Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFV)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”



See also:

Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification AKA attestation, place the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good source.

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use.
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page or to WT:RFVA. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:impromptu, Talk:baggs.

Oldest tagged RFVs


January 2014[edit]


Appears unattested. google books:"gaplapper", google groups:"gaplapper", gaplapper at OneLook Dictionary Search, google books:"gaplappers", google groups:"gaplappers", gaplappers at OneLook Dictionary Search (courtesy of {{attest-search}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "gap-lappers" should count toward citing "gaplapper". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

shark fin[edit]

Rfv-sense "To remove the fin from a shark, usually for use in cooking." The more correct form is "to fin a/the shark(s)". The gerund "shark finning" and the agent noun "shark finner" definitely exist and are not being RFVed. --WikiTiki89 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very common pattern of noun-verb conversion. Nothing guarantees that the process will lead to shark fin#Verb. You would think that such a verb could not be used intransitively and that the object would always be a shark. Something like "The fishermen sharkfin makos when ever they find them in their nets" might exist in the wild, but "The fishermen fin makos when ever they find them in their nets" seems more likely. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there could be uses such as "He shark fins all day," but I haven't found any. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Found one:
    • 2008, Paul J. Mila, Fireworks, AuthorHouse, page 42:
      “Yes, perhaps long-liners or poachers illegally shark finning. []
Ungoliant (falai) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I had accepted that we need to attest to the present-tense or 'infinitive' forms, I don't think that is really true. If manner adverbs, like illegally in Ungoliant's example, modify a form of shark fin or there is a true past or passive, that would seem to be sufficient evidence that it is used as a true verb. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Here’s another:
    • 2009, Fredric Archer, The New Shark Troller’s Bible, page 188:
      Once again, at the end of the day, everywhere you looked you could see at least one shark finning on the surface.
This one is ambiguous; it could be a verb ( [] at least one [of them] shark finning on the surface.), referring to finners mentioned in a previous sentence, or it could be a noun ( [] at least one [instance of] shark finning on the surface.). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • 1919, William Merriam Rouse, Peter the Devil in The Green Book Magazine, volume 22, Story-Press Association, page 22:
      [] and the nondescript few who wandered more or less aimlessly about the fifty-mile white beach that was Manaia, shark-finning, boiling bêche-de-mer, hunting hawk's-bill turtle.
Uses a hyphen. There you go: three cites, but two with issues. I’ll leave it to whoever closes the RFV to decide whether this term is verified.
If it passes, it definitely needs to be labelled rare. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I would still feel more comfortable if we could attest the infinite, simple present, or past tense forms. --WikiTiki89 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Archer cite does not seem to be the same meaning, or even the same POS. It is a subject-verb use rather than an attributive noun-verb use. The shark is displaying his fin above the water, not chopping off his own fin with his pearly whites. SpinningSpark 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's talking about a shark that is "finning" (fin#Verb definition #2). --WikiTiki89 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


RFV for the plural suffix (from the homographic French). Bd2412 closed the suffix's RFD discussion with "Moved to RfV" (see Talk:-x#Deletion discussion), but it was never sent here. I bring this here for that procedural reason. Regarding the suffix's attestation, I think binioux, Citations:cointreaux, Citations:maraboux, and Miniconjoux are enough to verify the independent use of -x in English. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they're English. The first quote for binioux is instructive: "...the bagpipes or binioux as they are known in France". The writer is obviously under the impression that binioux is the correct plural in French, and is using it as a French word. Being bad at speaking French doesn't change your French into English, it's just bad French. It would be like creating an English entry for buenas días because some people who don't speak Spanish very well think día is feminine. It looks to me like most, if not all, of these quotes are of people attempting to use the French plural for a French word, but getting it wrong (except for cointreaux, which apparently is the correct plural in French- see fr:cointreaux). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
To quote myself, mut. mut., in #-oth above (my post timestamped: 01:15, 18 January 2014), "I think that use of a plural-marking suffix in contexts that would be incorrect in the source language is a sign of its morphemity — it shows that the user of the suffix is thinking ‘[-x] marks a plural’, and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in [-u] and the plural meanwhile happens to end in [-ux]." Of course, uses of cointreaux in English do nothing to establish the morphemity of -x, since that plural could simply have been borrowed directly from French (rather than having been constructed independently in English). BTW, if *buenas días is attested in English, then yes, it should have some kind of entry (compare baristo). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of ambiguous. On one hand, it's productive use in English by English speakers. But on the other, those same speakers consciously intend to form a plural in a non-English way. Is it English if English speakers try to purposely apply French grammar to French words that are used in English? It's really not different from Latin or Greek plurals. —CodeCat 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]


"type of hot spicy soup commonly eaten as a street food in China."

According to Wikipedia malatang is:

  1. skewers of various ingredients cooked in hot broth, a popular street food in Beijing
  2. Sichuanese stew similar to hot pot

The questions are: 1) is it also a soup? 2) is Wikipedia correct? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It has both meanings, see Nciku. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
According to your link malatang is cooked in soup (=broth, I would think) but that does not make it a soup. That would indicate that our current definition is wrong, and the two Wikipedia definitions are correct. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RFV passed [1] --Hekaheka (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Unstruck. I don't see attesting quotations. As a minimum, the text of the quotations should be pasted to this RFV discussions, IMHO. As the very bare poor man's minimum, three links to quotations meeting WT:ATTEST should be provided. Since the nominated entry is an English one, that means "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


RFV for the sense "newspaper" of the Latin ephēmeris. That sense isn't listed in Lewis & Short. Gaffiot has the sense "mémorial journalier", which translates to "daily memorial", which I don't fully understand, but which I interpret to mean "diary"; in any case, I'm pretty sure it doesn't support the "newspaper" sense. Niermeyer doesn't have an entry for ephēmeris. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited by Mr. Granger (talkcontribs). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I laud Mr. Granger's addition of that citation, in it he chose to translate ephemeridem with "journal", not "newspaper", and, given w:La Civiltà Cattolica, he was right to do so. I'm afraid that the challenged sense remains uncited. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure what sense my citation belongs under, actually. La Civiltà Cattolica is not exactly a newspaper (sense 2), but it's certainly not a diary (sense 1) either. Maybe the "newspaper" sense should be changed to "periodical" to accommodate the citation. (Incidentally, I don't want to take undue credit - the translation isn't mine, but rather comes from the book itself.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I've moved your citation under the new sense "a journal, periodical" and elaborated its bibliographical information to better indicate where the original text and its translation come from ([2]). I haven't merged the disputed sense into the new sense, because I believe they are too dissimilar to be treated as one sense. Be that as it may, I note that there is a logical development of senses: day-book → newspaper → periodical. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I just happened upon Ephemeris: Nuntii Latini universi [Ephemeris: Latin news of the whole world], the website of an on-line Latin-language newspaper founded by Stanisław Tekieli in June 2004. The date line ("Saturni die 24 mensis Maii 2014"; Anglice: "on Saturday the 24th of the month of May [in] 2014") suggests that it is a daily newspaper. If that is the case, then the use of ephēmeris (deriving as it does from the Ancient Greek ἐφήμερος (ephḗmeros, daily)) to mean "a daily newspaper" is a semantic development parallel with the English word daily, which the OED (2nd ed., 1989) records (under “daily, a. (n.)” B.1) in the sense "A daily newspaper." (with nine supporting quotations, 1823–1965). However, in this use it would appear that Ephemeris is a proper noun, being the name of one specific newspaper, rather than a common noun, being used to mean "a (daily) newspaper" generally. @Mr. Granger, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: What do you make of this evidence? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this newspaper also published in paper? If not, I’d discount this use an non-durable. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. However, it has almost certainly been discussed by name in Contemporary Latin publications which themselves are durably archived, as it already has been in an English context. What I'm wondering is, would such citations count toward attesting the sense of ephēmeris currently being challenged, or would they be taken as supporting the Latin proper noun Ephēmeris, or as citing both? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I lean towards excluding it. If I remember correctly, we’ve had an English RFV where the name of a band was not considered a valid cite. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
small note: journal#Old_French a daily. Also, we may want to accept that digital media are now the standard for publication. Paper, if it happens, is secondary and ephemeral. - Amgine/ t·e 06:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Often part of the point of a paper copy of a normally digital work is its non-ephemerality. Digital papers tend to have a serious problem with being ephemeral in my experience; Geocities is virtually all archived away, but newspapers try to keep everything behind a paywall and be the sole source of their text. The theoretical standard behind our citation rules is that we be able to reference our cites in the foreseeable future; a sold PDF is probably hard to get ahold of for the random person, but there's no guarantee at all that anyone will have a copy of the article that we cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The modern equivalent is a dvd/cd annual, occasionally a 'perk' for members or subscribers. Thank goodness that tradition is also dying rapidly. Visit https://archive.org or any of the many other aggregators whose purpose is to present a record of publicly published content. But keep in mind that owning the paper copy is a hurdle to your concept of accessible durability, just as paying for access is a hurdle for paywalled content. Most of the world cannot access the OED, online or off. But this is probably not the best location for this discussion. - Amgine/ t·e 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I know about archive.org; that's why I pointed out that newspapers try to keep everything behind a paywall and be the sole source of their text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Is this really an adjective? allotted at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that many dictionaries make allotted in effect redirect to allot. AFAICT only WordNet shows it as an adjective, "assigned as a task" her allotted chores, but this seems to transfer meaning from the word modified to the modifier. Consider his allotted share of the garden. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is well suited for RFV. I would like to see a precedent of deleting adjective sections from past participles via RFV or a Beer parlour discussion supporting such deletion via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly well suited for a fact-based discussion. Either the word is attestably used as an adjective or it is not. The question of whether a term is an adjective is fairly clear cut and reasonable quickly resolved by resort to the facts of usage. The role of lawyerly argumentation is useful in evaluating the attestation evidence or in challenging the authority behind the criteria used. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are no purely attestation-based criteria necessary for adjectivity. An adjective does not need to be comparable and does not need to be modifiable by "very" and the like. RFD is not forbidden from being "fact-based". All criteria listed at Wiktionary:English adjectives are merely hints; none of the criteria is alone necessary and the criteria are not jointly necessary. If Wiktionary:English adjectives were applied to "allotted", google books:"become allotted" would suggest this to be adjective; nonetheless, I do not take Wiktionary:English adjectives very seriously. In any case, this does not fit my idea of proper use of RFV, which should IMHO above all be used to find whether a term or a sense are actually used to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to ignore our non-legislated practice of requiring that an English adjective be comparable/gradable OR be used as a predicate OR have a sense distinct from the sense of the noun or verb form from which a separate identity is to be established. The predicate case is that hardest to apply for adjectives that are alleged to be conversions of past participles, because it often requires a high level of sensitivity to the language to reliably distinguish passive use of the past participle from predicate use of an adjective. This is the kind of thing that interpretation of actual evidence rather than armchair introspection and gum-flapping (let alone legislating) is well suited to resolving. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the putative practice you speak of is a non-legislated practice, meaning it is, if it exists, not a result of a vote or a Beer parlour discussion. Now, any evidence of this being a common practice? Do you know of past RFV outcomes that fit this putative practice? How many are they? For the record, I oppose the use of RFV for this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it can be an adjective, but I'm rather dubious about the comparative and superlative shown in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Why of course? It can be used attributively, but so can nouns and ing-forms and ed-forms of verbs.
    1. Can it be shown to be gradable or comparative?
    2. Can it be used after become or seem?
    3. Is it ever unambiguously used as a predicate, ie, following a form of be with semantics clearly distinguished from a past participle used to form a passive?
    4. Does it have a sense that is not present in the ed-form of the verb?
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    All those hurdles? I'm virtually gobsmacked. Donnanz (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective.
    I share your skepticism about comparability, but can it be used with very or too (gradability)? I don't think so. I've never run into usage that meets any of the other tests either, but there might be such usage. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. The allotted tasks are less challenging than the other job expectations; the latter have no specific time set aside for their accomplishment.
    2. My days seem allotted either as a series of disasters and bad news, or boring montages of the same-ol'.
    3. Each is allotted a colour according to its priority. - Amgine/ t·e 06:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Amgine: The first is attributive use of a past participle. (Would attested usage of "the circumnavigated globe" make circumnavigated an adjective?) The third is clearly a use of the verb in the passive. (Consider Each is allotted a color by rule of priority., which makes the agent explicit.) The second is the sole telling example. It could be argued that it is an ellipsis of the passive, but I think not. Three citations of such usage for each of the two senses would settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is enough sourcing on "This film has been modified from its original version to run in the allotted time" alone to support this as an adjective. Something can be an adjective while not taking comparatives or superlatives Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your reason would imply that cicumnavigated should be considered an adjective, given usage such as:
  • 1965, G. B. Sansom, The Western World and Japan:
    Not many years after the discovery of the Americas and the opening of the Cape route to India, Christian missionaries were making their way to almost every part of the now circumnavigated globe
There is a clear path to justifying treating this as an adjective: that it attestably meet at least ONE of the tests of adjectivity, such as those listed above (There may be more.). There is no amount of attributive use alone that would compel treatment of this as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While I don't have an opinion on the rest, wouldn't the modifying element be now circumnavigated in that quote? - Amgine/ t·e 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Amgine: Yes, but circumnavigated is the head of the modifying phrase. I searched for "now circumnavigated" to reduce the portion of the ocean that I had to boil to find relevant citations. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, as a sailor, I would certainly consider a circumnavigated globe as qualitatively different from an uncircumnavigated one, in a comparable way an explored region differs from an unexplored one, a painted versus an unpainted canvas. In a related manner, an allotted hour or day is different from one unallotted. And that's entirely apart from parliamentary usage (throughout the commonwealth), the standard euphemisms allotted span, allotted hours, or allotted days to indicate length of life (or 70 years, whichever comes first?), and of course Google Books—whether religious, poetic, or otherwise. On another hand, your position that allotted is not adjectival is disputed by OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge... just wondering which authority is the basis for your position? - Amgine/ t·e 20:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears there is enough sourcing to support allotted as an adjective. User:DCDuring, why do you fight words ending in -ed and -ing being defined as adjectives when they're clearly attestable as such? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: To avoid the need to maintain English entries that convey no semantic information. All English nouns can be used attributively; all English past participles and -ing forms can be used in a variety of predictable ways. Perhaps you would enjoy adding complete adjective PoS sections to all (I do mean ALL) English noun entries, -ing-forms and past participles and complete noun sections to all -ing-form entries. In principle, each sense of the lemma form of a verb should have an appropriately reworded corresponding sense in the adjective section located on the same page as the section for the past participle and the -ing-form. Mutatis mutandis for nouns. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it has to be done only by me, or immediately. What we just do is end the ridiculous deletion of -ed and -ing adjectives, and create more as needed. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be ALL, because, in practice, not all are used frequently enough to be attributable. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Sense "(poetic) virginity, chastity." Sure. I'm putting it on my list of I wouldn't know where to start looking and I don't have a clue how it would be used if it is really used. Cites, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of all 6 pages of Google Books results for "her thyme" -herb -garlic -cottonwood, these are the only results that look plausible to me: [3] [4] [5]. More context for the third result can be seen here. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The cites might fit a definition like "fertility or sexuality". I don't see "chastity". DCDuring TALK 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it's hard to draw the line between symbolism and lexical meaning, and harder still to pin down the meaning of metaphorical speech- but a line has to be drawn. There are lots of poems that refer to beautiful women as roses, and also refer to the "thorns" encountered when they're "plucked" . That doesn't mean we should have senses at rose, thorn or pluck that capture this usage.
To put it another way: the plant known as thyme may symbolize virginity and chastity, but the term "thyme" doesn't necessarily mean "virginity and chastity" as a word. The former is the realm of an encyclopedia, the latter the realm of a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Poetry provides the poorest attestation for contemporary English, ambiguity, allusion, metaphor, and prosody often confusing matters enormously. Also IMO metaphors are often given too much weight in our RfVs. The distinction between "live" metaphors and "dead" ones is worth keeping in mind, even though it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "live" and "dead".
I'm not exactly sure how to handle the symbolic meanings of colors and natural things, as, for example, seems to have been common in the Middle Ages, possibly especially in Christendom. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I based this entry on the old Irish song "A Bunch of Thyme". There is a very detailed analysis of this song at http://www.irishmusicdaily.com/bunch-of-thyme which clearly states its use as a euphamism for virginity and/or purity.--Dmol (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dmol: Interesting article, but some of the other actual usage doesn't seem to me to quite fit "virginity".
Also, the song is in English. Is it an adaptation of an older Irish song? Did "thyme" have some specific association with virginity in Irish culture? DCDuring TALK 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The article actually says: "Thyme represents the girl’s purity and consequently it represents her hopes and prospects for future happiness." This is metaphor, not a meaning of the word. Dbfirs 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it lexical information to include as a definition the symbolic meaning of the thing represented by a word (and its synonyms), ie, a synset? Would only an entry be merited only for the language(s) of the culture(s) in which the symbolic meaning existed, at least at one time.
I would think that only when the symbolic meaning has somehow transferred from the referent itself to one or more of the synset would a definition be warranted. So if blue were at one time a symbol of sadness, at some time the meaning transferred to the word, which now has the sense "sad". I certainly doubt that thyme ever remotely approached that kind of meaning transfer. Note also that near-synonyms for the color blue are not near synonyms for sad. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added two quotes from traditional songs, one from the 17th century and another later one from (i think) the 19th. I also added two references, one as discussed above and another I found. There is another website, http://www.irishpage.com/songs/thyme.htm , that makes the same connection and give the original Irish language lyrics. I also changed the definition to say that it is "an allegory..." which seems more accurate. --Dmol (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective meaning nothing or zero. I'm not quite sure what the author is referring to here. I have found a cite for "since supposedly there are zilch feelings involved". Is this adjectival? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the part of speech in your example should be determiner, but it seems to be mostly a noun. We seem to be all over the map in our treatment of this and synonyms such as bupkis, nada, nil, nothing and zip. I also think we're missing the humorous and emphatic overtones to the term in our treatment. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The French Wiktionary has a head 'adjectif numéral' for cardinal numbers like 'one, two, three' which can describe a noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Originally one nomination of three items, including #teinipeili and #meitsie. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion by an IP with the comment: "There isn't that word at Turkish commonly. It is a prefabrice."

Nothing on Books or on Groups. Regular Google search turns 51 hits, many tracing back to us: not hot- not even lukewarm ... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There are results for özçekmiş on Groups. -- 11:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
selfie is selfie at Turkish too. Also "take a sefie" is "selfie çekmek". Selfie did become news at online newspapers. When searching at google, you will see "selfie akımı" and "selfie çılgınlığı" ... özçekmiş isn't truth.-- 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone add teinipeili citations to the entry? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Finnish: "A selfie taken through a mirror, especially one that is published in the internet."

Nominated on 26 April 2014.

What about Finnish teinipeili and meitsie? Can you find the results on books or on groups? -- 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Teinipeili (lit. "teen mirror") has been around for years and finding three quotes in newspapers would be a piece of cake. First internet appearances of meitsie seem to be from January this year, and thus it does not fulfil our "spanning over one year" -criteria.--Hekaheka (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Turkish word 'sanalgı' has been around for years and you may find three quotes in newspapers [6] but it was deleted. Is it not same with 'teinipeili'?--12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If they were actually nominated, someone might check. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No quotations in the entry, no quotations in this RFV. Please add quotations or this will be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Finnish: "selfie"

Nominated on 26 April 2014.

Hekaheka said in April 2014: First internet appearances of meitsie seem to be from January this year, and thus it does not fulfil our "spanning over one year" -criteria

Three quotations are in the entry but they are not from durably archived sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]


I couldn't confirm the existence of this word in Japanese. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a couple of works related to Shinto and Japanese mythology that use 隱身 in Japanese (not read おんしん but かくりみ, though): [7] [8] [9]. Whym (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: thanks. With this reading it makes more sense, it's also in 隱身@Weblio.jp. Apparently it's a Shinto term. Could you improve the definition, please? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Our favorite IP strikes again. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Does this have to do with the above entry or related entries? What were the edits?
@Whym:, @Eirikr: I'll leave the above entry in your capable hands. :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you look at the edit history, it was created by back in 2012. Any time you find something in our Japanese entries that's wrong in ways that just don't make sense, the odds are it traces back to this same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note also that the initial character here, , is the obsolete kyūjitai for . As such, the entry at 隱身 should only ever be a stub entry marked as {{alternative spelling of|隠身}}, directing readers to the lemma entry content at 隠身.
FWIW, I find evidence for both the readings kakurimi (google books:"隠身"+"かくりみ", 81 hits) and kakuremi (google books:"隠身"+"かくれみ", 28 hits). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Eirikr: I tried my best at 隠身 and 隱身. Quotations are not yet added. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't done much research on this, but 隱形 (隠形) probably has the same problem. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: Thank you! I see you're using {{ja-altread}}. I haven't used it before @Eirikr: has some other way to put together terms with multiple reading but I don't remember exactly. Just by repeating the headword on two lines? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "camp".

Allegged inflected forms: definite accusative düşerge, plural düşergeler.

Someone doubts the existence of the word entry, so I request attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited since May, but the citations don’t have translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Düşerge is "pay, miras payı" at Turkish. But it is not "camp". "düşərgə" is "camp" and Azeri's word. A group try to show like Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@123snake45: what do the citations at Citations:düşerge say? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just added the translations. -- 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]


Any attestation of this would-be Danish word, as per WT:ATTEST, emphasizing use in permanently recorded media? google books:"musikvideoinstruktør", google groups:"musikvideoinstruktør", musikvideoinstruktør at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I got somewhat different results at Google Books. —Stephen (Talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See. At Google Books it has 3 sources. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a third citation. All of them still need translations though, can someone someone who speaks North Germanic languages add them or at least confirm they’re using the defined sense? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Sense: "A photo shared on a social media network with the sole intention of making your friends/followers jealous" At first I wanted to speedy it, but then I reconsidered and decided to give it a chance. Anything durably archived? The citation given initially is incomplete. Keφr 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation originally provided in the entry doesn't look like it's CFI-compliant. I found a few newspaper cites, but none older than November of last year. Marked as a hot word for now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this still in use? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, added a couple more cites from December 2014. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Dubious. Editor not trustworthy. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless one of the native-ZH editors here can confirm that the above short spelling is an abbreviation (which seems quite unlikely), delete, and then make sure the [[lapsang souchong]] entry that this same editor also worked on is also correct and in the proper format. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Not a word, 正山小種 is 正山 + 小種 ("subspecies from Mt. Zheng"). Wyang (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Added by an IP that I blocked for responding to speedy deletion of a few unattestable entries with a couple dozen more, including "igazib" and "gagladon". There were a couple I left alone because they're attestable, and then there's this one: I found two cites, but not three. It seems plausible enough, but I'd like confirmation, given the source.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to the two-word phrase:
SpinningSpark 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this shows an interesting use of "nickel", but does not necessarily support "nickel brain" as a set phrase. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

plum blossom[edit]

Rfv-sense: "The blossom of the Prunus mume."

