

• www.cbsnews.com, STS-121 MISSION ARCHIVE (FINAL), Updated: 07/20/06
• www.spaceflightnow.com
• Article Headline: Fossum 'chillaxin' In Space -- Gov. Rick Perry Makes A Call To Aggie In Orbit. Article from:The Monitor (McAllen, TX) Art

Congress
From the congressional IM database. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_58/ai_n26711726/

RepJefferson: Jes chillaxin?

- - - - - - - -

SenatorHillary: xcept to make more trouble

[REDACTED]: jes hangin and chillaxin

So how much evidence do you need to take a word from Protologism to Neologism at least, then on to allowing an entry in the main, as a legitimate alternative spelling ?

I don't expect anything from Wiktionary. After spending a lot of effort over a couple of years, I finally quit in disgust. It is was over-run by pedants, deletionists, egos and puritans. Has anything changed really ?

Do you reckon chillaxin, with all this evidence behind it, should be included in some form?--Richardb 08:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion#What Wiktionary is NOT for a discussion over the principle.

i/my rel.short exp.here[tho likly retoric q anyway]:nutin'much seems2'v changed realy..:(--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 11:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand who "you guys" are... nothing has happened with that entry since it was deleted in 2006. So could you be a little more specific with your insults, please? At any rate, there's certainly no reason not to have chillaxin', and if you can provide 3 durably-archived citations for the apostropheless version, just go ahead and create it already. -- Visviva 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, you sure as hell wasted your time with that screed. Now, why don’t you go ahead and cite these two in accordance with the CFI? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, stop chillaxin and create the bloody entry already :P And while you're at it, create one for go hard. We definitely need more Aussie slang here. Tooironic 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the newer folk here. If you check the page for chillaxin you will find that it was deleted despite a weight of evidence. It was the subject of a long running battle, in which the deletionists won out. It was deleted by SemperBlotto , TheDaveRoss , and Connel MacKenzie (Deleted and locked so even I, as an administrator, could not reinstate it). I was blocked over trying to get it included. I see someone has reinstated it. I'm waiting to see its fate before I consider really contributing again.--Richardb 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

welcombak-stilots2do![idontlike deletors much either;)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I don't see why it should be deleted. In Australia at least it's a pretty common colloquialism, especially among young people. Tooironic 10:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither chillax nor chillaxing had been deleted; only the forms with “dropped ‘g’s” — chillaxin and chillaxin’ — were formerly objected to. I’ve recreated them; they’re unlikely to be deleted again — the addition of quotations to their entries would ensure that they won’t be. I’d like access to the deletion log to see why they were deleted originally, since they clearly satisfy the CFI; I’m curious to see whether the reason was one of a stronger deletionist tendency at the time, one of bad formatting and POV-pushing, a combination of these factors, or whatever. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Treating "Postposition" as a POS with its own header

Regarding these edits to nothwithstanding and aside by User:TAKASUGI Shinji, I question treating "Postposition" as a separate part of speech. This isn't correct, is it? -- WikiPedant 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to have Preposition but not Postposition. Also, there are many languages where postpositions play a vital role in grammar. -- Prince Kassad 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the limitations in WT:ELE don't really make sense for other languages, as I understand it. The PoS headers are barely adequate for English, after all. There are a good number of headers that appear in non-English sections that probably have no sanction by contributors to that language but remain anyway. For a listing of L3 headers deemed "invalid" see User:Robert_Ullmann/L3#Invalid L3 headers. Some of them are now sanctioned (eg, Determiner, Hypernyms, Hyponyms), some are clearly in error, some may make sense in the language in which used, some are indications that ELE needs work ("PoS n" and "Pronunciation n"). It would be useful if the sanctioned or defensible ones were compiled somewhere in tabular form so that they did not appear on clean-up lists. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone kindly remind me to revise the list in that program and re-run in if I haven't done so in the next day or so? The (more) authoritative list and status is in WT:POS. There are a number that we should run process to formally standardize (for languages other than English), "Postposition" is one of them. (also "Particle", etc) Robert Ullmann 09:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct in English, though as Prince Kassad notes there are languages where this would be the proper term. I believe notwithstanding would technically be an ambiposition, since it is possible -- though somewhat awkward -- to place it at the beginning of the phrase. But I think we can follow the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 602) in considering "preposition" to encompass all English adpositions. -- Visviva 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are clearly postpositions. But if you want to call them "prepositions", just go ahead. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] meme

The other dictionaries I check confirm my expectation that they would have only one sense. Our sense #1 and #2 differ only by the latter adding "self-propagating". My guess is that this was added because our sense #1 is over-specified. These senses should be merged and re-worded.

Sense number three is interesting. It's a more specific sense or subsense. Whether it's truly a sense or just an example is probably worth discussing. A relative of the email forward. — hippietrail 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is "self-propagating" right? It's supposed to be an analog to a gene. Is a gene self-replicating?

I've heard the "meme" concept applied to designs, to manufactured objects, to words, to code fragments. "A cultural replicant"?

Sense three seems wonderfully specific by comparison, though one could only confirm that the citations refer to the referent of the sense line with a lot of more context. DCDuring TALK 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I support merging these senses. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] (in)transitive verbs

In an informal context, I've come across the following construction: ""I'm sorry," she apologized." Would "I'm sorry," in this case be the object of the verb, and would this make apologize a transitive verb when used in such an informal manner? Maybe it's the author's over-elaborate style, but this seems incorrect to me. -- 203.171.195.240 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• It just looks like a style issue to me. It's like saying ""I'm sorry," she said, apologetically." SemperBlotto 21:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think ‘incorrect’ is missing the point. You wouldn't use it that way in conversation, but creative writers are free to play around with things like transitivity as long as everyone understands what's being said. Ƿidsiþ 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of compromise in need of improvement

Could people please look at the definitions for compromise and see if it can be improved? There was a comment at feedback that it was too hard and I see the point. RJFJR 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespearean cowslip

I am seeking the Shekespeare's definition of the word "cowslips' and "cowslips pearl"

Shakespearean cowslip was a plant with yellow flowers, scientific name w:Caltha palustris. A pearl refers to a dewdrop on a cowslip’s yellow flower. —Stephen 09:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 爩

Could whoever knows what needs to be knows add a stroke-order .gif file to the entry for 爩 per 色 please? Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please spell and create an entry (if necessary) for a phrase

I heard a certain "phrase" from a mate today. This could be completely off the plot but I'm inclined to believe it may be military(ish) slang. The approximate IPA pronunciation (as I can't really read or write IPA very well)for it would be something like /di.di.maʊ/. Can anyone spell and define it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Context would help a lot! Robert Ullmann 23:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Googling turns up our very own Transwiki:Di di mau, which could definitely use some love. —Ruakh_TALK 04:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:P It seems to have been dealt with now. Thanks, Ruakh. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of "whinge"

I believe this to be a "portmanteau" word combining "whine" and "cringe". I would appreciate any suggestions about confirming this.

Although the definition of the word as "complaining" is described as Australian slang, I have found this usage in British literature and radio productions. —This comment was unsigned.

Here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say. That is not to say that proximity to the terms you mention doesn't help account for the continued use. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shorter Oxford English dictionary says: Sc. and n. dial. 1513. [north. form of late OE. hwinsian = OHG. win(i)sōn (whence G. winseln) :- Gmc. *xwinisōjan; see WHINE v.] — hippietrail 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "digitgrade" vs "digitigrade"

Are the two words "digitgrade" and "digitigrade" correct spelling? In a number of online dictionaries like http://www.askoxford.com , http://www.merriam-webster.com , http://dictionary.reference.com , http://www.tfd.com , no found for "digitgrade" but valid for "digitigrade". --Quest for Truth 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, only digitigrade is correct; see OneLook: digitgrade (just Wiktionary) vs. digitigrade (25 dictionaries). I’ve changed digitgrade to a misspelling entry; however, going on Google Book Search: google books:"digitigrade" (1,021) vs. google books:"digitgrade" (39), I wouldn’t say it’s common enough a misspelling, so I’ve requested its deletion. Unfortunately, in the time that the entry’s been here, the Mandarin Wiktionary’s copied it to theirs; I’ve informed them on the entry’s talk page that it’s a misspelling. *Digitgrade was added by Chimerical05, whose last contribution was nearly three years ago, so we’re unlikely to find out why it was added. I’ve added an etymology and other details to digitigrade, showing its derivation from Latin digitigrada (from digitus (“‘finger”, “toe”, “digit’”) + -gradus (“‘going”, “walking’”) = “walking on [the] toes”); rules of English morphology require that digit- coöccur with the Latinate interfix -i- when prefixed to a consonant-initial morpheme. Fortunately, we have plantigrade, but not *plantgrade. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsein

I just created an entry for Mitsein. It's a word I came across reading Beauvoir. The term was coined by either Hegel or Heidegger. It's loose translation is "togetherness" or "a pair with some kind of dynamic relation." Although it does not have plural usage, and a quote and reference would be helpful if anyone with some skills could help complete the entry. -VitaminN

[edit] agog

I have added a new sense that I cannot find in any dictionary. I think the quotations support the sense. Could someone take a look? I think that the sense has something to do with a misconstruction of the word. It is as if the authors thought it had something to do with goggle#Verb, which the sources seem to say it does not. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does appear to be used in this way - presumably because people open their eyes wide in eager anticipation. I don't think it can mean eyes open wide in surprise though. Dbfirs 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With the long history of use apparently in this sense, why do dictionaries not show it? Is it because it is usually just metonymy? DCDuring TALK 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so (or synecdoche, depending on which way round you look at it). Dbfirs 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] handy

I would think that the following sense of "handy" is an adverb:

1. Nearby, within reach.

   You wouldn’t have a screwdriver handy, would you?

But OneLook dictionaries disagree with me and agree with Wiktioanry that it is an adjective.

At least, "within reach" is an adverbial phrase of space or location, isn't it? What do you think? --Dan Polansky 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite get "handy" as a place adverb. For example, it doesn't seem to be a natural answer to the the question "Where do you keep the screwdriver?" I would feel compelled to say "It's handy" rather than the bare "Handy". Nor would one say *"I moved/placed/put/set the screwdriver handy". I can't begin to imagine using "handy" with a verb that doesn't have a noun complement - though I'm sure it's been done at some point.

The "have" construction readily works with unmistakable adjectives with meanings that are quite close to "handy", like "ready" or "available" or "convenient". DCDuring TALK 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] trouble maker

Is this really proscribed? Why? Can it be sourced that some grammar authority considers this proscribed? --Dan Polansky 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When written the space can lead a reader to start a different construction, I suppose. Evidently writers prefer the solid spelling. At COCA troublemaker is preferred over either the hyphened or spaced form 20:1. At BNC the solid and hyphened forms (roughly equal) beat the spaced form 5:1. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but for low-frequency terms we have the "rare" tag, isn't it? Like, proscribed would mean that a notable grammarian or institution has a set of rules and rationales for how terms should look like, and the proscribed term breaks these rules.

Thank you for the COCA and BNC numbers. --Dan Polansky 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I never use the "proscribed" tag, but I don't proscribe its use by others if it is supported (which it rarely is). I usually replace an unsupported proscribed tag with a fact-based usage note, which often points in the same direction, though sometimes discusses regional differences if significant. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Proscribed by both the New York Times Manual of Style (p. 122) and the Oxford Style Manual (p. 971, viewable at [10]). Or rather, both the NYT and Oxford specify the one-word form; they don't specifically mention the two-word form, but I think proscription can be reasonably inferred. I believe "trouble maker" would also be proscribed under the Chicago Manual of Style (5.202, 7.82), since only the unspaced, hyphen-free form appears in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. -- Visviva 05:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] October 2009

[edit] as#Translingual

Why is this a Translingual Abbreviation of Assamese but a Translingual Symbol of attosecond? DCDuring TALK 00:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems backwards if anything. But I think ===Symbol=== would do fine for both. Many ISO 639 codes bear no relation to the English name of the language (e.g. {{de}}, {{hy}}), so "abbreviation" makes no sense as a general label. -- Visviva 05:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

~wren:ve-'dnt we ad'em /bot pl?[so repetitiv+lots stilmissin..

• here#=?meanin--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 07:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

like in carolina wren's ve - couldn't we add them by bot please? (So repetitive and lots are still missing)

• here "#"-sign in header - what meaning/function pl?
  

L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC) hier=nl,typo-sory--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sun/moongazer

canit mean sth~sily psn or astronomer pl?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 06:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can it mean something like a silly person or an astronomer please?

L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] French horn

If that's the "American name", what's the non-American name? Tooironic 08:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the orchestral music world, it's just called a horn. SemperBlotto 08:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] back vowel word or back-vowel word

What is the correct spelling of back vowel when used as an adjective? Is it with or without a dash? For example:

• rounded back-vowel noun
• unrounded front-vowel verb
• back-vowel words

Thansk. --Panda10 13:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Many writers follow a custom of hyphenating compound nouns when used attributively (what you mean by "as an adjective", though linguists use the term "adjective" more narrowly); however, many writers, especially academic writers, do not. (I imagine this has to do with the high frequency of attributive compound nouns in academic writing; there'd be just so many hyphens if they used them that way.) Of the first ten Google hits for "back vowel word", exactly five use hyphens, and exactly five use spaces. When we turn to Google Scholar, however, spaces win out by a fair margin. —Ruakh_TALK 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but I should say that your first example looks awkward to me, since "rounded" modifies "vowel", whereas your hyphenation makes it look like it modifies "noun". (And, similarly with your second example. The third looks fine to me, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful. It seems that it's better to use spaces instead of dashes in all the above examples. --Panda10 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pighells?

• 1951, Katherine Mansfield, Letters to John Middleton Murry, 1913-1922,

For one thing I had a splendid supper when I got on board—a whack of cold, lean beef and pighells, bread, butter ad lib., tea, and plenty of good bread.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like pickles to me. SemperBlotto 11:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I entered this quote, and checked it at the time by locating the book in a library. I expect it does mean pickles. Perhaps dialectal or an error. Maybe even an in-joke, considering it is from a letter. Pingku 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gold

Can someone please add the Australian slang definition of gold meaning "awesome", e.g. "You met the love of your life at a milk bar? That's gold, mate." Tooironic 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that the same as in e.g. "comedy gold"? That would be (a broadening of?) the existing noun sense of "anything or anyone considered to be very valuable". Equinox ◑ 13:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a new noun sense along the lines of "anything or anyone considered to be worthy of a gold medal". (Which might include "comedy gold".) In other words, maybe synonymous with "a winner"... Pingku 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] intrascapular

There are thousands of Google hits for this term. Is it possible that every single one of them actually means interscapular? SemperBlotto 19:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, probably not. In technical discourse there is usually a big difference between inter- and intra- forms. Indeed, usually they set up some kind of dichotomy; to take a simple example, internet vs intranet. Another example, in the Translation Studies field, is "interlingual translation" and "intralingual translation". The former describes translation from one language to another (translation proper); the latter, monolingual translation from one text type to another (e.g. "translating" an English technical paper on microsurgery into simple English for a conference). Though I'm no expert in medicine, my guess is that interscapular and intrascapular are of a similar difference. By the way, I just realised then in my edit preview that wiktionary has no entry for intralingual. I guess I better go rectify that. Tooironic 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

seems~it,sb-few:IBAT;a.intracapsular femur# mispelin.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] vampire, sense 2

Currently it's: "A person with the medical condition Systemic lupus erythematosus, colloquially known as vampirism, with effects such as photosensitivity, a desire for blood, and increased night vision."
This implies that people with SLE want to drink blood. I'm certainly no medical expert but that sounds pretty way-out. Having read the Pedia article on it, I think the "a desire for blood" clause would be better replaced with "brownish-red stained teeth" (see this section of the Pedia article ).
Any objections? Of course, if we have evidence that SLE sufferers really have a "desire for blood", I'm happy to leave it as is.--Tyranny Sue 16:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] vistilla

I'm having trouble translating this Spanish law term- something related to an incidental or procedural question. I'm also unsure of the translation of vista as it relates to law. Nadando 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mississippi

Mississippi#Idiom refers to the use of the word to approximate a second of duration. For example, in the US it is used to count seconds before a defensive player can pursue the quarterback in touch football. The defensive player recites out loud "One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Three Mississippi." What PoS header should this get? Someone not directly familiar with this would be most helpful, probably. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper noun IMO. It's the word, qua word, that's being used, with no particular meaning intended. So the word is a proper noun, and means whatever it means, and a usage note can indicate an additional use for its being said: to count time. But that's not a meaning of the word, so no definition line.​—msh210℠ 16:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Obvious, now that you state it so. It warrants a usage note, I guess. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time at the moment, but someone should fix [[one thousand]] too.—msh210℠ on a public computer 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I can quite go along with this. Suppose instead of Mississippi this were something like "Moosasoopy", with no other meaning. We wouldn't deny Moosasoopy an entry, surely, or leave the definition line blank. Further, if a word is frequently used to mean nothing, as it essentially is in this case, providing only the non-null definitions is less than helpful. Certainly Mississippi is not being used to refer to either the river or the state in this case; thus, our definitions as given are not complete. Sure, someone using Wiktionary.org can just scroll down to get the information -- assuming they realize they need to -- but someone using a more utilitarian interface like Google Definitions or a DICT server would have no such luxury. (Google Defs seems to be blocking all entries with a Proper noun header at present, but we'll bracket that issue for now.) As for POS, I'm not quite sure, but ===Interjection=== seems reasonable. -- Visviva 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that {{non-gloss definition|Used in a common [[chronometric]] counting scheme, in which each iteration is sequentially numbered and supposed to be approximately one [[second]] in length.}} would be appropriate in this case. I don't see this as a proper noun. Interjection is better, but interjections don't usually take numbers as modifiers. Really, I think it belongs back under Idiom where it was as it certainly is "a locution peculiar of a particular language, that cannot be understood by way of a literal translation." — Carolina wren discussió 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Better to keep it in a usage note as it is now - I've heard "hippopotamus" used this way as well (according to Google Books, it would meet the CFI), and if there are others used this way even infrequently, do we really want to cast them as something other than uses of, as DCDuring suggests, "the word, qua word". Visviva's objection is mooted by the point that "Mississippi", as others, appears to have been chosen by dint of its present existence as a real word. bd2412 T 04:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all such words used for counting purposes are "real" words with other senses. For example out of eeny. meeny, miny, and moe, only one has an English sense as of now. — Carolina wren discussió 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• But eeny. meeny, miny, and moe are used to indicate number, irrespective of the time dedicated to counting. Words like Mississippi and hippopotamus are selected to represent units of time precisely because (with the addition of the number itself) they take about a second to say. bd2412 T 04:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Chimpanzee" is used this way too (that's the one I grew up with); see [11]. —Angr 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also elephant, it appears. -- Visviva 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Around here it was one little elephant, two little elephants... Equinox ◑ 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But why would the origin of the sense matter? As a rule, we exclude/include senses based on usage, not etymology. Excluding this as a sense would only really make sense if it were a universal property of X-syllable words, but it is not. The specific word used certainly varies from one speech community to another, but within a speech community the word(s) used is/are strongly fixed; you can't just swap in any 4-syllable word. -- Visviva 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand how this can refer to the word Mississippi. This isn't like hello#Noun; if I count "one Mississippi, two Mississippi", this is simply a marker of time, not shorthand for "one saying of the word Mississippi, two sayings of the word Mississippi". Which is to say, AFAICS it doesn't refer to the word itself, but to nothing at all -- which seems noteworthy enough, and analogous to metasyntactic variables like foo. -- Visviva 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a functional word. Not sure if it should be classed as an interjection or not. This certainly deserves a definition line, because a usage note doesn't represent a sense of a word. —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 02:52 z

Oops, I added an interjection heading and then found that one was recently removed. If OED can define hey, in part, as “A call to attract attention [...] sometimes used in the burden of a song with no definite meaning,” then we can define Mississippi as a call or chant to keep time. —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 03:09 z

It's not functioning grammatically like an interjection. It doesn't appear at the start of a sentence, set off by punctuation (for example). It behaves more like a noun for a unit of measure. Consider b.g.c. quotes like:

• If, for instance, you can count to "five Mississippi," […]
• A medium-high fire is a four to five Mississippi fire.
• Check how close the lightning is with the old trick of counting the seconds between the flash and the thunderclap. A count up to "five-Mississippi" means the last flash was about 1 mile distant.

The first uses Mississippi in the considered sense as the object of a preposition. The second quote uses it in the same way one might say "a four to five inch object". The final example hyphenates it with a numeral. All in all, this looks like a noun. --EncycloPetey 03:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OED, s.v. “hey int. (n.):” 1. a. A call to attract attention... 1. c. as n. A cry of ‘hey!’. You use the word as an interjection (“hey!” or “one Mississippi!”); a use of it is represented by the noun (a hey, or a Mississippi).

When you use the word to count, you are just keeping time with a meaningless interjection. A use of the interjection is the derived noun, a Mississippi, which could be treated as a unit of time. (I think examples 1 and 3 may be quoting someone who counts as an example, rather than using the name of a unit, and 2 is using such a quotation attributively.) —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 04:06 z

That's not use as an interjection, any more than "one one thousand, two one thousand" or any other count. It's still a noun. Interjections usually express emotion or convey greetings and goodbyes. Please provide an example sentence where Mississippi is used as an interjection, as in "Mississippi! It's hot outside." I don't believe such a usage exists. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In counting, it's the length of pronouncing the word which is significant, not its meaning. Five Mississippis may take about five seconds to count, but if you tried to count “one second, two second, three second” in football, the play would be halted for cheating. Also note that the interjection is simply recited in the singular: the chant is “five Mississippi”, not a count of “five Mississippis.” We also used to recite “one, one thousand, two, one thousand, three, one thousand” in games—a simple chant, not a count of units. —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 04:25 z

It's not an exclamation—must an interjection be emotive? Perhaps that's not the right POS, but in counting, “Mississippi” is not a unit and not a noun. —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 04:29 z

You've demonstrated oddities of the noun, not use as an interjection. The fact that a word is unusual as a noun does not make it an interjection. Chants are not automatically interjections. The "chant" One potato, two potato is a sentence fragment (not an interjection), which is demonstrated by the fact that it's functionally equivalent to any number of other chants that exist as proper sentences. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, OED defines nonny (int.) as “Used in songs as (part of) a refrain.” A pure function word, “interjected between sentences, clauses, or words, mostly without grammatical connexion” (from OED's note s.v. “interjection,” which itself is given no POS). Maybe it's a judgment call, but I think Mississippi certainly can be interpreted as an interjection. —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 04:38 z

I'm aware of nonny, and I could see it as either an interjection or particle (a particle as we use it here is mostly a word with no grammatical function). However, Mississippi does not work like nonny does. It isn't interjected between sentences or clauses without function. The sense of mississippi we're discussing would not turn up in a situation like: "Belle who holds my heart, Mississippi, Mississippi, grant me another glance." Rather Mississippi is uses strictly with numerals as a count, which carries a strict and specific function. --EncycloPetey 04:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they are all used to keep time in exactly the same way, in their proper context: one Mississippi, one potato, hey nonny nonny, boom chucka-lucka, hey ho (let's go), sha na na. —Michael Z. 2009-10-14 13:07 z

How about an appendix, then? Appendix:Words used as placeholders to count seconds? bd2412 T 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be adequate. A link in See also should be almost as accessible as a PoS, since the users couldn't guess a PoS any better than us. We could even do {{only in}} for any "Moosasoopies" we may find. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started the appendix - not sure how best to arrange it. Any other words that should go in would be appreciated! bd2412 T 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling for you :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added citations, but can't find any for battleship or little elephant. bd2412 T 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cited battleship. —Rod (A. Smith) 03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks! bd2412 T 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My, what a lovely Appendix. Such a pearl. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now all we need to do is polish it some more and it'll be ready for the display case. :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How does this affect the presentation in pages like Mississippi? Personally, I think it's absurd for more than half of that page to be dedicated to this interjection sense. Also, on a side note, we really need some means of indexing appendices. bd2412 T 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd favor just including the Appendix in See also for this and all terms that meet CFI for other uses. For terms that do not meet CFI for other uses, {{only in}} directing users to the appendix seems perfect. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] hurple

Entry was added by an IP. A quick check indicated that it probably is indeed a word, but I was unable to ascertain if it were Scottish English, or if it were Scots. — Carolina wren discussió 03:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW it was on the British TV Show QI as a rhyme for hurple in English. I seem to think it was in the Oxford, so as far as I know it does exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• (I think MG meant purple above) – in Scots and English this word is spelled hirple. I can't find any use of the -u- spelling, although the OED has it as an alternative (regional) spelling of hurkle, which has a related but not identical meaning. Ƿidsiþ 05:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] look down on someone

I was trying to start this article, but I feel unsure about the title. Should it be look down, look down on or look down on someone? I'm talking about to condescend. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since one could look down at or look down upon with the same meaning, I'd favor look down myself. — Carolina wren discussió 13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And cf. look-down, shoot-down which is partly derived from this sense of "look down on". look down would seem like a good entry. Robert Ullmann 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quickly, create this entry. I can't believe it doesn't exist yet. In Chinese there are about a hundred ways to say it. Tooironic 04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd favor look down on, because the "on" does not function as a preposition. This looks like a complex phrasal verb to me. However, we can start the entry at either location and move it afterwards, if necessary. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start. Feel free to improve and/or move. SemperBlotto 11:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nonce second etymology

I'd always understood the crypto use of nonce to be directly from the lexicographic technical use and the common meaning, e.g. the first etymology.