I suspect that this was created because it was a translation of a species-limited CJKV term, not based on actual usage in English. As it stands it is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia article on prunus mume has said for a long time that: "The flower is usually called plum blossom", and provides a citation for that proposition. bd2412 T 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412: That citation is a translation of an old Chinese work, which would probably support my suspicion as to the source of the term. I really don't think that hyponymic translations should be used to justify overly specific definitions, unless we are to completely write off our role as a monolingual dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Moreover, the book does not actually use plum blossom as a translation for the flower of Prunus mume, but rather mei-flower, as the translator explains in the introduction (page lv therof). DCDuring TALK 13:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the route we're going:
  • 1969, Ernest Henry Wilson, ‎Daniel J. Foley, The Flowering World of "Chinese" Wilson, p. 63:
    Japan holds flower festivals during many months of the year, beginning with that of the plum blossom (Prunus mume) in February and ending with that of the chrysanthemum in November, but the most popular is that of the cherry blossom which falls in early April.
  • 1974, Yoshiaki Mihara, Agricultural Meteorology of Japan, p. 25:
    The plum blossom is the earliest of all the flowers in Japan. The flowering date of the plum (Prunus Mume) has also been extensively studied.
  • 1983, Edwin T. Morris, The Gardens of China: History, Art, and Meanings, p. 173:
    Hsiang Sheng-mo (1 597-1 658), "Prunus mume" (mei hua) in "Landscapes, Flowers, and Birds." The plum blossom that bloomed against the naked wood was the sign of spring and renewal.
I can't say whether this is idiomatic, since the fruit of the plant is an apricot, which is technically just a pale plum. bd2412 T 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps context is an issue. Among native speakers, plum blossom would seem to be understood as "flower of the Prunus mume" only in the context of discussions about oriental flora, the Orient itself, and in reference to products or art associated with the Orient. I suppose it could all be done in a usage note. I can only hope that the translations respect the narrowness of the usage. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. In any case, this only differs from sense one in that it identifies a specific species of plum blossom. bd2412 T 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: in the OED. Ƿidsiþ 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That the fruit of Prunus mume is called a Japanese apricot and the tree goes by that name as well is sufficient, I suppose. I have added some material to the entry to clarify some of what is idiomatic about it. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Prunus mume is really neither an apricot nor a plum, but something without a clear one-to-one English translation, except the lesser-known loanwords ume and mei. Botanically, it's definitely much closer to the apricot, but judging from the Wikipedia article, most of the culinary products use plum in the English name. From this I would guess that "plum" is the older, more established usage, but "apricot" is the current prescriptivist favorite. I don't think that the "it's an apricot, not a plum" argument is sufficient in itself to prove that it's idiomatic, but I'd be curious how references to the blossoms of Prunus salicina are translated, since that's the Japanese fruit most solidly identified in English usage as a plum- in the US (at least in California, where I live), it's actually far better known than the original European plum, Prunus domestica. The blossoms have deeply iconic cultural significance with both the Chinese and Japanese, and so are more likely to be found in English translations, while those of Prunus salicina are no doubt of secondary importance to the fruit. By the way, I'll have to see if I can spend some time sorting through our East Asian fruit tree terms, since many of them seem to be either confused or vague. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Prunus mume more or less specifies the bearer of the blossom. Simple vernacular terms often refer to more than one species, sometimes to different genera, families, orders, even classes and phyla. Chinese plum is an example, by no means exceptional. The set of English vernacular names that have a one-to-one correspondence to species names not only doesn't cover many species, but also is often not used except in limited contexts, though many of the contexts are in print. The English vernacular names for species not native to English-speaking lands are a challenge as there may be one or more "official" names; names based on similarity of appearance to a species that is native to English-speaking lands, qualified by one or more adjectives associating it with a region (eg, Japanese, Chinese); and transliterations of non-English names.
Plum blossom is one of a narrower set of terms that have a connection to vernacular names, but also a cultural meaning in a culture that has a strong cultural influence on the English language. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, this is only ever mentioned in the context of the A Song of Ice and Fire books (which means it fails WT:FICTION), and even in those books and other books which discuss them, it's a title like "Queen" rather than a name. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a rapidly growing name in the united states. See this article --Mnidjm (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider 146 in the US in one year to be "rapidly growing". That number is minuscule. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
[10] Ancestry.com finds 39 hits, about ten baby girls named Khaleesi. Birth records of Nevada are probably durably archived, but I cannot reach them or format proper citations. Betsy, less fashionable according to the Mnidjim's article, gets 2 437 163 hits. To quote WikiTiki, this kind of result means Khaleesi is very, very rare.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Rapidly growing, as in 5 babies with the name in 2010, 28 in 2011, then 146 in 2012. --Mnidjm (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

bible belt[edit]

I ask for attestation of this capitalization: bible belt. Note that Bible Belt exists, and is currently not questioned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if this capitalisation is accepted, aren't the two definitions basically the same. Does the Bible Belt ever mean anywhere other than the south-east part of the country.--Dmol (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the first definition of "bible belt" is meant to be general, potentially referring to any bible belt in any country. The question is whether this usage is attestable. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not experienced at this, so ignore me if I don't know what I'm on about, but how about [11] and [12]? This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The first citation seems to be rather attributive use of the narrow meaning. But it may be either way. The second I cannot read. Keφr 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the fact that it is attributive. It seems to be the broader meaning, since it is referring to regions of Australia as far as I can tell (even though America is mentioned earlier in the paragraph). The second I also cannot read. --WikiTiki89 13:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What about w:Bible Belt (Netherlands)? —CodeCat 13:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be another narrow sense. It doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the broad sense. --WikiTiki89 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Also Finland, Sweden and Norway have a "bible belt". I don't know how often they are written about in English, though. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sceptical that this capitalization ("bible belt") is worth keeping; I am even more sceptical that it is worth keeping as a lemma. Inspired by Heka's comment, I have added some citations of "Bible belt" and "Bible Belt" in reference to Finnish and Norwegian areas to Citations:Bible belt. I am not sure if it makes sense to have a dozen narrow senses or one broad sense + a subsense for the US region, which is the region meant by most of the citations (even most of the citations that turn up for searches like google books:"Bible belt" Finland or google books:"Bible belt" Norway). - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

fonner, fonnest[edit]

Is it a real form of the adjective fon as Equinox asked? I took a quick look in Google Books at fonnest and all I'd found was a surname (which is why I added Fonnest to the see also template at the top). Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

google books:"the fonnest" turns up only scannos of formest and soonest. google books:"the fonner" turns up capitalized proper nouns, and scannos of former. I'm a bit surprised that it isn't used as a jocular spelling variant of "fun / funner / funnest". - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since Yeti created these himself (from the green links at fon) and now has doubts, perhaps we should speedy them and remove the -er/-est forms from fon. Equinox 11:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


This has the sole sense: "A very thin person." The quotations that I find seem to be adjectival. Worth attesting. google books:"skinnymalinky", google groups:"skinnymalinky", skinnymalinky at OneLook Dictionary Search. We have skinnymalinks, which I do not question, since that seems easy to attest using google books:"skinnymalinks". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


""Railroad built upon an evened, ground level length of land." This is supposed to be an adjective, not a noun; also, all I could find relating to railroads was sense 1 (crossings on the same level). Luciferwildcat added this sense so I am not very hopeful. Equinox 19:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems very plausible as an adjective and would most most used in the context of railroads, I think, though other rights of way may be contexts as well. "A unprotected at-grade crossing" might be an example. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Not so plausible to me. It's SOP use of at + grade (sense 8: ground level). You can find usage of "at grade", "at or above grade", "at or below grade", with hyphenation when used as a modifier. Do we have entries for at-sea-level or below-sea-level? Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I might add that grade crossing and level crossing are basically the same thing as at-grade crossing. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Because of all the references to academic grades, it's hard to be sure, but searches with preceding words such as "an", "no", "many", etc. and with pluralizing to reduce the number of false hits turns up nothing in Google Books for a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I was only thinking of the other sense. I can't see a noun meaning for this. DCDuring TALK 21:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Back in December 2013 someone questioned the existence of ap as an English adjective meaning "In or relating to the apothecaries' system of measures", but nothing more was done about it, so now I'm bringing it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To start off, here are a few hits in reference works: here, here, and here, and one use: here. Maybe not complete by CFI standards, but at least enough to show it wasn't made completely up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]


It looks like the term is in use (e.g., Dioscliosta David Guetta), but I can't find anything permanent enough to count. Not in GBooks, GGroups, or Foinse.ie. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's focloir.ie, but it's more of a mention than a use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes... that's the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary, which is as near to the Official Modern Irish dictionary as is available. (Ó Donaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla is the other half, from almost twenty years later, and doesn't include this word, although diosc and liosta are both present.)
Which leads to an awkward situation: anyone looking up "discography" in the closest thing to an official dictionary of Irish will find dioscliosta. And just because it hasn't shown up in print yet, it's appearing in other places and a print appearance would seem to be a matter of time. If someone can find it in a citable medium, then no harm, no foul. If not... I dunno. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not listed in the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary; the link above points to Foras na Gaeilge's new English-Irish dictionary. Irish is an LDL, so a single mention is sufficient for it to pass RFV, but since Foras na Gaeilge coins its own Irish words in response to a perceived gap in the language (rather than waiting for speakers to develop terms naturally and then reporting them), I'm not inclined to take its word for the realness of this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh. That's not exactly clear from that page. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is once you get used to how that site is organized. The pages that say "New English-Irish Dictionary" beneath the focloir.ie logo belong to the new dictionary. The Ó Donaill and de Bhaldraithe databases are at breis.focloir.ie, e.g. http://breis.focloir.ie/en/eid/discography. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mexican beer dermatitis[edit]

The phenomenon itself is thoroughly plausible, since many plants in the family that limes belong to contain photosensitizing substances- but I only found one usenet post, which linked to an online article, which referred to a journal article published in 2010. It looks like a one-off descriptive phrase that never caught on. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Journal of the American Medical Association - Dermatology: [13] 2010
  • New York Daily News [14] 2010
  • National Public Radio [15] 2010
  • "The Doctors" TV show [16] 2011
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [17] 2014

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

margarita dermatitis[edit]

By the same user. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't rfv this one because this quote seems to point to there being actual usage, though Google Books and Google Groups don't show it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
But even that quote is just a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BBC [18] 2006
  • ScienceDaily [19] 2007
  • KCRW radio [www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/good-food/modernist-drinks-geology-and-terroir-margarita-dermatitis] 2013
  • USA Today [20] 2013
  • About.com [21] 2013
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [22] 2014
  • New England Journal of Medicine [23] Margarita Photodermatitis - 1993 (yes this is a somewhat different term; seeing if it should be added or left alone, if these are being deleted; there's also the alternate meaning for "lime disease" being phytophotodermatitis from the fruit 'lime' (shown in some of the links above))

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Various ostensibly Hiberno-English words[edit]


RFV of the English section. google books:ablachs turns up nothing but Scots; google books:ablach turns up a lot of capitalized chaff. - -sche (discuss) 13:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a hunch we're dealing with someone who considers Ulster Scots to be English, or is using a reference with that point of view. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, Ullans, the lect famously derided by opponents and even some supporters as "a DIY language". Hard to say what L2 it should be treated under (English, Scots, or an L2 all its own), since its speakers try so hard to make it different from both English and Lallans Scots. I'd stick with considering it Scots for now (though note how it was double-categorised). - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely treat it as a variety of Scots. Any words with a distinctly Ullans sense should be tagged with {{label|sco|Ulster}} to be categorized in [[Category:Ulster Scots]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm seeing exactly one citation of this word (probably, but not definitely of one of the two listedmeanings) at Google Books: John Joseph Jennings' 1900 Widow Magoogin. I see nothing on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

PS, "listedmeanings" is not a typo/misspelling, it's an homage to Joyce, who typo'ed/misspelt this word as pishogue. - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nothing on Google Books for this spelling, "doodog" or "dudoge", or the plurals thereof. "Dudog(s)" might be citable. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nothing on Google Books. The "alternative form" garsoon does seem to be attested, but seems to be derived directly from French, not via Connacht Irish as gasoor claims. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


All I see on Google Books are capitalized names (from a variety of sources, including Slavic) and an unrelated common noun meaning "corner", from an unidentified language. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for uxoricide. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative spelling of olivoleo, which means olive oil. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly Slovene for "apple tree". Since Slovene is not an less-documented language per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, I ask for three quotations attesting the word in use to convey meaning, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be so overly formal about it. We all know what RFV is for. —CodeCat 20:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't the refs suffice? They are from the site of SAZU (w:Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts). The second one is from a web edition of a 19th century dictionary by w:sl:Maks Pleteršnik, AFAICT. --biblbroksдискашн 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in this case. Slovene is not an LDL so we need three real citations of usage. But we probably won't find any because this is a dialectal term that would not likely be used in published texts. —CodeCat 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: "We all know what RFV is for.": As you can see, many people have a poor idea of RFV. Nothing wrong with being clear and explicit so that even newbies can know what is going on, which you call "overly formal". --Dan Polansky (talk)
Indeed, people sometimes post things here asking to verify the pronunciation, which isn't the job of this page. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

pecker mill[edit]

I request attestation in use to convey meaning as per WT:ATTEST. The current three quotations are not in use to convey meaning, IMHO, since the invocation of the term is preceded by "called", so the quotations talk about the term rather than using it. Relevant snippets: "Rice mills, called pecker, cog, and water mills...", "and in others by a rude machine, called a pecker mill.", "The first mechanical mills were harnessed to animals: the so-called pecker mill ". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the citations in the entry are good enough. —CodeCat 12:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Are they used to convey meaning? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes they do convey meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional cites added from the Google Books search on the citations page. Thanks for wasting our time. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Of the citations in the entry, I think the 1995 and 2003 ones are clear uses; the rest are all mentions or at least very mention-y. I don't doubt that there's a third use out there somewhere, though. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the first one " [] called a pecker mill", I'd class this as a use not a mention. It's used in context to convey meaning but recognizes that the reader may not be familiar with the term, hence the wording. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I rest my case. A sentence of the form "X is called Y" does not use Y; it merely mentions it. For the purpose of use-mention distinction, I do not see a difference between "X is called Y" and a dictionary entry "Y: X". Sentence "X is called Y" does not make use of the meaning of Y; instead, the sentence binds the meaning to Y to the reader; in order to understand the sentence, the reader does not need to know the meaning of Y.
As for the 2003 quotation ("The pecker mill is likely the fulcrum device developed by Guerrard in 1691."): the phrase "The pecker mill" does not suggest the meaning of the term is clear to the reader and to the writer either; instead, the writer seems to be in the process of figuring out what "pecker mill" means, stating one hypothesis about the meaning of the term in the quotation. That does not seem very use-y to me, but I admit that it is much better than the "X is called Y" quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Company names[edit]

These need citations meeting WT:COMPANY rules -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



(company sense only) -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This already passes. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are the citations? - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
the use of the company name. The city sense is not the use of the company name. -- Liliana 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)





  • I oppose this RFV nomination. This is a very unwise nomination. These entries are single-word ones, capable of hosting lexicographical material such as etymology, pronunciation and translation into other languages; multiple of the nominated items already do. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. WT:COMPANY is not a plain RFV regulation; it is one that places additional hurdles on company names, for reasons that I still do not undertand and that are IMHO not explained at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. The opposers have not explained why company names must be excluded while place names can be included. The arguing in the vote is along the line "we need some rules or else will have too many company names", but the opposers have not proposed any rules, and have not explained what is wrong with having a large number attested single-word company names. As for plain RFV nomination, all terms are clearly in widespread use, and RFV does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We have a certain user here who often likes to say "no consensus -- status quo ante". Keφr 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • For one thing, the status quo ante before this RFV for the nominated terms in the namespace is that Wiktionary has them. But let us look broader, at the status of company names in the mainspace in general, not just the nominated ones. As for most of the nominated terms, they are quite recent, so they are a poor indication of "ante": Motorola (since August 2012), Samsung (since August 2012), Hyundai (since September 2012‎), Toshiba (since March 2013‎), and Mitsubishi (since April 2013‎). However, Wiktionary had company names as early as in 2004 - Sony; Apple, BMW, FedEx, Gibson, Google, IBM,Kawasaki, Mobil, Nokia, Peugeot, Pixar, Raleigh, Toyota and Volvo are all from 2005, all as company names. More company names are listed at User talk:Dan Polansky#Company names. There were some deletions, including Atari, Exxon, Microsoft and Verizon, and probably other. As for the current WT:COMPANY text in CFI, it was entered there without a vote and even without a discussion AFAICT, so it never was supported by consensus by any stretch; the diffs that I found are diff (22 May 2005) and diff (21 November 2007). So I am not sure what your point really is. In any case, I consider this use of RFV to be an abuse of it, by a person who could not get his or her way by a proper consensus-based channel, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames_with_linguistic_information_2 under former user name Prince Kassad, newly Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The fact that no one removed the offending part from the CFI after it was added is wholly immaterial. I for one never felt comfortable making changes to a policy page that said at the top of the page that changes should not be done without a vote. For some time, I naively thought that CFI was really based on consensus; I only discovered later that it was not so. As a result, I set up a multitude of votes to remove things from CFI that were not supported by consensus. Some were a pass, some were a fail. Some of the best examples of things that were in CFI for ages with most people not taking them seriously is the attributive-use rule, removed via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities. The trick of adding stuff to policy pages and hoping that people will not remove them for the fear of edit war was tried in Wiktionary multiple times by various editors, with a considerable success. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, which rule could be applicable here but I vote keep all and I think we should keep all notable one word company names for the same reason we keep countries and place names. People are likely to look them up, search translations or want to find etymology, pronunciation. The more linguistic info such entries contain, the more important and interesting they are. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added four citations for Hyundai which I believe meet our strictures for brand names. bd2412 T 15:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for crowbar. The alternate spelling levstango is attested, but there's nothing for this spelling on Google Groups or Tekstaro, and only a single mention on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another made-up substitute for a term whose etymology isn't Turkic enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is some people's surname in Turkey. Kara means black and bat means duck or kar means snow (kara is the dativ form) and bat means sink in Turkish. Why are you commenting about the etymology of a Turkish word without knowing Turkish language? -- 03:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people's surname... that would be Karabat then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You may find some google results that it was used with the sense of pinguin: May 1, 2014 Linux'un simgesi karabat kuşudur (yani penguendir). (from Google Groups). -- 13:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to speak the language to see that penguen, the word listed in dictionaries, isn't etymologically Turkic, and you've now demonstrated that karabat is. Thank you for proving my point. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean penguen has not Turkish origin. I misunderstood because you used the word "enough". Anyway... -- 11:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"karabat" isn't penguin. They did fabricate against "buzulkuşu" word and try to show like a other bird the "buzulkuşu" word.
This unsigned message was typed by Türkeröz. -- 11:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Avibase buzulkuşu means Diuca speculifera. -- 09:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You made add to Avibase. It is your cheat... -- 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Avibase is not an open dictionary like wiktionary. -- 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Added by same IP as previous. rfving to be on the safe side. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a noun derived from old Turkish verb öndürmek to produce. It's some people's surname in Turkey. -- 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people's surname... that would be Öndürücü then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


The superlative base form of שיין (sheyn) is שענסט (shenst). The declensional forms are דער שענסטער (der shenster), די שענסטע (di shenste) and so forth. --Sgold84 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ruakh, Wikitiki89? Keφr 19:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ruakh doesn't know Yiddish. In any case, I made this in error and Sgold84 is correct that the entry should be moved and corrected. Is it okay to do this speedily? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Definitely. Just use "created in error" as the deletion reason, rather than "failed RFV". —RuakhTALK 07:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Scannos constitute a large portion of the limited number of Google Books hits this gets. I am doubtful enough citations remain to attest all four of the entry's senses. (Some scannos are of "man-woman" in phrases like "the ideal man-woman relationship", but others are of the entirely ambiguous designations "man-woman" and "woman-man" which I comment on here.) - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

manwomen needs citing as well, or else it's a case of plural unattested. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Supposedly modern (as opposed to Middle) English. I am doubtful. BGC hits are mostly scannos. - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The OED has entries for the noun queem marking it as obsolete (and the latest cite from before 1500 suggesting that it's really Middle English). The adjective and adverb are less clear, with the OED saying "now rare" but including cites from regional English in some senses (some with the spelling weem or wheem, and a Scots cite from 1983 (New Testament in Scots). Dbfirs 07:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a couple of uses for the verb and added citations for them. Not sure how old they actually are (one seems to use Middle English words/forms in an archaic fashion, so I suspect EME on that one); but the other is certainly Modern. Added tag. Leasnam (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
A couple more I added. One need only search after 'que(e)mest', 'que(e)meth', etc. to flush out the lave of them. There is also the variant quim. But I do think that the two entries should be merged, probably at queem? Leasnam (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, merge to queem, with queme as alternative form of. Ƿidsiþ 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I found another work which has the same poem about "the king she quemed"; it clarifies that the original was by Robert Mannyng (1275–1340) and that avenant, semblant and marvellich mean handsome, appearance and marvellously. Aside from those words, it seems to be an updated version of Robert's poem rather than a pure quotation, however, which in my understanding (see Talk:undeadliness) means it can be cited as English.
I have merged the noun and the verb at queem. Note that I have left the adjective at queme because queem does not currently claim that the 'ee' spelling can be an adjective. Also note that various senses still need citations.
PS, to save anyone else the trouble, I just went through every citation of google books:"queming" and google books:"queeming" and found nothing relevant; most hits were scannos of fre-quenting across a line break, some were scannos of querning. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly English. Has one citation, but it's apparently Scots. Google Books turns up Middle English, Scots and scannos. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

However, It wouldn't surprise me if this were attested in an entirely different sense, namely "eye dialect of fairly". - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The OED has entries for noun, adjective, verb and adverb. All marked as obsolete in English (though probably preserved in Scots) except for our noun sense which is "chiefly Scottish English and dialect". The most recent cite is from "N. Davis & C. L. Wrenn Eng. & Medieval Stud." (1962) but C Day Lewis used the noun in Time to Dance in 1935. Dbfirs 07:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)



  1. Using specious arguments or discourse.
    a plausible speaker

See Wiktionary:Tea_room/2014/July#a _plausible_ speaker uses specious arguments or discourse?

Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If a speaker says of someone else that He is a "plausible speaker, using sense 2, he is failing to endorse the truth of what the "plausible speaker" says. That is a kind of understated or polite criticism of the "plausible speaker" or the arguments made. Some dictionaries seem to have found that usage has elevated this kind of implication to the status of a pejorative definition. A collocation like "plausible liar" makes it difficult to determine whether plausible itself has the negative meaning rather than liar alone. I wonder what kind of quotations would give use evidence: something like "not true, but plausible"? DCDuring TALK 02:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at a few examples, even "not true, but plausible" doesn't assure us of plausible having negative rather than neutral valence, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Senses 2 through 4 were part of the original entry, created in 2004 by a user who was apparently mass-importing data to pad out the new dictionary. The second sense, especially, is not much better than random verbiage: what does "obtaining approbation" have to do with plausibility? What does "specifically pleasing" mean? It looks like the first sense was added because the other senses have little to do with the one meaning in widespread, modern use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) does have this: "(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive: a plausible liar. Assuming OUP are right, senses #2 and #4 to me also need verifying. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: The "obtaining approbation" sense fits with the etymology. The entry is from MW 1913, from which so many entries have been copied and remain without significant alteration. The ARTFL copy of MW 1913's definitions follows:
  1. Worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready. [Obs.] Bp. Hacket.
  2. Obtaining approbation; specifically pleasing; apparently right; specious; as, a plausible pretext; plausible manners; a plausible delusion. Plausible and popular arguments." Clarendon.
  3. Using specious arguments or discourse; as, a plausible speaker. <-- 4 appearing worthy of belief [MW10]. Now the most common sense, and a good sense, rather than the traditional bad sense. --> Syn. -- Plausible, Specious. Plausible denotes that which seems reasonable, yet leaves distrust in the judgment. Specious describes that which presents a fair appearance to the view and yet covers something false. Specious refers more definitely to the act or purpose of false representation; plausible has more reference to the effect on the beholder or hearer. An argument may by specious when it is not plausible because its sophistry is so easily discovered.
MW 1913, following the practice of many dictionaries presents the definitions in the plausible, even probable, order of their development. We rely on the more prominent placement of the "obsolete" label.
I believe that all of the synonyms in all of the definitions reflect words that could be substituted for plausible at the beginning of the 20th century and earlier. From them one could inductively arrive at "the" meaning. For our style of definition, definition 2 seems to contain a contradiction: "specious" does not fit with the others (IMO).
I have no idea why definition 4 is formatted as it is and whose usage note it contains. The synonyms discussion seems to suggest that definitions 2 and 3 had been the prevailing senses. This fits with my finding of some modern philosophy (logic) texts that had the need to explicitly distinguish between "specious" and "possible"-type glosses of plausible. I don't really doubt that MW 1913 was accurately reporting 1-3 as definitions that were or had been in common use. I think this needs cleanup, to convert from "synonyms" lists to proper definitions using the current meanings of preferably unambiguous defining words or at least use of modern synonyms. This takes more than a hit-and-run effort, IMO.
Move to RfC. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Alternative spelling of Norcal, meaning northern California. I can't find any uses, but it is somewhat difficult to search for because of the asterisk. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


This better pass WT:FICTION. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no use in lion about it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Scottish Gaelic entry. I've just downgraded this from a full entry to an "alternative spelling of ugh" (which is the usual spelling), but I'm hoping someone who actually knows Scottish Gaelic will be able to confirm or deny that this spelling is ever actually encountered. I thought it was an Irish-only neologism, but I could be wrong. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the other way round: it's recorded by Dwelly (search here but Colin Mark's dictionary (2004) says "ubh an older spelling of ugh - not recomended" [24]. --Droigheann (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Since Scottish Gaelic is an LDL, the mention by Dwelly is sufficient, and I'll take off the RFV tag and strike this thread. But since the Old Irish word is og, it's clear that gh is older than bh in this word, so I can only assume that what Mark means is that ubh used to be encountered in addition to ugh, but isn't anymore. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

big balls[edit]

Alleggedly means "courage". I request attesting quotations per WT:ATTEST. This was already once in RFV, but the RFV closure was irregular and no attesting quotations were provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the previous discussion DP refers to is at Talk:big_balls. Equinox 20:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't just "balls" mean courage? Purplebackpack89 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regardless of what "balls" means, I request evidence in the form of attesting quotations that the phrase "big balls" is actually attested to mean courage, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Does that help? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 08:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Let us have a look. I'll take the 1st quotation and replace "big balls" with X, and let us see whether the quotation suggests X means courage. The result is this: "Biffy says, “You've got X for a girl Bubbles. I like your style. Give it to him. Juicy's rotten, but Bubbles. You've got the scevusa on your hands now.” Bubbles drops the hot dog, and calls Biffy and Juicy some un-young ladylike words.". Now, do you think it can be inferred from the sentence that X means courage? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I do, actually. Do you not? Certainly it is clear from two of those quotes that it's not a literal reference to body parts. The other quotes are similar: they are general approbations with a clear meaning. Unless you are demanding one of the quotes from a dictionary of slang, or a quote of something like "He showed that he had big balls by standing up by which I mean he was very brave" or something equally awful. (I'll grant that the quote you copied here could be reduced to the first two sentences, but I wanted to find a balance between excluding context, and including too much.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    I certainly do not require dictionary quotations, since that is not what WT:ATTEST allows. I cannot really infer the meaning of "courage" from the quotations, but then I am not a native speaker. Let other editors comment on the merits of the provided quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    In my experience, [big] balls (without the) doesn't simply mean courage: sometimes it means assertiveness, but usually means gall, nerve or chutzpah. A former employer of mine used to say things like "you've got balls the size of an elephant to complain about that" Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly a female given name Anglicised from the Irish Eithne. w:Eithne lists Ethnea, Ethlend, Ethnen, Ethlenn, Ethnenn, Eithene, Ethne, Aithne, Enya, Áine, Ena, Edna, Etney, Eithnenn, Eithlenn, Eithna, Ethni, Edlend, Edlenn, Ethniu, Ethliu, Ethlinn, and Enya as variant spellings of Eithne, but not Etna. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Irish-language given names includes it, but it may deserve a handful of salt. It would want to be Anglicised, as even in Old Irish it was spelled with "-th-". (And we know it was pronounced with /θ/ because it was borrowed into Old Norse as "Eðna".)
As for "Etna", it gets drowned out by the volcano. There is
  • Women Swindlers in America, 1860-1920 p. 39
    "Extending over six years, from about 1895 until 1901, Etna Dungan of Gold Hill in southern Oregon had been in correspondence with a large number of men, all anxious to secure a wife and, under promise to marry every one of them, [] "
And a look in FamilySearch shows a non-trivial number of Etnas in Ireland, where a derivation from Eithne is more likely than from the Sicilian mountain. (Conflation with Edna is always a possibility, though.)
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Searching for "Etna + (w:List of the most common surnames in Europe#Ireland)" turns up the citations I've put here. It may be possible to find some of the people named there in genealogical databases and ascertain whether or not they are Irish. In addition to "Eithne" and Mount Etna, variation of "Edna" seems like another possible source of "Etna" (but note that "Edna" says that it itself is used as an anglicization of "Eithne"). - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The citations I've found prove that Etna is a name, and the derivation of it from Irish is plausible under the circumstances (Eithne is anglicised a lot of similar ways, and several bearers of the name Etna have last names that are common among the Irish). I suggest closing this RFV and, if desired, moving to WT:ES. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

collective punisher[edit]

This exists, but I’m unable to find durable citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I found one, now on the Citations page. Choor monster (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a second one, unfortunately an unpublished, undated, working paper, but I added it to the Citations page anyway. Presumably it will eventually be published, but these things often exist in limbo for a long time. Choor monster (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The rationale for this (and collective punishment, collective responsibility, and collective guilt) is that the term has a relatively specific meaning in international law. Shouldn't there be law journal articles at Google Scholar? DCDuring TALK 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the first cite using Lexis. If it's a specific term of international law, it's in relevant dictionaries, and passes the Lemming test. Choor monster (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Lugaid mac Con Roí[edit]

Cú Roí[edit]

Does mythology count as a fictional universe? 'Cause I really don't think these guys' names are used out of context in an attributive sense, in either English or Irish. (So this RFV applies to both languages and if it fails, I'm requesting that the whole pages be deleted.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oy vey, there are 74 pages in Category:en:Irish mythology, many of which could probably be subsumed under this RFV, but I just don't have the time to go through them all now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't count mythology as a fictional universe. People misuse the word fictional to mean anything that (in their belief) is not factual, but really fiction implies a specific genre, in which the plot is intended to be understood as not being factual. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, old mythologies are different from fiction, and I dispute that WT:FICTION applies to old mythologies. Certainly, all of WT:FICTION's examples are works of (modern) fiction rather than mythologies. For new stories which are mythological/religious stories according to some and fictional stories according to others (e.g. the stories of Gerald Gardner or L Ron Hubbard), the situation is less clear.
We do have a separate policy that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." But there's disagreement on whether or not that policy should be enforced when the person in question was important to a mythology or religion — see WT:RFD#محمد بن عبد الله — so "Lugaid mac Con Roí" is potentially still in a grey area. (Bah.) - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with an interest in Irish Onomastics, I'd say that the name elements are dictionary-worthy, but to include a full person's name as a name seems encyclopaedic and out of scope. See, eg, Badb: As a word, it's the name of a goddess. For further details, history, great feats, symbology, etc, etc; the Wikipedia entry exists.

In this instance, Lugaid is a name. Cú Roí is a name. Lugaid mac Con Roí is a person. He serves as an attestation of the name elements, an example of them in use, but this place is a dictionary, not a who's-who.

Similarly, I'd say that Finn is a lemma, definition "an Old Irish name, Descendants Irish: Fionn", but Finn mac Cumail, or Fionn mac Cumhail, or Finn MacCool are not. He's an attestation of the name, and there might be an argument for a (not-exhaustive) list of noteworthy bearers of the name, but I submit that we distinguish between names as words, and names as people. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

make out[edit]

Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To succeed in seducing; to have sex. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think so. 'make out' = "succeed, turn out well/as expected"...I can certainly see this used in certain contexts. For instance: I took Jennifer out for the first time last night. As you know, I've been trying to get in her panties for a long time. (Friend): Yeah, so did you make out? --this could also be interpreted as "Did you kiss each other/have a make-out session. Leasnam (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But that's just because of the context. You can't say that the word "succeed" means to "to have sex", just because it can also be used in that context. --WikiTiki89 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • MWO has this as sense 2 a.[25]; vocabulary.com has a sense like this as well[26]. Some other dictionaries have senses involving necking. Making a deeper search for quotations could be worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


I don't seem to be able to find attestation (WT:ATTEST) in durably archived attestation sources: google books:"paraskevodekatriaphobia", google groups:"paraskevodekatriaphobia", paraskevodekatriaphobia at OneLook Dictionary Search.

As a simple solution, paraskevodekatriaphobia should be moved back to paraskavedekatriaphobia, from which it was moved on 29 May 2014‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The only spelling I see in Google Books is paraskevidekatriophobia, which is based on Modern Greek, rather than Ancient Greek. Even that may very well be only mentions. Maybe it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
For paraskavedekatriaphobia, there are Citations:paraskavedekatriaphobia from permanently recorded media, albeit somewhat mentiony to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It has no bearing on the rfv, but this term is an etymological train wreck. In Ancient Greek, παρασκευή (paraskeuḗ) simply meant preparation, and was probably closer in pronunciation to "paraskewe". In Judaic contexts such as biblical translations it could refer to the day before the Sabbath, when observant Jews would prepare everything so they wouldn't have to work on the Sabbath itself. Since the Sabbath is on Saturday, that makes the term a very restricted synonym for Friday, but probably not a common one outside those contexts. The widespread adoption of Christianity and thus the change to being the general Greek word for Friday approximately coincided with two sound changes: υ between vowels became v, and η became i.
That means that "paraskeve" meaning "Friday" would require combining elements from different time periods, while "paraskevi" would mean using Modern Greek in a context which is normally strictly Ancient Greek. User:Pyprilescu tried to avoid the issue by moving to a compromise spelling, not considering that we go by usage rather than by etymological correctness. I suspect that whoever coined the term looked up Friday in a Modern Greek dictionary, and the "paraskeve" was an attempt to normalize the Modern Greek romanization, "paraskevi" to the way Ancient Greek is romanized in scientific terms.
At any rate, I think the best course of action is to treat this as an rfv of all the spellings of the term. If any of them passes (paying careful attention to the use/mention distinction), it should be moved to the most common spelling that passes and any other spellings that pass should become alternative spellings. If none of them pass, it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there even a (gentile) Ancient Greek word for Friday? Some calque of dies Veneris, perhaps, e.g. ἡμέρα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I shouldn't have talked about commonness without knowing anything about how the ancient Greeks referred to the different days. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be some derivation from ἕκτος (héktos). I vaguely recall reading something about the custom of naming days after gods being a later borrowing from a foreign source. Chuck Entz (talk)
Pedantic point, but I think the days were named directly after the planets and thus only indirectly after the gods. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
True. After looking at the article on the w:Attic calendar and w:Roman calendar, it occurred to me that there may not have even been a widely-used system of 7-day weeks in Greece until the Romans instituted theirs in the early years of the Roman Empire. The earlier Roman nundinal week was based on an 8-day system, but I see nothing mentioned for Greece except the division of lunar months into thirds. I'm sure the Greeks were well aware of the 7-day systems of the Near East, but I wonder if anyone really used them. The lack of an accepted Ancient Greek name for Friday would certainly explain why a Modern Greek name was used. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Does not look attested in use: google books:"apikorosim", google groups:"apikorosim", apikorosim at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a malformed (in spelling and definition) plural of apikoros, correct plural apikorsim. Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that the incorrect plural (I wouldn't call it "malformed", since it is the regularly formed plural of a noun with a slightly irregular plural) is used occasionally in both Hebrew and English, but it is nevertheless still a plural of apikoros. --WikiTiki89 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Can't see it with the small Z in Google Books. In general, concerned that PaM is adding a lot of barely- or un-attestable terms relating to a pet topic (anti-Judaism) without checking whether they meet CFI. Equinox 19:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Moved from RFD. It literally means the world's oldest profession, and reference to prostitution seems to be always an explanation rather than euphemism. I’m wondering whether there is a euphemistic usage without directly mentioning prostitution. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My attempt:
  1. あなたの州のどこかでは世界最古の職業も合法なんでしょうけれど、自分のパティスリーを開くために体を売りたかったら、ここでもできるわ、ジョナス。
  2. ほう、一体あらたまって何のことかい」「その、っまり成人男子の観光客がだね、世界最古の職業に従事している現地女性とだね... ...」「何だ、そのことか... ...」と、ジャンは吹き出した。
@TAKASUGI Shinji: would you consider usages such as above euphemistic? Also, would translations from other languages count, such as the 2nd example? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentences above don’t sound very natural, but I think it is attested. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

oved elilim[edit]

Another sloppy anti-Jew-topic entry. The -s plural doesn't seem to exist anywhere, and the term itself seems (i) not CFI-attestable and (ii) not English, just a rare transliteration from Hebrew or some such. Equinox 16:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's from a Hebrew phrase meaning "servant/slave of gods". I didn't have time when I saw this earlier to search thoroughly, but I don't remember seeing anything that wasn't referring to it as a term used in Hebrew rather than using it to describe something. While I'm glad that the loaded term heathen was removed, I suspect the phrase might at least sometimes legitimately refer to actual pagans rather than to just any non-Jew. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In Hebrew: עוׂבֵד אֱלִילִים (worshiper of idols). @Equinox, I don't find anything particularly anti-Jewish about this. --WikiTiki89 14:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFD#Deletion of entry "ವುತ್ತು".

The entry "ವುತ್ತು" should be deleted. I speak Kannada, the language for which that entry was created, and I have never heard that word, and cannot find attestations anywhere, even on the Internet.

Princeps linguae (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because it took me about 1 minute, not reading the language, to find attestation, like at [27] and on Google Books [28].--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
See, actually knowing the language, I can conclude that (a) the first example was a typo for "ಮತ್ತು," and (b) the second example was a Google Books misreading. You'll notice that all the "attestations" for "ವುತ್ತು" are from Google Books, because Google Books is not perfect, especially at reading non-Latin scripts. If it's a word for "and," which is a fairly common word, why can I find "ವುತ್ತು" less than five times outside of Google Books misreadings? (They're probably typos.)
Either way, this belongs at WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it definitely is not a word. I found less than five examples that were not from Google Books (which are all just misreadings), and those are probably typos for an actual word meaning "and" that is spelled and sounded very similarly, and appears very similar ("ವುತ್ತು" is the contested entry, "ಮತ್ತು" is the actual word).
RFV is where we determine whether words exist or not. Here at RFD, we determine whether a word that does exist is worthy of inclusion or not. --WikiTiki89 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do that.

The entry "ವುತ್ತು" should be deleted. It's defined as "and." I speak Kannada, the language for which that entry was created, and I have never heard that word, and cannot find attestations anywhere, even on the Internet. I requested deletion and I have some information there supporting this claim.

Princeps linguae (I couldn't sign with the tildes)

Delete. I agree that it is not a word. Whenever it appears, it is a typo for ಮತ್ತು, which looks almost the same. —Stephen (Talk) 15:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
We could keep this as a common misspelling if it has enough citations. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
We could, I suppose, but the language is completely phonetic, so misspellings are very rare. "Typo" would probably be more accurate. And the typo only occurs less than five times on the Internet... Princeps linguae (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Um...hello? Is anything going to happen now? It's been about two months. Now that we're done with the formalities, can we actually do something? Thanks. Princeps linguae (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Changed to a redirect. —Stephen (Talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The second link posted by Prosfilaes was a Google Books misreading for the actual word for "and": "ಮತ್ತು" (which for some reason unknown to me is being reviewed below). "ಮತ್ತು" and "ವುತ್ತು" look similar, and it was probably these misreadings that misled the creator of that page. No software is perfect, after all. The first link posted by Prosfilaes--I don't know, probably a typo. But if the word we're talking about is "and," you would think there would be multiple results, since Kannada is not a very obscure language. And again, why isn't it on the Kannada Wiktionary (with I think about 100,000 pages) if the word is "and"? Now, I'm no long-time Wiktionarian to recommend anything, but I think that the bar should be a bit higher than three attestations for "and." Thanks. Princeps linguae (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
PPrinceps linguae, you just need to choose a couple of sentences from the thousands found here. They are printed books and Google tries to convert the images of Kannada pages to Kannada text, but makes mistakes. You will probably need to look at the sentences on the pages that you want, and type them yourself. —Stephen (Talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 17:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not in the OED and no hits at OneLook. Also no usage at gutenberg.org. And not even any usages vaguely consistent with this definition on the unfiltered web. It doesn't look good for this one. -- · (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The word can't be found in any dictionary in which I looked; a brief Internet search evinces three pages of results, and no attestation at all. Princeps linguae (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me point out that, as per our WT:CFI (esp. WT:CFI#General rule and WT:CFI#Attestation), we do not go by dictionaries but rather by actual use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have actual attesting quotations as per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Looks like a protologism. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And look at all of the synonyms. They all are red links, and look like SOPs to me. "image with citation" just seems like it means an image with a citation for example. Why not remove at least the ones that we know are SOPs, which I bet are all of them? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this was simply borrowed from the name of the website "www.imcites.com." That website posts "imcites" and the website's Facebook page gives the same etymology as the Wiktionary page. That's the only attestation that can be found as far as I can see--just the website and its Facebook page. Princeps linguae (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

peas and carrots[edit]

This may very well exist, but I would like some citations. --WikiTiki89 20:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's only used in similes along the lines of "They go together like peas and carrots." The way the definition is currently worded it ought to be "They are peas and carrots", and I'm not sure that exists. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"I saw peats and carrots walking on the street" simply does not work. I think Angr is right > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "To be known or considered." This seems to be limited to the collocation go by (as in his name is Samuel but he goes by Sam), which we (for better or worse) have a separate entry for. Notably, both Random House and Merriam-Webster have a comparable sense under go rather than under go by, but their only usage examples are of "go by". - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have heard usage like this and this, but I'm not sure "be known or considered" is a good gloss of that — and I'm not sure if it belongs at go or at go under. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (childish) Penis.

I created this from Wikisaurus:penis. Any attestation? google books:"dingy", google groups:"dingy", dingy at OneLook Dictionary Search. Also google books:"with your dingy", google groups:"with your dingy", with your dingy at OneLook Dictionary Search.

An informal extra-process question to the native speakers: from memory, do you recognize this word as meaning "penis"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recognise it. There are thingy and dingus, however. Equinox 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I also do not recognise it, but I would know what its referring to if used in context, and it seems very plausible. It looks like a diminutive (or child-language form) of ding-dong, using the first element + -y. Though i dont withcall it per se, im sure i must have heard it over the years....somewhere...Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
w:Ruth Wallis recorded a song called "Davy's Dinghy", which is full of double-entendres based on this sense, but it obviously doesn't attest the spelling. It's not easy verifying anything, because the adjective sense is very common, and because the boat is spelled in a variety of ways.
This sense is attested with the spelling dingie, which has less interference from the adjective and boat senses, but I was also finally able to find this and this, this and this.
The entry needs work, since there are two pronunciations, at least one more sense, and more etymologies:
Etymology 1
Pronounced as /ˈdɪn.dʒi/
Adjective: drab; shabby; dirty; squalid
Etymology 2: somehow related to dingbat
Pronounced as /ˈdɪŋi/
Adjective: ditzy, silly, a little crazy
Etymology 3: the y seems to be the diminutive suffix -y
Pronounced as /ˈdɪŋi/
Noun: penis
Etymology 4
Pronounced as /ˈdɪŋi/
Noun: Alternative spelling of dinghy
There's also the matter of dingie, which is attested as an alternative spelling and/or misspelling of most (probably all) of the senses of dingy. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hundreds from this year can be found like

[29] [30]. From 2012 we have this one. I haven't got the knowhow to put these quotes up --Type56op9 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

These aren’t durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A portmanteau derived from "Tolkien Hollywood", used to describe the cinematographic presentation of the stories in J. R. R. Tolkien's Legendarium. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV of both senses in the English L2. I can't find any evidence of the cigarette sense, and nothing for the Haida sense that unambiguously uses it as a noun and not some sort of title. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to go quickly" Added back in 2008 by an anon user with this explanation: "New page: Added definition of jot "to go quickly" I have seen this usage in literature (e.g. Enid Blyton). I found multiple occurences of this usage on the Internet (google "jot over"). Interesting…". The usex seems to be made up by himself, and it has been cited on dozens of websites. The little usage I found in BGC would indicate that "jot over" has been used to mean to drop by (we didn't jot over that bar yet) or to go through (we jotted over the records of last 3 years). Works of Enid Blyton did not appear among 120 first hits. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There was short discussion on this on Feedback pages. Here's one comment:
Perhaps not erroneous, but it certainly seems to be rare. I searched b.g.c for "jot over" and found nothing relevant. Then I searched for "jotted over" and found only two relevant hits. "Jotted over" most commonly seems to mean the same as "dotted over", e.g. "He had strolled away to a little headland, jotted over with rocks and aged tree-trunks" and "Here also the groups representing the passages included in this portion of sacred history are jotted over the field, often interfering with one another." Then I searched for "jotting over" and found only hits meaning "jutting over", i.e. protruding over. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds suspicious to me. Perhaps confusion of jog with trot?! Equinox 08:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There is also jolt over/jolted over which seems to fit the meaning indicated. Perhaps a misspelling? Leasnam (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

nước mắm[edit]

Supposedly English. Needs cites in this orthography. DCDuring TALK 10:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's easy finding English sentences using this spelling, but much harder deciding whether the term is being used as English or as Vietnamese. I'll see if I can come up with some good examples. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I view this as a kind of test case. I won't challenge other terms with similar orthography if this turns out to be attestable. If it is attestable, we should create the category of which it is currently the sole member. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would Hà Nội or Việt Nam (with Vietnamese diacritics) be attestable as English terms? In any case, we have examples of Romanian, Turkish, etc., etc, spellings used in English, Japanese macrons, e.g. Tōkyō are also common. It's hard to verify, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Two tests I’ve seen people using to determine whether the author considers the term a loanword instead of a foreign word are:
  1. the term is unitalicised;
  2. the inflected forms of the term use English desinences.
Number 2 is inapplicable in this case, since nước mắm is uncountable. As for unitalicised uses, I’ve only found this one. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm sure there should be an Azeri sense with this spelling, but I am wildly skeptical of the idea that this could be an English spelling of the word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Alt forms are worth a look too. Apparently I created qepiq but I'm not finding much for that either. Equinox 13:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The English spelling is qapik or gapik (phonetic rendering), ultimately from Russian копе́йка (kopéjka). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(philosophy) Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument." The sense is not present in other dictionaries and I am not sure it was even intended to apply to the English word logos — I think it may have just been a comment on how the Ancient Greek word was used. The citations turned up by google books:logos Sophists "rational argument" suggest this is the case — in them, the word occurs in italics and/or quotation marks or parentheses, and in phrases that suggest it is being mentioned rather than being used. - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The sense seems to be a copy from AHD 1b[31]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense: "Different symbols, written or spoken, arranged together in a unique sequence that approximates a thought in a person's mind." As written, this would seem to include even a (multi-term) sequence of symbols like "this does not make sense", which approximates the thought I had when I read the sense. Such a sense is not present in other dictionaries I checked. It needs to be shown to be both attested and distinct from (=a better definition for any citations that support it than) the other senses in the entry, particularly sense 1, sense 1.2, and senses 4–8. - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have thought best case scenario the wording is poor. Spoken words aren't made up of symbols! Not all words are made of a unique sequence of symbols (centre/center for example). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
But the intent of the definition clearly seems to be that word and concept are synonymous or identical. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


We now have our first hot word that was added more than a year ago. So following the procedure, we should re-evaluate it. —CodeCat 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The first amendment to the procedure should be to have the automatic RfV be at least 13 months after the first use. The cites I've added are probably not durably archived, being from the Smithsonian online. The first was apparently the initial public release of information and the second was their celebration of the first anniversary to the announcement. DCDuring TALK 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this comment is for olinguito. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. An RFV exactly 12 months later is probably going to fail on practical matters... —CodeCat 20:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If we want to give Google Books a chance to generate cites, at least cites not directly copied from Wikipedia, we would probably want to wait at least 18 months. Similarly for Scholar. OTOH, News and Usenet cites could be quicker, so even 13 months might be enough. I'd prefer at least 18 months. More than two years seems too long if this approach is to work at all. DCDuring TALK 22:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Two recent on-line magazines Smithsonian, Science News, and one TV news show (with transcript) PBS that discuss the olinguito, "one year later".
  • “One question that was on everybody’s lips last year was: Could any animal be more adorable than the olinguito,” Helgen says. “And of course the answer is a baby olinguito.” Choor monster (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    It's just a question of whether the sites are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    That's why I put the links/citations here. But I believe it's clear where this is going: of course there are going to be more olinguito stories, and some of them are going to be MSM even. Choor monster (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I liked the cite about 'crowd-sourced' science from PBS and added it. I had seen the piece when it aired, but had forgotten about it. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I found a "journal" cite at Google Books dated September 1, 2014. That should do it. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Re sense 3: "a form of looped and knotted lace needlework made from a single thread". In every dictionary I've checked, "tat" in reference to lacework is only a verb, the noun being "tatting". JudahH (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In case you don't have access to the full Oxford English Dictionary, it has no less than eight separate noun entries for "tat", and not one of them matches sense 3. I agree that the correct noun for this sense is tatting. The disputed sense was added by CharlieHuang nearly eight years ago and is the only English entry by this now-inactive editor. I'm surprised that it hasn't been challenged before. Dbfirs 16:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any citations, may we remove this mistaken sense? Dbfirs 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been two months now so I've removed the error and moved the Finnish translation to tatting. I hope this is OK. Dbfirs 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another instance of a Middle English word being not only propped up under an English header, but given more sense-lines than there are citations of it. google books:(byspel|byspels) that (with that added in an attempt to weed out non-English books) finds only dictionaries, Scots, dictionaries of Scots, Middle English, Old English, miscellaneous non-English, one citation which is already in the entry, and this:

  • 1866 (1874), Sidney Gilpin, The Songs and Ballads of Cumberland:
    Thou byspel, I'll shoot.

- -sche (discuss) 07:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

    • 1897, Lord Ernest William Hamilton, The Outlaws of the Marches:
      [...] I thought was none too well beloved of many present, and the King's dislike of him was as marked and clear to all as was his liking for his cousin Lord Bothwell; for cousins they surely were in spite of my lord's father being but a byspell so to speak.
    • 1983, Marianne Powell, Fabula Docet:
      Helmut de Boor offers a similarly narrow definition of the nature of morals to be drawn from fables. Opposing "bispel" and fable he sums up the differences as regards this aspect: "The bispel aims at cognition, the fable gives practical knowledge, and in so far as an educational aim is involved the bispel aims at improving man, the fable at making him wiser."
    • 1992, W.N. Herbert, To Circumjack MacDiarmid:
      What is clear is that his use of glossaries conceals the origins of his own byspales as much as it elucidates his texts. ...The effort towards maturity means renouncing the stance of the 'byspale' Christ and accepting the baffled limitations of the father, Joseph.
    • 1998, Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 7:
      Such episodes and events were used to illustrate and justify more general or abstract 'philosophical' statements in much the same way as exempla or bispel 'edifying illustrative stories' were used in medieval sermons. And just as we have collections of exempla and bispel from medieval times onwards in Europe, [...]
    • 2005, Marco Fazzini, Alba Literaria:
      He is, or his mother would like him to be, on a threshold, between being awake and falling asleep, but this is the very opposite of what the 'byspale', the wondrous, precocious, uncannily unchildlike child, has in mind.
    • 2008, Janie Steen, Verse and Virtuosity:
      In adopting the bipartite structure, then, the Phoenix-poet demonstrates that this poem is a 'two-fold story,' a bispel.

Leasnam (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How do those citations support either definition, even allowing for the spelling variation (which I would rather not)? DCDuring TALK 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point I am gathering modern uses to prove this word made it securely past the Middle English period, per the original concern. Nothing more beyond that. Leasnam (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Spelling "byspel" is not supported by the above citations. Should no more quotation supporting spelling "byspel" be provided, the entry for byspel should be deleted as RFV failed, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk)
Check the entry Dan. There is one above dated 1866, and 2 more on the entry page spelt "byspel". This is also the spelling used for many of the Scots cites, if that makes any difference (it may not). One thing's for sure, there is a lot of variation with this word. Leasnam (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In the entry byspel, there is one "byspel" citation for the sense of "A proverb.", one for the sense of "An example." and one for the sense of "A family outcast; bastard." So we do not have three attesting quotations per sense. As the entry is now, every sense fails WT:ATTEST, and therefore the entire entry fails it, as far as I am concerned. As for Scots cites, I don't see why Scots cites should count toward attestation of English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, so what you're telling me is each sense has to have minimum 3 attests to pass? For a word labelled as obsolete and/or dialectal? Afaict, dialects fall under "all other spoken languages that are living" do they not, and therefore might require only one use or mention ? Leasnam (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
We sometimes relax the requirement of exact spelling identity for individual senses, especially for EME usage and dialect, but we certainly need three citations per sense. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here's the breakdown and my suggestion:
In the entry (mainspace), we can merge senses 1 & 2, encompassing a story or proverb used as an example, pattern, or model for better behaviour, instruction, etc.
Merge 3-4-5 as a person marked for any quality, used as an example, and often shunned for such.
sense 6 appears to be Scots, not sure if it is used in Scottish English per se
7 is a mischievous child (see below)
8 I've never personally seen but I believe it to be Scots
the cites above (on this page):
1886, 1897 are "family outcast/black sheep"
1983 is proverb, example, model, pattern of behaviour, exemplar
1992 has one of each: first is "model, example", second is a play on the word, using same sense and the sense of "bastard, illegitimate child", so both.
1998, 2008 are "illustrative story/proverb/example"
2005 is mischievous child, or perhaps "black sheep"
thoughts? Leasnam (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
And I apologise if I seem a bit curt or snippy: I'm on my mobile and its extremely difficult to edit :/ Leasnam (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I object to using cites above on this page, since they are in a different spelling. Nor do I think "proverb" and "example" to be synonyms, by any stretch, and mergable to a single sense. If a spelling cannot be salvaged, it should not be. byspel at OneLook Dictionary Search. I am unaware of any WT:ATTEST relaxation for obsolete words. Century 1911 has "byspell"[32]; perhaps you will have better luck with that spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: 'dialects fall under "all other spoken languages that are living"': I know of no such regulation or previous practice. I tend to oppose requiring only a single citation for English dialects or any other dialects. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, here it is:
"For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:[...]".
Let's forget about what we all think, want, expect, and come together on what Wiktionary policy says. No ones going to succeed at changing minds. Byspell/byspel/bispel/byspale is a modern English word, and it is being used online. Its best to give people unfamiliar with it and who come across it for the first time its meaning(s). That's what we're here for. Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding us? English is listed at WT:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. English, even obsolete English, is not part of "all other spoken languages that are living". Please read the above quoted part of the policy carefully again. For English, three attesting quotations are required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I make no time for games.
Who is "us" ? Leasnam (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait...is the disconnect this: you see the spelled form byspel as distinct from the others, and to be the page title, "byspel"(in that spelling) must have 3cites? If that is true, then I can surely agree. For me, the spelling is not what is drawing my focus, but the word as a viable term..in whatever form it may take. .if ive missed this, please forgive me .Leasnam (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer it be under the form which occurs most, which users are most likely to run into, be it as byspell, bispel, or byspale Leasnam (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a sentence containing "byspell" or "bispel" is not attesting "byspel", not by my lights; other editor may take a different stance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Ok :) Leasnam (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Just for information (no opinion) the OED has an entry under "byspel, bispel" but marks it "obsolete or ? dialect". The four senses given are: "1. A parable. 2. A proverb 3. dial. One whose worthlessness is proverbial, who becomes a byword. 4. An illegitimate child, a bastard." It has no recent cites with this spelling. Dbfirs 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

tomato tomato[edit]

tomato, tomato[edit]

Please attest these spellings. --WikiTiki89 19:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. 'tomato, tomato', but needs a lot of context
  2. 1996, C. C. Benison, Death at Buckingham Palace, page 121:
    "Presumptive, then. Robin is heir presumptive to this title." "Apparent, presumptive. Tomato, tomato."
  3. 2013, Gary Fincke, Sorry I Worried You, page 189:
    He looked at his wife and repeated "Potato, potato; tomato, tomato," three times before Sarah began.
  4. 2010, Robert Rave, Waxed, page 83:
    I was thinking of Italian,” Sofia says, sliding open a drawer and pulling out a large three-ring binder filled with menus. “And by 'making Italian' you mean ordering from Piccolo's,” Scott says. “You say order, I say make. Tomato, tomato,” Sofia says
  5. 2011, Lutishia Lovely, ‎Michele Grant, ‎Cydney Rax, Crush, page 266:
    Tomato, tomato. Same difference.
  6. 2012, Elizabeth Lennox, The Billionaire's Elusive Lover:
    "Oh, you must be asking if I've humanized any part of your organization lately." “Tomato, tomato," he mimicked, changing the accent for the same word.
  7. "Tomato!" "Tomato!"
  8. ? An interesting one with yet another spelling (tom-ot-oh and tam-at-oh).
  9. 'tomato/tomato'

I didn't find instances of tomato tomato without punctuation, not that that matters to the search engine, AFAIK. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From the previous discussion:
    • 2010, A. Sole, The Dot Comparable, page 74:
      'Oh tomato, tomato. Now come on Luke,' said Bob as he began to run away, 'I think customs is this way.'
Another variation from the previous discussion:
  1. 2012, MJR, I Am Dianna, page 150:
    • “At least allow me the pleasure of torturing—or is it seducing— him?” She put her finger to her cheek as if pondering. “Oh well, you say potato—I say potato, tomato—tomato. Who's to say they aren't the same thing?”
Cheers! bd2412 T 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation-only variants using the "tomato" spelling that are not entries lead to the failed-search page with [[tomato tomato]] and [[tomato, tomato]] at the top. [[tomayto tomahto only appears on the second page, #36 among the pages offered. For us to not have a "tomato" form of this would be completely unsatisfactory, even if tomato, tomato were not attestable. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Based on the search results, I would be satisfied with tomato tomato redirecting to the reasonably well attested tomato, tomato. bd2412 T 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Unstriking to give people a bit more time to look for citations of the comma-less form. --WikiTiki89 03:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    As you wish, but I spent quite a bit of time searching and turned up zero, so I hold out no hope for coming up with a CFI-worthy number. bd2412 T 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed the comma-less form; the comma form passed some time ago. (The comma-less form can stay as a redirect, as it is now, as far as I'm concerned.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the noun sense synonymous with blasphemy. I'm having trouble finding a single lemming at OneLook that lists a noun blaspheme or a non-scanno/typo usage of blaspheme as a noun at b.g.c. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Such blaspheme" finds a handful, but they all look like errors to me. Equinox 20:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In Middle English blasfeme (blasphemy). See blaspheme in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 where it is a noun. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The Century Dictionary's noun (and adjective) entries list only Wyclif and Chaucer as authors, so maybe it should be moved to a Middle English section. If it can be found in Early Modern authors, then maybe it should be tagged "obsolete". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The OED marks this sense as obsolete, with the latest cite from 1583 (Poems of T Watson). It looks more like Middle English to me. Dbfirs 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
        • If it's from 1583, that's well into Early Modern English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, agreed. I wasn't convinced that Thomas Watson was using Chancery Standard because he also wrote in Latin and studied law, but he was educated at Oxford, so he would be using Early Modern. There's another cite from W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection in 1526, so I think you are correct that the word survived into Early Modern English. We should mark it as obsolete. Dbfirs 09:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging original author User:Type56op9. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cannot find examples in books.google.com, pinging original author User:Type56op9. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

rubber band[edit]

Rfv-sense: should be hyphenated if used as a verb. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "There were yellowed pages of base layouts and plans, a duty roster, and a rubber banded package of papers"[33]
  • "The shoe box is filled to the brim with rubber banded stacks ofhundred dollar bills."[34]
  • "He handed her the stack of tickets all rubber banded together, then sat on the corner of her desk to extend two more."[35]
  • "Prompt them to pick up ten sticks, rubber band them together, and quickly move them to the tens office."[36]
  • "If you have great big posters, roll them up, top side out so you can swiftly unroll them down the wall, and rubber band them individually."[37]
  • "Paper clip or rubber band them together."[38]
  • google books:"rubber band them" - many are hypehanted, but some are not.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Please put them in the entry. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cited verb:

  • "Rubberband them togerher with a ponytail hanging in the back."[39]
  • "Wrap stacks of slides in dust-free paper or aluminum foil, and rubberband them ...."[40]
  • "I gathered up a bunch of old photographs of camp friends and rubberbanded them back together."[41]

Cited noun:

  • "Fasten a rubberband around this tiny loop, ..."[42]
  • "One end of the cylinder is covered with several layers of cheesecloth held in place by a rubberband to prevent the ..."[43]
  • "For extra grip you can wrap a rubberband around the wires to lock them in place."[44]
  • google books:"a rubberband" finds more

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be attested to mean one who necks a drink. I doubt it, I'm just musing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


One of those dictionary-only words, I suspect. I found one very dubious running-text citation in a book attempting to use as many unusual words as possible, but otherwise I can't see any evidence. Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 17:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


(German.) Does not seem to have been used anywhere except a few websites. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. I checked Google Books for "planeswalker" + "le", "la", "un", "une" and found nothing. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. I checked Google Books for "planeswalker" + various common Italian words and found nothing. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The only durably archived use I found italicises the term. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The only durably archived instance I could find was an italicised mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources: I don't know if there are any other uses of "planeswalker" outside the MTG card game. So I'd say this is a specific game term. Since you have found nothing about it in other languages, I'd say the term is used exclusively in the MTG card game in those languages.

Here are the sources of the official rulebooks. Just type "planeswalker" in the search box and you always find it no matter what language you're dealing with.

Update: English: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/EN_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR.pdf
German: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/DE_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR.pdf
French: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/FR_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR.pdf
Italian: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/IT_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR.pdf
Spanish: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/SP_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR.pdf
Russian: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/RU_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR.pdf
Portuguese: http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/resources/rules/PT_MTGM14_Rulebook_Web.pdf
—This unsigned comment was added by Fumiko Take (talkcontribs) at 03:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC). (diff)
I think this term fails WT:FICTION. It's like the Pokémon stuff all over again. Equinox 05:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The English word has not been officially RFVed. I've added one non-MTG cite to the page; it's possible another could be found if someone wants to RFV it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I added RFV to English as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


I request attesting quotations for English as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I added 7 uses that, to the best of my knowledge, are not connected to the Magic: The Gathering universe at Citations:planeswalker (includes spelling variations). — Ungoliant (falai) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


Seems reasonable - but, just to be sure that it is not a protologism. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Spanish, apparently means pew-warmer. It was used as the title of an American movie called "The Benchwarmers", but I can't see any decent evidence of use outside. --Type56op9 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's suspicious that this doesn't even appear on the wiki of the language that it's apparently taken from. I'm not sure why "pew" would be used instead of "bench", and I would say that that much at least is an error. calentar seems to mean "to warm", not calientar, but I could see the use of both. Soap (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cited with the sense bench-warmer. The reason for the i is that calentar is irregular—its stem changes so that the third person singular present is calienta rather than calenta. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase[edit]

  • Rfv-sense: (pathology) a superbug strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria that produces carbapenemase
  • Rfv-sense: (biochemistry) a carbapenemase enzyme produced by Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria

The term exists; the question is which of the two senses is attested per WT:ATTEST. I propose you place the attesting quotations at Citations:Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, since if the 1st sense is not attested, the 2nd can be later deleted as sum of parts via RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the biochemistry sense is used in w:Carbapenemase. It seems to include at least four types, which types may be subject to further division. IOW, the term reflects our current state of knowledge, but may not refer to a specific chemical whose composition and structure is well-established. As such I don't know in what sense it will really seem to be a term as more is understood. Perhaps users view it as SoP now. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
From reading abstracts it appears that there is a gene which spreads among bacteria that enables them to create the K. pneumoniae carbapenase, so the notion that there is a strain the identity of which is stable enough to warrant treatment as a taxon seems unlikely. For example, {{w:NCBI}} does not have a taxon called Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase.
I feel that this is beyond my access to the scientific literature and probably my paygrade. If we do not have and cannot recruit a contributor with better access and knowledge, I would rather we deleted the pathology sense. The biochem sense would provide an interested user with a term to be used in further research. The pathology sense looks like it leads up a blind alley. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
OTOH, this may be an important gateway to the phenomenon or rapidly spreading drug-resistance among pathogens that we would be remiss to neglect. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That's all very nice (or not, depending on one's taste), but I really request attesting quotations; these absent, I request that this be ultimately deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I know you are only interested in formal procedure, so I apologize for boring you. I don't know how to cite this properly in this case. I'd appreciate someone else trying or offering constructive advice or support. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV is not "formal procedure" in any pejorative sense; it is a process used to discover whether, as far as we know, a term or sense is attested. The material requested via RFV are usually attesting quotations, or at least links to them. You know that by now, having spent multiple years around here, so I not sure what to make of your above responses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed by 123snake45 (talkcontribs), with the comment:"There is no that word at Turkish. It has been prefabricated! It isn't Turkish." A couple of cites have just been added to the citations page for the entry, so it looks like a good time to assess those cites and see if there are any others.