The second seems like a typical invention, by someone who doesn't know whence a word came; it has one single source here page 3. It also appears in the 'pedia, probably inserted by the same editor.

I think we have only one etymology here? Robert Ullmann 12:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The second seems more of mnemonic than an etymology. Perhaps it could be so honored in a usage example or citation. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the claimed etymology has been circulating since about 1999. [12]. But the use in cryptography/security goes back to at least the early 80s: [13]. It seems like what Ciardi would call a "ghost etymology". We should probably mention that it's wrong (assuming it is wrong), lest it be reinserted. These things tend to be awfully persistent, once they get a foothold. -- Visviva 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the OED gave this word a thorough update recently (in June), and they still don't have the crypto sense. They also note that the sexual deviant sense is "origin unknown", so that makes at least 2 etymologies. For the crypto use, I agree that it seems to show a sense-development from the lexicography uses, but maybe we should put it under "origin unknown" as well until we have a better collection of early citations. Ƿidsiþ 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] library

Someone had a added a non-ELE header "False friends" after translations. Would this make sense as an additional trans table under the Translation header? Should it be on the talk page? Is there another way to make use of this kind of material? Should there be any guidance about what constitutes an includable false friend? DCDuring TALK 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't feel qualified enough to answer those questions, but can I just say what a great idea for a section to improve the quality of translation tables! I've heard false friends can be quite a problem for speakers of European languages. Tooironic 00:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To reduce the risk of confusion, I would prefer that this be under ===See also===, but otherwise seems like a good thing to have. -- Visviva 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see what purpose this section serves, in that I can't imagine a use case for it. Who are we expecting to notice and be helped by it? (That's not a rhetorical question, unless no one has an answer, in which case I guess it is one.) It seems like a usage note would be more useful — something along the lines of, "Note that the meaning of library is not the same as that of its cognates in Romance languages (such as French librairie and Italian libreria)." (Of course, neither approach really solves the main problem, which is language-learners failing to look up a word because they mistakenly assume they already understand it. But that's not a problem we can solve …) —Ruakh_TALK 04:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. It's not that there aren't people who need this information, but there is no particular reason to assume they would find their way to library in the first place. The Appendix:Glossary of false friends approach may be more constructive. Still, I think there is a case to be made for having this information in the entry -- if it is absent, then there is a strong likelihood that some well-intentioned person will come along and add (or re-add) such "translations", possibly while nobody is paying attention. The "cognate ergo translation" syndrome is maddeningly widespread. -- Visviva 07:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have a link in "See also" to the False Friends Appendix? The info seems OT in Usage notes. The placement of See also after translations seems appropriate amd the label not too misleading. DCDuring TALK 11:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What is un potager?

What is the name of this thing in English? I have never had one in my kitchen! Some kind of stone stove? Maybe I will ask my French grandmother - she might have had one. Rising Sun 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a "warming oven" (a traditional stone one). Equinox ◑ 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I've been looking on Google Images for these, but it hasn't helped much. However, I found that potager can be an English noun - a type of vegetable garden or kitchen garden. Also parterre is a new English word for me. Rising Sun 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Potager in French is not an oven or anything of the sort. I am french, and to my knowledge it is only a vegetable garden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_garden

Yes, the usual sense is vegetable garden. This sense is new to me, but it's real (stone oven for vegetables). A reference: http://www.tempsdevivre.org/perigord/index.htm Lmaltier 10:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in ATILF (marked as {{dated}} but looks more {{historical}} to me): "a kitchen oven made of stone or bricks, separate from the chimney and heated with live embers, for the preparation of simmered or stewed dishes." Most likely it doesn't have a specific English term. Circeus 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nonvirile/virile

Are you happy with these grammar definitions? They're appearing in my Polish book. --Volants 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They look fine to me; good job. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] not the word

"Pretty is not the word." That is, it's an understatement. Should we have this at [[not the word]]? At [[is not the word]]? (At the verb lemma form, [[not be the word]] or [[be not the word]]??)​—msh210℠ 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Though that is one way the expression is used, I have heard and read it in a more generic usage. In discourse, "X is not the word" is intended to make "X" an explicit topic of conversation. One-upping the speaker who used the word is one possibility, but also calling the speaker for exaggeration, or selecting a more precise word, or changing the valence, or shifting the focus altogether are also possible. There are many expressions that could perform that discourse function. A search on "[be] * the word" at COCA shows some of the range of use of this expression. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:proscribed

Appendix:Glossary has for "proscribed": "Some educators or other authorities recommend against the listed usage." {{proscribed}} puts the entry in Category:Disputed usage. Our use of the proscribed tag seems much more censorious than similar wording in the more authoritative usage works of the past century. In reviewing a few of these, it seems as if the proscription by authoritative current sources I've looked at (Fowler 2,3), Follett/Barzun, Garner 2009, MWDEU) is usually against use in a relatively formal setting. I don't see why we wouldn't incorporate that into our definition of proscribed and our application of the template.

I am also impressed by the categorization used by Garner's Modern American Usage 3rd ed. 2009. Garner Inc., borrowing from a four-stage categorization by Heller and Macris (1967), posits 5 stages of acceptance of novel usage:

1. Rejected: emergence
2. Widely shunned: spreading, but unacceptable in standard usage
3. Widespread but...: commonplace, but avoided in careful usage
4. Ubiquitous but...: virtually universal, but opposed by the fastidious
5. Accepted: universally accepted, except by eccentrics.

We have not yet done the research that would warrant a similar approach, but it is provides an interesting model for our efforts in the usage area. DCDuring TALK 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with {{proscribed}} is not that it tries to cover the whole range from "rejected" to "ubiquitous but...", but rather that the wording (or lack thereof) doesn't make it sound like "there are people who proscribe this term", but rather like "this term is proscribed, period." It makes it sound like we're proscribing it. (Imagine if w:Smoking included this statement: "Smoking is forbidden." Technically that's true, in that there exist organizations that forbid it, but only a crazy person would understand it. Even a very minor change, such as "Smoking is often forbidden", changes the statement from "technically true" to "true". Maybe not "very useful", but "true" is a huge improvement.) BTW, note that proscription is not necessarily, or even usually, tied to novelty of usage; for example, singular they, though inherited from Middle English, is a very frequent target of prescriptivist attack. (Admittedly, in modern usage it's found in many contexts where Middle English didn't allow it; but it's also attacked in many contexts where Middle English did.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I like what I've read so far from Garner's book, many things therein seem simplistic. Even if one accepted a linear sequence from innovation to acceptance as being the most common for the words he covers, there are the missing stages that take a word from acceptance to ossification as an idiom, alteration, or decline (archaicism and obsolescence).

Garner's original target market of attorneys (still the core of his business) is not too bad a population for serious, non-academic writing. His operation has done some fairly good research and the conclusions I've read don't seem bad if one principally applies them to fairly formal writing. In any event such levels are beyond us at the moment.

I'd also be happier with some word other than "proscribed". But I'm not sure that any context tag alone is desirable. The category name "Disputed usage" is better. But I wonder if we should aim to have a context tag that says "See usage note( N)" for mature entries and gradually replace the proscribed tag, keeping it (under any new name we can agree on) only for entries that need a usage note that has not been written yet.

"Proscribed" in some cases is used to indicate that a popular usage of a word is not acceptable in a specialist community (See automatic as applied to a "properly" semi-automatic firearm.), in other cases to indicate offensiveness. I suspect that there are other uses that diverge from what we intend (given the other tags available).

"Nonstandard" doesn't seem much better, sometimes being used to indicate slang, sometimes with sometimes without the "slang" tag and in a variety of other ways. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wherever possible, this should be replaced by colloquial, jocular, informal, slang, coarse slang or any label that explains why a term may be proscribed in certain contexts. Apart from alternate spellings or derivatives, when proscribed appears without a usage note it hard to tell why, by whom, or in what context a term is proscribed. This label is just not useful on its own. —Michael Z. 2009-10-13 23:37 z

Couldn't agree with you more. I was thinking of bringing a few candidates to TR so we could get towards some kind of consensus on proscribed, its direct replacement, the tags above, appropriate content for usage notes, and anything else. Is there already a consensus that the above tags are all likely applicable and the only ones likely applicable? Is there a previous discussion that anyone recalls? In any event, I will start with what seem to me to be easy cases. Maybe it will be non-controversial. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] to go

Thoughts on PoS for this idiom? In form particle + verb. But the purpose sense of to#preposition seems to influence this. Entry calls itself an adjective. Adverb too? DCDuring TALK 09:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] of an

Formerly claimed to be a preposition. Claims to be an idiom. It refers to older senses/functions of of: "of an evening", "of a time". It seems SoP, but hard to find at of. Is it worth an entry? Is it likely to be misleading. DCDuring TALK 16:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be covered at [[of]] (and redirect thereto?) imo.​—msh210℠ 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is just like the adverbial genitive "evenings" (don't know about "times"). I think we might need some usage examples/quotations at of, not that they help much when on a separate citations page. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know which dialect(s) this is, because the entry doesn't make sense to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] to the

Formerly claimed to be a preposition. "mathematics": "two to the second power". It seems like a sense of to#preposition collocated with the.

Even worse than previous, IMO. Both are exemplars of non-grammatical units that have been offered as entries. I think such entries warrant harsh scrutiny, but we may need to have some of them. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFD#to the if you ask me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be covered at [[to]] and deleted imo.​—msh210℠ 16:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Slight hesitation. Isn't it just a shortened form of to the power (of). Since it's not obvious that the word elided is power, that could make it specialized context right? I'm not saying it shouldn't be deleted, just that I think this argument would come up if we proposed it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we would want to keep every possible elision. We already have to the power of. I have added a second arithmetic sense to to#Preposition and provided three usage examples. I'm thinking a redirect to to the power of might be adequate and justifiable (though redirects don't seem to need much justification).

I often look for reasonable ways of avoiding full entries for terms that are not arguably grammatical constituents, as this is not. (But CGEL probably wouldn't evaluate "to the power of" as a preposition [or any other kind of constituent] either, which is our PoS header and category for it.) Elisions can create idiomatic headwords that are not constituents, I think. Some of them may merit inclusion, my prejudice against such headwords notwithstanding. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why was Maxxinista deleted?

My recent entry of Maxxinista, my new favorite word, was deleted last night and I want to understand why.

The definition is: Maxx-in-is-ta noun: a fashionista who gets it all for much, much less at T.J. Maxx.

Please help me understand! Thanks so much. —This unsigned comment was added 15 October 2009.

See WT:LOP and Wiktionary:Sysop deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cogitamus ergo vincimus

Greetings everyone. Salve :P I'm trying to make a sentence in Latin which means "we win because we think" (it's for a competition) so will "Cogitamus ergo vincimus" be alright?

thanks in advance. —This comment was unsigned.

Looks OK to me. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. --87.69.35.169 11:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] open book

The 3rd sense seemed wrong to me. I added the 2nd for the most common use I am familiar with, but wonder whether the 1st, more general, sense isn't sufficient. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 seems sufficient for what is there. There is also "open book exam" and something called "open book management". Perhaps also "open book account". There might be an argument for "open book" (cf. open-book) as an adjective. Pingku 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the way dictionaries that have this term define it, more or less. The management and accounting terms are arguably SoP and/or encyclopedic applications of sense 1. DCDuring TALK 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For future readers' benefit, the third sense under discussion is "A person who is willing to respond to any kind of question regardless of topic".​—msh210℠ 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The second sense ("A person whose emotions are easy to read from body language, facial expression, tone of voice, and frank utterances") is a very common use of the first ("A person or thing that is easily interpreted") (my experience, unsubstantiated). Perhaps the first is enough with a good, clear usex/cite of what's now the second sense.​—msh210℠ 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That might work. DCDuring TALK 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some citations added. Pingku 11:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the "person who shows their emotions" usage peculiar to US? Colloquial? I'm not at all familiar with it, and the citations I have included for the noun usage in general are US-centric. Many I found (including a UK one I almost used) were more careful about the metaphor, using constructs along the lines of "like an open book". Pingku 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous 1st and 2nd senses merged and def changed to suit. New 2nd sense ("person who answers questions candidly") has a citation, which seemed to fit better there. Pingku 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the topology sense. Perhaps this should link to open book decomposition - see w:open book decomposition. Pingku 13:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - it seems more precise this way. Moved translations for that def. Pingku 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked definitions 1 & 2. The now 1st level of "idiom" is a thing that is not a book, important aspects of which are easily interpreted. The 2nd level is a person, same, but introducing naivete as a cause, as well as emotions and intentions (which presuppose some thought or intelligence). Pingku 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the new senses under discussion:

1: {{idiomatic}} Something of which salient aspects are obvious or easily interpreted.

2: {{idiomatic}} A person who through [[naivete]] responds candidly to questions or openly displays their emotions or intentions.

Any comments? Pingku 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] not

I don't quite get this as a conjunction. The examples seem just anaphoric. OTOH I am not sure that in all the examples, especially the first, you would call "not" an adverb. The dictionaries I have looked at always call it an adverb, which certainly seems its primary function. The noun and interjection senses seem fine and in line with other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in the construction A, not B (also in not B but A) is surely a conjunction.

• It can precede various classes:

  I bought apples, not oranges. (noun phrase)

  I bought them for my son, not for myself. (prepositional phrase)

  I bought them because he loves apples, not because he was hungry. (subordinate clause)

• It becomes ungrammatical if A is omitted:

  *I bought not oranges. (wrong)

- TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The anaphoric readings:

• "I bought apples; (I did) not (buy) oranges."

  "I bought them for my son; (I did) not (buy them) for myself."

  "I bought them because he loves apples; (I did) not (buy them) because he was hungry."

• Negation always requires an auxiliary verb:

  "I did not buy oranges."

In addition, one can insert an undisputed conjunction before "not": "I bought apples and not oranges." and "I bought apples but not oranges.". Are "and not" and "but not" phrasal conjunctions? I don't think other conjunctions can combine.

Also, one can transform the phrase into "I bought not oranges, but apples."

Finally, consider "I bought apples, not bananas, not cherries, damsons, elderberries, figs, not grapefruit." The negation function seems unrelated to any conjunction function. Conjunctions can be omitted, often with no change in meaning. Omission of not always changes the meaning. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] People’s Republic of China

I noticed there is no entry for this when I was creating Cultural Revolution. Do we not do entries for full names of countries? Tooironic 07:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but others disagree. China, PRC, yes. This one, and its ilk, no. But where else in WMF would we find translations of the name into some of the languages here? DCDuring TALK 11:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well we have United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Australia and United States of America so why not People’s Republic of China? Definitions and translations of these terms (as distinct from the "informal" or "abbreviated" forms) would be extremely useful for users. It all sounds a bit fishy to me. Tooironic 01:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of nuking them all and letting WikiGazetteer handle all place names, official or unofficial, but there would still be some words connected with places that we would want.

What's fishy? The selection of countries we have is a product of the occasional burst of patriotism from some contributor favoring their own country or the desire to fill in some red link. There is a consensus favoring primary jurisdictions (mostly nations) and the next level down and their capitals and major cities. There is also a tendency to favor the names that people actually use rather than the formal names. I don't think very many people get as patriotic over official names as they do over vernacular names. Even the placards in front of UN representatives at the UN don't normally show full official names. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring that we would be better off without any of these. However, the case for PRC is much stronger than for "Commonwealth of Australia". There aren't two Australias, but there are two countries going by the name "China". Thus the term is fairly likely to occur in vernacular use as a synonym for mainland China, and not merely as the name of the government. -- Visviva 05:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, and it is under those criteria that I will be creating this new entry. Tooironic 07:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of official names of countries. I actually added a few right before bumping into this discussion. Where else should one look for Dutch name of the Republic of South Africa? Permanently archived references should not be a problem either.--Hekaheka 10:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

At the highly desirable project WikiGazetteer, which could fully take advantage of the structure of such geographic terms and the special characteristics thereof. Such a gazetteer would not be hobbled by anything nearly as strict as WT:CFI and could have quite relaxed notability standards. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] twenty to

An answer to "What time is it?" I think this has a few synonyms, most of which we don't have. The one's I am familiar with are twenty of, twenty before, twenty 'til, twenty til, twenty until. There would also be past and after. Assuming that we dispense with compound number words (Please!!!), there would be 5-7 entries for each of one-twelve, twenty, half, and quarter, for a total of 75 to 105 entries about which there is little useful to say. Should these be treated differently? Should they be in an Appendix? Should there be an entry-content generating template? DCDuring TALK 15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example of a problem with such boring entries, the 10 or so translations are of "twenty before two". Who wants to put them on their watchlist? DCDuring TALK 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems completely and irredeemably useless to me. RFD? -- Visviva 09:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a sensible treatment of time expressions. To me they would seem to merit an Appendix, with the half and quarter terms appearing in principal namespace. I am bothered by the poor access to Appendices, however. There are quite a number of these. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there should be a sense and example for this in the entry to (there may even be, I'm too lazy to check right now). The peculiarities of various languages would be handled in their respective entries, e.g. Finnish vaille. --Hekaheka 10:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The sense was there. Began translation table with Finnish and German. --Hekaheka 10:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and rfd this one, if it cannot be deleted outright. --Hekaheka 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts about an Appendix for each language on the words used to express time of day and probably other time concepts, especially those involving numbers (which make for highly repetitive, low-value entries)? I'm sure we could do a better job than anything WP is likely to have in terms of completeness of coverage of various vernacular expressions. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Appendices are nice, but on the other hand, they are a bit difficult to come by. I mean that one must know to look for them in order to benefit from them. Part of the problem may be that the process for looking for an appendix is different from that for looking for a word. Perhaps all these "twenty to" -type entries should be made REDIRECTs that bring the user to the Appendix page. In addition, every time-related entry that we decide to keep in the mainspace should have a clearly visible link to the Appendix. Perhaps the link could be a box similar to the Wikipedia box-link, only of diferent colour. Next problem is that time expressions are rather popular content and we must be prepared to manage the 300 or so languages that we have. A practical solution might be to divide the languages into several tables either in alphabetical order or e.g. by language group. --Hekaheka 14:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] see it coming

This is worthy of an entry, right, as in "Oh, that was such a lame joke, I could see it coming" ?? If so, is this the right form to put it under? (Honestly, I was surprised not to see this or any form of it here already!) L☺g☺maniac chat? 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the OneLook dictionaries think so. The construction "V1 someone/something V2ing" is quite general and is rarely idiomatic. V1 could any of several perceiving verbs; V2 can be any activity or process that can be perceived. The sense above seems to me to be an example of the general construction. There might be an idiomatic sense involving the meaning "to be prepared to take advantage of someone" as in "That salesman saw him coming. He got him to buy last-year's HD-TV and the warranty package." DCDuring TALK 23:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP, how grossly overused around here... But anyway, I see what you mean. But I really don't like dismissing widely known phrases just because a normal person should be able to guess their meaning from the individual words involved. One of these days I'm going to propose a community vote to significantly lower the effect that a term's SoPness would have as far as determining whether it deserves an entry or not. Just as soon as I can find enough like-minded people to support it ...... :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

MZajac had the idea that we should have the most common collocations of words included somewhere on the page for that word. That would not guarantee that "see it coming" would appear. Among combinations of the form "see it X", "coming" would be the twelfth most common X, based on COCA. Would/should we even have an entry for "see it"? If we were to have such an entry, it would be of the form see something coming, to which see it coming would be a redirect ideally, along with saw her coming, seen them coming, and sees you coming, etc DCDuring TALK 01:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems obviously idiomatic to me; just compare "see it coming" (= anticipate it) with "see you coming" (watch you approach). Agree it should be at see something coming. -- Visviva 04:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic metaphor of time as a road with event preceding down that (one-way) road underlies the sense. It is the sense of come in words like "upcoming" and as in "Winter came early". Dictionary offer happen as a synonym, but that doesn't capture the way it is used fully. Events unfold over time - that's what enables us to predict. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] indian giver

I can't seem to find any evidence for this lower-case form. Equinox ◑ 02:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] the fix is in

Is this an idiom in itself or does it just seem idiomatic because the senses of fix and in are slangy? Is it used outside the US? I have inserted a citation including this at fix, so deletion wouldn't leave a user with no place to go. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I am thirsty

The usage note for this seems wrong, but perhaps there is a hint of something useful in it. I am inclined to just delete it and will in a week or two unless it is improved. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, delete. --Hekaheka 14:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's anything useful in here at all (of which I am unconvinced), I strongly suspect it belongs s.v. [[thirsty]].​—msh210℠ 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one of our Phrasebook entries, and should be kept. It is a standard phrase found in most phrasebooks and beginning language courses. We cut slack for such entries, although the usage note can probably be deleted. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that everyone was commenting on the usage notes (as I hoped), which no one has yet found value in. If a language teacher (or anyone) can find value, then it stays, perhaps in better form. Is there anyone specifically who has a good vision of the role of the phrasebook? DCDuring TALK 02:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that the entry is in our phrasebook, and didn't think of putting it there, so I was all for deleting the whole as SoP. But you're right: it is and should be in the phrasebook. In that case, the usage notes belong in it also, as useful info for phrasebook users. (They can be duplicated at [[thirsty]], though, I think.)—msh210℠ on a public computer 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of my problem with the usage notes is that they seem wrong or, at least, focused on less common and less important aspects of usage. I favor usage notes, even mediocre ones. I don't think this rises to mediocrity. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They certainly seem wrong to me. "I am thirsty for water" gets 59 actual hits on b.g.c., while "I am thirsty for money" gets zero hits, not only on b.g.c. but on the entire non-Wiktionary web. Seems like a typical case of ad hoc prescriptivism. Somebody out there thinks this is how the phrase ought to be used, but until they publish a usage guide, there's no reason to take them seriously. -- Visviva 05:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The note is silly. "I am thirsty for orange juice" is used all the time, the way "I am hungry for pizza" is used all the time. It simply clarifies the desire, and is in no way humorous. "For money" is lame: "thirsty for revenge", maybe, or "thirsty for fame". kwami 05:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In its current incarnation, this is neither a good example of a Phrasebook entry nor of the ordinary sort, but something trying to be a bit of both. It seems rather to be an argument for separating the Phrasebook from the Wiktionary. Pingku 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reredo