The definition in the entry is "beach".

This fits the profile of the type of terms that our anonymous Turkish protologism purveyor targets: the word for beach one finds in dictionaries is plaj, which is an obvious borrowing of French plage- they specialize in trying to substitute terms manufactured from items in various Turkic languages for common Turkish words whose etymology isn't Turkish enough for their taste. The dictionary app on my computer has a verb çimmek (to bathe (in a creek, stream, etc.)), which could be the source for this, along with -er and -lik. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two citations from Google Books, so stop saying gibberish words and shut up. —This unsigned comment was added at 2001:a98:c060:80:7948:8701:2669:dbc5.
Your theory is wrong. There is already another word 'kumsal' for a beach as a Turkish origin word. -- 06:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In what way does that invalid his (Chuck Entz's) theory? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of that, though it literally means sandy. As for the previous comment: the issue isn't whether it's gibberish, but whether it's really Turkish. If someone were to try to translate beach into Turkish as çimerlik, there's a real possibility that they would either, at best, come across as not knowing Turkish very well, or, at worst, simply not be understood. A language consists of what people actually speak or have spoken in the past, not what someone thinks might be a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Kumlu literally means sandy. The definition of kumsal is 2. Denize, göle vb. yerlere girilebilen genellikle kumluk alan, deniz hamamı, kumbaşı, plaj according to the TDK's (Turkish Language Association's) Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary. -- 10:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Just my two cents. If a word, used in the given language, is attested, for CFI purposes, it's possible to include a word, which is quite rare and native speakers are not very familiar with it. It can be qualified as rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You can look at http://tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bts&arama=kelime&guid=TDK.GTS.540b8776ea62b5.08911904

plaj, kumsal, kıyı, sahil words are exist but there is no çimerlik. Because çimerlik is Azeri word. So originally is Azeri. Lie of "çimerlik=Turkish" is same personal who prefabricate words of "sınalgı, birdem, özçekmiş, haydavcı, yöndemci, köpyak, düşerge, eğleç, türküm, karabat, yağday, emes, öndürücü, haydamak, birak, dikuçar, beket..." e.t.c --123snake45 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The rules we use are WT:CFI. RFV basically requires someone to cite a word for it not to be deleted. If someone is not offering cites, then there's basically no point in arguing against a word. If there is someone providing cites, then it's irrelevant what any other site says; the question becomes, among other things, if the cite is from an appropriate source and if the word is really used in the text. Words that are actually used will be kept, even if strongly disapproved of by whatever authorities there may be, though a note to that effect is appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
123snake45 is behaving like this because he fabricated many words and those words were not accepted. After this he tries to delete other words that he sees on the forums which people discuss with him because of his absurd words. If you think that pan-Turkists or language purists use this kind of words it is irrevelant with if the citations are valid or not. A word can be used by the nationalists or the communists etc. A dictionary represents a word if that word really exists. I have just added the translations of the citations from Google Books so decide yourselves if they are valid or not. -- 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Stupid or foolish person. Plausible, but I searched for "you bollard!" etc. and found virtually nothing. Equinox 03:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Old English ? Leasnam (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The same contributor (Top Cat 14) also created leag, which is equally dubious (the g appears in inflected forms of leah, not the lemma).There's no evidence they knew any Old English at all. The y would have to have the same sound as modern y in order to be a variant of Old English g, but I have my doubts that y was used as a consonant/semivowel at all in Old English, and as a vowel it was only the umlated u, as far as I know.
Searching Google Books with Þe and ðe used to narrow it down to Old English texts just turns up scannos and the Middle English counterpart of lye, law and lay- not conclusive but strongly suggestive that this is wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


RFV of all the "political entities" senses (except "the Crimean Khanate"). All of the citations of I can find that use "Crimea" as the name of a state rather than a region are referring to the Khanate — which, notably, did not always control the entire Crimean peninsula, and did control relatively large areas of territory on the mainland, for which reason I am convinced it merits its own sense-line. Searches I used: google books:"war with Crimea", "peace with Crimea", "embassy from Crimea", "embassy to Crimea", "ambassador from Crimea", "ambassador to Crimea", and all of those with the definite article added. The results of searches like "forces from (the) Crimea", "government of (the) Crimea" seem to me to be using (or indistinguishable from) the geographic sense.
It may be relevant to compare this entry to "Georgia", where only the really distinct senses "a country in the Caucasus" and "a state in America" are distinguished; the American entity was a colony (not a state) in some eras, but that is unmentioned.
Note that a few of the political senses were originally added by me in an attempt to address a POV dispute over whether the peninsula was part of Russia or Ukraine; the subsequent expansion of the list made it clear how untenable an approach it was. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Is mel really English? —Stephen (Talk) 20:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect not. It occurs in some fixed Latin phrases (mel boraeis, mel rosae, mel roset, mel rosat...) and derivatives (melrose, oxymel, hydromel, oenomel...), but AFAIK not alone. Equinox 02:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe in ingredients lists where they have "aqua" for water. I dont know if that's meant to make it easier for non-English speakers to understand or if it's some legal thing that it's not healthy enough if it doesn't give the chemical formula of water. Soap (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


...and zio. I found no hits for the previous usex, "Zio-centric". The only hit I could find was of "Zio-Nazi", which I changed the usex to. I have found a few hits for "Zionocentric" and "Ziono-centric", and one hit for "Ziono-socialites". - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's no coincidence that the only example is attached to a word that starts with an "N". That's obviously a blend of Zion and Nazi, which was misanalysed as Zio- plus Nazi. Yet another case of trying too hard to extract every conceivable vaguely-plausible term out of minimal data. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
PaM's edit history shows a mania for adding Jewish/Islamic terms that are very barely, or not at all, attestable. I have speedily deleted the stand-alone Zio since it's patently ridiculous ("more Zio, most Zio"?). However, I can see "Zio-centric" in two (!) Google Books search results. Equinox 07:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I commented before with regard to Erik (the Srebrenica-obsessed editor) that I feel editors should be judged on local behavior, and not e.g. blocked on one project just because they misbehaved on other projects. But if users engage in poor editing locally, it can be instructive to note that they've engaged in and been disciplined for poor editing elsewhere. On Wikipedia, PAM's caricaturally liberal POV-pushing has been brought up on w:WP:ANI repeatedly (1, 2; see also the many threads about edit warring, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and the user is currently blocked for using sockpuppets to avoid a topic ban on editing religious topics, which was imposed because of that POV-pushing. What is the cost vs benefit of PAM's edits here? They have to be checked for attestation (many aren't attested), placement (PAM often makes lowercase/unhyphenated forms the main entries when the uppercase/hyphenated forms are apparently more common or more standard), formatting, POV...(Should I move this to the BP?) - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think PaM’s contributions here are so bad that we need to block him, but it’s reaching a point where we should require him to add three citations (and links to the citations, since he doesn’t check for scannos) to every entry he creates. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant: How would you enforce this "requirement"? And what would do it for you? How much of this absolute incompetence are you willing to tolerate? Keφr 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
By deleting and reverting every edit that doesn’t contain cites. Some of PAM’s contributions were good, but he has gotten much worse since I posted that. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


No Google Books matches for "to bewield". I tried the -ing and -ed forms, but only found scannos for "be wielding", "be wielded". Equinox 08:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I found one on Books, plus 2 online which apparently show some use. It is labelled rare, and aptly so...it was not easy finding. Thing is, its listed in several dictionaries, so its likeky to keep popping up here and there. I cant seem to locate the Morrison attest anywhere on Books, though its purported...Leasnam (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The two 2014 quotations are not from permanently recorded media and thus fail WT:ATTEST: diff, diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Added three more. Leasnam (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. This is an example how 123snake45 says "This isn't Turkish! It is prefabricated!" without any prior research. If he looked up Turkish Language Association's Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary, he could probably see this word there. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did look today and it isn't writing at mean "to drive". So it isn't "drive" it is "dehlemek". "Haydamak" comes from "hayda" and "hayda" is mean "haydi". So, it uses for get move the animal(s); a kind of hurry up. --123snake45 (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You said it was prefabricated. Anyway, there are citations, so i will not argue with you. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I said it was prefabricated for "drive".
You said it without any prior research. Because you only want to spread the words which you fabricated. If you don't know a word, you think that word was fabricated by another one and you can not stand this. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You are still telling lie. Not me, you did entry your prefabricated words "birdem, sınalgı, haydavcı, öndürücü, köpyak, türküm, özçekmiş ..." e.t.c. --123snake45 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The words "sınalgı, haydavcı, türküm" etc. are not prefabricated words. They are loan words from other Turkic languages. You can not stand these words because this kind of words prevent you to spread your own fabricated words. Öndürücü is some people's surname in Turkey, and you may find all these words in other dictionaries. Anyway, there are citations from Google Books so stop saying irrelevant things here. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
We need another Turkish speaker to sort this out. Assuming the citations at Citations:haydamak are valid (as they appear to be) we need someone to tell us what they mean. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, the etymon of the Ukr. hajdamaka is Tkc. haydamak ‘treiben’; as it displays the initial h-, it was visibly the Ott. form. Morphologically the word is a suffixed form: hayda- + -mak (a suffix building in Turkish a grammatical category similar to the Indo-European infinitive form) ‘to drive, drive away; driving, driving away’. The verb (h)ayda- seems to be a derivative from the onomatopoeic stem hayda ‘come on! (to spur someone on)’. Thus the original meaning of haydamak was ‘to shout hayda’ and developed into ‘to shout hayda driving someone / something away’. In Ott. or CTat., however, this verb could have gained another meaning of ‘to shout hayda while chasing after / pursuing someone or something’ and finally ‘to chase, to pursue’. (Michał Németh, Remarks on the etymology of Hung. hajdú ‘herdsman’ and Tkc. haydamak ‘brigand’ , STUDIA TURCOLOGICA CRACOVIENSIA, · 10 (2005). (This source is available on Google Books) --2001:A98:C060:80:E40C:3A70:A48A:99C2 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Cantonese opera. — Ungoliant (falai) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

From a Google search, it looks like it's a word that Hong Kong tourism board used for one event, but that never caught on anywhere else. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I was about to say it does get some web hits but nothing in Google Books. No Google Groups hits (the 15 hits are all for 'can't opera'). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


bonelore is not cited. Please provide attesting quotations, or this will be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Failed. Keφr 12:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Cited, but I had to change the definition (lore isn't scientific study). Equinox 18:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Actually RFV-sense: "The branch of zoology dealing with cetaceans, including dolphins and porpoises as well" as per diff.

Not enough quotations now that I removed those for the forms "whale-lore" and "whale lore". Please provide quotations for the form "whalelore" so spelled, without hyphen and without space, to attest that sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would even read the remaining citation (somewhat mention-y anyway) as supporting the more specific sense. Copied here for posterity:
  • 2008, The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms:
    [...] and a novel may be said to have a documentary element on the same basis, as with the cetology (whalelore) exhibited in many chapters of Herman Melville's MobyDick (1851).
Either way, failed. Keφr 18:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)



Cited: some quotations are at lakelore. Are they good? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They look fine to me, if somewhat old. May be tagged rare or archaic, but passed. Keφr 12:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Please note that horselore and lakelore appear to be cited already, whalelore has citations but they are mostly for whale lore. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Another one that seems to be already cited. Please untag if you're happy. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Chak Haryam[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like our POV-pushing Pakistani expat (the one who created entries and categories for all the divisions of Pakistan) is back under a different IP.


This was copied straight from the 1913 Webster's, which AFAICT was copied straight from the 1828 Webster's, which probably got it from this 1742 text, but I can't find any indication that there is any New World snake called the "bom", and, well, zoological knowledge has advanced a little bit in the past 272 years. So far, it looks like this word has only been mentioned and not used. If such a critter ever existed, it presumably has some modern name, but if we can't find out which one, we can't even label this an obsolete word for something else. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Webster's Second International c. 1935, shows it in a footnote, saying it is the same as aboma. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I found bom and boma in this sense in some Portuguese dictionaries.
bom in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 also says it is the same as aboma.DCDuring TALK 23:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"Zoological knowledge has advanced a little bit in the past 272 years." I loled. I am also enjoying the idea of any snake being named after the sound it makes, because then all snakes should be called sssss or hsssss or sssshh or Slytherin. What kind of stupid snake says "bom"? Beautiful ecologist Kirsty told me that she used to hiss at people who bothered her, although I imagined it being more of a catlike hiss. BTW, one thing that Webster 1913 brought to my attention is that there was some point, not too long ago, when everyone stopped saying "serpent" and started saying "snake". Anyway here is a promising search for anyone who is currently more sober and less distracted: [45] Love always Equinox 23:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dubstep snake, I suppose. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked through the first ten pages of that search, and all I found was hyphenation artifacts, scannos (mostly for born and boæ), and one mention. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could it be somehow a mistake for boa? Boa is the feminine form of the word bom in Portuguese, although the word "boa" for snake apparently goes back to Latin and ins unrelated. Soap (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It is more likely that the English dictionary entries are intended to potentially help someone who might read a rendering of a word heard in Brazil that was or was derived from aboma: *bom, *boma, *bomma. I doubt that any of them are attestable in English. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I found and added two book citations, but both are mentions. Inadequate! Equinox 15:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "This is called the bom, ..." (now in mainspace) is a mention, not a use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


It was used by Adlai Stevenson, but other than that, this is just too rare to merit an entry. --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it's real Latin anyway; it's just a highly educated (and self-referentially ironic) joke in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
See w:Dog Latin Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

culpable homicide[edit]

RFV-sense of three senses. I believe that the only use of the term is with sense 1 ("homicide which is culpable but does not rise to the level of murder"). The "Scottish" and "South African" senses aren't even independent of each other, let alone sense 1. See also Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/January#Standards_of_Identity, which concluded that Wiktionary, being a dictionary of words and not a record of the laws of every jurisdiction at every point in history, should not have things like this and this. (The recent discussion of how we don't even have senses like "a British colony" for Georgia, even though Georgia was a British colony at one point, is semi-related.) - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on the definition discussion page. Many countries have a legal definition for culpable homicide. I believe the generic definition: "Criminal negligence causing the unlawful death of a human being." And a sample of legal definitions is the best way to go. The term "murder" is a misnomer for culpable homicide, it may or may not include the word "murder" it depends on the country you are in; for example "murder" is considered culpable homicide in Canada. Better to use the generic idiom unlawful death. thanks WritersCramp (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"A sample of legal definitions". Who chooses the sample? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp, of course. Apparently no one is allowed to make changes of any significance to any of WritersCramp's entries without prior permission. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the senses in question per the previous BP discussion about mayonnaise, first-degree murder and plain murder, the last of which in particular would otherwise have had a few hundred definitions. (I listed and cited 10 in diff.) If someone wants to know the details of what Law X in State Y at Time Z considers "murder", "culpable homicide", etc, the place to look is the law itself; Wiktionary is not a compendium of laws but a dictionary. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

kapang syndrome[edit]

The Wikipedia article was deleted in 2005 [46] and I see nothing in Google Books or Groups, or even on the Web. Equinox 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Not sure. I can see a few uses on the Web ("his acting can gargle my ballsatchel"; "your PCT is gonna suck ballsatchel"), but nothing in Books or Groups. However, Cloudcuckoolander can sometimes cite this kind of Web-only word! Equinox 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not this time, I'm afraid. :( -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

cœnæsthesiæ, obœdience, obœdient, onomatopœiæ[edit]

Way too rare to merit entries. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I kind of like how you can see ‘onomatopceiae’ in this text, but searching for it in Google Books reveals three unrelated books. Just further proof that Google sucks fucking balls. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


The uses are misscans of præmunitory, and the few valid ones are only mentions. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedied: this will be an artifact of automatic ligature-to-letter-pair conversion in the Webster software I wrote. Usually both forms exist; this is the rare one where they apparently don't. Equinox 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


I could only find one use, and it’s actually for prænaris. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


More rare crap that I added. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course we don't exclude rare terms unless they're too rare (unattestable). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Goupil, we only include terms if they have three uses in Google Books or Google Groups. Ѯ&Π(talk) 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. We only include terms if they have three uses in durably archived sources. There must be millions of books, magazines, and newspapers in existence that aren't in Boogle Gooks yet, it's just a pain going through them all to look for specific words and spellings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


The transcription of the text says ‘presidency,’ not præsidency like it actually says. —Æ&Œ (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)





Rfv-sense: genus of herbaceous plants. --Shouldn't the name of a genus be capitalized? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite often the lower-cased version is used as a countable noun (fuchsia(s), pelargonium(s), etc.) but yes, in this case I think it's a mistake. Equinox 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
People often use the lower-case English form as if it were a genus name, but it seems silly to have definitions both as an individual specimen and as the genus. Moreover, it could refer to one or more of the subgeneric groupings (eg, subgenus, section, species, subspecies, variety, form). People also sometimes use the italicized taxonomic name (eg, Digitalis) to refer to an individual specimen, rather than to the species or genus. If some would like to insert and attest these, they can, but it won't help users much. I suppose such phenomena belong in Wiktionary:Taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I just came across another entry illustrating non-rule-following use of such terms: [[Homines neanderthalenses]]. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope I'm not the only person in the world who uses the plural [[Tyrannosauri reges]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Angr: As professional systematicists would have it, Tyrannosaurus rex is a proper name of an individual, the individual being the group of individual specimens of common lineage that can mate. I offer this not as definitive, but to point out that a taxon is something like a Roman gens or the House of Windsor. One would not refer to Prince William as one of the HouseS of Windsor! Phylogeneticists refer to clades, which are lineages, which also have proper names, but are not defined in the same way as the classical taxa.
But you are certainly not alone in not respecting the niceties of taxonomyspeak. I think most zoologists and botanists don't either unless they are being very careful. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
However, Tyrannosaurus rex is not only a taxonomic name; it's also the vernacular name, as shown by the fact that our entry has an English section in addition to the Translingual section. And as the vernacular name it's a common noun for any individual of the species, like frilled lizard or least weasel. And as such, it needs a plural, which I suppose is actually Tyrannosaurus rexes most of the time, but I still prefer the more Latinate form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but we all have polymathic intellectual pretensions that we need to indulge, as I tried to. I happen to enjoy the peculiar intersection of linguistics, taxonomy (classical and phylogenetic), and (ordinary language) philosophy. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Cited. I propose that we change the definition to something like “Any plant of the genus Digitalis [] ”, because genus names themselves are listed as translingual. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The cites support the new sense Ungoliant proposes, not the challenged 'genus' sense. I suspect that cites might be available for the 'genus' sense as well. I am reluctant to actually seek out such cites, because I don't believe that we add value to more than a tiny number of users by laboriously adding to every English name of a natural kind, descent group, or any other grouping of living things the extra senses, let alone citing them in each case. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


No Google Books hits; no Google web hits in English (other than as someone's online user name). This, that and the other (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


This word is a lie of a group. --123snake45 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If a liar calls somebody "liar", how can we know if that liar is telling a lie again?
Arkadaş! benim açtığım sayfama kaldırtma girişiminde bulunmanı kınıyorum. Benim yapmaya çalıştığım Türkçemizi yabancı sözcüklerden korumak için karşılık türetip millete benimsetmekti. Senin uydurma söz dediğin benim söylediğim söz için karşılık türetmesiydi. Lütfen böyle çirkin kaldırma girişiminde bulunma.
123snake45 (mesaj) 16:16, 22 Aralık 2012 (UTC) [47] Can you translate this into English without telling a lie here? -- 05:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


That word is lie of a group. --123snake45 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, we know about your lies. It is zir ü zeber in Ottoman Turkish. This may be a changed form of that word (see Hungarian zűrzavar) but since there is no citations from Google Books this word may be deleted. --2001:A98:C060:80:9C10:38EF:8648:DCCF 09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


This isn't Turkish! --123snake45 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


A supposed Latin adjective. Can't find it in Late Latin glossary or Lewis and Short online. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything either, on the web or in Google Books. There's a city mentioned in the Bible (eg. Gen 10:12 Resen quoque inter Nineven et Chale haec est civitas magna...), but the next nearest thing I can think of is χαλή, a form of n. χάλις ("neat wine")or v. χαλάω ("to loosen"). Neither of which would seem to have anything to do with the provided definition of chale. (Unless the effects of chális are meant...) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This was originally a transwiki, but the Latin was added by User:Goldenrowley in this diff, using the same reference as the Spanish ([[48] which no longer works). The definition is rather odd, since it starts out with adjectives, but then has a couple of seemingly unrelated verbs. Checking further, the Internet Archive Wayback Machine has no record of the URL in question, even though there are plenty of neighboring definition URLs from that era. If this had been added today, rather than 7 years ago, I would have speedied it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, just delete it. It even claims to be an adjective meaning be for crying out loud. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought there might be some charitable revision that made sense to a better Latin scholar than me. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that definition was just very badly written, and meant "to be or feel passionate or inflamed". --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RFV failed. This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Equinox 04:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

salad tossing[edit]

Is this attested to mean anilingus? I find mentions in Google books, but don't know how to find uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uses of the phrase "tossed his salad" are easy enough to find on b.g.c; is that close enough? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be the verb toss salad or toss someone's salad, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are three uses of "salad tossing" as a noun: [49], [50], [51]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


"A person who is considered to be clumsy, characterised by the amount of bangs they inflict on themselves, others or objects." Suspiciously badly written (should be "number of bangs", and the "considered to be" is weasel wording), and I've just never heard of it; no relevant Google Books results for "bangies + clumsy". Equinox 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Alleged to be the Irish word for multiple dystrophy, whatever that might be. There's muscular dystrophy (Irish diostróife mhatánach) and multiple sclerosis (Irish scléaróis iolrach), but I've never heard of "multiple dystrophy" and neither has Wikipedia. I can't find ildiostróife in any Irish dictionaries, and all I find on Google is mirrors of this entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

spider's legs[edit]

Can this be attested to mean "pubic hair"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English has an entry - "noun. the pubic hair that can be seen outside the confines of a girl's bikini or underwear" UK - citing Chris E. Lewis The Dictionary of Playground Slang, 2003. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not what counts as a citation for WT:ATTEST, though it does obviously suggest that the term is real. Those are two mentions, not uses. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gordonofcartoon:, while I don't doubt it, it doesn't answer Dan Polansky's question in any way. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


"(humorous, slang) a very long SMS message" Was at WT:RFD#SMSA. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

chicken liver[edit]

Any quotations attesting this to mean coward? Was in Wikisaurus, present in at least one online thesaurus for "coward". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but offhand sounds quite dated. Evokes a sort of 'Classic Westerns' kinda feel, like something you'd hear in old movies made in the 1960's (but set in the 1860-1890's), or Gunsmoke. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Aside from hearing it said by other children in the US in the 60s, there's this, this, and this. There's also this and this, but they're hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like a childish blend of chicken and lily-livered, influenced by literal chicken liver. DCDuring TALK 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


This has one quotation, but the quotation is not actually in English, so it doesn't attest this term for English. It also failed RFV before. —CodeCat 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It even uses the same quote that Ruakh said in the course of the rvf was probably Middle Scots. I'm sure it's a case of forgetting that what the OED considers Scottish dialects, we consider the Scots language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Middle Scots doesn't have a code. Should we make one for it? Category:Middle Scots is a subcat of Category:Regional Scots, which seems wrong. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


This IP has been adding entries in a wide variety of unrelated languages, which always makes me nervous. In this case, though, it was the lack of this spelling in the fairly comprehensive Monier-Williams dictionary that led me to be concerned. I don't know Sanskrit well enough to check thoroughly, so I'm bringing it here. I believe this is a less-documented language, so one mention in a durably-archived source should suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an alternative spelling (specifically, a sandhi variant) of मांसम् (māṃsam), which is the nominative and accusative singular of मांस (māṃsa). It shouldn't be listed as a lemma form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


This appears in exactly one source, as a mention. It's said to be from Ancient Greek, but I can't find anything at Perseus under any plausible spelling. For all I know, this could be an error or a hoax. At any rate, it definitely looks like a dictionary-only entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this instrument belongs to the zzxjoanw family. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


A Luciferwildcat entry tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman as not existing in the Spanish language. I haven't had time this morning to check thoroughly, so I brought it here. Given LW's track record, I won't be surprised if this fails. Also included:

Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the gramatically correct form would be atravesamiento (first conjugation ending -ar + suffix -miento = -amiento). Although not noted in the RAE dictionary, there are some hits in CORPES and CREA and the term (spelled with an a) seems to be used in Latin America. Peter Bowman (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah they're spelling mistakes; move to 'a' forms (atravesamiento) and kill the redirects. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman, so I brought it here, just to be fair. This one looks like it's attested, but it would be useful to know whether it's a misspelling or an alternative form (the authoritative RAE dictionary online only recognizes cervecería). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be real but obsolete. Perhaps archaic would be a better tag because it seems to appear in at least one place name (hence the hits in running English texts). Renard Migrant (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/July#Semitism

The entry has numerous quotations, but most of them are so poor and opaque that I find it hard to judge which sense, if any, they are using. (Several of the most problematic citations have already been removed.) Heka previously opined that all of the quotations listed under the "religion, culture and customs of adherents of Abrahamic religions" in fact "refer to Jewish features of Islam, ... sense #1", but even that reading is not easy to arrive at. (I've put the quotations in question in a "Quotations" section for now.) Which senses of this word are actually attested? - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the other place, the only real meaning that I'm personally familiar with is the linguistic meaning, basically "feature of the Greek language usage of the Septuagint or Greek New Testament which is influenced by features of the Hebrew and/or Aramaic languages". For an example, see "Septuagint Lexicography" by Takamitsu Muraoka in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A.L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker (ISBN 0-8028-2216-9), p. 85: "The main reason for this neglect is the fact that it is largely a translated text, a fact which is alleged to account for its strange idiom tinged with Semitic traits, largely in syntax and lexicography. For sure, one can easily identify countless Semitisms." -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added about 8 refs. Pass a Method (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Wikitiki89, you have both a "he-2" and an "I'm Jewish" Babel box, what's your take on which sense(s) the citations are using? As I commented above, I think "most of them are so poor and opaque that I find it hard to judge which sense, if any, they are using". Some, like the one I removed here, seem to be errors for "Semites" or "Semitic". - -sche (discuss) 03:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Anarchist and socialist? Seems contradictory. WikiWinters (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would probably help to have two more clearly distinct senses of socialism. There is the Marxist sense, which is The Government Owns Everything For Your Own Good, Comrade, which is the source of the American political boo-word ("Obamacare is creeping socialism!!")
The other is the softer understanding of a general ethos of helping your neighbours and them helping you: working for a generally social benefit. So a capital-S Socialist Anarchist is a contradiction in terms: someone who wants to pull down government in order to ... build an overarching all-controlling government. The soft sense, on the other hand, is someone who wants to bring down government in the expectation that people will naturally work together for communal benefit without a government getting in the way. (This tends to go with a belief that government tends to be captured by oligarchy sooner or later, so that corporate-controlled government is actively working against the common good as seen from street-level). As opposed to the "every man for themselves" anarchist; such as the Randian, for whom everyone should be selfish and greedy and unrestrained by the needs of those around them, and that this is a good thing; or the caricature anarchist who just wants to watch stuff burn.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism. bd2412 T 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed: libertarian (= seeking individual liberty) does not necessarily mean Libertarian (= Ayn Rand was right about everything). --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Good Hell, I hope that you are trolling. If not, then I am sad to say that you people are bloody ignorant. Socialists, communists, and anarchists (which I consider synonymous) seek the elimination of the state, not the strengthening of it. Look it up. Most anarchists therefore consider ‘anarcho‐socialism’ a pleonasm, in contrast to anarcho-capitalism, which is definitely oxymoronic because capitalism requires the state so that capitalism can sustain itself. The concept of ‘state‐socialism’ was a nonsense concept fabricated by Vladimir Lenin to attract the workers to his movement, and Leninism and its successor ideologies have very little to do with Marxism. Most people have no clue what socialism, communism, or anarchism are. Influential people obfuscated the concept because it could be very dangerous to their power. --Romanophile (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you are so firmly convinced that Socialism as exemplified in the USSR doesn't mean what the Soviets thought it meant. (Or that it can't hold two, even potentially contradictory, meanings depending on context.) And that Socialism means exactly the same thing as Communism... in all possible contexts, I assume? Also that Anarchism means only what you think it means, and that there are not such things as anarchists who desire the loss of government so that they can as individuals do and take whatever they want, or people who may be unclear on the inherent contradictions between capitalism per se and anarchism per se, but still identify as "anarcho-capitalists". Are there any other political terms you think everyone except you gets wrong? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is, anarcho‐socialism is not oxymoronic, and your idea of ‘Marxist socialism’ is obviously tosh. Even if you think that it’s still a valid meaning, it can’t possibly be the only meaning. Also ‘…everyone except you…’, that’s wrong, too. [52] --Romanophile (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was the only meaning. It would seem to be you having the problem with the concept of polysemy. The World Socialist Movement doesn't get to define what the word is and isn't allowed to mean either. (I am sympathetic to socialism myself, but the "About Us" page of the World Socialism Movement has as much of a monopoly on the word "socialism" as does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is: none.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The sense of "libertarian" nominated for RFV is "An anarchist, typically with socialist implications." Please let us have attesting quotations, and, they absent, let us eventually fail this RFV. I am suspicious of the sense, since dictionaries don't have it. google books:"libertarian", google groups:"libertarian", libertarian at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've added a couple which clearly put libertarians, anarchists and socialists into the same semiotic pot, and a couple more which I'll add here rather than there, because they are not the noun, but used adjectivally:
    • 2011 Carissa Honeywell, A British Anarchist Tradition: Herbert Read, Alex Comfort and Colin Ward, p. 146
      He highlighted libertarian traditions of socialism and linked them to anarchism in the British context.
    • 2012 David Goodway, Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward p.15
      The Labour Emancipation League had been founded in the East End in 1882 and, while never calling itself anarchist, was always libertarian socialist and became anti-parliamentarian, as expressed in Joseph Lane's notable An Anti-Statist, Communist Manifesto of 1887.
    --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The three quotations present in the entry do not attested the sense, IMHO. I mean 1973 Eugene Lunn, 2009 Peter Marshall and 2012 Wilbur R. Miller. Consider the third one: "While anarchism and socialist libertarians have a rich history of revolutionary thinkers ...": how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously, I think they rather do. They are all used in the context of Anarchist/Socialist theory, and are contrasting specific subtypes of that ideology. The last reference, the one you quote, is also contrasting socialist libertarians against right-libertarians. The preceding sentence reads "Socialist libertarianism sounds like anarchy, and for good reason; in fact anarchists began using the term libertarian in the mid-1800s, far before the right-wing usage in the United States that began in the 1950s."[53] Maybe that would have been a better quote? But it explicitly draws out socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism as different strands of the same basic ideology. The 2009 quote also explicitly contrasts socialist libertarianism against authoritarian socialism, which contrast Seth seemed to have such difficulty with in the conversation above. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Also: "how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence?"
    Semantics. If they were different movements, it would say that "... anarchism and socialist libertarians have rich histories ...". As it gives the two terms a singular history of revolutionary thinkers, it follows that they are different aspects of the same thing, QED. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    What about this: "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan each have a rich history of design development extending back for thousands of years", boldface mine. Looks like a refutation of your argument to me. To find more sentences like that, check google books:"have a rich history". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    You yourself bolded the difference. Each: "The phrase beginning with each identifies a set of items wherein the words following each identify the individual elements by their shared characteristics. The phrase is grammatically singular in number, so if the phrase is the subject of a sentence, its verb is conjugated into a third-person singular form."
    With the "each" the singular subject "a rich history" applies to each individual civilisation of India, China, Korea and Japan. Without it, "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan have a rich history" implies a singular shared history between them as a group. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    You must be kidding me by now. There is "Shreveport and Bossier City have a rich history [...]"; find other quotations at google books:"have a rich history". Your argument, which by the way was syntactic rather than semantic, is flawed. In general, a phrase of the form "X and Y have a rich history" does not suggest X and Y to be synonyms. As for "have rich histories", few people write that even when the subject is plural: have a rich history, have rich histories at Google Ngram Viewer. When the subject is singular, it is google books:"has a rich history", with "has" rather than "have". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oh for Deity's sake: the references are giving the history of anarchists and socialists and calling them libertarians, and somehow you can't extract any meaning from that? Do you think that someone is talking about A and B having a history of C because there isn't a semantic connection between them? If that is the case, please describe the sort of source and/or wording which could possibly convince you.
    Moreover, that more people fail to observe the singular verb with multiple subjects and 'each' doesn't stop it working in that way. Arguably the bit about verb conjugation in the Usage Notes of "each" is not accurate, certainly not for "has". I still maintain that "A and B have a rich history" implies a shared history between them; where the technically correct "A and B each has a rich history" and the more common in use "A and B each have a rich history" both imply separate and distinct histories. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(Ireland, archaic) decent" As an Irish person I have never, to the best of my knowledge, heard this term used with this sense. As a kid probably though, and certainly as a (pre-)teen I heard it often with the new sense I have added, meaning pretty much equivalent to the colloquial meaning of awesome. Is this archaic sense real? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 22:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It was posted by WF just before that account was blocked, so it's best not to take it at face value.
At any rate, it's not hard at all to find usage in Google Books, but it looks like most or all of it is eye dialect for decent by non-Irish. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV failed: no attesting quotations provided for the sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


The second etymology, "excrescence on the trunk of a tree usually covering a knot", has just been added by an anon. All I could find in a cursory search is bole (with an e) as another word for tree trunk. Since the IP also added a Maori translation, maybe this sense of bol is specific to New Zealand? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm think anon meant burl, which could easily be pronounced "bol", and may have such a pronunciation-derived spelling somewhere, though I haven't found it yet. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

female penis[edit]

This failed RFV before; now there are quotations in the entry, which I have copied to Citations:female penis. The quotations are inadequate, IMHO. First, the quotation "The correct anatomical term to describe [...] is the female penis." is a mention; any quotation of the form "The correct term for X is Y" is a mention of Y, while it is use of X. The second quotation actually uses the term "miniature female penis" to refer to clitoris, not "female penis"; it becomes apparent if you try to substitude, and get "miniature clitoris", which was not intended; in any case, it is a one-off metaphor and not the use of the term "female penis" to refer to clitoris before clitoris was introduced to the context. As for the third quotation, substitution again clarifies what is going on: In "The female penis is something that physically disrupts the idea that men and women have sex because they were built to fit together", this is really an abbreviation of The [idea of clitoris being a] female penis ..."; substitution yields nonsense: "The clitoris is something that physically disrupts the idea that men and women have sex because they were built to fit together". I motion to speedy delete as unattested term that failed RFV before until the author adds acceptable quotations to Citations:female penis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added two more cites; not sure how acceptable they are but they do allude to the clitoris. Zeggazo (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As for "I stroked each side of her labia majora [...] before homing back on what had, by now, swollen to become her female penis with it's familiar Germanic helmet—albeit in miniature—which I now rolled around between my thumb and fore-finger": That is a one-off metaphor not using "female penis" to refer to clitoris; the sentence indicates that only after it has swollen has the clitoris become "her female penis", immediately continuing the metaphor with "familiar Germanic helmet", which does not attest "Germanic helmet" to refer to a part of clitoris. Also notice the word "become"; if "female penis" would mean clitoris, the sentence would suggest that clitoris has become clitoris, a nonsense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

house warming[edit]

Rfv-sense: The act of welcoming a person/family to their newly purchased or newly rented home.

Not found in Onelook. The only support which I could find for this sense is this comment in the Wikipedia article for Housewarming party: "In some communities, neighbors may bring the housewarming party to the new residents to welcome them." --Hekaheka (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The with-space spelling is certainly less common. housewarming at OneLook Dictionary Search and house-warming at OneLook Dictionary Search find just few lemmings. This is certainly attestable. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
COCA has 84 instances of housewarming, 11 of house-warming, 5 of house warming. All three spellings are used as nominals and attributively. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the spelling, but the sense. The first sense is "party to celebrate moving into a new home", which I think is the usual one. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd not be surprised that it existed. I take it that any of the three spelling could provide the attestation, not just the least common one, which we call the lemma for some reason. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand the problem with the entry. We should not have an adjective section, as the term does not meet tests for adjectivity such as comparability/gradability or predicate use, nor does it have any distinct meaning when used attributively. The challenged noun sense is the original sense of housewarming, usually used attributively and usually uncountable when a nominal. This is the sense used in housewarming party and housewarming gift. The "party" sense is a countable sense derived from the first, when housewarming came to take formal shape as a party.
If my view is correct, the adjective section should be RfVed to confirm that it does not meet the tests and the challenged sense should have a label (usually used attributively) and should appear before the "party sense". DCDuring TALK 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Or not. A "feast/merrymaking" sense goes back at least to Samuel Johnson. So housewarming party is a pleonasm. The adjective sense should still be RfVed IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Etymonline says 1570. It looks to me like that's the original sense, which was extended metaphorically to mean a welcome, and the metaphorical sense is what's used attributively. The question is where along the way (if anywhere) has there been a split into separate senses or words? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Can one now have a housewarming without a party, a feast, or merry-making? I think so. Certainly one can give a housewarming gift without there being festivities. That Cambridge has housewarming (party) as an entry, even though it should be a pleonasm, suggests to me that housewarming has the challenged sense. Oxford has a definition "A party celebrating a move to a new home" and gives as examples sentences with "housewarming party", ie, its definition is not substitutable into the very usage examples it provides. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this noun sense is essentially the same as the first noun sense, where party should be interpreted broadly to include small social gatherings. Adjective should get terminated with extreme prejudice. Make housewarming the main form per DCDuring. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

in infinite[edit]

English: "Alternative form of ad infinitum"

Not in OneLook references. Hard to search for. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No useful Google Books hits for "so on in infinite" nor "continues in infinite". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


There are purported cites in the entry, but each needs to be reviewed to determine whether it is "durably archived" and to be formatted to allow for broad participation in any decisions about whether this merits "hot word" status before it would otherwise be included (after a year has passed), assuming the validity of the cites. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I've formatted the citations from print journals. All are from articles reporting on the same piece of research. While I'd say we should keep this for now, the important part in a year will be seeing if other research groups use the word in scientific papers (or if the characters in CSI start profiling victim's thanatomicrobiomes...) Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Are you sure that they are in print editions? In the past, I've assumed that online content provided by a title that was also in print was in print/durably archived. I no longer think such an assumption is justified, but I don't know how to make a determination one way or the other. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    The journal citation: definitely. The New Scientist citation: definitely (it says "This article appeared in print" at the bottom. The Forensics Magazine citation: almost definitely (it's tagged with a reference to the issue it appeared in). In general though, I don't think having an even more restrictive criterion for web citations is really going to improve the quality or reliability of Wiktionary, since we're just going to lose whole swathes of high-quality sources of citations for relatively little gain. If nothing else, it's fair to assume that any reasonably well-trafficked website will be put in the Internet Archive and copied by a hundred spam mirrors. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's a matter for WT:BP and even a VOTE. It might be time to revisit the question. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on, we've never made any effort to define 'durably archived'. It wouldn't be revisiting the issue of what durably archived means, it would be a start on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: We have what is more useful than a verbal definition: an operational one: We accept as sources any print work that would be found in a library, any print journal or newspaper, any Usenet group. Folks have made arguments for other things but haven't convinced very many people. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello... does this work? . I am the author of the word "thanatomicrobiome". I created the original web page... however someone keeps changing it... Can we please leave the references as is...?

The other person keeps adding news paper articles... does the rag newspaper "Montgomery Advertiser" count as a real publication? I do not think so.. but I have NOT deleted it. Can we please discuss? panoble@washington.edu Thanks Peter

Here they are:


  • [54] Peter A. Noble, A NSF proposal I wrote: "Life after death: The role and composition of the thanatomicrobiome in the decomposition of mammalian organs", October, 2013.
  • [55] Can, I., G.T. Javan, A.E. Pozhitkov and P.A. Noble. Distinctive thanatomicrobiome signatures found in the blood and internal organs of humans. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2014 106: 1-7.
  • [56], Peter A. Noble, Introducing the Thanatomicrobiome, MicrobialWorld August 15, 2014
  • [57] Anna Williams, Death: the great bacterial takeover, Your death microbiome could catch your killer. New Scientist, August 28, 2014.
  • [58] Siouxsie Wiles, Monday Micro – the microbiome of death! SciBlog: Infectious Thoughts, September, 1, 2014.
  • [59], Jesse Jenkins, The Death Microbiome: Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Biotechniques - The International Journal for Life Science Method, September 11, 2014.
  • [60] Randall Mayes, The Death Microbiome Could Inform Forensic Science And Medicine. Design & Trend, September, 11, 2014.
  • [61] Gulnaz Javan, The Dirty World of Body Farm Microbes. Forensic Science Magazine, September 30, 2014.
  • [62] Brad Harper, ASU researchers hope to help solve homicides. Montgomery Advertiser, July 8, 2014
    The Montgomery Advertiser is the largest daily newspaper in Alabama and it's won three Pulitzer Prizes, so it definitely counts as a real publication, though here at Wiktionary all that matters to us is that it's durably archived (a term which we haven't formally defined but roughly means you could go to a library and find the publication in question—in other words, we prefer print publications like books, magazines, and newspapers to websites). As for other people changing the entry you started, one of the most basic rules for participating in a wiki like Wiktionary is accepting that other people will edit pages that you start. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

kol çekmek[edit]

There is no that word at the Turkish!!!! Somebodies are deleting rfv! --123snake45 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There are already citations. -- 08:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry was never de-tagged. 123snake45 I imagine you just forgot to list it (until now). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There are already citations for the English senses, not the Turkish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You think the citations in Citations:kol çekmek are in English? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, got confused. I thought that was a comment on kodak.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV passed: some quotations at Citations:kol çekmek. I cannot judge their quality or fitness, but they do seem to be in Turkish, of the challenged term, and from permanently recorded media. Until someone challenges these quotations, this is a pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The standard word that everybody uses for "to sign" is imzalamak (or imza atmak). Two of the citations are ok. Of the remaining 4 "citations", 1 is non-durably archived, and 3 are dictionary entries (Ottoman Turkish (2x), regional colloquial Turkish (1x)). If a third citation can be found, the entry can be kept, but needs to be tagged with "rare" (and possibly also with "archaic"?). -- Curious (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Added third citation from Google Books. --2001:A98:C060:80:5D7B:DD53:C14A:E234 09:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Fourth citation from Google Books --2001:A98:C060:80:31EF:CEE0:F5AE:802E 09:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective. Seems to be a misrepresentation of attributive use of the proper noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Nothing for "more Orinoco", nothing for "most Orinoco", nothing for "very Orinoco" when you exclude the phrase "that very Orinoco", nothing for "slightly Orinoco", nothing useful for "is Orinoco", "was Orinoco" or "were Orinoco"... I'm going to go with the Flow and say delete away, delete away, delete away... Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we really need a whole RFV for this? Cant the fact that Orinocan exists prove that this was just a misclick or other type of mistake, and that they meant "Orinocan" ?Soap (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Soap: 'Do we really need a whole RFV for this?' Yes. Orinico is often used attributively, eg, Orinoco Flow and Orinoco River, where Orinocan is not used. But Orinoco probably does not otherwise behave as an adjective (See Wiktionary:English adjectives. The RfV is intended to make sure that "probably" is something we can rely on.
'Cant the fact that Orinocan exists prove that this was just a misclick or other type of mistake, and that they meant "Orinocan"' ? Definitely not. It is not that kind of trivial error. First, Orininocan is not a substitute for Orinoco. Second, it is a matter of maintaining consistency in our presentation of English nouns. Virtually ALL (or just all? Are there any that cannot?) English nouns can be used attributively in virtually ALL of their senses. It would be silly and wasteful to have adjective sections to cover attributive use of all English nouns when almost no information is thereby added. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Translingual sense: "A kiss at the end of a letter". I request citations in languages other than English to confirm that this is indeed translingual. Keφr 21:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

w:it:XOXO implies that it's English, though I would be surprised if it hadnt spread to at least other Roman-alphabet languages by now. Then again there's :x which represents at least a kiss, and is translingual. Soap (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added four non-English citations: one for Portuguese, two for Spanish, and one for French. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And one in German. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]


Rfv-sense: "The act of removing a belief from the mind or the result of such removal."