I suggest that reredo be moved to reredos as the singular. Apparently, reredo doesn't exist (maybe rare, to redo something again?) --Volants 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I don't know why it was moved to [[reredo]] to begin with … —Ruakh_TALK 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] luceat..? (Latin)

from the requiem INTROITUS: Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis. Wikitionary does not have a page about this word, does it exists? maybe it's just the verb form of lux? --87.69.35.169 20:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is from luceo (“‘shine’”) (among other related senses). It is the 3rd person present subjunctive active, usually read as "let/may .... shine". DCDuring TALK 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've created an entry for both the verb lūceō and this form. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] US pronunciation of haiku

A question for all US contributors: Where do you (and people you know) place the stress in the word haiku? Every dictionary I've examined says it's on the first syllable, but every single instance in which I have ever heard the word places the stress on the second syllable. Is this a case where print dictionaries are being more presciptive than descriptive? Or are there two US pronunciations? --EncycloPetey 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I put the stress on the first syllable (and I don't believe I've ever looked up the pronunciation). The second-syllable stress sounds vaguely odd/pretentious to me, but I have certainly heard it from EN-US speakers. So I think there are two. -- Visviva 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always heard it with second-syllable stress. —Ruakh_TALK 03:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I stress the second syllable; stressing the first would sound odd to me. L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also put the stress faintly on the first syllable. I would think the stress on the second would sound odd to me. I wonder if it's a regional thing. Oswald Glinkmeyer 15:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (in Texas)

I've heard it with stress on the 1st syllable, and with stress on both. I imagine that the latter is related to how English speakers often pronounce partially assimilated Chinese words with stress on every syllable, whereas the former is more anglicized. To me, doubly stressed sounds like a lecture in a lit class, whereas initial stress sounds conversational. I've never heard it with single stress on the final syllable. kwami 05:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there has to be a stress at all. To my knowledge, the original Japanese word doesn't have one anyway. Tooironic 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The original Japanese word is three morae, ha-i-ku, all equally stressed (and equally unstressed: Japanese doesn't have that distinction). I think we can agree that English handles things differently. It's possible for both syllables to be stressed (see spondee), but I don't think it's possible that neither one is. —Ruakh_TALK 00:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• You hear it stressed on either syllable in English. This is not uncommon when English borrows words from languages with equal stress (often coming out differently by area, eg UK CLIché versus US cliCHE). Ƿidsiþ 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] wonder

wonder, noun: Sometimes I have to wonder about the true meaning of life. Perhaps someone with more grammatical understanding can enlighten me, but doesn't "wonder" in this sentence function as a verb? Tooironic 07:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Basic grammar errors remain throughout Wiktionary, not just in the grammatical PoSs, but in what should be the easy ones. I think contributors must often confuse to#Particle with to#Preposition, so the usex leads the user to think it must be a noun. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "to" to "a" in the example, so that it clearly refers to the (valid) noun. Dbfirs 08:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That uses the UK "have a" formula that is not used much at all in the US. It does not make a good usage example for "wonder" for US English speakers. DCDuring TALK 10:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that! I don't speak American. I'll try to think of an example that means the same on both sides of the pond. Are there any bilingual editors who could help? Dbfirs 11:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that sense of wonder may be UK and, I assume, informal or colloquial. I can't find the sense in a dictionary, though it is so plausible as to fail to motivate me to an RfV. In which case the usex would be likely to fit. I have altered the entry to reflect that. Please take a look. Do we need to confirm the sense or the tags? DCDuring TALK 12:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a citation with which people won't be able to make the above mistake. Equinox ◑ 13:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better. Dbfirs 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pankration

I tried, rather unsuccessfully, to add an Ancient Greek derivation tag, can someone please fix it for me? Cheers. Tooironic 10:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Entry cleaned up. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] -san

Should we classify this as a suffix in English or is it something else (What?) used to form compounds? DCDuring TALK 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] punter

Looking for usage of this term (punter) in the context of popular (rock) music fandom. Can anyone confirm or provide quotes for its usage meaning a fan or aficionado? Oswald Glinkmeyer 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] words that punctuate

There are some words that serve as punctuation. Some examples:

• stop (or STOP?) in a telegram. (We lack this sense.)
• x (or X?) in a telegram. (We lack this sense.)
• comma (or COMMA?) in a telegram. (We lack this sense.)
• query (or QUERY?) in a telegram. (We lack this sense.)
• GA (or ga?) in a TTY conversation. (We lack this sense.)
• SK (or sk?) in a TTY conversation. (We list this under the unfortunate =Abbreviation= header.)
• Arguably, now in normal English. ("Now, how about them Knicks?") (We list this as an =Adverb= and define it as "In a manner, or regarding a topic, different from that of the immediately past".)
• OpenB@InsideTrunkhigh-PalmAside-OpenB@InsideTrunkhigh-PalmAcross OpenB@SideTrunkhigh-PalmAside-OpenB@CenterTrunkhigh-PalmAcross (q.v.). (We list this as a =Conjunction=.)

What POS(es) should these be?​—msh210℠ 17:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

now is serving as a discourse marker for a change of subject and similar. Adverb seems by far the best PoS for it. See Category:English discourse markers and Category:English sentence adverbs DCDuring TALK 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, punctuation serves basic discourse directive functions, so that category might be right. Most members of that category are adverbs, so .... DCDuring TALK 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] camel's nose

Is this an allusion to the proverb or an ellipsis of it? See Category:English ellipses and Category:English allusions. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] all the "good"s

I'm referring to these entries: good night, good afternoon, good day, good evening and good morning. I think there should be some consistency here in the way they are categorised. Some are just nouns, others are nouns and interjections and one of them is just a phrase. Ideally though, shouldn't they all be both nouns and interjections? Tooironic 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like all of them and goodnight should all be nouns and interjections. --Yair rand 03:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering about these. Interjection is not really what they are. They often stand alone, not interjected into sentences at all. IMO, they are idiomatic descendants of old ellipses of "I wish you a good ...". The noun meanings really don't seem to me to meet CFI. I would just call them Phrase and put them in some categories that capture the pragmatic function they serve as greetings and farewells. The Phrase categorization is an unsatisfactory cheat that doesn't work for a one-word greeting/farewell, like hello or goodbye or greetings or farewell.

Perhaps we are best off to put them under a noun header and categorize them further as "English ellipses" and ""English salutations" (or some broader category). That would at least work uniformly. DCDuring TALK 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be that complicated - a noun section and an interjection section easily explains to the reader the two possible usages, i.e., one as a nominal object and one as a functional phrase. Their etymologies as "I wish you a good..." ellipses needn't hinge on their informativity IMO. Tooironic 10:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

None of them are interjections in their most common use. And almost any word or phrase can be used as a standalone utterance at some time. (Do you need an example? "How did you print that?" "Laserprinter.") An interjection is a phrase or word (or sound that we treat as a word), 1., that has no grammatical relationship to the rest of a sentence and, 2., is used to carry an emotion. We have been using interjection as a catch-all for all terms that have significant "non-grammatical" usage. As such, it is a misnomer for many of them. I don't know that it is any more misleading to call such uses a noun and indicate by context tag and category that it is used as a greeting/farewell. An alternative is to throw it into phrasebook (though that does not address single-term equivalents). If there were widely accepted terms that were not misnomers, it would be easier. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The thirteen different sources I've checked (ten OneLook sources and three print(*)) have seven different treatments for "Good morning":

1. Interjection: Encarta, Longmans DCE*, and MW3*
2. Exclamation: Camb Adv Learners
3. Noun: Wordsmyth, Wordnet 2/3.0, AHD
4. Sentence absolute: Collins
5. Phrase: Webster's New World
6. 0: Infoplease/RHU, Free/Wordnet 1.7
7. Idiom: Dictionary.com/AHDIdioms, McGraw-Hill Idioms*

We can dismiss the treatments derived from the idioms sources. The zero treatments are significant in that they indicate a decision not to classify by sources that usually do, indicating uncertainty. Phrase is a similar indicator.

1. I believe that interjection conveys an undeserved fixity about the expressions, which serve as grammatical units in constructing expressions which have as much claim to be called interjections, "Good morning to you!" being the leading example, but also the hyperformal "I wish you a good morning, sir."
2. There is not fixed emotion or, indeed, any emotion necessarily conveyed, as the definition of interjection suggests.
3. And we would need a noun PoS, in any event, to capture the sense of "He gave us all perfunctory good mornings.".
4. "Phrase" would obscure the parallelism among many greetings (one-word and multi-word).

This leaves me favoring "Noun" with an extra sense to make explicit the use as a stand-alone greeting and a usage note to capture its relationship to other near-synonyms, especially the longer ones.

None if this is to exclude the possibility of true interjections: Good night! (“‘used by an observer to mark a powerful blow as a possible knock-out blow; "Lights out!"’”) being one. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Although I do find your argument to classify them as nouns with greetings tags pretty convincing, it does also make me wet my pants a little to think of all the work I'll have to do with Chinese to fit in with this new consistency. (At present, all Chinese equivalents of these phrases are categorised under "Interjection".) Moreover, the wiktionary definition of interjection only indicates that it is "often" an expression of emotion - i.e. it does not treat emotion as a compulsory feature. I would tend to agree as, after all, "emotion" is hardly a measurable criterion. In other words, who can say with any kind of certainty whether or not "Good morning" carries any kind of emotion? Emotion isn't really the point. The function of the phrase is the most important consideration, and that function in my opinion can be classified as interjectional. Therefore I'd argue for the Noun + Interjection model. Tooironic 08:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary definition is less than perfect in providing sharp distinctions. I'm not sure how to read that definition. Are they saying that each word is usually used to convey emotion or that usually an interjection is a word that conveys emotion, but that some aren't. Even if the idea is the latter I think they are trying to cover cases like the attention-getters like "hey" or "ahem", for which there doesn't seem to be emotional content. The essential element is the lack of grammatical connection to sentences, even when embedded in them.

I have no idea what the implications would be for Chinese. I am not at all sure why the partition into grammatical categories for English (or Latin) should be determinative of categorization in other languages, especially those outside the Indo-European family. It would seem like a mega-topic for About Chinese and eventually BP. DCDuring TALK 09:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gigaflop

(Also megaflop and teraflop.) Is this correct? I thought that all the -flops stood for floating point operations per second (as in one gigaflops is one billion FLOPS). Yet the entry says that a gigaflop is a unit of measure for the calculating speed of a computer and gigaflops is just the plural. What would FLOP stand for? FLoating point Operations Per ... What?--Yair rand 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"One gigaflops" is not unattested, but "one gigaflop" is much more common. It seems to me that "one gigaflop" etc. are a result of backformation from the plural-sounding "two gigaflops" etc. (Compare pea and kudo for examples of de-pluralizing backformation, and lase for an example of backformation from an acronym. I can't think of any examples that are both at once, but regardless, the possibility is obviously there.) Even speakers familiar with the underlying acronym probably aren't really keeping it mind as they use the term, so the resulting "flop" doesn't need to stand for anything at all; and they may not even notice the discrepancy. (I'm just speculating here.) But apparently, judging from the rare-but-attestable "gigaflop(s) per second", some speakers must have reanalyzed the acronym itself as representing just "floating-point operations", with "per second" being implied. (This is not an unreasonable reanalysis, given that "one gigabit" regularly means "one billion bits per second".)

The entries could use improvement.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] still as an interjection?

Could still also be an interjection? For example:

A: Let's go to that concert tonight.

B: Nah, I'm skint.

B: It's free!

A: Still...

I don't know about other countries, but it's fairly common in Australia. Tooironic 07:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here too (the UK) by ellipsis I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No doubt about the usage. I question whether it should be called an interjection. Many words can find usage as a stand-alone or without grammatical relationship to a sentence in which they are embedded. The usage should IMO go under the adverb. It is an application of the "nevertheless" sense. Nevertheless should be in Category:English sentence adverbs, in any event (another sentence adverb). Maybe it would also go in some category like Category:English responses or Category:English discourse markers for the kind of usage that Too points out. DCDuring TALK 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] tango

Interesting that for the plural and 3rd person we have tangos, while my Oxford dictionary gives tangoes (and only tangoes) for both. Can anyone fix this? In Scrabble, tangoes is the anagram of onstage. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At COCA "tangos" outnumbers "tangoes" 82:1, so apparently a US/UK difference. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My Chambers gives tangos and only tangos, so maybe not. Pingku 16:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pingku: Yes, it looks like you are right.

MG: The Online Compact OED shows "tangoes" for the verb, but "tangos" for the noun. All of the OneLook dictionaries show "tangos" for the noun. All except COED either show tangos for the verb or show nothing, which probably means it is "normal", presumably without the "e". Google news shows overwhelming preference for "tangos"; Google books about 2:1, mostly for the noun. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to put both "tangos" and "tangoes" in the verb gloss. Can someone help? Pingku 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the plural, but I've added the colour (is is just a UK usage?) The exact shade is variable according to artistic choice (as with most named shades). Dbfirs 08:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] naughties

Wow... no entry for this common term. Any special reason? Tooironic 11:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you mean the decade, isn't it normally spelled noughties? Ƿidsiþ 17:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Both, I think. I guess I'll just add it as an alternative spelling. Tooironic 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be more commonly used as a plural of "naughty" - in a perhaps attributive noun sense that is also not documented. Pingku 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] perra#Spanish

This nice dictionary defines perra also as dinero, riqueza (chiefly plural), and whilst this is a clue to the meaning in Citations:perra, what disquiets me is the fact that it is obviously countable (whereas riqueza is not) - (de veinticuatro perras celemín = 24 quid for 4,6 l, right ?). So how could we translate this meaning and was the Spanish currency at the time meant in the quoted citation? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

La perra was an old coin worth (I believe) 10 centimos of a Peseta. So, originally perra meant a coin. Possibly due to it's similarity in sound to Peseta, the term stuck and with use came to mean money in general. Hence, originally countable, and gaining an uncountable sense along the way. -- ALGRIF talk 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful explanation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Concerning the entries for "foutre" in the Wiktionary of French words: it would be much clearer to mention that when "foutre" is used in the various phrases, it simply replaces the verb that ordinarily is used in the given phrase when it is spoken normally. Example: "se moquer de" (to make fun of) becomes "se foutre de" and still means the same thing, but takes on a vulgar tone. ("Foutre" most often is used as if it were the verb "faire", "to do/make". In the same sense it simply replaces "faire".) The entries in there now make it sound like "foutre" means a variety of different things, which is misleading. It would be much clearer if it were understood that it is simply standing in for another verb that is NOT vulgar, and is used to mean the same thing as that other verb, while turning the original phrase into a vulgar usage. For this same reason, the entries should state what the "ordinary" phrase and meaning is, in which "foutre" is replacing the "ordinary" verb.

La perra was an old coin worth (I believe) 10 centimos of a Peseta. So, originally perra meant a coin. Possibly due to it's similarity in sound to Peseta, the term stuck and with use came to mean money in general. Hence, originally countable, and gaining an uncountable sense along the way. -- ALGRIF talk 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] witness

"Depression often goes undetected until it is too late. Witness the recent White House suicide." What is the analysis of the witness sentence? Is "witness" an imperative to the hearer/reader? Or is the same sentence an ellipsis of "Let the recent WH suicide be a witness for what I just said." It would affect the wording of the senses of witness. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Or has this become a preposition in this use? Or is it parallel to "for example", for instance" DCDuring TALK 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's an imperative. The alternative doesn't seem grammatically coherent. Equinox ◑ 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

pareil. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as an ellipsis, it wouldn't have to be, as long as the expanded sense was. 'Nuff said.

My problem with the imperative is that the reader cannot witness or have witnessed the suicide in the most common senses of "witness". I also don't think there are other expressions that use this sense. In this kind of expression MW Online has "witness" meaning "take note of", which sense doesn't fit the other meanings of witness AFAICT. It seems quite lame compared to the other senses of the verb and the noun.

Another analysis would have it be a noun in sense 4 ("something that offers or serves as evidence") and the expansion be something like "(Take as) witness (of the truth of what I just said) the recent WH suicide.". I can find plenty of instances of the same kind of expression preceded by "as": "As witness the recent WH suicide.". This last seems OK, but "witness" does seem to be a discourse marker and about to become at least as grammaticized as "for example", if not an outright preposition. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a noun, in an elision of the longer formula "as witness". From a recent Guardian: "Well, she is fashionable and much liked by the world at large - as witness the extraordinary generosity of a supporting actress nomination for her work in Doubt." Seems to me the one-word form is a further clipping of that usage. Ƿidsiþ 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the soundest conclusion reflecting all current forms of that kind of construction.

It is interesting how a term comes to lose the usual trappings accompanying whatever part of speech it is in a particular construction and suddenly it can be "reanalyzed" and used as some other part of speech in somewhat similar constructions. This seems on a journey to something other than nounhood but is still within its bounds.

In my own reading and hearings I had long thought this was some kind of archaic inverted order with the noun phrase following being the subject of the verb witness. The "as" would also be consistent with that reading. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] name a baby muhammad?

can we name our baby muhammad alone or its necessary that you should add another name with that like muhammad ibrahim? is there any scholar who knows the meaning of names and can guide? —This unsigned comment was added by 76.186.192.152 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm no scholar but unless you are living in some strange country which has laws that force you to weird things like that then I'd say you can name your child whatever you want. ;) 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few countries with laws that restrict the naming of children. Even European countries like Hungary have had naming restrictions in the 20th century, although I believe Hungary has since lifted its naming restrictions. However, I know of no restrictions on the name Muhammad, as it is used by more than 15 million people worldwide. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

weirdos...>_>50 Xylophone Players talk 16:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are Muslim, some Muslims take the position that a child should not be given a middle name, that Muhammad Ibrahim (Lastname) would mean Muhammad, the son of Ibrahim (Lastname), and if Ibrahim were not the child's father's name, then it would imply illegitimacy. [14]. Whether that is universal to all Muslims, I do not know. It seems to me I'd heard that in Turkey they use Mehmet instead of Muhammad, because there they take the position that nobody should be named after him, retiring the name the way most Europeans and Americans don't use Jesus. However, it is otherwise one of the most popular names. 169.226.85.157 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cagot

Okay, I thought I'd add this here rather than to request lists just so that many people will be liable to see it. :) If anyone can do it, I'd be grateful if someone could create an entry for it. It seems to be a word in both English and French; both a noun and adjective in the latter see fr:cagot. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] one side

Probably an ellipsis for "move to one side". Clearly idiomatic, common colloquially (in the right crowd anyway), and attestable. PoS? DCDuring TALK 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a US interjection to me. SemperBlotto 18:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G complained mightily about injecting so many commands and prosentences into interjections. I've been trying to see whether there are alternatives. There is always "phrase" for this, though it wouldn't work for "gangway". I'm inclined to call it a noun and define it as a command or have a usage note to that effect. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] breeze

Verb: Taking a horse under a light run in order to understand the running characteristics of the horse and to observe it while under motion.

An IP added this sense. The AHD has a slightly more general horsey definition: "To sprint around a racetrack as a means of exercise. Used of a racehorse." Hence, while it would seem that an equine sense is sensible to have, it seems like the current one is overspecified. Do we have any horse enthusiasts who can comment? — Carolina wren discussió 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] fishing term

Is there a fishing term, that means to lace something with bait/put bait on a hook? I've looked in a couple of fishing dictionaries, but they don't help. Anyway, the French term is amorcer. I have found bait up, but am not so sure it means the same thing. --Rising Sun 14:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's just bait (according to the OED). SemperBlotto 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How about chum#Etymology 2, both noun and verb? Our definition looks a bit narrower than the word as I've heard it. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dinna

Some discussion has arisen. Is this a) a contraction b) a verb c) an adverb d) none of these ? -- ALGRIF talk 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] wouldnae

Ditto. Is this a) a contraction b) a verb c) an adverb d) none of these ? -- ALGRIF talk 15:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say a) in both cases. They are Scottish, but can also be regarded as English Dialect. I suppose opinion will vary. Dbfirs 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In both of the cases above I would call them verbs.

I have been trying hard to put everything under as specific a grammatical header as possible based on its head (except in the the case of prepositional phrases). I never use "contraction" because it is not that kind of header. But it is a useful category.

What would be hard for me would be a case where there was a single headword (a compound or a contraction) that was not a grammatical "constituent". (BTW, see Category:English non-constituents.) I have not yet noticed one and hope against hope that there aren't any in English. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to call them verbs since there is no apostrophe to indicate a contraction. canna & cannot, too? We need to be consistent. Dbfirs 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I wouldn't draw the line at apostrophes, either, so can't, too. But one would have to accept that particular tenet of my approach to having PoS headings be grammar based to the greatest extent possible (and limited to the existing list of widely understood PoSs, as opposed to more modern sets of functional terms). DCDuring TALK 16:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PLC

The entry for this abbreviation of Public Liability Company has a "translation" that consists not of translations, but of the corresponding abbreviations for companies similarly organized under the laws of other jurisdictions. I think they should just be deleted.

But there is a strong case for an appendix documenting this semantic relationship (analogy) among the various terms. We could start with what we find in Wikipedia and customize it in a lexicographic direction.

Finally, I wonder whether we should check for similar conceptual problems in other entries, starting with abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal areas particularly. For instance a solicitor, a lawyer and a barrister do not translate well, not even between UK and US!! -- ALGRIF talk 12:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have appendices for analogs or to have another semantic-relations header for "analogs"? DCDuring TALK 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation of Gaelic word

Hoping someone can help me, I need the phonetic pronunciation of the words: cu mhaige which is early Scots/Irish meaning hound of the plain.

I don't speak Gaelic, and we don't have an entry for mhaige (and only Old English for cu=cow) but I would guess at "koo vey" (slack v), though we must have some Gaelic speakers who can check whether it has a "j" at the end? Dbfirs 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'meatloafing' (NZ term? Cat-related sense.)

I was thinking about adding 'meatloafing' (to our meatloaf entry) which I heard when visiting New Zealand a few years ago. Meaning when a cat lies with all four legs tucked underneath its body. I found the term at urban dictionary (there's also a rude meaning there - surprise surprise - so if you're easily offended don't read the whole page!) [15] I guess it'd be either slang or informal. Any Kiwis want to weigh in on this? --Tyranny Sue 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I call that a catloaf. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] like

Like is used informally to form an adverb from an adjective ending in -ly. See, e.g., google books:"all|smiled|smiling silly|friendly like" subject:fiction. Sometimes it's bound with a hyphen to the adjective, as friendly-like, sometimes it's separated from it by a space, as friendly like; I haven't examined relative frequencies, though that would be wise. What POS is this? And what pagename: [[-like]] or [[like]]?​—msh210℠ 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the resulting terms aren't spelled solid, then it should be at "like", I think. It seems to be an adverb. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seeing some uses that make friendly[-| ]like seem like an adjective: "they are all friendly like to him"[16], for example. Thoughts?​—msh210℠ 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] normative

Aren't we missing the "proscriptive" sense from this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think prescriptive and proscriptive are hyponyms. DCDuring TALK 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it used that way, for example in a political theory lecture. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "That's what she said."

I don't know what this means, can anyone tell me? In great detail? And how this relates to every day life (your life)?

It's just a humorous reply to innuendo: any statement that might mean something rude or dirty if you take it the wrong way. e.g. "That's a big one!" (someone talking about a large bird flying past) "That's what she said." (you are suggesting that "that's a big one" might have referred to a penis) Not really worth worrying about. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's much in the same vein as the 'yo mamma's fat' jokes. Tooironic 09:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also as the actress said to the bishop SemperBlotto 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] survey with a weather balloon

What's the verb in English where one surveys the sky using a weather balloon - can we say "they probed the sky" or "they surveyed the sky" or maybe there's a technical term...the French word for this is sonder--Rising Sun 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

sond/sonds/sonding/sonded verb sond/sonds noun sonding adjective the noun usage referring to the device being more common, but also sonde/sondes for the device, borrowed directly from French or German Sonde. Try, for example, google "sonding weather -sounding" Robert Ullmann 09:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget sound/sounding etc, for example in w:Sounding rocket, which is more familiar but also more general. Robert Ullmann 10:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] left back, right back and centre back

Compare:

1. left back, left-back, leftback
2. right back, right-back, rightback
3. centre back, centre-back, centreback
4. center back, center-back, centerback

I suppose these should be standardised right? Or merely by some sort of measure, like number of Google hits. Center back (-er) seems perfectly attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Google seems to treat centre-back and centre back as the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] crepuscular wakefulness

Does anybody know of a single word that expresses the meaning of the phrase “crepuscular wakefulness”? Also, could someone who knows them please add the German and Latin translations of wakefulness to our entry for the word? Thanks in advance. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] arsed, be arsed

I'd like to see this redone. Arsed is the past of arse in the sense "have anal sex with". I think we should have be arsed as I think arsed, in the sense "bothered, motivated" is always used with "be". I don't even think you can even use become with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Partridge 2007 says of "arsed": adjective Bothered; worried UK Popularised since the mid-1990s by television situation comedy The Royle Family.[17]

An interesting inclusion might be can't-be-fuckin-arsed-ness. If I cared. Pingku 18:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] extranjerize

An IP created this and marked it as Ingñol (another entry created the same IP). Do we have any policy regarding words such as this that are a deliberate blend of two languages and can't be categorized as either one or the other? (Other than the generic CFI and verification rules applying to all entries, that is.) — Carolina wren discussió 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I get TWO google hits for "Ingñol". Someone is trying to invent it. (Spanglish, OTOH, is well known ;-) The words in such cases are essentially always used in one language or the other, and not both, so are listed as slang of some type for that language. For example, "extranjerize" gets 7 google hits, all—of course—in Spanish. No English speaker, or person using a word in an English sentence would say that, they would say "foreignize" or some such (as the entry itself suggests).

So we treat Singlish as English words, with local borrowing and usage. If the language does divert seriously (e.g. a pidgin), then it gets its own coding and name. Not in this case. Ingñol is bogus, extranjerize might, maybe, be citeable, but is then certainly Spanish. Robert Ullmann 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Ingñol. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW extranjerizar gets 468 Google Book hits, so this could be a conjugated form. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right — six of the seven Google Web hits are using it as part of the third-person singular present subjunctive of extranjerizarse (“‘to become foreign’”), and the seventh is an automatically generated conjugation of extranjerizar. However, I can't find anything durably archived for it, and though my Spanish isn't very good, my instinct is to consider it a misspelling: the spelling extranjerice is much more common. —Ruakh_TALK 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] as much as possible

I have inserted a grammar-oriented usage note in this SoP entry which probably makes sense as a phrasebook entry. Is it adequate? I suspect that some phrasebook entries can benefit from some explanation of how they might be generalized as few are set phrases. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be somehow more dictionary-worthy than any other as X as possible? If so, why? Equinox ◑ 02:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrasebook is the last refuge of common SoP expressions that don't meet CFI. When I first came across this and as soon as possible, I was thinking to RfD them. I don't know what criteria we have for determining what makes something worth having in the phrasebook, what a phrasebook is supposed to accomplish, or whether it is worth having a phrasebook. Those would be BP matters well worth discussing. I am trying to think of ways of making phrasebook entries less misleading and more useful. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a "phrasebook", as such it is, would actually be extremely helpful on wiktionary. However some criteria need to be drawn up so we don't have dozens of SoPs trying to pawn themselves off as phrasebook entries. Something like a list of "100 most common phrases" or something to that effect wouldn't go astray. Tooironic 06:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A typical phrasebook in my limited experience is a book of phrases that are useful in daily life, especially for visitors. It will have things like "do you have any vacant rooms" and "I need to speak to the American consul". Many or most of our phrasebook entries (see category:Phrasebook) fit the bill: we have things like how do you do and is it going to rain. Many do not, though: we also have things like in chronological order and seem like a good idea at the time and, well, as much as possible, none of which belong in a phrasebook AFAICT.​—msh210℠ 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As we have no separate explicit criteria for inclusion, it seems to me that CFI applies and that we have been mistaken in including these entries in principal namespace. (The same argument may apply to proverbs.) Where should these things go? What would a good phrasebook entry look like? Does anyone care enough to do any work on this? If not why bother keeping them? Do we have any evidence that anyone uses them? DCDuring TALK 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The CFI should apply in theory, but we have a tradition of keeping proverbs and phrasebook entries despite the CFI. Personally I'd love the unidiomatic proverbs to go, but we do have that tradition. Unidiomatic phrasebook entries are useful iff people who are interested in a phrasebook can see the list; e.g., there are good links to the category. Perhaps the category can be weeded (per the critria I mention above, or others) and then each of its entries can have a phrasebook-entry banner/box with a prominent link to the category. Perhaps we should also consider having (as Wikibooks has) the ability for users to collect a bunch of pages into a PDF file; this can be useful for a phrasebook, but also for other glossaries. Is that an extension?​—msh210℠ 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] main page

Was there a decision that this is just SoP and shouldn't have a regular entry? There seem to be a few entries that link to it as if it were a regular entry but right now it's just a redirect to Wiktionary:Main Page. --Yair rand 20:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So you are WF!  :-) ​—msh210℠ 17:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for it to have a regular entry. Links can easily be fixed. Equinox ◑ 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of something I heard about Wikipedia. If, for example, someone named their band/album/racehorse etc. "Main Page", it would become very difficult to link. Of course, their could be a page w:Main Page (band), but I don't think it would be linked from w:Main Page. --Volants 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] per se

Should the second sense ("necessarily, precisely, absolutely") be tagged {{proscribed}}?​—msh210℠ 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that it is actually used in that sense? It isn't in the OneLook references AFAICT. Perhsps it should start with an RfV. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "precisely" is a widespread informal meaning of the term, and is what the definition-writer probably meant. Cleanup is necessary, but rfv I think is not.​—msh210℠ 18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Necessarily" is close to the sense the phrase has had from its beginning."Precisely" and "absolutely" don't have the same sense as "necessarily" to my ear. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these not all misunderstandings of the Latin? I would mark these senses as {{informal}} or (by extension). Dbfirs 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that after discussion at WT:RFV, the definition in question has been changed to "As such; as one would expect from the name". My original question stands, though: should it be tagged {{proscribed}}? Or perhaps, as Dbfirs, suggests, {{informal}} or {{context|by extension}}?​—msh210℠ 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But what contemporary authority proscribes the sense as previously worded or as currently worded? Collins Thesaurus offers as such as a synonym. It seems more likely to me that there is redundancy in our senses than that any one of them is proscribed. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy.  :-) ​—msh210℠ 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should we take a forum comment seriously, let alone authoritatively? DCDuring TALK 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing hits for the last sense ("As a matter of law"): all law-related citations seem to be for the first sense ("By itself; without consideration of extraneous factors"). Before I RFV it, any comments?​—msh210℠ 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Garner is editor in chief of West's "Black's Law Dictionary", which I don't have access to. Garner's Modern American Usage (2009) offers that as a definition. I would be hard-pressed in most cases to distinguish the senses so attestation would be challenging. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the third sense offered is really just another expression of the first. Something that is a per se violation of a statute, for example, is a violation in and of itself, without consideration of circumstances. For example, when competitors agree to a price fixing scheme, this is a per se antitrust violation. By contrast, where competitors come to a seeming accord on pricing with no actual communication between them, this is potentially an antitrust violation if certain market effects can be shown. bd2412 T 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nāscor

The definition I had given for the Latin verb nāscor, was "to be born", the same as in my pocket Latin dictionary which I can trace back to the 1950s.

It has now been edited to "I am born, begotten" on the grounds that Latin/English dictionaries have not listed lemma to lemma entries for centuries, and that "to be born" is misleading and fundamentally incorrect.

Given that "nāscor" is the present active, "born" is a past participle, "be born" is a passive, and "I am born" is stative, I fail to see how one is any more fundamentally incorrect than another, especially in the light of what other dictionaries do.

This hairsplitting departure from lexicographical norms affects or has the potential to affect all languages where the verb lemma is not the same form as the English verb lemma, the infinitive. But the meaning is exactly the same wherever there is a mismatch between English lemma, foreign lemmas, and the tenses, moods, aspects, numbers, inflections, etc for all parts of speech for all languages, since they rarely map 1:1. For some reason English infinitives seem to be the first to raise the ire of some who contribute in foreign languages but it is no different from the many other inexactitudes when mapping different languages to one another.

Yet this is a solved problem. Bilingual dictionaries have existed for a long time and they have overcome this problem by mapping lemma to lemma. Why is this a problem for us? Why depart from what dictionary users are accustomed? — hippietrail 05:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. You have misrepresented events in the above paragraphs. The original definition I had given for nascor (when I created the entry) was "I am born, begotten". You changed the entry to a definition suitable for an infinitive (which nascor is not), and I changed it back because the change was grammatically and fundamentally incorrect. The verb nascor is a first-person singular present active indicative, not an infinitive. To translate it as "to be born" is thus misleading as well as an incorrect translation. We discussed the choice of Latin verb lemma forms in 2007 with a large number of participants all agreeing to use the first principal part, just as most dictionaries do. Ancient Greek verb entries (e.g. ἔδω) and Old Armenian verb entries (e.g. զգենում) have been structured in this same way since that decision.

The issue you are raising is a straw man argument. We do (mostly) translate lemma to lemma. But, as I pointed out on your talk page, this isn't always possible. There are many situations where it is preferable to translate to a non-lemma form for accuracy. Consider melior (“‘better’”) and cunīculōsus (“‘full of rabbits’”). Do you argue that this should be translated as "more good" or as "full of rabbit", simply because those are the lemma forms in English? It is silly to let translation be governed solely on the basis of what the lemma form is in English. It is much more reasonable to actually translate the meaning of the word.

Some of your concern stems from an incomplete knowledge of Latin present tense meanings. The present tense in Latin can refer to a present action (progressive or not), but it also is used for what is called the "historic present", which is translated into English as if it were past tense. Also, nascor is deponent, which means that it functions as if it were active, but is inherently passive in all its forms. Some of these deponent verbs can be meaningfully translated into English with an active sense, but many cannot. Consider the impersonal verb licet (“‘it is allowed’”), for which there is no easily used active translation in English, despite the fact that it has an "active" conjugation pattern in Latin. --EncycloPetey 06:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Today after the discussion on my talk page I took the liberty of visiting the largest bookshop in the area as well as the local library. I examined each Latin, Ancient Greek, and Classical Greek dictionary. Publication dates were as recent as the 21st century in some cases. In each case, from the oldest to the most modern, listed "nascor" as either "to be born" or "be born". Greek dictionaries also defined all verbs by English infinitives mostly with "to", occasionally without. Yet you state: "While centuries-old Latin dictionaries often translate verbs in terms of infinitives (continuing the tradition of the earliest Renaissance dictionaries) modern Latin dictionaries (such as Oxford's) and textbooks (like Wheelock's) do not do this because they recognize that such translations are both misleading and fundamentally incorrect."

At least two of the dictionaries I consulted were Oxford publications. Are you saying that the editors and compilers of these dictionaries share my "incomplete knowledge of Latin present tense meanings"? Could it not be that you have an incomplete knowledge of Latin lexicography?

For the job of translating sentences I of course agree that the Latin present active does not translate the English infinitive. But translating sentences is not our job. Any good translator translates in context and our context as that of a dictionary. Bilingual dictionaries use a basic form to represent the entire word in all its forms. For English verbs they use the infinitive for this job. For Latin verbs they use the present active for this job. They list "nascor" on one side because it is that form, they list "be born" on the other because that is the basic form. They do not intend that "be born" should be read as a literal prose translation of "nascor". English dictionaries further often have the tradition the tradition of "to" when describing verbs. This is not meant to imply that the word in the other language is also an infinitive, rather to clarify that in English it is a verb, since English words often conflate nouns and verbs in a single form.

The issue is not whether to put the main entries at their so-called "lemma" entries. It's clear that we all agree on that. The issue is how to word the English side. Are we a literary translation or site or a dictionary site? I say we are a dictionary and we should describe the basic forms of verbs in all other languages using the basic form of the English form, that form happens to be the infinitive, and it happens to be what all users accustomed to bilingual dictionaries expect. It is neither some murky misunderstaning I've dredged up from the dark ages nor some radical concept I'm trying to force upon an unexpecting public. It's how dictionaries work. — hippietrail 09:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You say that it's clear we all agree that main entries should be at their lemma form, but why then this edit and this edit, where you moved information away from the lemma page? Your edits do not agree with your professed opinion. --EncycloPetey 14:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Your summary of the About Latin discussion is accurate, but IMHO a bit misleading. Everyone seems to agree, then as now, on what form should be used as the citation form for Latin verbs; the debate is not over where we should translate the verbs, but over how we should translate them. That point was raised by Kipmaster in the discussion you link to, but he didn't express an opinion, nor (so far as I can tell) did anyone else. (Oddly, the closest that Wiktionary:About Latin comes to addressing this issue is in an example you added, whereby spērō was glossed as “hope, expect” in a etymology; but around the same time, you were creating Latin verb entries that look much like the ones you create nowadays, so I don't think we can read too much into that.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that we should generally translate lemmata to lemmata. In some languages lemma form is in 3rd-person (Sanskrit, Old Irish, Hebrew, Hungarian..) in which case we'd have to translate them as "he/she/it <verb>s" which would look ridiculous. At any case, I think that we should simply follow the most widespread lexicographical convention for a particular language. FWIW, Oxford Latin Dictionary translates Latin citation forms as English infinitives, for nascor giving "to be born" (among other 14 meanings). This isn't such a big deal anyway, as there is very rarely difference between English infinitive and first-person form (basically it's just the addition of the first-person pronoun plus "am" or "was"), so it presents no real educational obstacle to the users. --Ivan Štambuk 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  You say that it's "not a big deal", but it is to hippietrail. Look at the edits he's made to nascor and nasci, in which he's moved information away from lemma pages. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. --EncycloPetey 14:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I personally don't find it such a big deal anyway to read/type either "to x" or "I x". It's just about the same level of cognitive dissonance to the reader - the first form for not being a direct translation of the FL headword, the second one for being "unusual" to the reader accustomed to having English infinitives in the definition lines. --Ivan Štambuk 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with Hippietrail and Ivan. I think it makes Wiktionary look really unprofessional when we translate lemmata to non-lemmata, like we've never looked at a real dictionary to understand the conventions of the field. (N.B.: I say "real dictionary" not because Wiktionary isn't one, but because it doesn't look like one when you see these entries.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  And the editors of Latin, Ancient Greek, and Old Armenian disagree. You did notice that "born" itself is not a lemma? --EncycloPetey 13:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• To elaborate a bit further: these half-hearted attempts at in-context translations smack of trying really hard to be helpful to totally clueless people — and failing, because the relationships between verb forms are too complex for a dictionary entry to be thoroughly useful to someone with no idea about them.
  Look. It will never happen that some monolingual English speaker will come across the once-popular bumper sticker שמור מרחק מאהוד ברק, take a picture, paste it into Wiktionary's OCR-image-upload-interface, and get a translation. We are a dictionary. If it is our goal to help people understand sentences in languages they know nothing about, languages with radically different grammars and word orders from English — and I think that's a good, lofty goal — then we need to spend more time listening to Robert Ullmann and (I can't believe I'm saying this) Connel MacKenzie, and work on making our content readily machine-readable so that free OCR and translation software can make use of it. Because we're fooling ourselves if we think this sort of translation gets us even partway there.
  —Ruakh_TALK 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For 3rd-party software parsing Wiktionary database it's pretty trivial to simply ignore the first-person pronoun (and possible copulae like am, was etc.), as much as they would ignore the particle to. 3rd-party software is of absolutely no interest to us ATM, we're stuck with this website, and our primary target are language learners browsing it. --Ivan Štambuk 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I wasn't saying "literalist translations interfere with use by third-party software" (though Hippietrail does seem to be saying that below, and I'd welcome further elaboration on that), but rather "literalist translations are pointless; a static dictionary simply can't hold clueless readers' hands to any useful extent, so the only way we can help with that is to help third-party software to help with that". But it seems that my point was moot; in the past, people have advanced the "our readers are clueless" argument, but this time they seem to be sticking to the "this is the correct translation" argument. Which is also misguided, but not for reasons addressed by my comment. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Fourthed, I agree. FWIW on fr:nascor it say naître (the infinitive) not je nais. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

    You can see the silliness this line of reasoning leads to by looking at what happens on the Latin Wiktionary entry for, where the definition is given as gigni (present active infinitive) but actually links to gigno (the lemma form). --EncycloPetey 13:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree. It always seemed strange to me to translate these 1st principal parts literally, but I imagined that this was perhaps the way modern Latin dictionaries had gone. If that's not the case I think Ruakh is dead right – it smacks of misdirected over-enthusiasm. I also respect our Latin and Greek editors, and I'm sure they considered the issue. I can only say it still jumps out at me a bit whever I see it. Ƿidsiþ 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can see the pros and cons of both sides of this rather unfortunate coin, I have to lead to the side of the literal translations. To give the definition of nascere in the entry for nasco is rather... incorrect. I don't want to hear anymore talk of "this is how paper dictionaries do it" because, you guessed it, we aren't a paper dictionary and we go far beyond their scope. It might look silly to say "he read" for Hebrew and Arabic entries, but their lemma don't mean "to read". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And do you wish to use these correct meanings throughout or just for Latin and Hebrew verb lemmas? — hippietrail 14:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with opiaterein (14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).​—msh210℠ 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Opiaterein is the first to mention "paper" in this topic. I doubt very much that the choice of wood-based fibre as a publication substrate had a lot of influence on the dictionary compilers deciding between "to" and "I" in verb definitions. The only adjective used to describe the other dictionaries here has been "real dictionaries", to which I might add "professional" and "traditional". I'd say these are the qualities rather than paperness that has led them unaminously to use English infinitives in verb definitions.

Ironically, boldly breaking the "infinitives in definitions" tradition actually holds Wiktionary back to being just like a paper dictionary being only useful for reading as prose. Using the standard form of definitions frees up our data to be used in other applications such as educational software, automatic translation, etc. — hippietrail 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, how hard it is to convert "I x" to "to x" ? --Ivan Štambuk 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin is indeed the easy case since only "to be" is irregular in the English first person singular present. It's a lot worse for languages like Hebrew which use the 3rd person singular present for certain classes of words. Those ending in "y" spring to mind. It would be worse again if there are languages which use a past form as dictionary form. Unless you are arguing for being inconsistent across the various languages perhaps. — hippietrail 03:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

@Opiaterein: I think that's misguided, for two reasons. First, [[nascor]] is not specifically about the verb form nāscor; rather, it's an entry for the entire verb commonly identified by "nāscor" or by "nāscor, nāscī, nātus sum". The English verb commonly identified by "be born" or "to be born" is a perfectly correct translation of that Latin verb. And second, if we really want to go about claiming that [[nascor]] is specifically about the verb form nāscor, then how come we translate it only as "I am born", leaving out "am born" and "I'm being born" and "am being born"? Those are all quite plausible translations of the specific verb form nāscor. (I think y'all are trying to have it both ways; you want the "correct" translation of the specific verb-form, but at some point you give up and just choose the simplest-seeming of the possible translations. msh210 puts in a bit more effort, crafting his definitions in a way that simultaneously covers several possible translations, but even then he gives up long before exhausting the list. And rightly so: a full list would be moronic.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re "[[nascor]] is not specifically about the verb form nāscor; rather, it's an entry for the entire verb": Well, yes, to an extent, but not to the same extent as in other dictionaries. They list only one form of a verb, so it makes sense for them to translate it as an infinitive. We, who aim to list all forms, are differentiating treatment of them by having form-specific info on the definition line for most, but lemma info for one.​—msh210℠ 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the term "lemma" can be a bit confusing. It seems to have too narrow scope. The terms "citation form" and "dictionary form" are better. Compounds and phrases don't really have a single lemma since each of their parts would have a lemma. Dictionary form seems the most practical becuase it just means "the form used in dictionaries", and from looking in lots of dictionaries today I can see that even a passive like "to be born" is a dictionary form but not a lemma. The closest lemma might be "bear" which is not helpful at all.
• One thing that concerns me is that mapping basic forms to inflected forms or sentence fragments restricts Wiktionary to direct human reading. Using it as a resource of data about words would be vastly more complicated. We have the potential to offer the world a multilingual version of something like wordnet. DBpedia is already datamining Wikipedia for information about the world. I would love them to be able to mine Wiktionary for data about the world's languages. We don't have to sacrifice human readability for this. We just have to be like a "real dictionary". — hippietrail 14:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nāscor — AEL