This is a rewording of a definition just added by an anon. This is morphologically possible, but does not appear in any of the OneLook references. Could there be use in this sense? DCDuring TALK 09:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of possible citations:
I think most of the Google books hits for "gradual disbelief" support this sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Good finds. They initially seemed a bit ambiguous to me, but I think they support the definition. I wonder whether we could beat OED to the punch on this one.
Further, I wonder whether there are parallel uses of the verb disbelieve, either like transitive like disabuse (someone) of (a belief), or only reflexive, or transitive with a belief as object. If so, it would probably be even less ambiguous. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are examples of the verb with the belief as object. They help me get the concept.
  • 1802, The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, and Religious ...: 
    And so far as this opinion prevails, we have reason to fear that the important doctrine, of the real Divinity and even of the humanity of Christ, will be gradually disbelieved.
  • 1890, Edward Henage Dering, Freville Chase, volume 1, page 37:
    Elfrida walked slowly upstairs, reviewing what had happened and not happened in the last three, not to say six weeks, and gradually disbelieving the good case that she had made out.
  • 1923, David Alec Wilson, Life of Carlyle, volume 1, page 79:
    He never "revolted" against Christianity; only, reluctantly and gradually, disbelieved it.
  • 2007, Robert F. Gorman, Great Events from History: The 20th century, 1901-1940:
    Cook's claim was gradually disbelieved, and Cook fell into disfavor and died a pauper in 1940.
Both religious and secular use. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, I might reword it a bit, I don't think 'removing from the mind' is the best wording though; I'm a former Christian and the believe hasn't been removed from my mind, I just don't believe it anymore. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, give it your best shot. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I did rather walk into that. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another dictionary-only phobia- everything in Google Books seems to be a mention. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I found: [63], [64], [65]. The first one is solid but the other two are on the fence between use and mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

generative leadership[edit]

I read a fuck of a lot of books and this entry is a strange mystery to me. What does it mean? Equinox 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Read this to see an explanation using real English sentences that actually mean things. The term looks citeable, but the definition given is only decipherable if you already know what it means and read between the lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I overlooked the second definition, which doesn't seem to mean anything at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Creating patterns that enable adaptive capacity across a system" sounds more like a tortured definition of fault-tolerant network design than anything to do with leadership. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It's very difficult to understand. If it's an exchange, what sort of exchange? In the sense of a discussion, or the sense of a swap? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Only in the Smurfs universe? Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added some External links to meet the criteria of attestation. The smurfberry seen as a berry is, without any doubt, part of a fictional universe. The game curreny, however, isn't fiction at all. It was hard reality and quite a shock for a number of parents a couple of years ago.-- 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The links only provide support for the game currency. The fictional sense needs cites that do not explicitly refer to the fictional universe: that's what we mean when we say it has "entered the language". See, for example, kryptonite. Choor monster (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The usual interpretation is that the citations need to be on the page or the citations page, and they aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For 'fictional universe' refers to the content not the medium! A book made of paper, the paper isn't fictional but the information contained in the page may well be! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify. Citations don't actually have to be anywhere, unless challenged. There are only 2 kryptonite cites, for example, but since everybody knows it has entered the language, nobody is challenging it for the third to make it official. Referring to links is common during discussion, helping others judge the challenged term. At the moment, smurfberry the currency seems secure, but the fictional berry remains unsupported. Choor monster (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: the sole adjective sense 'unexpected'. Is this an adjectival at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of phrases that take the form "a surprise NOUN". Purplebackpack89 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Invalid argument: same goes for "tractor" (tractor parts, tractor driver) but that's not an adjective. "Surprise" fails many of the typical tests for adjectivity: you can't have "more/most/very/somewhat surprise"; you can say "surprise party" but not "the party was surprise"; and so on. Equinox 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is rfv (though I'm not sure why it isn't at rfd), so it's all about usage, not arguments. At any rate, the usage mentioned doesn't establish adjectivity for the reasons mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make them adjectives: you don't say "that inspection was more surprise than the last one", you say, "that inspection was more of a surprise than the last one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: It is at RfV because RfD tends to be a fact-free zone and facts could in principle show surprise to behave like a true adjective. We actually have criteria for "true adjective" use, unlike the situation for multi-word entries. The burden of proof is on those with insight into some type of true adjective use to demonstrate such use. The longer minimum time period before removal of items is useful to give advocates more of a chance. There is a substantial bias toward deleting these because linguistically naive contributors are inclined to take attributive use of a noun as an indication that the noun is also an adjective. A weakness of the process is that we rarely add examples of the noun in attributive use as usage examples for the noun definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we sure it is a good idea to single out one particular sense that arises in attributive use, as the definition "unexpected" in this case? For example, in the surprise element (aka the element of surprise) the element is not unexpected, it is a desired and planned-for feeling of surprise, which may indeed be expected, as in those attending a horror movie. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It may be planned and expected in some way (as in expect the unexpected), but there's something unexpected about it for the viewer, otherwise it wouldn't provoke the "feeling of surprise". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Attestation is the key. Nouns can't be qualified by adverbs such as "very surprise" "more surprise" "the most surprise". I wasn't the tagger it was tagged by Hamaryns in December 2013. Not really relevant because we go on the merits of the entry, not who tagged it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There are thousands of citations for google books:"very surprise" and google books:"so surprise". I've found nothing yet (scannos for "very surprised" mainly) but I have looked. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


I can't find any reference to this as a separate noun. The usual term for a Sami person seems to be sápmelaš, while sámi is only the genitive form of Sápmi (Lapland). —CodeCat 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An additional note: Judging from w:se:Sámit, it seems that the plural sámit is used to refer to the Sami collectively, as a people. But I haven't seen it used in the singular with this meaning so far. —CodeCat 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sámi is unambiguously the accusative-genitive of Sápmi. This word in general is cited to have also the sense "a Sámi person" e.g. at the Neahttadigisánit dictionary, so I suspect citations for that can be found. I suspect someone has been confused with the attributive use of the noun though in adding a lemma for the inflected form. --Tropylium (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We are now talking of sámi with minuscule "s". According to Finnish wiktionary (Northern Sami Wiktionary is still in incubator stage) and our entry Sami, sámi is an adjective, which of course does not necessarily exclude other senses. I changed the entry accordingly. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not really any better, I'm afraid. The -m- in "sámi" is a weak-grade consonant, so it doesn't normally appear in the nominative form (gradation in Northern Sami is like Finnish, but all the consonants gradate), while it does appear in the genitive. So I think that Sápmi and Sámi relate to each other in the same way as Finnish Suomi and Suomen (and quite likely have the same origin too, but that's another matter). The difference is that in Northern Sami, the lowercase version also refers to the people, but only in plural. Maybe the genitive is an exception to that, and this is simply how Northern Sami handles plurale tantum nouns (i.e. no singular forms but there is still a genitive). —CodeCat 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's true that sámi is the genitive form of sápmi, but that does not automatically make sámi invalid as a word. Flipping through the scarce information available of Sami language in the internet I found several occasions in which sámi is defined as an adjective. I would assume that the genitive has acquired a new meaning at some point of the development of the language. I'm not a Sami expert but I'm quite certain that you aren't one either. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It does exist as a word, but I think people are misinterpreting it as a separate lemma. This is not surprising given that many people interested in Sami languages and culture would be speakers of other languages which don't have such things as case systems. If an English speaker saw "suomen kieli" and knew that it meant "Finnish language" then they might be tempted to think that "suomen" is an adjective meaning "Finnish". I suspect something like that may be going on here.
My own interpretation is that sámit is a plurale tantum referring to Sami people, but its singular genitive form is used attributively. I think User:Tropylium knows more about this than anyone else, so his views would be welcome. —CodeCat 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was saying: sámi is, in the cited sense, definitely not a lemma. Northern Sami has both attributive and predicative forms of adjectives, the latter are taken as the lemma, and this is an attributive.
It'd still take further verification to determine if the adjectival use actually checks out though. I hope our small number of Category:User se-2 people might have better knowledge of this yet. --Tropylium (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean with "In the cited sense not a lemma"? The article was originally written of sámi as if it were a noun. However, based on what I've read, it seemed that it would be an adjective and I have changed the entry accordingly. Are you saying it's not an adjective either? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be mixing together far too many different questions by now. Let's try to be explicit about what we are discussing.
  1. Semantics.
    • Sápmi, uppercase, exists in at least one sense: 1. "the land of the Sami people" (proper noun) (NB: not "Lapland", which covers also traditional Finnish and Swedish territories!)
    • The word IPA(key): /saːpmi/ is moreover used also in two other senses: 2. "Sami" (adjective); 3. "a Sami person" (common noun).
  2. Capitalization.
    • I am still not able to take a definite stance on if the two latter senses should be uppercase or lowercase. I have by now checked a couple other dictionaries, which all seem to only report the capitalized Sápmi (acc. Sámi); I have also checked some grammars, which seem to at least use the word in these senses as the lowercase sápmi (acc. sámi). Probably we should dig into some Sami media for citations.
    • Another question I do not know the answer to is if there is any semantic difference depending on the capitalization.
    • I do know that sámit, "Sami people", is always lowercase.
  3. Lemmatization.
    • If it turns out that lowercase sápmi "a Sami person" is valid, then probably sámit "Sami people" needs to be treated as simply its plural, and not a separate plurale tantum (cf. e.g. Brits, Finns).
    • The form ‹sámi› is definitely not a lemma, but merely an inflected form of ‹sápmi›.
Am I being clear enough yet?
(I think we went off the rails already at the beginning — I interpreted CodeCat as asking whether the accusative deserves an entry as a separate lemma, while I now think she was asking if the meaning "a Sami person" is correct; and then Hekaheka introduced the question of capitalization.) --Tropylium (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Adjective. "Of, or relating to asbestos."

Is this ever a true adjective? DCDuring TALK 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. 03:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)



I added this sense, but I wonder if it's "dictionary only" because I can't find actual usages, so I'm inclined to delete it unless someone else can verify that the word is actually used with this meaning. Dbfirs 08:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One citation:
  • The circus band was elevated from strong-lipped windjamming to artistic renditions of classical overtures and standard selections
However, it looks like in the musical sense, it's usually written hyphenated. It also specifically seems to mean "playing a wind instrument badly" (possibly, it even refers to a specific fault that wind players make):
  • When he plays you hear no whistling and wind-jamming, none of the little mannerisms that ordinarily make flute-playing a trifle unpleasant.
  • Where Buescher True-Tone Instruments predominated there was a noticeable absence of that blatant wind-jamming that often makes the brasses sound a trifle unpleasant when amateurs play
  • This includes two French horns - played by troupers who are good - but the rest are all melophone or rain-catchers (bell ups) of the old style, and when they put on a wind-jamming contest you can bet the barking irons are there.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (I obviously wasn't using the best search request in Google.) I'll leave the sense in the entry and remove the rfv.
... waiting until Thursday 20th in case anyone else wishes to comment here ... Dbfirs 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

gain ground[edit]

Rfv-sense: "to become farther from another traveling the same course."

I think this is included in the sense of "make progress; obtain advantage", but there may be something distinct that I don't see. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is meant to be more literal, but I find it very confusing. If you are behind someone then gaining ground would mean getting closer, not further away. 03:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are correct in being confused. I think the challenged definition would apply to the leader, though not the follower in a competition. DCDuring TALK 08:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

lose ground[edit]

Rfv-sense: "To become closer to another traveling the same course"

Same as for #gain ground above. DCDuring TALK 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say they are redundant, and, even if we keep them, the definitions are inadequate, since they depend on point of view (leader or follower). Dbfirs 09:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, they sound citable as poorer version of definitions we already have. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Stag's testicle. Possibly for food, but I'm not sure. It looks like it may be a "dictionary-only" word. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's a Middle English variant of doucet < dulcet, and "dowcet mete" is attested in 1440 to mean sweetbread. But generally it looks like a synonym for "sweet". --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Supposed to mean "faeces". Any takers? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Dutch for rigid. An anon removed it with the edit summary “That's wrong.” — Ungoliant (falai) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think difficult, tight, stiff, rough , but better to wait for a native speaker...those can be synonymous with "rigid" Leasnam (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The primary meaning is still "not smooth, not flowing/sliding freely" but this can be extended to meaning rigid in the sense of "difficult to move". It doesn't mean rigid in the meaning "not bendable". At least not literally; perhaps when referring to a person's willingness to cooperate, stroef and star may be close to synonyms (I'm not sure though). —CodeCat 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


I was able to find very few uses of this in running English text ([66], [67], [68], [69]) all italicise the term, and none supports the first definition. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Tons of Google books hits, but when you click through, almost all of them are actually scannos of "post-disco" (and lots of them are actually from the same book of supposedly copyrighted Wikipedia-rips reuploaded hundreds of times to flood Amazon). I can only find one that's actually "postdisco": "Tina Turner, a veteran soul performer who had long fronted the band led by her one-time husband, the R & B and rock pioneer Ike Turner, refashioned herself into a postdisco diva" Are there any others? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are a fair few unhyphenated occurrences in Google Books. Added two to the adjective, but they might apply to the noun too/instead. May look harder later. Equinox 13:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


I suspect that this is a protologism. A recent editor claims that he coined the word earlier this year. —Stephen (Talk) 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As you suspect, IMO. This doesn't seem to rise to the level of "hot word", but I wouldn't be surprised if it were attestable in a year or so. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Another problem is the definition. "Creation of actions" does not seem to mean anything more than "doing" or "implementing". Unless it has more meaning, I don’t see it being used by anyone else. —Stephen (Talk) 13:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've only noticed cases like this of somewhat lame academic efforts to promote a word/concept. There must be similar cases that are not quite as lame.
But scholarly publishing is even worse than Usenet in terms of potential and incentive to engage in activity that, in effect if not in intent, games our attestation criteria. A secure researcher with graduate students or subordinates (in non-academic environment) or a 'school' of followers (former graduate students) can more or less compel the juniors to publish using the word/concept. Our 'independence' criteria are not usually interpreted in such a way as to catch such cases. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Even so, it's a crap definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added citations and a more detailed definition (Danko Nikolic).

I've gone ahead and deleted this, since the entry was created by the inventor of the word (he should use WT:LOP), and his citations are inadequate, including a Weblog; they must meet WT:CFI. Equinox 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure about this spelling in Yiddish. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an error. Embryomystic (talkcontribs), what source did you use? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a source, and it may be an error on my part, though there are a number of examples of it that come up if you google the phrase (and I don't mean just Wiktionary and mirrors thereof). If I've erred, feel free to remove the entry of course. I won't argue with you. embryomystic (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you found examples, what is your question? I checked, and it showed up on The Forward, and it's an entry in [70]. The non-Hebrew spelling reflects the Yiddish pronunciation. I was privileged to hear a friend last month, a week before his hasanah, do the complete song quoted in fragments at The Forward. And yes, his fluent-from-birth Yiddish pronunciations were distinctly non-Hebrew. Here are links to another song, along with this Yiddish spelling: [71] and [72]. The latter is a blog, but you can see it's quoting from a recording. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I looked it up in about 6 or 7 dictionaries, including Yiddish-Hebrew, Yiddish-Russian, Yiddish-German. Also, I looked up Chaim Grade Di Agune, since it has a big Simchat Torah scene. All of them had the Hebrew spelling exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yiddish dictionaries all copy each other, so it could be a "dictionary-only" spelling. Where did you look up Di Agune? Also, what do you mean by the "Hebrew spelling"? Both spellings are used in Hebrew, but the one with the extra yud is by far less common. --WikiTiki89 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've only seen it without the yud, so I assume that is the Hebrew spelling, and the with-yud version, based on this discussion was, I presumed, a Yiddish-only spelling. As I said, the with-yud version was not in the dictionaries, and not in Grade's novel. I looked up Di Agune, like all the dictionaries (other than the linked-to online dictionary), in a library. Choor monster (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I misunderstood you. I have two Yiddish dictionaries, both of which are fairly prescriptive and spell it with the yud in the lemma, but give שׂמחה as an alternative form of שׂימחה. So I was referring to the with-yud spelling (the one nominated here) as the potentially dictionary-only spelling. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I will point out that the library had four editions of Harkavy; I only checked the most recent. I will probably look again later this week. Choor monster (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1910 version is available online: http://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/yiddish/harkavy/index.utf8.html .--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1910 one gives the spelling שמחת־תורה. --WikiTiki89 01:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

raon tionnsgalach[edit]

Scottish Gaelic. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Its meaning is clear -- "industrial area" -- but I can't find any attestations online of that phrase. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Came across it in Lochgilphead [73]. --Droigheann (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The given synonym, ionad-gnìomhachais, is clearly in use: a Google search turns up various Scottish tourist brochures, BBC news articles, etc. But, unhelpfully, there is nothing in Google Books or Usenet. I suppose if someone can find a physical book that contains a mention of either of these terms, that will be helpful (as Scottish Gaelic is LDL). This, that and the other (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First Amendment[edit]

RFV the adjectival senses: "Of or relating to the US Bill of Rights" and "Of or relating to free speech in general". The second one should be relatively easy to do, but I doubt the first one is attestable at all. Keφr 08:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Relating not just to the First Amendment? I'd like to see both attested and as true adjectives in both senses, or even "of or relating to the First Amendment" as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have seen "First Amendment" used in contexts where there is no government involved at all, which means it cannot refer to the literal sense ("Congress shall make no law…"). Not that I like this usage, but I think it plausible that it can be demonstrated.
Also, does "attestation as a true adjective" mean that you require citations of predicative uses? Obviously "First Amendment" cannot be graded. Keφr 12:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you some kind of Constitutional literalist? I suppose you don't believe in a Constitutional right to privacy either. But seriously, [] .
I think we can find use of the noun applied to free speech of all kinds, even in a non-governmental context (eg, school or university rules, non-governmental public meetings, child-parent relationships), ie, there is a missing sense of the noun. If there is such use, then that also covers attributive use in that sense. But I'm more skeptical about First Amendment referring to the entire Bill of Rights, either as a noun or an adjective.
Predicate use is usually the most abundant true-adjective use, though it can be a bit tedious to sift through the raw hits to find the good ones.
WordNet supports the more general 'free expression/free speech' sense of the term with this definition: "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech;" DCDuring TALK 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the de facto adjective test for English is gradable use, or non-gradable use where it cannot be a noun as no such noun exists. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Absence of gradability is not sufficient evidence that something is not an adjective. A sufficiently distinguished sense of the word when used attributively is sufficient to show something is an adjective. Use as predicate is less definitive because some uses as predicate of a word that is at least sometimes a noun don't feel (God help me!) like adjective use. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a predicative use of a word that doesn't feel like an adjective? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
In "The sidewalk is cement", cement doesn't 'feel' much like an adjective to me, but I'd be interested in how others 'feel' it. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That looks to me like a predicate non-count noun, same as that blue thing is water or this food is fish. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This adjective represent two of the six ever edits by (talk). Look at the other three in the main namespace. I'm sure we're wasting our time here and yet, due process. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, due process is the Fifth Amendment... ;) - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Added recently by an anon. I'm only aware of this term as w:Races_of_StarCraft#Protoss. I did a quick search of google books:"protoss" -starcraft -zerg and didn't see anything much that matched the entry here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

set phrase[edit]

2nd sense: "A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning. " --- Isn't this the definition of "idiom" and actually a special case of the previous definition "A common expression whose wording is not subject to variation"? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries that define set phrase often have idiom as the definition or as a synonym. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If we accept that "set phrase" and "idiom" are synonyms, we still need to judge how many definitions we need. The Onelook dictionaries which list "set phrase" use the following wordings:
  • Oxford: "An unvarying phrase having a specific meaning, such as “raining cats and dogs,” or being the only context in which a word appears, e.g., “aback” in “take aback.”"
  • Vocabulary.com, Rhymezone, Free Dictionary and Look WAY up: "An expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up."
None of them has two definitions. I'm not convinced we should either. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If "idiom" is an exact definition of one way people use the term and others use it to mean a particular type of idiom, to wit, "an idiom which allows no substitution of synonyms or insertion of modifiers" and both are attestable, how can we exclude one? Very few people would accept the second as a definition of idiom.
The Gang of Four above are using the WordNet definition, which is exactly the same as one of the WordNet definitions for idiom and indeed for any in the synset consisting of idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase.
The Oxford definition is more like the narrower definition, but "unvarying phrase" abstracts from inflection and pluralization, one or both of which may be possible, eg, rain can inflect in rain cats and dogs but neither cat not dog can be in the singular. I didn't find WP much help. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be essentially the same as definition #1, which is undisputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of what adds to the confusion are the usage notes, which present in prose what should be in synonyms and hyponyms sections, once the distinct senses are recognized and straightforwardly defined. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
'Setness' is something that is not quite as absolute as a naive user of the entry might think. Word order, inflection, grammatical transformations (eg, passivization), substitution of synonyms, insertion of determiners, and insertion of adjectives or other modifiers are all departures from the strictest sense of 'setness'. The set of phrases what allow absolutely no variation is relatively small. ('Kick the bucket' allows some verb inflection. Some proverbs might be absolutely invariant, but are not typical set phrases.) Some of the use of the term set phrase seems to include semantically transparent expressions that are nonetheless "invariant" because of their role as speech acts, broadly defined, or simply by dint of repetition, eg, catchphrases. Moreover, some uses of 'set phrase' seem to refer to expressions that do allow substitution of synonyms though one form is often significantly more common, especially in a specific time period and usage context. Rather than incorporate specific criteria such as "substitution of synonyms" into the definitions, we could use multiple (at least two) definitions as stakes that are not too specific, but near the boundaries of the range of meaning.
How about replacement of the definitions as follows?
  1. An common expression whose wording is not subject to little variation.
  2. Any idiomatic expression A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning.
I know this is RfV, but I am not really happy trying to specifically cite the definitions as currently worded and I would like opinions before changing the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, your first definition corresponds to my understanding of the meaning. SpinningSpark 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


Attestable?! Has anyone ever said this? It sounds like a joke made up for a book of tongue-twisters. Equinox 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a definite known regional phrase, maybe in rare usage nowadays? (Actually, it was only recent that I've heard of this, so I thought I'd put it on Wiktionary.) Anyway, I've put a cite on the page, but I'm not sure if that's enough as I'm struggling to find it used in the media or books. CokeHanx (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who actually trying to transcribe the Yorkshire dialect (instead of just making a joke) would ever write this as "tintintin" though. It's "'t i'n't in t' tin" (although perhaps with fewer apologetic apostrophes), which means exactly wha i' says on't tin (sorry!). Anyway, found a couple of citations that could fit, but one is immediately explained afterwards and in both cases, the context is "Don't those Tykes speak funny?" 1 2. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added one of those citations (2004), but the other is a mention, not a use. CokeHanx's 2011 citation is likewise a mention, not a use. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm a Yorkshireman and it looks like baloney to me. The pronunciation's fractionally off, and more importantly I see no reason anyone would ever write it that way. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as another Yorkshireman, I agree that it's a mis-spelling and a misrepresentation, though it might well appear as a puzzle or joke. Dbfirs 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding it hard to understand how this could be a mis-spelling; I thought it were another one of those eye dialect spellings, like (laik = lek = layk) or (thissen = thee sen) for example. The way I see it, there's no standardised form of spellings such as these (as I choose to write them as 'laik' and 'thissen'). It seems alot easier to write it as 'tintintin' rather than ''t i'n't in t' tin' though, even when pronouncing it as just 'tin tin tin'. CokeHanx (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well Yorkshire spelling if fairly well standardised in the use of apostrophes, so I repeat my assertion that "tintintin" is both a mis-spelling (in that it doesn't follow established conventions), and a mis-pronunciation in that it sounds like a Southerner's attempt to imitate the dialect. Dbfirs 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this is actually up for possible removal. Do youngsters even know how common this used to be, or are they.even from yorkshire? Anyone can be from yorkshire and still never heard the term.