Sorry, EP. The main Old Armenian contributor has changed his mind. I was just monkeying our conventions for Latin before. All Old Armenian dictionaries translate lemma-to-lemma and that's what I think we should do also for Latin and Ancient Greek. That's how all modern Russian dictionaries of la and grc do. Definitions like "I bloom, blossom, flower, froth" as in floreo look awkward and, personally, distract me from understanding translations fast. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We now have a lot of investment in the existing arrangement. Given the present state of affairs, what would change? It makes little difference to what I do. If referring to a Latin verb in an etymology I often use the parameters of {{term}} to show the infinitive of Latin verbs but link to our entry which is not the infinitive. This allows a kind of consistency across languages in the etymology, at least. To me the "to" is very useful in etymology (term) glosses to remind the user that the term is a verb not a noun of the same spelling. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the existing arrangement is inconsistent. Latin and Ancient Greek are (almost) entirely one way; Arabic and Aramaic are (almost) entirely the opposite way; and Hebrew and (Modern) Greek are both internally inconsistent, due to nonuniform or non-constant editor preferences. (There are some other affected languages, such as Old Armenian, but none has very many verb entries SFAIK.) Overall, Latin has by far the best representation of these — almost three times as many verbs as the second-place Hebrew or the close-third-place Aramaic — so I'm pretty confident that the majority of affected entries are the literalist way; but the total number of affected entries is on the order of 2500 or 3000, which in the grand scheme of things is not very many. Whichever group we choose to change (assuming we do reach a consensus to change one group to match the other), it's not like we have to change them all overnight. —Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, verbs inheriting from present active infinitive (as is mostly the case in the descending Romance languages) should be glossed as "to <verb>". Only then one could add, "present active infinitive of {{term|x|y|I <verb>|lang=la}}", to point to Latin lemma form. In cases such as this, it is actually good to have correctly translated Latin etymons. --Ivan Štambuk 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To piggyback off what Ivan has just said: For etymologies, forms of verbs should not be hidden using {{term}}. The compromise described on WT:ALA#Romance language verbs is to give the present active infinitive as the immediate form from which the modern Romance verb derives, but to explicitly indicate that it is the present active infinitive of lemma. Likewise, if it is known that a Spanish (e.g.) noun form derives from the ablative of noun X, a similar construction can be used. When glossing Latin verbs in etymologies, I deliberately leave out the "I" unless it would be akward to make clear the word is a verb, but I keep in mind that some translations can be ambiguous. So, I gloss ferō (“‘carry, bear’”) rather than ferō (“‘bear’”). I never use the infinitive particle "to" when glossing a first principal part of a Latin verb, and I prefer to leave them out of glossing any verb in an etymology, as it's usually just visual noise if the gloss is carefully selected. However, I agree with DCD that there are times where the infinitive particle may be needed (for verbs in English, Spanish, French, etc.) when it isn't clear that the glossed word is a verb. This point might be worth a separate discussion, perhaps at the editable ELE, to make this point of style uniform. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Not sure where to post this, not to interrupt the ongoing discussion) I prefer "to be born" over "I am born", and have been creating "I am born"-like entries only because that is the current Wiktionary practice. The lemma entry stands for the entire word, not for its particular forms. So lemmas should be mapped to lemmas. In addition, Hippietrail tells us this is the actual practice in printed dictionaries. --Dan Polansky 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat a point everyone has overlooked: "born" is not a lemma; the lemma is bear. People who have been arguing for mapping "lemma to lemma" exclusively have not addressed this problem or the similar problems I have pointed out with this approach. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Hippietrail did address this "problem" in one of his comments above, by clarifying that "lemma to lemma" had been the wrong word choice on his part. Secondly, the normal way to translate a verb to English is with an infinitival verb phrase (either bare or full, depending on the dictionary — I prefer full, personally), just as the normal way to define a verb within English is with an infinitival verb phrase. It's hardly a "problem" that the resulting translation or definition is sometimes not an idiom. Thirdly, I'm not sure why you're talking about "born". No one is suggesting that nāscor be translated as "born"; we're suggesting it be translated as "be born". And lastly, this isn't really relevant to the discussion as a whole, but — I think "be born" is idiomatic and should have an entry. When we say "bore him in her womb" we mean "was pregnant with him", but when we say "was born", we mean "was expelled from the womb". Give or take. And the usual past participle of "bear" nowadays is actually "borne", but in this sense we always write "born", which definitely suggests it's taken on a life of its own. —Ruakh_TALK 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Dan's comment imediately above mine? Whatever hippitrail may have said, the people participating in this discussiion are arguing for "lemma to lemma". If that isn't what is being argued, then someone needs to clarify exactly what the point is, because "lemma to lemma" is what people are responding to. Otherwise, that will continue to be the point of discussion, since no alternative has been articulated. --EncycloPetey 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and I think everyone is arguing the same thing, just slightly abusing the word "lemma". Hippietrail suggested "dictionary form", which seems reasonable, though it does beg the question a little.
Your comment seems to imply that you don't understand what we mean, but that seems unlikely. I think, rather, that you're being a stickler for correct use of the word "lemma". And that's fine, if so — pedantry is the stuff that dictionaries are made on, and words like "lemma" are especially good to get right — but I'm not willing to play a sort of protracted game where I try to explain in good faith, and you pretend not to understand what I mean. If you really and truly don't understand, please come out and say so explicitly — and try to say exactly what part you don't understand, please, insofar as you can pin it down — and I'll do my best to explain it for you.
—Ruakh_TALK 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well fine then. If this whole discussion is pedantry, then we can drop it without further discussion. If you are unwilling/unable to clearly state what the discussion is about, then the discussion must not be that important. We can't reach a consensus when different people are all working under different opinons about what the issue is. --EncycloPetey 05:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To me Ruakh seems totally clear: the best citation form is "to be born", because this puts the verb "be" in the infinitive. (It does not require us to put "bear" in the infinitive, that would be crazy for verbs like this.) Whether or not this is called a lemma is a minor secondary point. Ƿidsiþ 10:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To EncycloPetey, unindenting: I admit that lemma is not always used as the translation, which I did not realize before you pointed it out. Nevertheless, lemma is not used at these cases of terms where there is some specific reason to make an exception, as is the case with "to be born". The form "bear" as a lemma seems an oddity to me: a child is born, while the mother gives birth to the child. I would personally be happy to see "be born" as a dictionary entry; I have learned the term as "be born", not as "bear".

Whereas the acceptance of "be born"-like forms instead of the lemma pertains to a fraction of all the terms, the decision to use the present active affects every single verb.

The heuristic rule: map lemma to lemma unless unspecified conditions for an exception are met; yes, the conditions for an exception are left unarticulated. --Dan Polansky 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but here's a true story. I was struggling through a French text, not knowing any French. Fortunately, it was a technical text in my own field, which helps. I came across the word soit and did not know what it meant. (It's the third-person singular subjunctive of "to be", roughly "let it be".) Suppose we chose the subjunctive as our citation form (lemma form, dictionary form). This might seem an outlandish supposition, but which one we choose is just a choice. I mean, the story with soit could have occurred with any other form. So suppose that were our citation form, and we had "to be" on the definition line and, as so many citation-form entries have, no conjugation table. I would have absolutely no idea what the word meant. I can think of two main uses for an anglophone — and remember, English Wiktionary is meant for anglophones — to look up a foreign word's definition (not pronunciation or what-have-you, which is not under discussion here). One, he comes across the word in context, as I did soit. For those purposes, a lemma-to-lemma translation is almost completely useless, as my soit story exemplifies, and a form-to-form translation is useful. Two, he comes across the word out of context, such as in an etymology in enwikt or another dictionary, or standing alone. For those purposes, the lemma-to-lemma translation is better, I'll admit, but the form-to-form translation is still very useful. So the best choice is the form-to-form translation.​—msh210℠ 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point a bit. nascor is a lemma form: the question is how to translate that into English in its definition line. soit is not a lemma form, and the translation will always say "subjunctive form of" etc., directing you to être where you can see a full declension table for the verb. English-French is easy because both languages use infinitives as lemmas, but in Latin that's not the case. Ƿidsiþ 09:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he gets the point; he just disagrees. Nāscor is a lemma form, but it's also a form someone could conceivably come across in actual reading — someone, say, who might have no knowledge of Latin besides what they can piece together from knowledge of Western Romance languages. If such a someone saw it translated as "to be born", they might wrongly infer that it's the infinitive — it even kind of looks like a Romance infinitive, with that <-r> at the end — and fail to understand the sentence. To be honest, this is the only argument I find even remotely convincing. (I'd find it more convincing if the affected languages weren't just so different from English in such features as case and word order and pronoun usage and proclitic prepositions, the sort of features that make it basically impossible to read a text without some knowledge of the language beyond what you can learn by naively looking up individual words. Like, if Scots used a different lemma, I'd find this a much more compelling argument; but Classical and Semitic languages, not so much.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, all Latin verbs are supposed to have conjugation tables which explicitly mention that, e.g. nascor is 1st person present active indicative and nasci is the infinitive. This further reduces the possibility of the confusion Ruakh mentions can happen. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Yes, Ruakh, you understood me correctly.) Yes, Vahagn, they should have conjugations, but they don't. or maybe Latin does (I don't know), but others don't.​—msh210℠ 15:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As with those before me, I'm not sure if this is the best place to insert this comment, but.. My apologies EP, as I'm sure you'll be kicking yourself now, for inviting me to this discussion, but I'm starting to think that mapping lemma to lemma is, in fact the best practice (putting aside the nuanced, inane distinctions between lemma, dictionary form, citation form, etc. Come on, we all know what's being discussed here). As someone already mentioned, and I think that this is the real crux of the argument, the entry at [[nascor]] is not about the first person singular present active form, it's about all the forms, viewed collectively. If this were not the case, I'd have to wonder why there's a "passive" contag at ἐξαφανίζω. ἐξαφανίζω is not passive, it's active. I think that the distinction between a collection of words, and the specific word cited is one which we often fail to recognize, and it's something which will probably come back to bite us if we're not careful. EP, I think your bit about "more good" is a silly tangent. "More good" is not a lemma in English, it's a disallowed construction. However, it does, inadvertently, raise a good point. If we do decide to do lemma-to-lemma translations, then we have to allow a certain flexibility. For example, we need to allow passive translations, when the active/passive status is different between an entry and its English equivalent. Additionally, "full of rabbit" does not work, for obvious reasons, and yet I would probably put "full of [[rabbit|rabbits]]", as [[rabbits]] is a pretty useless entry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Atelaes, I my be disappointed that you have taken the boneheaded side of the argument, but I'd still rather have you participating in this discussion than not. As one of the individuals whose edits could be radically affected by the outcome of this discussion, you need to be here. You also have a knack for clarity of expression and for spotting issues and angles that others miss (including myself). So, whether you are agreeable or oppositional, I refuse to kick myself over asking you to participate. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with labels such as (passive) in the definition lines, marking additional, special meaning that the verb takes in what is otherwise a regularly derived morphological category. For Sanskrit I use some well-defined templates such as {{causative}}, {{desiderative}}, {{intensive}} (I wonder why there is no {{passive}} yet) to mark such. (e.g. at the bottom of the entries तिष्ठति or रोचते). The "normal" senses also make those moods/voices using the regular morphology, but it's pointless to separate those derived verbal stems in their own separate entries. They're all translated as English infinitive forms, with a rather liberal usage of copulae as well as additional words that can be used to convey the meaning (i.e. causative as "to cause to x"). (With all that in mind, I'd actually want to see "be born" sense listed at the entry for bear!) Of course, if the verb is in its inflection defective in some form, confined only to a particular category, such labels are completely unnecessary in the definition lines, and such information properly belongs to the headword itself (i.e. the inflection line). --Ivan Štambuk 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Err... slightly off topic, Ivan, but I want to reply to your last sentence about mentioning the type of defectiveness in the inflection line. I knew when I started working on Latin verbs that there would be problems with the irregular and defective froms, but did not appreciate the scale of the problem until I'd actually worked on them for a while. I think Caladon has an appreciation of these difficulties as well. There are more patterns of defectiveness in Latin verbs than any dictionary or textbook ever made clear to me. Yes, some patterns have simple terms to describe them, such as verbs with only passive conjugation (deponent), or verbs that are active only, or ones that are impersonal, or those that are inchoative. But there are scads of others for which no concise explanation exists, such as those that lack all forms derived from the second, third, and fourth principal parts, or those that lack a perfective conjugation, or those whose passive conjugation is limited to third-person forms (and somtimes just the singular forms of those). For a highly inflected language like Latin, there are just too many complicated ways that a verb can be defective to cover all the possibilities on the inflection line in a template (even with added text). For the simple to explain situations, I will mark that pattern on the verb's inflection line, but for many of the complicated verbs, I put that information into the Inflection subsection only. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An afterthought: one thing is obscured by the fact that the present-tense first-person form of an English verb is actually the same as its infinitive form: "swim" is the same form in "I swim" or "to swim". So it turns out that by linking the verb form after "I " like "I [[swim]]", we link it to the lemma of the verb. This is not so in highly inflected languages. In German, it would read "Ich schwimme", whereas the lemma is "schwimmen". The markup in a German dictionary would probably have to be "Ich [[schwimmen|schwimme]]". How much ugly this looks depends on taste, but it is a complication of the form-to-form approach, as contrasted to lemma-to-lemma-with-exceptions approach. --Dan Polansky 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The same is true in enwikt with other languages, such as Hebrew, which uses a past-tense form as its citation form. (This is not a change of heart from my opinion as stated above. I'm just saying, is all.)​—msh210℠ 15:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So, then, I have to ask the folks who are arguing for grammatically specific translations, what would you do for languages where the citation form is a past tense (or any other tense). Would you do "he [[swims|swim]]" or "he [[swims]]". I guess I hadn't realized that the first person present is also the same as the infinitive in English, and so us classicists hadn't come up against this issue. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I link to the citation form and display the conjugated form.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] army

IMO, sense #3 and #5 are more or less the same, and could easily be combined. Hell, even #4 could be mixed in, as the only distinction is that it be animal or human. I think this would make the page a lot easier to read (and a lot easier to formulate translations too). Opinions? Tooironic 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - delete senses 3 and 4, expand 5 a little with e.g. "especially when working towards a common purpose". SemperBlotto 11:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sweetness and light

Can someone pleasey please make an entry for this idiom? There is a whole wikipedia page you can consult, with heaps of usages and a comprehensive etymology. I have a modern quotation to add for it, so we could really make something beautiful here. Tooironic 12:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Put the quotation in Citations:sweetness and light for now. I believe there is a list or category of items that have citations, but not entries. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding {{citation}} to that citations page will so categorize it.​—msh210℠ 16:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] grasshopper

Please help me break up the etymologies of the different senses. I just created #3 with a quotation. I have feeling it was made famous in that Karate Kid movie but I'm not sure... Tooironic 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I think there's no need to have more etymologies - I have changed {{idiom}} into {{figurative}}, as I believe, an idiom cannot be a single word. --Volants 12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] thibilant

Does "thibilant" refer to dental fricatives or sibilant fricatives, like shibilants? I've come across some contradictory information when trying to clobber up a simple wikt definition. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that it is a dental fricative, sometimes called an interdental fricative. SemperBlotto 09:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Th is pretty systemetically called an interdental. "s" can be a dental! (all it needs is for the tip of the tongue to reach the teeth as opposed to just the ridge behind them, although most such sounds are described as alveolar for convenience, interdentals are not typically called just dentals). —This unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
    • w:Voiceless dental fricative disagrees with you; and w:Interdental consonant agrees with you about American English, but suggests that the British realizations of /θ/ and /ð/ may not be interdental at all. So, there seems to be some variation in the terminology. —Ruakh_TALK 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Animal noises as interjections

Should stuff like woof, meow, miaow, baa, moo, maa and whatnot be listed as interjections? Meow and woof have human meanings, some are not listed as interjections, and some are. I mean baa is not an interjection for a human being. If one of these were to get RFV'ed then, what would happen? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify the issues, and forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I see that there are two issues here. There are three categories of such words:

1. Some, like low, are verbs or nouns only, and are not used to represent the sound of the animal. What to do about those is clear imo: include them as nouns/verbs.
2. Others, perhaps, are only used to represent that sound, and never (attestably) as a verb or noun.
3. The majority, I suspect, are used as both.

The two issues I see are:

• What to do about the noun sense for the third category. It not be inclusible, as it might be like the "noun" jumping Jehoshaphat in the sentence "He was full of jumping Jehoshaphats that day, screaming the phrase every other minute.".
• What to do about the interjection-like sense in the third category, or about the second category.

This second issue has been bugging me a bit for some time, and I think Interjection as a POS header is the best we can do unless we invent a new one ("Representation of animal sound", anyone?).​—msh210℠ 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That last point is especially good. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The class of items is perhaps somewhat broader than what Msh210 refers to, also including noises involuntarily made by humans or by parts of the body other than the vocal mechanism and sounds of machines and of inanimate nature. If I utter "kaboom" in the course of telling a story, that isn't an interjection in the sense of the normal definition, which requires that it carry a speaker's emotion.

But the issues are as stated. I have taken to making categories (sometimes hidden ones) for entries that are not good fits with the PoS under which we present them. For English phrases i have Category:English sentences, Category:English subordinate clauses, Category:English coordinates, and Category:English non-constituents, among others. Perhaps Category:English representations of non-speech sounds (or something briefer) would do while we pondered the possibilities. The category would be useful to track the ones that we already have and provide grist for the mill.

My own preference would be to make these things all nouns. Any noun can be used as interjections (in the sense of an utterance not grammatically part of a sentence). All of these things can be used as nouns (whether or not attestably so). "His kabooms made the children squeal." DCDuring TALK 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] universalising mother

Would there be any problem universalising (species-wise) sense 1 by changing
"A female that conceives, gives birth to, or raises a child" to "A female that conceives, gives birth to, or raises young"? (Then we can delete def 5: "A female parent of an animal." and move the quotation ("The lioness was a mother of four cubs.") to sense 1.)
Also, I think that the use of "mother" to mean "pregnant woman" (i.e. "female that conceives") is different enough from the meaning "a female who has given birth to, or raised young" to require a separate def.--Tyranny Sue 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)--Tyranny Sue 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth giving "human mother" its own sense, because I imagine that its application to other animals is by extension. Even if that's not the case historically, I feel like it's the case in current usage. (Actually, I think the primary sense is our current sense #2, where "mother" is relative to the son(s) and/or daughter(s), as in "my mother", "their mother", etc. Consider a phrase like "a face that only a mother could love", where "mother" is implied to be the face's owner's mother, even though there's no explicit possessive.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Ruakh. DCDuring & I are discussing it on the mother talk page. I will try to incorporate your suggestion.--Tyranny Sue 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] read

What about read in the sense of "for example". "Many actors have tried their hand at playing Abraham Lincoln (read: John Carradine, Henry Fonda and Brendan Fraser)." Does this usage really exist, or is it all in my head? Tooironic 14:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen it used to mean "for example", quite, but there is a similar usage, that we don't seem to cover, that basically offers a sort of "translation":

• [18] Sadly for Dug though, he doesn’t have the personality or skill set (read: he’s too sweet, goofy, and innocent) to fit in.
• [19] […] ; among other things, he developed household uses for powdered gelatin (read: he invented Jell-O), […]
• [20] "We (read: "you") will simply have to learn to do more, with less..."

I assume the origin is in the use of "for ____, read ____" in errata/corrigenda:

There is a typo in the third paragraph of page 7. For "Abraham Linkin", read "Abraham Lincoln".

(see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=n98_AAAAIAAJ&pg=PP17&dq=read), which sometimes bridges the gap between the senses:

• [21] For "nice" read "the least they could do."

but they might just be separate-but-related uses. We don't seem to cover either one.

BTW, Spanish has a similar, easier-to-search-for usage: check out google news:"léase". However, I think of English pseudo-translation "read" as pretty informal, whereas I don't get that impression at all about Spanish léase.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is (at least in the pages of some other dictionaries) a verb sense for this. What is the form/pronunciation for this: imperative/"reed" or past participle/"red"? If it is another part of speech, perhaps some species of adverb, the pronunciation question remains. It does seem to serve a discourse-directing/structuring function, like for example et al. I have put some others like this in Category:English discourse markers. Would that be appropriate for this? Does the category need a different name or membership? DCDuring TALK 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was pronounced as the imperative, but now that you ask, I'm not sure. And, I don't know what part of speech it is; etymology argues for verb, and no other POS seems to be screaming out dibs on it, so I think I'd go with that. (As for the discourse marker thing, someone else will have to address that. I really don't know what the right criteria are for identifying those.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only imagine this being used orally in a scholarly setting or among actors. Perhaps we could ask in some WP scholars' and actors' forums. Working from writing would mean we'd be dependent on rhymes, which don't come up in the use context.

Perhaps we should put candidate discourse markers into the category until we have enough to be worth worrying about, but not so many as to be hard to correct. Some of our more interesting entries do not have obvious PoSs and/or are not constituents. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Added it in as an adverb, since that's what we have that is and in other words listed as. Circeus 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added an {{informal}} tag, and a b.g.c. cite. I've also added the verb sense I brought up, and a b.g.c. cite for it as well. —Ruakh_TALK 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] domestic cat et al.

domestic cat, domesticated animal, domestic animal and some others that I haven't found yet (but will). Are these idiomatic? If I want to know what a domesticated cat is, why can't I just look up domesticated and cat? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

domestic duck and domestic pigeon. Note that domestic pigeon is the synonym of feral pigeon. Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with living creatures, we have many entries sub-divided way down to minor species level. Just look at some of the bird entries, for example. "Domestic cat" is following the same CFI ..

1. Genus Felis

• Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis bieti)
• Domestic Cat (Felis catus)
• Jungle Cat (Felis chaus)
• Pallas's Cat (Felis manul)
• Sand Cat (Felis margarita)
• Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes)
• Wildcat (Felis silvestris)

I must admit I can't find any entry for domesticated cat, so feel free to just look up domesticated and cat.

domesticated animal, and domestic animal are separate issues. Please could you separate them, instead of lumping them all together? Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 14:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "me" that separates them, you can just start a new paragraph, as can anyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of a new paragraph. Each term to be considered should be in a separate BP section to begin with. Lumping them together leads to confusion as to just what is being discussed. --EncycloPetey 06:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] douse

dunk is a perfect synonym to this word

Not perfect, but certainly a possible synonym for the first sense. Do we split synonyms by sense? Dbfirs 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

* {{sense|some gloss}} [[synonym]], [[synonym]] AFAIK.​—msh210℠ 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] spreadeagle

The verb spreadeagle is listed as alternative spelling of the adjective spread-eagle. Since hyphenation in English is something wherewith I do not consider myself conversant, I plea for resolving this issue. Are both words adjectives, both verbs or (if the parts of speech are ok) this is no alternative spelling. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There should also be a verb at spread-eagle. That seems to be the more common form for the verb by nearly 2:1. (I compared "spread-eagling" with "spreadeagling".) We should have at least a noun entry at spread eagle. "Spread-eagle" serves as an adverb as well, I think. I don't think "spreadeagle" serves and noun, adjective, or adverb frequently enough to be worth sections for those PoSs, though it might prove attestable. "Spread-eagled" seems to be an adjective (used in comparatives), too.

This jumble is not the most typical pattern of hyphen use in English, but it is one of the patterns. There is a certain level of predictability to it, but one I wouldn't be so bold as to pretend I could adequately explain. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] article of dress

This is up for deletion on fr:article of dress, however nobody can actually work out what it means, the definition is too vague. Anybody care to work out what this means? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual phrase in English is article of clothing, not article of dress. It's sum of parts, as far as I'm concerned, since it's also a piece of clothing, item of clothing, etc. --EncycloPetey 06:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] save oneself

I just created this slang entry - does it look right to you guys? Any comments are welcome. Tooironic 07:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Idiom, yes; slang, no. DCDuring TALK 13:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] code words

Are entries like language code, currency code and country code idiomatic? I'm unsure. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Our current definition for currency code is "A three-letter designation assigned by ISO standard 4217 denoting a given currency" which, if it's correct and complete, means the term is idiomatic.​—msh210℠ 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] URL

I just noticed we only had URL classified as an initialism, which is how I use it. But on webcasts I've heard others use it as an acronym pronounced the same as earl.

I've always felt that our division between acronyms and initialisms at the part-of-speech level was another case of us being over-fussy, over-literal, hair-splitting, etc, but lacked any good examples why. This seems to be one such example. Other dictionaries just use "acronym" for both but distinguish them from "abbreviations" where we attempt to separate all three.

I've gone ahead and added it as an acronym but it makes the page look pretty silly since it's still only really one word with one sense.

Any way to fix it breaks one or another of our layout rules. Besides the way I've done it which makes it look like two homonyms we could add a new part-of-speech such as "Acronym and initialism" or "Initialism or Acronym".

Then again as we know neither acronym nor initialism are actually parts of speech. They are just a couple of examples of non-POS terms which can go into the field which usually contains part of speech. Most but not all acronyms and initialisms are nouns, which is a part of speech.

Perhaps another way to tackle such problems is to distinguish more clearly the differences between "dictionary entry types" and "word types" where the latter is a subset of the former and the former and the latter is much closer to "part of speech". Another area where this lack of distinction seems to cause subtle problems is "word as a whole" entries vs. "word form" entries. — hippietrail 02:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for your interest, we French Wiktionarians never use acronym, initialism, or abbreviation as word class. URL is a noun, that’s all. Why don’t you do it in the same way? - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One reason is that it saves on space at the start of the entry. A heading of "initialism" simultaneously indicates the etymology and pronunciation without requiring either of those sections be added, which puts the "definitions" closer to the top of the page. If we classified URL as a noun, then it requires an etymology and pronunciation section be added at the outset of the article. The same thing often is true of abbreviations. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Words found in an article about a Pharmaceutical Company

PLEASE I NEED HELP IN UNDERSTANDING A FEW WORDS, PART OF AN ARTICLE, WHICH TRANSLATION I HAVE TO SUBMIT FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A JOB. I´LL PUT THE WORDS AMONG PARENTHESIS.

"ORGANON, THE HUMAN PHARMACEUTICAL UNIT OF OBS, WAS A STRONG GLOBAL OPERATION WITH IMPRESSIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND (_LATE-STAGE PIPELINE ),WHILE THE COMPANY´S ANIMAL HEALTH UNIT,INTERVET, WAS A (POWERHOUSE) IN ITS SECTOR, WITH CUTTING-EDGE VACCINE CAPABILITIES.

THANKS FOR ANY HELP YOU CAN GIVE ME —This comment was unsigned.

1. late - stage pipeline = Products that are almost ready to come to market (generating cash soon thereafter).
2. powerhouse - something notable, but not able to be labeled by something unambiguous like "market leader". DCDuring TALK 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] polar cone

CAn any mathematics make some sense of this entry? --Volants 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten it in English. It's not perfect, but I think it's about as well as can be done, given (1) that understanding of the term requires understanding of the underlying math, and (2) that it's one of those terms, like mother (“‘female parent’”) or antecedent (“‘what a pronoun points back to’”) or reciprocal (“‘multiplicative inverse’”), that's defined relative to something else ("my mother", "this pronoun's antecedent", "the reciprocal of four"), which generally makes for a very awkward definition, as there's no easy way to indicate the something-else in the definition. —Ruakh_TALK 18:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a hypernym to start from: w:Cone (linear algebra), so we don't necessarily require a mathematical description, but we would need the matching definition at cone. Circeus 05:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] as far as one knows

1) Should it be translated as as far as one knows OR as far as I know? Because there's a contradiction here in the translation table. 2) The example sentence - John could be dead as far as I know. - doesn't really give the same idea/mood as "To the best of one's knowledge." does it? The implicature is more "I don't care" or something to that effect IMO. Tooironic 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Snickers & Toblerone

Should these two - and other ones like it - be considered nouns or proper nouns? Tooironic 06:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks. — hippietrail 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but one comes up as Noun, the other Proper noun, so which one is it? Tooironic 08:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cinemascope

Not really sure what I'm doing here. Would really love it if someone would take a look, make sure I'm on the right track. Tooironic 13:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the example sentence, it looks like a noun to me. SemperBlotto 08:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah I think you're right... anyone else agree? Tooironic 08:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] runs in the family

Not sure if this is covered in run, or should it get its own entry as runs in the family? Tooironic 08:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Idiom dictionaries have it, but not the regular OneLook dictionaries. We would have it at the lemma form "to run in the family". An applicable sense does not appear among the 31 senses of run#Verb that we have. This is not too surprising as MWOnline has about 42 intransitive senses (including subsenses and sub-subsenses) of "run" and 38 transitive ones. MWOnline and Encarta includes a sense "recur" which they illustrate with "run in the family". MWOnline also has a distinct related sense illustrated by "They run to big noses in that family". (We don't have that at run to, BTW). DCDuring TALK 10:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I overlooked that idiom entry. I'm sure that will suffice. Thanks! Tooironic 06:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We didn't have it until you pointed out it was missing. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] leucismus ?

Hi everybody.

Is this word an english word ? That's what I found for translating French leucisme (partial albinism) on Reverso, English-French & French-English.

I'd expected leucism, as said in the article albinism.

Thanks for your help. --Szyx 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Leucismus seems to be used in German, leucismus in Latin. The English leucism can be found in several books. [22] One or two seem to use leucismus in English. --Moyogo 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see also w:leucism. Ƿidsiþ 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] figured

Does everyone agree with the adjective sense I added for this word? And have I done the formatting correctly? (Sorry, I know I've been spamming the Tea Room lately, but I am a perfectionist.) Cheers. Tooironic 06:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your def was worded as a noun, but you correctly had the PoS as adjective. I have given two senses worded as adjective. The second of the new senses includes the first. The first is closer to the wood sense. I have heard figured most often about wood, but I thought of granite and other stone. Other dictionaries mention textiles as "figured". I think the second sense should be sufficient if we have good usage examples or citations showing the range of materials that can be "figured".

Also, it is probably attestable as a comparative. Finally, though WT:ELE specifies alphabetical order for PoSs, I moved the Verb ahead of the Adjective as an ersatz etymology. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It's great to get some feedback. I'm still struggling a bit with creating the odd English entry, so all you wise ones please feel free to edit as you see fit. Cheers again. Tooironic 00:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gabi

The entry for magnum has (Gabi) in the heading after magnums. Is this supposed to mean something? RJFJR 15:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It was introduced by anon 193.110.30.134 along with a false plural, so I assume that it is vandalism, unless someone else knows something about Gabi that I don't? Has it really been there for nearly four years? Dbfirs 16:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So much for our error detection. I "boldly" cleaned up the entry and inserted a well-known (albeit not exactly appropriate) quote. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RPMs

What kind of entry would we have for RPMs? Is it a plural? But is RPM a noun? If it's a plural what is being pluralled, the minutes, the revolutions, the number of measurements of RPM? Is it just the spelling of how it is often prnounced in use? RJFJR 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an either-or situation, as far as I'm concerned. There are quite a few initialisms that can be pluralized, but this case happens to also have a meaning as well, as it can stand for revolutions per minute. However, my experience is that RPM is the norm for representing both the singular revolution... as well as revolutions... and is used more like a unit of measure than anything. That doesn't really help to settle the question, of cource, but I don't have a settled opinon on how we should handle this sort of situation. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RPMs is obviously in widespread use and would be readily attestable. It is used as a plural of the noun RPM the PoS of which we do not provide for users, as with almost all abbreviations, as if it could be assumed that users would know. This assumption and the presentation might be justifiable for abbreviations of proper nouns, but is harder to justify for abbreviations of terms that are other PoSs. The sense is clearly that revolutions is being pluralized but its pronunciation is just like that of "ABCs".

I can't tell for sure, but there seems to be a higher relative frequency of the use of RPMs for readings of the actual number of revolutions per minute and lower-to-nil for theoretical or nominal RPM. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] us

What's going on with the translations here in the objective case (i.e. French & Italian)? Surely's that's TMI? Tooironic 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 〈 and 〉

We have 〈 and 〉 as angle brackets, and list them in a template of Western punctuation. However they (along with 《, 》, ︿, ﹀, ︽, and ︾) are actually CJK punctuation, used for book titles & the like.

I didn't want to just switch them around, in case there's some technical issue I'm not aware of, but shouldn't we have ⟨, ⟩ as the Western angle brackets in the template, and clarify that 〈, 〉 are CJK? kwami 06:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like a technical problem. Wiktionary appears to be treating U+2329 〈 (Western angle bracket) the same as U+3008 〈 (CJK). I tried changing them at Template:punctuation, and it didn't even register as an edit. kwami 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a technical problem. I could move the pages to the right places no problem... Circeus 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] postcode

I'm trying to find a good way to add a definition to cover the following usage.

• The Environment Agency says it is mainly the most deprived postcodes that are the most flood-prone. (The Guardian; 3 July 2007; Polly Toynbee) -- ALGRIF talk 13:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "(by extension) The region denoted by a postcode". They are often mentioned with regard to school catchment areas. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good one. I'll go with that. Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sécrèter and sécréter

What’s the difference between the French homœographs sécrèter and sécréter? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT sécréter exists, the other one is a mistake. It might be attestable though. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No I can't find a durable use of it, permission to kill it please. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. What’s all that stuff in the conjugation section about? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The verb has a regular phonetic alternation: French does not allow /e/ in closed syllables, so it becomes /ɛ/ in those endings where the next syllables contains a spelled, but unpronounced /ə/. Circeus 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, I think… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, the singular indicative goes je/tu/il /sekret/ sécrét- + ∅ (spelled e/es). Because */sekret/ is disallowed by French phonology, it becomes /sekrɛt/ with spelling adjusted accordingly hence je sécrète, tu sécrètes, il sécrète. And so on. Circeus 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that’s pretty much what I took from your first explanation; thanks for the further clarification, which makes me confident that I understand you. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gather pollen

Is there a single word in English, meaning to gather pollen. The French is butiner (definition: to go from flower to flower collecting pollen). --Rising Sun 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not a single word as far as I know. butiner has other meanings as well: to pilfer, glean, gather, pick up, plunder, loot, pillage. Compare butin, which is the noun. —Stephen 09:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, these meanings are given as "dated" in Trésor, and I'd wager "archaic" given they are not even in my 2007 Petit Robert. What I find fascinating of butiner is that it is an accusative ambitransitive (instead of an ergative), which is rare in French. Circeus 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] serve somebody right

Some translations here don't seem to match the verb definition. Especially French bien fait and Italian ti sta bene! (maybe translation as "serves you right"?). German jemandem gerecht geschehen is probably needing change to jemandem gerecht geschehen, but Portuguese seems fine. The other languages, I can't tell you about. --Volants 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese is fine, though it might not seem "right" to someone who doesn't know Chinese as it doesn't include the word "somebody" (in Mandarin, this verb translates into one word, simply, 活该). Dunno about the other languages. Tooironic 07:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] let someone know

Came up in the faire savoir deletion debate. According to let, let is only used with the meaning make in the construction let know. Does it need the someone or not? As pedantic as it sounds, it doesn't always have to be someone, you can tell your cat or your dog know something. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be an entity that can be regarded as having private knowledge or beliefs. A computer system, particularly an AI system, is a definite possibility. I don't know of any significant usages, though. Pingku 15:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC

"Someone" often includes mammals. I behooves a dog-owner to "let the dog know who is boss". One can certainly let a group, organization, or system know. Don't most semantic restrictions to people either start our licensing such extension or aren't they softened to do so? DCDuring TALK 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my secondary comment. What I really want to know is, what should the entry be? Seems idiomatic enough if you read the current version of WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You provided the lead for the "digression", which hardly makes it OT. Furthermore, if one can't follow the discussion where it leads, it simply isn't that much fun to participate. I don't come here to be scolded.

Your sole question was whether it needed the "someone". It does and it does not need "something" for the limited extensions, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I went for let know because it has more linked pages. I suspect there are a lot of verbs that always need an object, but we only add "someone" for multi-part verbs like this. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a mandatorily double-object construction (SoP though it may be). The something can be omitted only anaphorically. Conditionally accepting the headword, what should the inflection line, "context" tags, usage examples, and/or usage notes say to convey that to a serious first-time user. I have seem some uses of "bitransitive" as a "context tag", but it is much too rare for actual users.

My McGraw-Hill idiom dictionary presents it as:

let someone know (about something).

The portion in parentheses is the problem. It is not really optional, though it would seem so to a normal user. The "about" could be omitted or replaced by "of". And "something" can be any or a few types of nominals, including a clause. "Of" works only with some types of nominals, "about" with more, clauses take neither.

The idiom dictionary's usage examples help, illustrating the anaphoric use with a question and answer. They don't show a clause.

My preference is for a few usage examples, nearly minimal-difference pairs, to highlight differences in grammar. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you search for the term "someone" in Wiktionary, you'll find a plenty of model phrases for this case, or at least they seem to bear some analogy to "let someone know":

• burst someone's bubble
• light someone's fire
• grease someone's palm
• tie someone's hands
• ... etc.

There are also cases that use the term "somebody", but less common. --Dan Polansky 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nearest and dearest

Should we have an entry for this? I suppose it's idiomatic. I am not certain about the part of speech; it is probably adjectival, but almost always used in a noun position ("one's nearest and dearest", like "the rich" or "the ugly"). Equinox ◑ 18:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you could do the adjective lemma for this near and dear, with a count at COCA of 94 vs. 50 (47%) for superlative and 2 (2%) for comparative. But, obviously, the superlative relative frequency indicates that the superlative is what is most distinctive. Compare the frequencies of "dear"'s forms (14,492; 59 (0.4%); 851 (6%)). Two Cambridge idiom dictionaries have the superlative, but define it as a noun. Perhaps both the adjective lemma and the noun use of the superlative merit entries, especially in the new anything goes regime. DCDuring TALK 11:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] biotrauma

I am suspicious of our definition. Compare Wikipedia's. Equinox ◑ 04:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been taken to RFV. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Audit schmaudit

I read this phrase in a YouTube discussion. The author probably invented it on the spur, so schmaudit would hence constitue a nonce word, or the entire phrase would. Now, that aside, I recognize in this a pattern which originates in Jiddisch-English circles. Does it have a name? __meco 09:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Name shmame. It is what it is. Which is to say: I don't know, but eagerly await a respoonse. DCDuring TALK 10:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that is called w:Shm-reduplication, though while WP uses 'shm' as examples I've always seen it as 'schm'. L☺g☺maniac chat? 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

name schmame indeed. It does an entry. But entry schmentry, I say. --Rising Sun 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Honorless

honorless (adjective) definition: Destitute of honor; not honored.

examples 1."Over the years we too have made bargains with the honorless and wicked to try and save someone that we love, Lady Liberty." -Capitol Hill Coffee House

2."No longer the careless, handsome youth, nor the honorless man, but the power." -The Rose in the Ring

3."Nocte is a society of the honorless and shameless, and the woman who belongs to it is no longer pure." -The Youth of the Great Elector

4."I'd guess that for every person won over by the boundless and honorless scaremongering, there's a previously fence-sitting voter wholly put off (and pissed off) by it all, to the point where he'll pull the letter for Obama a week from today." -Libertarian Blog Place

5."German spies in this country -- more alarming in its results thus far than the blowing up of munition factories, the setting afire of grain elevators, the enticing of Mexico -- has been the honorless skill with which they have fed the American mind upon the idea of a disgruntled." -Where the Souls of Men are Calling

Added honourless, honorless. The citations above (from Webster 1913) could be added if somebody wants to do it. Equinox ◑ 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bullet as verb

Bulleted says it is the simple past of bullet; but bullet doesn't have a verb sense. Do we need to remove one or add the other? RJFJR 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there is a verb form meaning to put bullet points into a document. Needs to be attested. -- ALGRIF talk 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added the lemma with 3 senses. There may be more. None are terribly surprising. I have found cites for the bullet-point sense. I have called them all informal, though they appear in edited works; that might be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] at ease

I have just added the definition, "(military) (of a standing soldier) in a relaxed position with the feet apart rather than at attention".

It also has (previous to my entry) a definition "(military) Allowed to refrain from being in rigid formation." . I personally don't think this meaning is correct, rather that my meaning is correct. But I don't want to wipe out the previous meaning without checking.

What are your thoughts ?--Richardb 22:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First, your definition conforms to my understanding better than the earlier one. But I don't trust my understanding. It is possible that there is more than one meaning (different situations, services, and countries). Perhaps we should let it remain for a time here, before RfVing the earlier sense.

Second, it gives me a grammatical headache. There is a noun, for which I have added two senses. I do not want to call the command a verb, but it might be considered one: a shortening of the imperatives "be at ease" or "stand at ease". In the case of attention, we do not have an explicit entry for the command; we only have the noun. Though we overuse the "interjection" part of speech, this, "attention", and "ten hut/ten-hut" and "ten-shun", and any other commands not given as the imperative form of verbs probably should be interjections. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cobbler

• From shoemaker: "A person who repairs shoes is a cobbler."
• From w:Cobbler: "A shoemaker who repairs shoes, rather than manufacturing them"
• From cobbler: "A person who makes and repairs shoes."

Does anyone know if, in fact, cobblers make shoes or not? --Yair rand 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

From my genealogical searching I found out that a Cobbler only repairs shoes, or cobbles shoes together by re-using old leather. A cordwainer was a person who made shoes from new Cordoba leather. But I think we only call them shoe makers these days, if they still exist outside of process workers in a factory.--Richardb 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that a cobbler only repairs shoes. SemperBlotto 11:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (p.s. my father was a clicker but could repair shoes if he felt like it)

Okay, I'm changing the entry to say "A person who repairs shoes". --Yair rand 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 2009

[edit] lieutenant

It seems to me that all these senses except the last one (which should be the first one) could be combined into one definition saying something like, ‘A military rank below that of captain, now often having various sub-divisions’. The numerous differences between countries and services seem borderline-encyclopaedic and not really to do with what the word lieutenant means. Ƿidsiþ 07:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And the adjective is just attributive use.

Some non-military have military ranks: police and fire, some fraternal organizations (?), Salvation Army, etc. In many organizations it is the lowest of a set of marked ("commissioned officer") ranks that are "above" any non-com ranks. I think that our wording should allow for such things. Other systematic information about ranks in a given service seems to belong either in Appendices here or in WP. I would think that we would want a to such or to one or more indices of such. When complete, this discussion should go on its talk page, so the energies of would-be contributors can be productive. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] love letter? XD

Ok I know this might be more suited to translation requests but I think it'll get better attention here anyway... Here goes nothing...

Incidentally the book I was bought for Physics this year was second hand. Upon nosing through it prior to my return to school I found what seems to be a mini love letter/note (in Spanish no less!). Here's a transcription (please be ready to check for spelling errors and the like because the handwriting is a bit diabolical :/):

Para Marta,

Mi hermanita! ¿Que tal? Yo muy bien, sin cole! Bueno lo primero que tengo que decirte es que te quiero muchisimo y te eano mas de menos aun

So there, any ideas? 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"For Marta, my little sister! How it's going? I'm fine, [except for school? not having school?]! Well, the main thing I have to say is that I love you very much and I miss you [even more than previously?]." Equinox ◑ 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks...I was kinda wrong then XD 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where that letter of mine got to. If you can, forward it to Marta. --Rising Sun talk? 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, what?! XD Are you joking or serious? ^_^ Does this mean you've secretly learned some Spanish? And that you live in Ireland? ROFL, that'd be soo freaky...! 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] co-citation

Is this really what it is? Google Books suggests it is something else (or something in addition). Equinox ◑ 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] boobocracy

Ety says "blend of booboisie and mobocracy". Can that be right? Surely it's just booby (fool) + -o- + -cracy. Equinox ◑ 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it an H L Mencken coinage (US)? Accordingly it must be from "boob", which is the way we have been saying it for a while. I think Mencken also coined "booboisie", but not "mobocracy". DCDuring TALK 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cashew

Has a third translation gloss "pseudo-fruit" with one Vietnamese entry. Any ideas what to do with it, anyone? -- ALGRIF talk 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] child

Currently we have:
2. An unborn or young person, a minor, especially one who has not yet entered into puberty.
Using 'child' to refer to a(n unborn) fetus/embryo is (aside from the contentiousness of implicitly using "unborn person") very distinct from using it to refer to a born child that has grown beyond babyhood (this is what I think would be the standard meaning), and therefore I think warrants a separate definition, something like:
3. Sometimes used to refer to an embryo or fetus, in anticipation of its birth and growth beyond babyhood. --Tyranny Sue 23:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to splitting the senses like this (but I'd drop the "sometimes used to refer to"). Equinox ◑ 23:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. More discussion about this is at the talk page.--Tyranny Sue 00:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] alogical

2nd definition, "opposed to logic". Isn't that illogical? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The OED has
  • alogical - "Non-logical; not based upon reason or formed by an act of judgement; opposed to logic. Also absol., that which is alogical."
  • illogiical - "Not logical; devoid of or contrary to logic; ignorant or negligent of the principles of sound reasoning." SemperBlotto 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chambers has: alogical - outside the domain of logic. Being opposed to logic makes some sense in such domains. Pingku 13:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] translate

I think we are missing two non-transitive senses here: to change by translation ("dog translates into French as chien") and something similar but figurative that I can't quite define (e.g. "the resulting economic improvement for Turkey will, in the end, translate into economic benefits for the EU as a whole"). Equinox ◑ 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at them. Please take a look and revise. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] offing

Sense 3: "Nearby; at hand" ("The fasting month is offing.") This is under the Noun heading, which cannot be right. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The usage example makes little sense and fits no usage I found at b.g.c. I wish I could find some evidence of an intermediate usage between the nautical senses and the "in the offing" sense. There is a hint of something that might be right: the area of the sea visible from one's vantage point (limited by the curvature of the earth). Also, the sense I added doesn't really seem supportable apart from "in the offing". It'll need a fresh look tomorrow. DCDuring TALK 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] eeny, meeny, miny, moe

I added a Mandarin equivalent of this kind of children's counting-out game (i.e. not a literal translation of "eeny, meeny, miny, moe"). I think this is inline with Wiktionary guidelines... and encourage other contributors to add versions of this game in other languages. Tooironic 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cool, jewel

I'm not that good with IPA, but these entries seems to say that cool and jewel don't rhyme. Is this correct? --Yair rand 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not for all speakers. There's a hint of two syllables in most of the pronunciations of "jewel" that I hear (NY, USA), some cartoonish exaggerated double syllable pronunciation, as well as the rhyming pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] glamourous, clamourous, humourous

Aren't these all erroneous forms, even in British English? Chambers has none. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BNC shows them at 2-5% relative to the one-ou forms. But in COCA (US) they are less than one tenth as common as that. I am amazed that the UK ratio isn't higher: "humor" has 13 hits vs. 2166 for "humour". Who conjured up that spelling convention? Why no rebellion? DCDuring TALK 23:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• In UK English, typically the nouns and verbs have a U (after the French) whereas the derivatives have no U (after the Latin). However in these cases, all of these used to be standard and so this looks like another job for {{obsolete spelling of}}. Ƿidsiþ 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cDNA

If we call this English (as we now do), won't we just end up with a large number of language sections that add no value. Wouldn't it be better to call it Translingual and just have transcriptions for those languages/scripts that would have a transcription? DCDuring TALK 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Although there are several languages using these letters to represent a word with the same meaning as English, the words will still be different. They will be pronounced differently, so having different language sections would allow us to represent that. These words will be inflected differently, so that too we can represent in the different language sections that we are likely to get if we were to decide to make the separate sections. And there are more things that will be different, that can all only be represented in the different language sections. Also, I wonder just how translingual this actually is. The French word for DNA is ADN, for example, and German uses DNS alongside DNA. I would guess this would also lead to adopting different letters to represent cDNA. And these are both major western European languages that have long history of contact with English. How different will other languages be in their usage? Still other languages will indeed use different scripts like cyrillic, making it difficult to maintain this really is translingual. It is not tranlingual like IPA characters are, not even like an exclamation mark, that is at least shared by all languages using the roman script (as far as I'm aware). I think these are all good reasons not to represent these words in one translingual section, but instead create a large page listing all languages that use these letters in this combination. Groeten Grunnen 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It fully answers my question. Our use of translingual is not sharply defined, but includes the shared use of CJKV characters and use that is only common among those languages using the Roman alphabet. Judging from what you say, this is at best minimally translingual. Were it not for users inserting translations anyway, a translingual section might save some low-value translations. MWOnline has a tag for "International Scientific Vocabulary". DCDuring TALK 13:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A short search on Wikipedia yields the following results: German uses cDNA, as do Dutch, Catalan, Greek (!), Persian(!), Finnish, Indonesian, Hebew(!), Italian, Malaysian, Japanese (!), Polish, Portuguese, Swedish, Turkish and Chinese(!). Spanish uses ADNc, as does French. Furthermore, Russian uses кДНК, alongside cDNA, and Ukrainian uses only кДНК. I can't figure out what Urdu uses, but the letters cDNA aren't found on the page about cDNA. So indeed it is used widely, also in languages that do not use roman script, and it certainly behaves much like a translingual lettercombination, but there are languages that do not seem to use it too, making it hard to claim a translingual status, I think. And the argument about differences in pronunciation, inflection and the like still holds. Groeten Grunnen 13:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) sorry I bring this up so late, I was just curious as to exactly what languages used it. So it's actually quite a lot, way more than I expected

Interesting. I had previously noticed instances of Roman-letter abbreviations embedded in non-Roman script, often for similar scientific abbreviations. This seems to contain a realistic mix of interactions with other languages and scripts. I wonder what others think is the best presentation in light of your findings. Translingual with translations only for those languages that don't use identical forms and a usage note to list in-text (not vertically) languages that use cDNA and/or CDNA? If we don't get enough attention here over the next week or month, this might be worth putting on WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ladies man

What's an "idiomatic alternative spelling" exactly? Is the misspelling template not appropriate here? Equinox ◑ 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me before, but one could analyze this as attributive use of "ladies", eliminating the need for an apostrophe. Could one say that someone is a "man of the ladies" or "man of ladies"? At the moment the attributive analysis seems better to me, but I might be missing something. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps should be the base form, since presumably you need to woo or to chat up more than one (and not necessarily one at a time) before becoming known as such - unless you mean something like uxorious. "Ladies man" could then be an alternative form, although misspelling might be more accurate in many or most cases.

I note ladies man appears in a citation for lady's man. Pingku 13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At COCA ladies' man (109) outnumbers ladies man (31). At BNC the referent appears relatively less often (12/100MM vs. 140/400MM) and ladies' man (10) outscores ladies man (2). 3.5:1 vs 5:1. Given these number and the existence of a plausible alternative construction that is not a misconstruction, alternative spelling seems a better choice to me. Or one might tag it as being mis- in the UK and alternative in the US. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't focused in my comment. At the moment everything points back to lady's man, whereas (to my mind anyway) it should be ladies plural. Ladies' man sits in the middle... Pingku 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did miss your point. At COCA, lady's man has just 20 hits; at BNC 5, clearly indicating it ought not be the primary form. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely lose the word "idiomatic". DCDuring TALK 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] naïve

I contest strongly this revert of the IP's edits and its subsequent blocking. In fact, the IP has not done anything wrong, it just made this only valid spelling into a full-fledged entry in lieu of the reprehensible redirect to a proscribed spelling frowned upon by the majority of people familiar with etymologies. Is there any particular reason why the proscribed spelling cliche can duly make use of the Template:alternative spelling of to lead the reader to the correct cliché, whereas in this case the prædominant spelling redirects to the proscribed one? In the future, it would be advisabe to put the Template:alternative spelling of on naive and retain the definitions and translations only at naïve. I am eager to listen to other administrators' opinions, since Ivan seems to favour the naive spelling to my dismay. Also, I plea to unblock the misfortunate IP 192.172.8.13 (talk • contribs), which has not done anything amiss (in this page). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

naive is not a misspelling, it's an Anglicized spelling of the term. I almost never see naïve in texts because:

1. It's old fashioned
2. It's hard to type

Hence normally you get it in stuff written before 1950, a bit like how people use boite in French instead of boîte. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not used the term misspelling in the exposé. I used proscribed as a stronger adjective/particle than discouraged, but if you insist, I can switch to discouraged. And here is the prove that Atelaes indorsed naïve as a habitual English word and explained this to Ivan (albeit not dismissing naive, but here we are discussing only whether naïve deserves a full-fledged entry and whether the blocking Ivan committed was justified). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides, cliché is not easier to type (is it?), but is the prævalent spelling. Not to speak about rosé and what happens, if someone is indolent enough to omit the accent... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The most widespread spelling should be used as a lemma, and in all of these cases it's regularly the form without diacritics. If English had officialized orthography that would be entirely different matter, but since it doesn't the only "rule" is actual usage. --Ivan Štambuk 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, it is about consistency. If only the most widespread spellings are to be full-fledged entries, then why do we have recognise, analyse and so on as such entries, considering that analyze, recognize and so on are used in the entire USA and some 30% of Commonwealth writing texts (influenced by the Oxford orthography)? This obviously makes them by far more widespread than recognise, analyse and yet analyse and recognise have their full-fledged enties here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "consistency" in natural language. Neither there are "rules" other than broadly generalized usage practices that might or might not be acceptable from certain quasi-historical reasons. The differences between American/British English orthography such as with -ise/-ize that you mention are entirely different set of issues - they are regular (i.e. there is no person that writes simultaneously both styles) orthographic registers and can be handled in some unified manner. AFAIK, the common practice is that the entry that is created first is given "full" status, and the other one is soft-redirected, in order no to favor either of the spelling varieties. The content duplication that occurs at [[recognise]] and [[recognize]] is ridiculous and needs to be terminated. --Ivan Štambuk 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous? Needs to be terminated? I would agree only if recognize lead to recognise as an entry containing the information about the word, but that is not going to happen. Nor can the opposite, because they both are widespread. And the lack of consistency and rules is pernicious to any organisation and Wiktionary as a project is supposed to be organised. So if you are not willing to juxtapose the Commonwealth/US issue, then could you explain why cliche redirects to cliché and not vice versa? Simply because of temporal præcedence in the creation and why the same approach is not applied to naïve/naive? But where is the rule here stipulating that the fastest wins? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not problem in Wiktionary as a project, it's inherent in the language as a system. Specifically in the widespread indolence and unintelligence of human species that utilize language for communication. We're merely describing the language as it's used and not forcing some kind of authority over it (and we can pretend to do it, but it would have no affect on the general trends which are unfortunately unstoppable). Lexicography is like archeology at a much faster and recent pace. I don't know why [[cliche]] points to [[cliché]] and not vice versa, but I can imagine that there was some kind of associated discussion about that. If you ask me, it would definitely be the other way around. As I said, I'm not familiar that there is a Wiktionary-wide "rule" on how to handle the -ise/-ize, -our/-or and similar dualities, but the temporal precedence is a reasonable compromise I'm sure most can get along with. It's much less of a problem to redirect a new spelling variety to the existing entry, rather than other way around (which might be interpreted as PoV pushing). --Ivan Štambuk 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And I favour the status quo at cliché, but not the one in naïve because of my prædilection for consistency, which means præcedence of the spelling established through centuries over the colloquial and the one which recently became fashionable. Ok, I am well aware with your point of view, but let us listen to the opinions of other native speakers, especially SemperBlotto, who added the definition in the entry back in July 2005. Do they agree with your compromise about the fastest wins approach. And I would be ineffably appreciative, if you unblocked the misfortunate IP, because he/she must be feeling pretty desolate and/or indignant and/or aggrieved at being blocked for amending the entry. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP is unblocked for some time now. And this is not "my compromise" but what I observed to be a more general community-wide practice (tho I could be wrong, given that I don't normally edit English entries). --Ivan Štambuk 19:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily have reverted the IP, but everything Ivan says is in accordance with practice and/or policy. Apart from possible ruffled feelings, there is nothing wrong with the result. There can be occasions were there is something slightly different to say about one spelling vs another. Using {{trans-see}} can keep translaters from wasting some time. If we had facts about which spellings users entered in search boxes, we might rely on relative frequency from that source (probably less favorable to diacritics and ligatures than printed work frequencies). DCDuring TALK 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] mental health problem(s)

I'm hesitant over whether this is SoP. I think it's general enough to mean "any problem with one's mental health" but it's used in specific contexts. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for euphemism, it seems no different from health problems, which is more clearly SoP. There is less stigma and less need for euphemism in "physical" vs. "mental" health, though that was not always the case. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah SoP. What about mental health? Health that is mental? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That feels OK. I'm not sure how to attest to its idiomaticity. That it is used as a unit attributively in "mental health (facility, problem, professional)" (at least in the US) is suggestive. A few general and more specialized dictionaries have it. DCDuring TALK 11:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Same in the UK. I don't fancy writing a definition mind you. Maybe a short one with a link to WP. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] œillet

A few senses missing for this French entry...What do you call in English

1. the holes in the shoe, through which a shoelace is thread? laceholes?
2. the hole on a boat, or on the mooring, which the ropes pass through a ring? --Rising Sun talk? 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

1. eyelet 2. grommet I suspect there might be other words you can use, too. -- ALGRIF talk 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] honkin', honking

While creating two senses at honkingly I noticed an odd disparity between honking and honkin'. Perhaps some merging is needed. Equinox ◑ 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether honkin' or honking is used more often in the senses (now) shown at honkin', adjective and adverb. At COCA it was close. I have cleaned up and expanded honkin' and wouldn't object to a merger. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] along the way

Shouldn't this phrase have an entry? I think it's a border case of SOP, but I think it is justified. __meco 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge idioms has it. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] the real deal / the real McCoy

Shouldn't both real deal and real McCoy be prefaced with the definite article? Also, they don't come in plural form, do they? __meco 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As to the plural, consider: "These cigars are Havanas, the real deals/McCoys, not some Tampa knock-off".

Though it is not common, folks say "a real deal" in the same sense, not just the "bargain" sense. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As for people saying something that is tangential to an idiom doesn't mean that that is correct use of the idiom and that the idiom should be expanded to include those uses. To your first example, it sounds wrong in my ears and I'd definitely assert that the correct statement should have been "These cigars are Havanas, the real deal/McCoy, not ...", and to the second example I'd say that is not the idiom at all, i.e. that "real deal" is an unidiomatic SOP which bears a close resemblance to the idiom "the real deal" (however, if I could see some example I might be persuaded to think otherwise). __meco 09:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] prophecize/prophecise nonexistent?! Yes? No? POV?

This has really thrown me for a loop. o.O At Talk:impending an anon. asked a question about the word's usage. So I replied and gave an example sentence which you can see on if you follow the given link. However, I typed "prophecised" and saw that Google's spellchecker underlined it as a misspelling. Seeing this, I just thought the dumb thing was, as usual, being racist towards everyone that's not American/discriminating against everyone that does not like "-ize" spellings. ;-) Then, I saw that when I right-clicked the word "prophecized" did not appear as a suggestion. Later still, much to my astonishment, I discovered that we do not have an entry for prophecize OR prophecise. Hence I searched Wiktionary and from the search result saw that it is on a page of "the Hotlist". However one b.g.c. hit for the -ize spelling calls it wrong (i.e. it says that prophesy is the right word) or something, as does this possibly POV page. Why it puzzles me so is that I have always known prophecy, but never prophesy So, who can verify or the correctness (or lack thereof) of these words? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience (U.S.) matches the b.g.c. hit you mention: the sole noun is "prophecy" (pronounced "-see"), the sole verb "prophesy" ("-sigh"). —Ruakh_TALK 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Edited 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC) since PalkiaX50 doesn't seem to have understood the previous version.

This pair is part of a class of words whose verbal and nominal forms are distinguished by being spelt with an ‘s’ and a ‘c’, respectively. Other examples are license–licence, practise–practice, and advise–advice. Usually, the verbal and nominal forms are homophonous (in the UK, at least; I can’t comment on Ruakh’s dialect), but advise–advice is an exception (/ədˈvaɪz/–/ədˈvaɪs/), which makes it something of an aide-mémoire. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no offense but your replies are or less useless to me; I'm mainly asking about the (in)correctness of the -ize/-ise words...And Doremítzwr, while you obviously could not have known this, I know all that stuff already... So, anything else to add, anyone? 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to use an -ize word, then prophetize is your best bet, since it has a Classical precedent in the Ancient Greek προφητίζειν (prophētizein), “‘to prophesy’”) and has been around since Middle English. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting...so are the -ize forms I gave wrong altogether, or are they legit. and bastardised (if that's an appropriate word to use) forms? 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what criteria — if any — you use for prescription. If all you’re interested in is intelligibility, then I’m sure you could you use any of those words to convey what you mean (and I’m sure *profecize would do, too). If your only desire is to avoid falling foul of usage authorities and grammaticasters, then the page to which you linked is pretty unambiguous in advocating prophesy. If you like functional distinctions, then the only word closed to you is the properly nominal prophecy. If you’re on the side of tradition, then go for prophesy. If you care about etymology (and words being well-formed according to its various conventions), then prophecize and prophesize (as well as their -ise forms) are to be avoided (in all cases, the -ize forms have the slight upper hand here). It’s difficult to answer the question of whether prophecize and prophecise are legitimate, because it’s unclear what are your criteria for legitimacy. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

COCA has fourteen one occurrences of forms of prophesize vs hundreds of "prophesy", BNC has none. Garner's American Usage (2009) gives "prophesize" a rating of 2 ("widely shunned") on his 5-point acceptability scale. MWDEU (1994) remarked that it was not well attested despite the prophesy/prophecy "confusion". It would seem best avoided, especially in writing and more formal speech. But let's see if things are different in 2013. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And COCA has but one use of a form of "prophetize"; BNC none. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And forms of "predict" are 50 times more common than forms of "prophesy". DCDuring TALK 03:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And another thing, COCA reports tiny amounts of usage of other spellings of forms of "prophesize" with "c" for "s" and "s" for "z". Although the COCA usage is not enough for attestation, mere presence in COCA means that these are probably attestable, though we might choose to dismiss them as uncommon misspellings.

• Isn't it an interesting data point, the feeling one gets on being told that a word one has in mind (and possibly has had for some time) is in some way inferior? DCDuring TALK 12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can’t say it bothers me. For example, I totally accept the argument that -ize spellings are better, but I ne’ertheless use -ise forms consistently. It’s one thing to accept prescriptive principles; it’s quite another either slavishly to conform thereto or to insist that one’s idiolect shapes those principles. Just as it shouldn’t be particularly bothersome to discover that one is not morally perfect, so one ought not to be surprised that one’s manner of speaking is somehow imperfect. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Does all that answer your question and help you to come to some conclusion, 50 Xylophone Players? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See: google books:prophecise foretell predict "The third force in seventeenth-century thought". The first two paragraphs touch on nuances of historical usage. Pingku 11:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• No Dylan fans here? "Come writers and critics / Who prophesize with your pen / And keep your eyes wide, / The chance won't come again!" etc etc. The word has been around for nearly two hundred years, it's perfectly standard (though less common than prophesy). Ƿidsiþ 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the OED’s first citation of it (as prophecising) is from 1816; however, its earliest citation of *irregardless is from 1912. Moreover, its first citation of the verb prophesy (as prophecieden) is in Middle English from circa 1350; whereas its earliest citation of prophetize (as prophetysed) is also in Middle English from ante 1338. Errors and catechreses can see usage for centuries, and yet they may never be accepted as standard; furthermore, authorities and literary giants are not immune from erring. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • What error or catachresis are you talking about? Ƿidsiþ 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Adaption, compare to, singular they, and idiosyncracy, to name four. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input everyone. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you come to any conclusions? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] all very well

I have called this an adjective, but it isn't grammatically, I don't think. It does seem idiomatic and worth an entry. It seems to only appear in an idiomatic sense after a form of "be" or "seem" (and copulative senses of other verbs). Is it or was it once an ellipsis of some more grammatically complete expression? Can the entry be improved? DCDuring TALK 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See sense 10 of the OED’s entry for “well, a.”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not available to non-subscribers. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In "That's all very well," it appears to be used as a subject complement, in the sense of a predicative adjective (or predicate adjective). ("That's all very well, but," I hear someone muttering.) Pingku 13:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all very well that it so appears, but are you endorsing my calling it an adjective? DCDuring TALK 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Not so the imputation of doubt in the gloss, however. I think that comes from the seeming inevitability of the following "but" or other qualification. Pingku 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I read (I don't hear it so much in US) often (usually?) a sense of dismissal of what had preceded, whether or not a but or equivalent follows. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. Most of the b.g.c. hits have a "but" soon afterward, and of those that don't, most IMHO are not uses of this idiom. For the few that do seem to be uses of this idiom, but don't have a "but" — this one, for example — I can't tell whether there's a sense of dismissal. —Ruakh_TALK 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the fourth usage in that work, the "but" appears only after 2 or 3 sentences, all of which seem to explain what immediately followed the "all very well". Perhaps "all very well" signals a qualification. As the sense under discussion says, perhaps it hints at an element of doubt, prepping the reader for the "but" clause to come. I think I just read someone using the word prolepsis for this, though it doesn't seem an precise match. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that the phrase is almost always used in the context of rhetoric or debate (or perhaps an attempt to start a debate). Therefore the listener is primed by hearing it to expect a rebuttal of their argument: to the extent that if one is not presented, it can be implied that the speaker wishes to appear dismissive of the argument.

If one could remove all possibility of the (formal or informal) rhetoric or debate context, then what is left but an affirmation? Is it ever used outside that context? Pingku 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To me, informal rhetoric is also called discourse, hardly to be excluded from consideration here. I can't imagine a context tag that would limit this appropriately, except, possibly "colloquial".

This seems to have a role clearly distinct from "yes", "certainly", "indeed", "surely", "you're telling me" and other less qualified affirmations. As I recall, one dictionary defined it as "true as far as it goes". That seems decidedly qualified. DCDuring TALK 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] name after

Here is an example of an entry which probably should be included in Wikt (therefore I'm not using RfD) but it is definitely not a phrasal verb. Reason; there is no way to put the head verb and the "particle" together in the active voice (the non-defining clause example given in the entry notwithstanding). E.g. you cannot say "John named after his son (prep) the president". You have to always separate as "John named his son after the president". I draw attention to this example to show how the use of the argument "this entry is not a phrasal verb, therefore delete" is not always a valid argument. Also, I present this example as one of the major phrasal verb tests; non-separation of verb and particle. A similar phrasal example would be give away where we can say "John gave away the book to Mary" and "John gave the book away to Mary". -- ALGRIF talk 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See also name for

. That definition could do with improvement. --Rising Sun talk? 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] word(s) for winged penis?

The ancient Romans, if not other cultures as well, had various depictions in art of a winged phallus. Was there a word they had for it, or is there one now? 24.29.92.243 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you’re refering to fascina. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• In English at least, it just seems to be called a "winged phallus". Whether there was a specific word for it in Greek or Latin I don't know. Sometimes the fascinum or the ithyphallus had wings, but I don't think there was a specific word for it. Ƿidsiþ 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] at last

Merge senses? The dog example seems to fit sense 2 just as well as sense 1. Equinox ◑ 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction in the the senses, but that the usage examples don't support it. The first sense just refers to mere passage of time. "At last the dog stopped barking." The second sense seems to refer to the conclusion of a process, a figurative journey, an effort, a trial. "The dog, at last satisfied that the stranger had left, stopped barking." or "At last, just when I was about to grab my shotgun, the dog stopped barking." I don't think that every synonym carries both meanings. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Added some usages. Sentence/verb/adjective use of the adverb. Sorry about the textbook-style repetition :) Pingku 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks have been telling me that our target user for English is a language learner. What could be more appropriate than minimal-difference sentences? DCDuring TALK 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] box and whiskers plot

Should this be listed at box-and-whiskers plot instead, or in addition? --EncycloPetey 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of bgc hits for each, so we need both. Not sure which is primary, though. We also need box and whisker plot and box-and-whisker plot.​—msh210℠ 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tukey could rank with Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, Nabakov, Tolkein and Burgess as a coiner of terms. I'm betting a higher percent of his stick, too. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] portaits

Hello, Here I found the following sentence: This view portaits a point of view inside the asteroid belt, which is assumed here to lie between the two outermost planets. I am only speaking english basically. Are there an english word portaits? If not, what were the right way. --Diwas 03:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

English would normally say "This view shows a point of view..." or This view depicts a point of view..." --EncycloPetey 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Diwas 05:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The writer probably meant portrays. Equinox ◑ 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] always

There are two temporal meanings given in our entry:

1. At all times; ever; perpetually; throughout all time; continually:

   God is always the same.

2. Constantly during a certain period, or regularly at stated intervals; invariably; uniformly;—opposed to sometimes or occasionally.

   He always rides a black galloway. --Bulwer.

I have added a terse mention of frequency and duration in usage notes. MWOnline has what look to me like frequency and duration senses.

As I see it, there are three possible temporal senses of the word, based on generic adverb categories: "duration", "frequency", and "temporal location".

1. I wouldn't even mention "temporal location" were it not for the God usage example.
2. The definitions given (taken from MW 1913) seem to be entirely about distinguishing between infinite and finite, and include both duration and frequency elements.
3. I would expect that duration and frequency would be distinguished in many languages, probably more so than infinite/finite.

That leaves me with questions about what should be done:

1. Should we let sleeping dogs lie because the infinite/finite distinction is important and the duration/frequency distinction is not in English or in translations?
2. Should we add subsenses for duration and frequency?
3. Should we add senses that are explicitly distinguish between frequency and duration?
4. Should there be subsenses for finite and infinite?
5. What should be done about the numerous existing translations?

-- DCDuring TALK 12:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that continuity is a more important distinction that what you've described. That is, it can be persistent and continuous or episodic and discrete. That's the principal difference I see in the two definitions given at the outset of your comment. --EncycloPetey 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] score

The first definition for score is:

1. The total number of points earned by a participant in a game.

   The score is 4-0 although it's not even half-time!

I find the example sentence really confusing because the definition says that it's what *a* participant earns, but the sentence has two numbers, 4 and 0, connected by a hyphen. Perhaps an additional meaning is needed to refer to the score as a ratio or comparison of two or more participants.

Also, two cricket definitions are given:

1. (cricket) A presentation of how many runs a side has scored, and how many wickets have been lost.

   England had a score of 107 for 5 at lunch.

2. (cricket) The number of runs scored by a batsman, or by a side, in either an innings or a match.

I think the defining characteristic for the first cricket meaning is the mention of wickets. It seems likely that this sort of terminology would be used for other sports as well. For example, do you say, "The (baseball team) Red Socks have a score of 5 and 2"? Probably "score" is not used this way, but perhaps there is another sport where it is.

I have a similar concern for the second cricket meaning. How is this different from the very first meaning (The total number of points earned by a participant in a game)?

One final comment: The cricket definition(s) should be moved next to the first meaning, and perhaps made a part of it, something like this:

1a. (sports) The total number of points earned by a participant in a game.

The red team has a score of four points.

1b. (sports) The total number of points earned by two or more participants in a game.

The score is 8 to 4 to 2, with Portugal winning, followed by Zambia and Costa Rica. --> provided there is a sport where three or more participants are actually listed in the "score."

1c. (cricket) [one or both definitions here]

Wakablogger 22:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new sense to try to deal with the 4-0 situation. Equinox ◑ 03:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That is closer, but in games such as tennis, the first number refers to the person serving the ball, not the person who is winning. I want to know more about cricket, too, before revamping the definitions. Wakablogger 09:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I need help in translating the words below and I don't know what language is it?

Sami sugi pula curva mica ce iesti tu —This comment was unsigned.

Looks like Romanian. Equinox ◑ 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Romanian. Means something like "sami you suck dicks little whore what are you". Courtesy of opio. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] satanic vs. Christian

How is it that satanic is written with a lower case s whereas Christian is spelled with an upper case C. Aren't these terms higly comparable and should be dealt with on par terms? __meco 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Move the former to Satanic. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I will if consensus remains in a few days. __meco 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they "should" in some abstract sense, but in practice, "satanic" and "Satanic" are of comparable frequency, whereas "christian" and "Christian" are not. —Ruakh_TALK 01:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lower-case form is restricted to the sense of “evil, fiendish, devilish, or diabolical”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More score - music

The music meaning of score is

A book or set of pages showing all the parts for a musical composition.

However, http://www.dramaticpublishing.com/RentalInfo.php?products_id=302 shows a piano "score," a "trumpet score," a first guitar "score" and more for what appears to be the same musical production. This matches my understanding that the score does not necessarily show all of the parts. Is there something else going on here? Wakablogger 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Single character for 五百

Hi all. There is a Chinese character for 二十, namely 廿. Is there similarly a single character for 五百 (“‘five hundred’”)? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. But in addition to your 廿 (20), there is also 丗 (30), 卅 (40), and 皕 (200). Bendono 06:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] previous spelling

Whereat in the defenition of a word does it tell you if the word has been changed from its original version? —This unsigned comment was added by 96.18.183.214 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

If a given entry includes such information, then you’ll most probably find it at the very top of the language section, under an Alternative spellings header; see, for example, scion#Alternative spellings. I hope that helps. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] fascinum and fasces

Surely these two must have the same root? Could we make an attempt to determine this? __meco 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Latin words from which these derive have separate roots. The cognates of each word in Greek are less alike than the Latin words are. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are they then Greek in origin, not Latin? __meco 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, EP is saying that, although the Latin words look kinda similar, comparing their Greek cognates (with which they are related by common derivation from a Proto-Indo-European rootan ancestor language) shows that they are very unlikely to be related. (It’s funny: a friend of mine thought the same things about these two words (well, fascīna (“‘fascine’”) instead of fascēs) a couple of days ago.) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [edited] † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me towards some research into this? __meco 20:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m afraid that I’m really not the person to ask about PIE; it’d be worth starting with w:Proto-Indo-European language and seeing where you go from there… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fascinum may or may not be related to βάσκανος, as the entry suggests, but if so, they don't come from Proto-Indo-European. For one thing, Latin "f" can't correspond to Greek "b". Latin "f" can come from PIE *bh, *dh, or *gʷh, while Greek "b" can come from PIE *b (which is extremely rare) or *gʷ. For another, *a is very rare in PIE unless it comes from *e next to a laryngeal, and this word doesn't really "have room" for two laryngeals (one next to each "a"). If the two words are related, they're probably both borrowed from some non-Indo-European language rather than being inherited from a common ancestor. —Angr 00:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Latin and Ancient Greek words are of obscure origin (and Latin fascinum cannot be borrowed from Greek βάσκανος), definitely not from Proto-Indo-European. Likely both from some pre-IE European substratum. --Ivan Štambuk 02:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that kinship is not mentioned in Meillet’s dictionary, but he confers Irish basc (“‘necklace’”) next to fascis. If they are related, then what kind of substratum must have been that in order to stretch from Éire to Peloponnes? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Which word needs a substrate that stretches from Ireland to the Peloponnese? Fascis has a possible Celtic cognate, and fascinum has a possible Greek cognate, but does either word have cognates in both Celtic and Greek? (2) Substrates aren't the only source of loanwords. (3) While fascinum and Greek baskanos can't be descended from a common ancestor, fascis and Irish basc can be, since Irish b can come from *bh, which is one of the sources of Latin f. —Angr 10:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stay low, stand small

newby, I'm not sure I should ask my questions here as I wasn't able to read a single question from anybody else

so 1) Could you explain "standing small" in this song of ABBA "the winner takes it all"

• The winner takes it all
• The loser standing small

2) Should it be a new entry in the wiktionnary or to be incorporated in another meaning of to stand

3) Could you explain "staying low" in this song of ABBA "the winner takes it all"

• The judges will decide
• The likes of me abide
• Spectators of the show
• Always staying low

4) Should it be a new entry in the wiktionnary or to be incorporated in another meaning of to stay

5) thank you Sneaky 013 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The lyrics of songs (and poetry) are not always clear or meaningful as standard written English. In this case, the lyrics were written by Swedes, which removes them one more step from standard English. The best explanation is that the language in the song is poetic, and not part of normal English speech. It is intended to evoke an image, and not necessarily to use a standard meaning. I think "standing small" refers to a felling of being diminished over the loss, of feeling less of a person. I've no idea what "staying low" refers to. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly "staying low" could mean "not to interfere". Thanks for answering Sneaky 013 09:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] make

None of the current senses AFAICT allows for "This potion will make you into a toad" or "Basic training will make you a man". The latter perhaps should be added to

5. (second object is an adjective) To cause to be.

The citizens made their objections clear.

This might make you a bit woozy.

by modifying its context tag, though perhaps it should be a separate sense. In any event, we need at least one new sense, and I don't feel qualified to write it.​—msh210℠ 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But then again, who does? By the time you begin to feel almost qualified to try, wiki-fatigue is likely to be setting in. That's why so many of these basic entries are inadequate. It seems as if all anyone feels capable of is adding the senses appropriate for the their special interests (sport, profession, hobby). I'm gradually working my way up to the words of one or two syllables. Just a few thousand more definitions of easier multi-words and multi-syllabic words. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, I don't feel qualified to add the two new senses unless I get confirmation from others here that they're what are needed.​—msh210℠ 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For such words, I like Longmans (I use DCE 1987). They have 21 senses of make, language notes, etc. For one sense of make "cause to be or cause to do" they show three possible types of complements ("obj + adj", "obj + noun", "obj + v-ed").

I think our structure pushes us toward either:

1. separate senses-with-context-tags and usage examples for each OR
2. one sense with generalized context tag and 3 usage examples.

DCDuring TALK 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the second of those two, personally. Does the DCE have any "obj + v-ed"-complement examples where the verb is not one we'd list as an adjective? (Compare *"make this dog walked" with "make him excited".)​—msh210℠ 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their example is "made himself heard", which doesn't seem very adj-like. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "into a toad". I just call such thinks adjectives. Otherwise we just have too many types of complements to be useful to a typical reader. After all, what about gerunds, infinitives, clauses as complements? DCDuring TALK 20:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's worded as an adverb, isn't it? (Can PPs be adjectives?)​—msh210℠ 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Yes of course they can be adjectives. It still sounds like an adverb to me, but never mind.​—msh210℠ 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is an adjective, then the definition "cause to be" (from the fifth sense, blockquoted above), doesn't fit: You don't cause someone to be into a toad. Perhaps then "make into" is a phrasal verb.​—msh210℠ 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an adjective (too metaphysical for me). I just call it one, when forced to choose (and I may regret my choice). I also call it a prepositional phrase. Perhaps one can't dispense with an adverbial-type prepositional phrase example. Or one can take direction from both Longmans DCE and McGraw-Hill idiom and phrasal verb dictionary having entries for "make into". I don't know if it qualifies as a phrasal verb. (All phrasal verbs are idioms, but not all idiomatic verb + preposition constructions are phrasal verbs.) DCDuring TALK 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We also need make something of (to make or become important) and make something of it (usually said in order to start or prevent a fight (do you want to make something of it!)) SemperBlotto 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill has 9+ pages of entries beginning with "make", 250-300 entries. I can't make search give me something useful to make an estimate of what we have. But we only have 65-70 in Category:English verbs and 60 more in Category:English idioms. There might be a few more more elsewhere. That would make it likely that there are about 125-170 or so additional entry candidates. If we clean up ours we may actually have fewer that our apparent total. Sigh. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Make" is a very complex verb, with generally long entries in most serious dictionaries. make into is a borderline phrasal verb, in that some dictionaries include it and some don't. Given the complexity of "make" I believe it could be considered to be a useful entry as a phrasal verb in Wikt, with a definition such as to cause to become and a reference to turn into, along with a repetition in the main entry at "make". My 2c -- ALGRIF talk 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-loading senses from complex entries into valid multi-word entries is a very useful component of improving English-definition-quality. (We seem to do better with entries of shorter length.) This looks valid, whether or not we call it a phrasal verb. Other short English verbs have similar issues. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thank you all. I've modified the "cause to be (adj.)" sense of make to allow participles and nouns as complements also, and created [[make into]].​—msh210℠ 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've been working on the idioms beginning with make to give them proper inflection lines and PoS categories, RfV/RfDing. There seem to be perhaps 10-15 headwords that we have that McGraw-Hill does not and 70% duplication between the verb and idioms category membership, so we probably lack nearly 200 of McGraw-Hill's entries. Sobering about our completeness. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] must, usage note

When I added the last usage note from Webster 1913 (The principal verb, if easy supplied by the mind, was formerly often omitted when must was used, bold by me), I thought that this omission was exemplary of archaic or at least dated English by 1913, but the quote I found is from 1936! Does that mean that this usage (which is the same in German) is still alive and widely practised in contemporary English and that Housman's Forth I must does not sound peculiar to a modern oar? If so, then we must replace the was with is in the usage note. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added the two lines that preceded the quote given: "Forth I wander, forth I must, And drink of life again." It is then possible to read the omission as an anaphora for the previous "wander".

Also, the prosodic needs of poetry reduce the value of the quote for other purposes. It doesn't tell a user much about acceptability of the construction in writing prose, informal or formal, let alone speaking.

There is nothing really distinctive about "must" vs other modal and auxiliary verbs (or some subset of them) and other verbal constructions:

• "Have you done the dishes?" / "Yes, I have."
• "I've decided to re-enlist." / "Well, if you really want to, OK."

—This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2009.

Ok, your examples are clear-cut, but my quæstion was rather whether constructions of the type:

• I am late. I must forth now.

or

• I can't stand this place any more. I will forth.

are acceptable in contemporary English (when the omitted verb had not been mentioned immediately beforehand). Yes, I agree that the anaphora is not facilitating the unambiguity of Housman's quote, so I shall look for other similar usage of modal verbs in his and others' works. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd venture that it would be hard to find at all in the last 75 years. Probably longer if one excludes poetry and "high" literature. But facts often surprise me. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Other adverbs might be more likely than "forth". "Away" would be my best candidate. Shakespeare gives it a good pedigree. "must away" can be found in books over the last 75 years, but mostly in reprints and historical novels. It would get an "archaic" label were it to merit an entry. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] English vocatives

Re: bastard#Interjection. Isn't this just the noun used as a vocative? Like cunt, bitch whatever. Is it useful to anyone to have these as interjections? I mean, I think the noun covers all of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The specific sense is different from the way it is used in the US, where it is mostly limited to anger directed at a person. That kind of variation suggests caution in moving nouns out of Category:English interjections.

I wonder if we need to review our treatment of the ever-popular entries for insults, invective, obscenities, etc. Category:English interjections is heavily populated with nouns often used to express anger in the manner of interjections. Are that category and the Interjection header the best treatment of them from a content PoV? There is also the human-engineering aspect. If we eliminate the interjection treatment (replaced with a sense line in the noun section), won't users just add them back? DCDuring TALK 12:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Interjection is the hardest to define, I think as you can shout anything you like without it being a 'true' interjection. I don't particularly favour removing bastard from Category:English interjections, but for me personally that meaning doesn't help me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which meaning? The RfVed one or the other? Should we keep the category but remove the header in that case or in similar cases? What helps passive users? What helps active contributors make better entries? DCDuring TALK 13:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Essentially I'd have RFV'ed the other meaning, and not the one that is currently at RFV! Well bitch doesn't have an interjective sense, and I wouldn't add one as for me it's just the noun being shouted. For the third one, re: passive users, I don't actually have an answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy's stuck down a well

I've heard the comment Timmy's stuck down a well a few times recently, and it seems to have enough usage to have an entry. But how is it best discribed. I think it's a parody of those animal shows like Lassie or Skippy, but not sure of the attributed usage. What part of speech also, idiom perhaps.--Dmol 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, just noticed, Timmy's stuck in a well gets more hits onlne.--Dmol 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, variants such as "Timmy fell in the well" and "Timmy fell down in the well". According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lassie_%281954_TV_series%29

The catch phrase "Timmy's in the Well!" (in response to a dog barking) was used by Jon Provost as the title of his autobiography. He points out that Timmy fell into abandoned mine shafts, off cliffs, into rivers, lakes and quicksand, but never fell into a well.

As a collie owner, one of the uses I hear a lot is (intended) humor when someone sees my dogs. There are also a few hits (and I have heard a few times) variations on this using "Jimmy" instead of "Timmy". Wakablogger 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Timmy's stuck down a well's recent popularity possibly comes from the Simpsons episode "Radio Bart" Bofoc Tagar 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouncing "ae"

How is the "ae" properly pronounced in words like "formulae" and "lacunae"? I've heard vowels like "tree", "tray" and "try" (British accent) from various people. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Latinate case endings (the one you’re talking about is the feminine first declension nominative plural), traditionally, the pronunciation of -æ has been ē (/iː/), that of -i (Latin -ī, that of the masculine second declension nom. pl., as in cacti) has been ī (/aɪ/), and that of -a (Latin -a, that of the neuter second declension nom. pl., as in data) has been ə (/ə/). (There are a number of other case endings that I could talk about, but those three are by far the most common, AFAICT, and the others aren’t particularly relevant.) However, in Classical Latin, -ae is pronounced as [ai] and -ī as [iː] — i.e., phonetically speaking, the reverse of their traditional English pronunciations. Consequently, for -æ and -i, there is competition between the traditional phonemic pronunciations of ē, /iː/ and ī, /aɪ/ and the Classical phonetic pronunciations of [ai] (~ī) and [iː] (ē). Which one is correct depends on whether you favour the traditional phonemic pronunciations or the Classical phonetic pronunciations; almost no one is completely consistent in his pronunciation. The ā (/eɪ/) pronunciation of -æ is rather less explicable; in the case of formulæ (*fôrʹmyo͝olā, */ˈfɔːmjʊleɪ/), it may be due to the influence of the related adjective formulaic (fôrmyo͝olāʹĭk, /fɔːmjʊˈleɪ.ɪk/). I hope that helps. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it seems that British pronunciation differs from American. In my experience U.S. speakers usually use ī for such plurals, and sometimes ā, but I don't think I've ever heard "formulē" or "alumnē". (But for taxonomic names — "vespidae", "homininae", etc. — I've heard all three, most often ā. I'm not sure why the difference.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] hafta

This term is a non-constituent, that is, its components "haf" and "ta" would be analyzed as parts of different constituents of a sentence. This kind of term is variously presented in en.wikt as "contraction", "eye dialect", or as being the part of speech of the "stronger" component, in this case, "verb". Do we want to be consistent? Some of the entries in en.wikt that are non-constituents are to be found at Category:English non-constituents.

In the case of this particular entry we present it as a verb with an infinitive "to hafta". I am reasonably sure that does not exist. What might exist would be something like "I'm gonna hafta kill 'im." To me the effort to develop some parallel grammar for a written representation of this kind of pronunciation is a really fun bit of self-indulgence but not a great thing for principal namespace. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Under have to it's listed as an "alternative form." That hasta be right, don't it? It makes a kind of sense then to treat "hafta" as a phrase, or whatever it is that "have to" actually is. (It looks to me like a defective modal adverb - manner only.) Pingku 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What irks me about non-constituents is that they are assigned grammatical roles as if they had them. The particle "to" is the entity that causes most of the trouble. To assign it to the auxiliary or modal verb makes things a little harder for a language learner trying to infer what the general pattern for its use is. "To" does not combine with most verbs so tightly in pronunciation, but only with a few common common forms of a few common verbs (eg, want, wants, going, have, has, had). They are not all purely modal or auxiliary verbs. How people pronounce the word combination is not the issue, nor whether we should have the entry. The issue is solely whether this is in any way worth presenting as if these were forms of a defective verb (already an improvement over the "to hafta" mess).

My own preference is call all one-word non-constituents "contractions" and "eye dialect". They are contraction of eye-dialect renditions of the pronunciation of the very common, more readily analyzable forms from which they have apparently developed. I also have nothing against referencing in the entry a discussion of alternative grammatical analysis of the terms. Under some circumstances I could imagine that the analysis as separate verb forms with distinct grammatical properties could become appropriate. It is not as if a dictionary has an important role in teaching language learners (or any one) how to speak this kind of term. The value would seem to be in decoding speech or written renditions of speech. At best this might be the early stages of the emergence of new modal verbs. But, it seems like the grammatical equivalent of a neologism. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "inkwell words"?

There is a word for especially archaic words scholars found used in only one or two texts or invented words with limited ability for application which I thought were called "inkwell words" or were some word of Latin or Greek nature literally translating as something like inkwell words, but I can't bring it to mind. Anyone know? 24.29.92.243 11:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

inkhorn words. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You can read about inkhorn terms hereat. Another term you may find useful is hapax legomenon. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you both! It's frustrating when a word eludes one like that, remaining on the tip of the tongue or just out of mind, like the word for something remaining on the tip of the tongue or just out of mind... which eludes me at the moment... :-D 24.29.92.243 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You’re thinking of lethologica. ;-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] abroad

Purported noun PoS, labeled as a neologism.

1. It isn't a neologism, is it?
2. Is it worth presenting as a separate PoS? Many adverbs of temporal or spatial location are used as if they were nouns (and vice versa, for that matter). We often dispense with separate PoSs for such features of grammar (eg, no Noun PoS for every Proper Noun, no Adj. PoS for attributive-only use of a Noun). DCDuring TALK 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] meandering

I've noticed some uses of meanderings where I would have expected maunderings. Is this a metaphorical extension (as happened with to ramble), or is it an eggcorn or other error, or what? Should we have a separate sense for it? —Ruakh_TALK 02:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Once upon a time

The Chinese translation given for once upon a time is 往事, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_upon_a_time_%28phrase%29) has 很久很久以前. Can anyone who knows Chinese shed some light on this? Wakablogger 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

往事 is often used to translate titles e.g. 美国往事 (Once Upon a Time In America). But I think in terms of using it as a sentence introduction, 从前 or 很久很久以前 would be more appropriate. Will fix that now. Cheers. Tooironic 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Wakablogger 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ass into gear

Claims to be a verb. How should this fragment of an idiom be presented? Move it to get one's ass into gear to make an honest verb/predicate out of it? Should anything redirect to it, like idiom starting with other verbs "put", "set", et al? DCDuring TALK 04:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The move sounds right to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved to get one's ass in gear, the dominant form per COCA. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] intertube

While looking for quotes for the Intertubes entry, I came to learn that this was actually a genuine word. I couldn't find any explications, though, It seems to relate to some quite possibly now outdated electronic constituent. Anybody willing to dig into it? I think it would be an awesome word to feature in the WOTD! Circeus 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] arbolar

I suspect that arbolar means "to plant trees", though this definition is not stated in the entry arbolar yet. --Daniel. 06:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that too, but the RAE does not include that definition. We'd have to find three supporting citations to add that as a definition. --EncycloPetey 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On a double-check, it is sandwiched into the RAE defintion. I'll add that. --EncycloPetey 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. --Daniel. 21:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Enlightened One

I extracted this from the entry enlightened. Do we do honorific names of religious figures? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see them for figures venerated in major world religions, as they are likely to be encountered and possibly without further context. --EncycloPetey 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EP. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noted some non-inclusive attitudes occasionally displayed on political and religious subjects. Does this particular entry need context tags? It seems to be used fairly often in general contexts. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] lexigraphical

"Common misspelling of lexicographical." Really? It seems to be related to lexigraph. Equinox ◑ 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but Webster 1913 (and 1828) defined lexigraphy as "the art or practice of defining words; definition of words." That definition would probably merit being called obsolete, if we can even find evidence of its actual use in that sense. Our entry at lexigraphy is helpful. logographic seems to be a synonym of the second sense and syllabographic is a coordinate term, I think. A more polylingual scholar than I should sort this out. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 17:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plaid Cymru

Considering making an entry, but baffled about language header. Is it Welsh? as the individual words undoubtedly are, or English? as it is a political party in the British parliamentary system, holding seats in both the Parliament and in the Welsh National Assembly, and so it's name occurs frequently in English body text. -- Regards, Clueless AKA -- ALGRIF talk 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this be an entry? Aren’t the names of political parties outside our scope? Leaving those issues aside, this name is properly pretty much {{historical}}, since the party now just goes by the name Plaid (“‘Party’”); this is undoubtedly English influence, since just “Plaid” sounds rather sinister in a purely Welsh context. Make of that what you will. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While Pedia claims that "Plaid" is the accepted name, in the press the full title is what is normally encountered. And as it will occur in body text with no real identifying context, then in the same way that you could encounter any British political party in a printed text, it should be included in Wikt, as are Labour, Labour party, Conservative, Conservative party, Tory, Liberal, Liberal Democrat, etc. (unless Wikt has suddenly become partisan ;-) ) But this still leaves me with the problem of which language header to use. Any takers? -- ALGRIF talk 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] walks of life

OED lemmatizes this in singular, as walk of life, with 2 distinct meanings:

1. A person's social grade, station, or rank.
2. A person's trade, profession, occupation, or calling.

But the above entry claims that the phrase is plural-only?! Are these two different regional idioms or sth? --Ivan Štambuk 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OED is basically right, as you'd expect. Our contributor must have focused on the much more frequent use of the plural. COCA shows the plural five times a common as the singular, probably almost the inverse of the usual ratio. I doubt that there is regional variation. Some other dictionaries also show it as plural only, though. Encarta shows it as singular, but joins most of the others to show a usage example in the plural involving the cliche "all walks of life". DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The singular form is usually modified by "every", "any", "other", so a truly singular sense is uncommon. It is as if we should show the plural as the lemma and show the singular as "singular form of" the plural, not that that would do users any good. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the truly singular sense might be archaic; b.g.c. searches for google books:"his walk of life", google books:"that walk of life", etc. pull up page after page of century-old hits. —Ruakh_TALK 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The COCA hits are all current. Some of them seem like true singular uses. They are form talk shows and newspapers. Of the 587 hits there for "walk/walks of life", 387 are for "all walks of life". Of the remaining 200, 93 are for the singular form. It is such a cliche in the plural in political and religious discourse that there seems to be spillover usage in the singular. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 02:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Now if someone could rectify/move the entry in accordance with the output of this discussion, that'd be great. I'm very hesitant about editing idiomatic entries in English. --Ivan Štambuk 07:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done the basics. Though the distinction the OED makes is certainly valid, I think current usage (often political or religious) blends them, as does our definition and those that other dictionaries have. To me it seems like a sense (most common current usage) and subsenses (sometime use in a more particular way). It would take some work to confirm my beliefs. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] perky

Hi, everyone, this is my first time in the Tea Room ... please bear with my gaffes...

Recently I added what I thought was an important additional sense to the definition for perky, and had it immediately undone as a "sarcastic or ironic usage". I feel quite strongly that this is not what I was recording, although my example sentence may have been somewhat wanting. I've tried to explain my (still undone) edit on the talk page for perky. (Please note that the usage I'm familiar with is contemporary American).

I hoped that someone here might have access to OED online; I'd be very interested to see what the OED says on the subject. Happy Holidays all - --Krnntp 03:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The OED online says "Lively, cheerful, jaunty; attractive, neat; (also) conceited, cocky". Perhaps you were thinking of the "also" senses? There is an earlier sense (applied to wheat) of "early or forward in growth", but this is retained only in a regional dialect. Dbfirs 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] decrepit

It seems that these days decrepid is a common misspelling of decrepit but until the first part of the 20th century it was a valid alternative spelling. The very last google books hits for decrepid seem to be about 1933 but it wasn't common after about 1915-1920. Should we include it as an entry marked as a common misspelling and as a dated/archaic alternative spelling? Should we include it as just one of these? Thryduulf 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If we call it obsolete that would do the job, IMHO. "Obsolete" is about as (appropriately) prescriptive as "misspelling". Since you've got some extra information, why not have a usage note, too? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it per that suggestion. Thanks. Thryduulf 10:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] word(s) for declaring something dying/dead or that we're post-(thing)?

One finds in many different areas people proclaiming "the horror genre is dead," "Wikipedia is dying," "we're long past the need for feminism," "we're in a post-racial society," etc. Is there a word or phrase (or fallacy?) for such a proclamation or belief? Thanks! 24.29.92.243 18:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps premature + obituary. See quotes at google books. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Also premature + eulogy. See [Google books]. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's usually a combination of wishful thinking/speaking and opinion stated as truth, expressed (as DCDuring described) in the form of a premature obituary/eulogy. You could also call it a false obituary, maybe a wishful obituary? Very interesting question. --Tyranny Sue 06:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] to close ranks

I really think we need an entry for this but I'm not sure how to define it. Anyone?--Tyranny Sue 06:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

All I can contribute is from what I believe to be the etymological origin, in which military ranks file close together for mutual protection. --EncycloPetey 06:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cat person & dog person

Should these appear as derived or related terms under the entries for person and cat or dog (respectively)? --Tyranny Sue 13:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Derived and derived.​—msh210℠ 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] da

The English section of this seems to include two Russian senses. Why is that? --Yair rand 19:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)