I used to live just outside the Barnsley area and by gum I am not going to see something as funny as this get removed from the internet. It has already been given a source as to where it was used in a book, therefore it is a known spelling, so leave the bloody thing already.

Thank you and goodbye. 11:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not removal -- that would be "Request for deletion". We are not doubting the existence, just questioning whether it is a dictionary word, and it is borderline. All it needs is one more citation to satisfy our criteria, so I've added one from the Sheffield area. Do Barnsley people actually pronounce it as a series of three stanna? I still think that the spelling is used as a deliberate joke. Tom Fletcher puts just one apostrophe in the "word" in his 1979 Bavarica Anglica. Dbfirs 13:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: The quotation you've added is a mention, not a use. (See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning.) The 2011 quotation is also a mention, so we still need two more quotations for this to be verified. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct (I'd just come to the same conclusion). I'm not sure whether we'll be able to find actual usages, since it is a joke word. Dbfirs 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for "neutered cat". I can't find anything on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups, but there appears to be some interference from Finnish and romanized Japanese, so I may have missed something. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "steer" (castrated bull). Nothing but mentions on Google Books, Tekstaro, and Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto suffix supposedly meaning "neutered". I couldn't find any uses of "ĉevaluko(j)(n)", "bovuko(j)(n)", "katuko(j)(n)", "kokuko(j)(n)", or "porkuko(j)(n)" on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and a search for the string "inuko" on Tekstaro found no results. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Google Groups and Google Books turn up only mentions for me too, in Usenet posts dating back as far as 1993, and PMEG (1985) (disaparagingly) mentioning it (giving ĉevalinuko, kokinuko, porkuko, bovuko, maskluko, an inuko as examples). One of the Usenet posts is an inquiry what "samideano Eikholz" meant by the affix, so perhaps someone named Eikholz used it somewhere, whoever that is. Seems perhaps amusing, but pretty useless. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


I suppose this can be kept, can't it? But I think there should be a note saying that it is marginal and that 'navigable' is preferred for all uses.

I see no evidence for the alleged specific meaning 'navigation of electronic media or web sites'.

I see evidence to the contrary: "the world's highest navigatable lake", "navigatable and unchartable territories", "Rivers were made navigatable". All from the first 20 hits on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added four quotations to the entry and changed the definition to "Alternative form of navigable". I hope that resolves the concern about the definition being too narrow. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Could I push you to nonstandard form of? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to change it—I don't have strong feelings about it. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not common enough to appear in COHA and occurs about 0.1% as often as navigable and about the same recently as navagable, which is an uncommon misspelling. Navigable is a word that has declined by a factor of 10 since the early decades of the 19th century, when inland water transport, including by canal, was revolutionary and important. Navigatable seems to be a sign that navigable may be drifting out of use for some, who probably haven't heard or read it and are producing a term suitable for their meaning from navigate. How does that make it nonstandard?
Etymologically, it is clearly not an alternative form of navigable, which is from a Latin adjective, not navigate. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I preferred "non-standard form of" since Wiktionary is the only dictionary in which the word appears, and, though the word is certainly used, it is still extremely rare compared with "navigable" and doesn't seem to convey a different meaning. On the other hand, it meets our criteria for a newly-coined word. How can we determine whether those writers intended to coin a new word, or just made an error? Perhaps just a usage note would be appropriate. Dbfirs 09:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to call something non-standard when someone uses a valid, productive English morphological process to produce a readily understandable word. A usage note that indicates that people will look askance at one's evident lack of reading if one uses navigatable rather than navigable might be appropriate, though it is hard to find evidence of authoritative disapproval. I can find mention of the navigable-navigatable doublet in lists of such doublets (appreciable/appreciatable, demonstrable/demonstratable, tolerable/toleratable, 'comparable/com'parable, reparable/repairable, operable/operatable, divisible/dividible/dividable) in books on morphology. The tolerable/toleratable pair illustrates that the accretion of meanings in the older form may make the purer morphological derivative yield a clearer meaning. Given the strong association of navigable with words like waters, rivers, waterways (navigable waterways having a legal meaning in the US), it would not surprise me that navigatable might come to be used where effortful navigation by a person needed to be conveyed. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a usage note to take into account this possibility. Please adjust it as you think appropriate. Dbfirs 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't read as very dictionary-like, but that might be a good thing, inviting contributions and striking a more explicitly descriptive note than we usually do. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to avoid the use of prescriptivist "non-standard" without misleading readers about usage. The OED has operatable and demonstratable (and repairable of course). I've added our two missing words just as alternative forms because the shades of meaning are too subtle for me to distinguish reliably. Dbfirs 10:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that whatever the subtle differences in meaning, if indeed there are any, they are hard to identify, at least in the case of navigatable/navigable, and quite likely others.
But in some cases, if they are indeed novel coinages using a productive morphological process, the meanings are likely to be limited to those corresponding to the most common, possibly the more literal, senses of the verb from which they are derived. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we need to examine each case on its merits. For the two words that I added, the coinage was long, long ago. Personally, I would use the longer form only if I wished to specially emphasise the direct connection with the verb, but historic usage doesn't seem to have been so selective.
In the special case of reparable/repairable, the two forms remained in parallel use for 140 years (1830 to 1970 approx) but the latter has now become the standard form, occurring three times more often than the shorter word in 1990 according to Google Ngrams. Dbfirs 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The word appreciatable is not common. Some usages seem to be in error (where appreciable is intended), but others carry a distinct meaning. I'm wondering how to show this in an entry. Dbfirs 22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I tried using the context tag to indicate the limited context in which it is used. I hope we don't have "misspelling of too" as a definition line in [[to]]. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks about right. Dbfirs 23:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We have a large number of "able" forms that are doublets of more common "ible" forms, some with variations in the root. See User:DCDuring/words ending in -ible. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
See also User:DCDuring/words ending in -table. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a less US-centric definition. The term is used outside the USofA! Sorry, the usage worldwide seems to be just sum of parts except for a British Act of Parliament. I'm checking. Dbfirs 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification in the entry. Dbfirs 08:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. French: to agree. The usage example is for ça marche which means 'it works; it functions', which in fact I think is best translated by 'ok' or 'all right not 'I agree'. Does marcher ever mean to agree, which is what the definition says it does? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 01:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv tagged but is not listed. -- 21:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

baruhu baruh shemó[edit]

Ladino term. Even google:"baruhu baruh shemó" finds close to nothing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a more common spelling that is attestable, but this certainly isn't it. I would try things like "baruh u uvaruh shemo" or "baruch hu uvaruch shemo" (the latter is also one of the common transliterations of the Hebrew phrase, so it would be hard to attest as specifically Ladino). --WikiTiki89 17:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Spanish for BS (bullshit). Any attestation? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Romanian: honeysuckle. Any attestation? (Tagged for deletion by a native speaker as a misspelling of caprifoi.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


I think it might be attestable, but I am not sure. I found something which looks like a mention:

  • 1812, Antoine-Vincent Arnault, Fables, page 134
    (29) En oût ce fut tout autre chose. J'ai cru pouvoir écrire oût au lieu d'août, et en cela je suis autorisé par l'usage. On dit aussi communément oût qu'août. Ce mot oût est employé dans les campagnes pour le mot moisson. La fontaine s'en est ...

Keφr 17:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just about attestable as an archaic spelling of août. I've seen it attributed to Jean de La Fontaine in La Cigale et la Fourmi (i.e. The Ant and the Grasshopper). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the French Wiktionary has two cites from Jean de La Fontaine's Fables, and also mentions Émile Littré's, Dictionnaire de la langue française, 1872-1877. Dbfirs 17:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Side question: Kephir's citation suggests that in 1812 oût and août were pronounced differently. Is the modern pronunciation of août actually a relic of oût? --WikiTiki89 17:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
[74][75][76][77][78][79]. Wyang (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No it's suggesting that oût is a phonetic rendering of août because people had already stopped dropping the initial 'a' sound. I think the Old French aoust would be pronounced /a.ust/, see w:Old French language#Phonology. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


A Spanish word meaning BS (probably bullshit)? Any attestating quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think it's probably bullshit. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]


rfv of the English section


  1. (US, dialect) Used to show disagreement or negation; no.

This sounds pretty implausible, but I tried to check, anyway. It's apparently a term in Indian philosophy, and it's real hard to filter out all the Latin text, so I bogged down after going through a hundred or so Google books hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added two noun senses and converted the RFV to an RFV-sense as a result. I can't find any attestation for the challenged sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It must be a hoped-for alternative to negatory#Adverb. Why is it under a Particle PoS header? DCDuring TALK 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (slang) attractive, popular

I've come across this exactly once: in the movie Mean Girls, where it is a slang term invented by one of the characters which doesn't catch on. Google Books results for "so fetch", "totally fetch", "fetch outfit" etc find nothing useful, and the only relevant Google Groups hits are discussing the movie Mean Girls. So, is this just fancruft, or has someone made fetch happen? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


RFV of the noun sense "A deliberately misleading explanation." and the verb sense "To give a deliberately false interpretation of." It's not in the OED, but it is in M-W. Anyway, it would be nice to have quotations. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The OED has "to veil in specious language". This is the same sense, isn't it? This sense seems to be derived via both etymological routes. Dbfirs 16:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)



I don't think this satisfies WT:BRAND. Also, the entry here uses different capitalization than the company itself -- the proper brand name is apparently CyberKnife (c.f. google:cyberknife). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been genericised to some extent:
  • 2007, György T. Szeifert, Radiosurgery and Pathological Fundamentals, page 47:
Typically, this latter approach is realized with Gamma Knife, with linacs that use the mulitple static noncoplanar converging arc technique (gantry moving during treatment with a beam shaped by an additional circular collimator) and with cyberknives.
  • 2007, Stephen J. Withrow, David M. Vail, Withrow and MacEwen's Small Animal Clinical Oncology, page 207:
Radiosurgery may use technology similar to that for IMRT or may be delivered with a cyberknife.
  • 2008, Yawei Zhang, Encyclopedia of Global Health: Q-Z, page 1463:
This technique uses gamma knives and cyberknives to specifically irradiate specific portions of the brain tumors.
  • 2010, Connie Yarbro, Debra Wujcik, Barbara Holmes Gobel, Cancer Nursing: Principles and Practice, page 298:
This technological combination enables the cyberknife to overcome the limitations of older frame-based radiosurgery equipment such as the gamma knife and LINAC.
  • 2011, Francisco Contreras, Beating Cancer: Twenty Natural, Spiritual, and Medical Remedies That Can Slow--and Even Reverse--Cancer's Progression, page 7:
"Meanwhile, even as I write these words, new technologies such as lasers, 3-D imaging devices, proton therapy, robotic surgery, DNA laboratory exams, cyberknives and fiber-optic cameras are assisting physicians in the field.
  • 2013, Jeff C. Bryan, Introduction to Nuclear Science, Second Edition, page 177
As a type of IGRT, cyberknife machines collect diagnostic images during therapy to optimize location of the beam.
I'd recommend moving this to lowercase cyberknife, and maybe having Cyberknife/CyberKnife as alternative case forms. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested in use in the middle of an English sentence as an English word, ideally without italics? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added four quotations, for a total of five. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested in use in the middle of an English sentence as an English word, ideally without italics? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a few citations. The top three all seem to be from books that italicise some foreign words, but not tovarich. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


The "Zero Force" sense specifically (set theory sense should be easy). Keφr 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The citations look rather adjectival; maybe the definition should be changed to "zero-force" (and put under an "Adjective" header)? Keφr 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A dish, based on Japanese cuisine, the chief ingredient of which is raw fish; sashimi."

I'm well aware that sushi is often defined by its fish component (same thing in Sweden), but that seems to always be in a context where sushi is actually served. People are clearly aware of the rice component, but are not aware that it actually defines it as sushi. However, going from that observation to creating a separate dictionary definition for the minor misunderstanding is making a lot of assumptions. And then to also define it as a type of synonym of sashimi just makes the argument both speculative and circular.

I'm all for adding a note about the confusion of fish vs rice, btw. But I'm against adding it as a separate sense unless it's described that way in other dictionaries.

Peter Isotalo 00:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The following quotations were added just recently:
    • 2002, Philip M. Tierno, The Secret Life of Germs: Observations and Lessons from a Microbe Hunter, page 144:
      "Never eat raw fish?" outraged sushi lovers will cry.
    • 2009, Roy MacGregor, The Complete Screech Owls, volume 3, page 16:
      I thought you'd have known all about sushi, Nish,” said Jenny.
      “What is it?” snarled Nish. “It looks alive!”
      “It's raw,” said Sarah. “Raw fish.”
    • 2012, Alison Acheson, Molly's Cue, page 26:
      'Can't eat sushi?' I said. Then Mom said, 'You can't eat uncooked fish when you're pregnant' as if I'm the one stupid enough to go and get pregnant!
The first one I simply removed outright since it doesn't imply anything other than that sushi usually contains raw fish. The third quote is pretty much the same thing. The context of the second quote can be found here.[80] A few sentences on, it describes the dish as "a little roll of rice with small, green sprigs of vegetable around it".
I'm getting the sense that this definition is there solely because people like focusing on a minor cultural misunderstanding. It smacks of proscriptive smugness. You know along the lines of "hahaa... well, I believe you actually mean sashimi". That's not a definition of words. It's more of an attempt to pretend you can read people's minds.
Peter Isotalo 08:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not about a "minor cultural misunderstanding" or prescriptive smugness, it's about sushi being used to describe meals that contain raw fish, even in contexts where no rice is involved:
  • I ordered the sushi burrito on the top of the menu: salmon, tuna, tempura shrimp, fried wonton strips, guacamole, radish sprouts, jalapenos, pickled sunomono, green onions, wasabi mayo and habanero sauce.
  • The wait is perhaps the most brilliant ploy conceivable to tease their customers, as the hammered and hungry must stand and watch others get their raw fish fill first. The novel sushi sandwich — fish wedged between crispy tempura chips — is a first for many and a must-try.
  • Maybe it was because I'd been eating too much pizza, or maybe I am just a sucker for bold flavors, but I could have eaten a lot of Morimoto's sushi pizza. He used a crisply grilled flour tortilla, topped it with an eel sauce, raw tuna, red onion and and jalapeno slivers, fresh tomatoes, and cilantro, and then finished it with an anchovy aioli and some Tabasco sauce.
The split in meanings is not unlike that which burger underwent - the word can denote either any type patty, or the sandwich around it (even though the original German dish has little to do with bread rolls or flat patties). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, all of those examples are clearly compounds. It's "sushi <food>" in every instance, not just "sushi". "Burger" is very different, since that word can mean both patty and the sandwich it's included with. Not so with "sushi".
Again, I see no problem in adding more info on the rice/fish confusion, including association with tortillas, pizza and whathaveyou. But the noun "sushi" by itself does not mean "sashimi" since any attestation is based on personal assumptions of the reader, and a heavy dose of semantic proscription. There are tons of these misunderstandings, but that doesn't mean that we list Switzerland as a synonym for Sweden (happened all the time when I was in the US) or that "dollar" is a synonym for "currency".
Peter Isotalo 12:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that a lot of people simply mean "raw fish" when they say "sushi". It may be technically incorrect, but that's the usage. Semantic change doesn't always make sense- nice used to mean ignorant or stupid, fond meant foolish, glad meant smooth or slick, sad meant heavy. Strictly speaking, gorillas aren't monkeys and specie isn't the singular of species- but I hear people use them that way all the time. In the real world most people who talk about sushi have never eaten it, and have no clue what sashimi is. Relegating the vast majority of usage to a usage note is what's proscriptive. I may not have cites handy, but a lifetime of hearing people use the word has to count for something. Actually, I do have a few: this, this and this clearly show that the writers are aware that most people think sushi means raw fish. These are proscriptive attempts to correct common, existing usage. I would even go so far as to say that this passes as clear widespread usage. Or how about this and this? Although they're clear about sushi containing rice, they also rely on "raw fish" being an essential part of the concept of sushi. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Sashimi is a specific type of dish just like sushi. It's "slices of fish" in the same sense that steak tartare is limited to "raw minced beef". Sashimi is served in a specific manner wich sauces and whathaveyou. And it's actually not even limited to fish, but can also include various mollusks, beef or even horse.
You pretty much have to see actual sashimi or at least be aware of it to literally identify it as "sushi". That calls for extremely specific attestations and none of the ones you've provided here comes even close. Most of of them are used in contexts where the language user clearly knows the distinction and is merely pointing out differences. The rest belong to the vague "ugh, raw fish is strange"-category of statements. That doesn't qualify as a separate meaning or language shift that comes even close to "sad" or "burger".
Peter Isotalo 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that sushi, to many English speakers, means a dish including raw fish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck that this is in widespread colloquial use. I humbly admit to having had the same the misunderstanding some decades ago.
@Peter Isotalo: re: "Well, all of those examples are clearly compounds". Well, they look like attributive use of the noun sushi. Attributive use counts for the semantics once something has been established as a noun. OTOH, SMurray's first cite contains a picture that shows that the product being described in fact has rice in it.
It is easy to add to Chuck's documentation of widespread acknowledgement of the popular misunderstanding, for example:
  • 2011, Judi Strada, ‎Mineko Takane Moreno, Sushi For Dummies:
    When we say “sushi,” what do you think? Raw fish, right? Think again! Sushi actually means vinegared rice, which is the key ingredient in every sushi recipe.
  • 2008, Lauren McCutcheon, A Virgin's Guide to Everything: From Sushi to Sample Sales:
    Sushi: Vinegared rice. (We know, we know, most of the world thinks sushi means raw fish. No reason to be like the rest of the world.)
It's harder to find documentation for an identity between sushi and shashimi, but not as hard to find assertions of identity between sushi and raw fish"
  • 1991, Eileen Nauman, My Only One, page 36:
    "Sushi? What is that?" He went back to his seat behind the desk and took the cover off his tray. "Raw fish. Everyone eats it over in Japan, and it's all the rage in the States now."
  • 2009, Anthony Horowitz, Return to Groosham Grange: The Unholy Grail:
    “What's sushi?” Eileen asked. She was feeling quite carsick. “It's raw fish!” Mildred explained enthusiastically.
  • 2012, Diana Palmer, Merciless, page 200:
    “Sushi is raw fish,” Markie said with his blunt honesty, and made a face.
I suggest that we strike sashimi from the definition and substitute raw fish. DCDuring TALK 04:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a very good point. "Raw fish" seems to be the definition we've actually been debating.
Peter Isotalo 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Any objections to the current secondary definition? Should the verification template be removed?
Peter Isotalo 10:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Symbol: "The fourth transfinite cardinal". I find it quite implausible. The fourth transfinite cardinal is a relatively dull mathematical object, and whenever one does need to refer to it, ℵ3 suffices; there is no need for this notation.

In fact, I doubt it is attestable in any consistent sense at all. On arXiv I could only find this paper (on page 43), which looks like an ad-hoc definition, and an astrophysics paper (page 9), which is not even a use, but a mention. Keφr 07:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A while ago, someone asked if was ever actually used, and User:Prosfilaes was able to ask the Unicode list, and someone there was able to dig up old paper records of why it was added to Unicode. Perhaps Prosfilaes can ask about this character and get some pointers to where it may have actually been used. Alternatively, perhaps User:Msh210 knows something about it. - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask the Unicode list, but I noticed The Not So Short Introduction to LaTeX 2e mentioned it as part of the symbols included in AMS-LaTeX. It was in AMS-TeX, which dates back to 1981-1984, but I don't know if it appeared in any version predating Unicode. However, the AMS apparently considered it useful enough to include (or just dragged it along when they copied Unicode).--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea. Perhaps one of these folks can help.​—msh210 (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


Alt form of lesbo, i.e. slang for lesbian. Equinox 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As an Australian I hear this from time to time, usually used as derogatory slang among youth. I can find some hits on Google Groups, mostly on non-Usenet Australian groups, but they aren't really helpful in citing the term (and since they aren't Usenet groups, not relevant in any case). I'd be surprised if there isn't more out there, since this definitely exists in some circles. This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It's likely that this is confused with Lebo, another Australian slang term. I've definitely heard "lebo" being used to mean "lesbian" but maybe that is just the youth of today hearing the word "lebo" and assuming it is a shortening of "lesbian", when originally it was a shortening of "Lebanese". This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha, there's an old joke about that... [81]. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

organised loitering[edit]

Nothing in Google Books. Nothing in Google Groups. About 20 hits in a Web search, and even those are mainly mentions. Equinox 19:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried Googling organized loitering and got a few hits, including "I think baseball is "organized loitering". Donnanz (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


One strong citation for this on Google Books:

The situation is about to get a googolfold worse.

The only other one I can find there is absolute word salad, which I don't think can be used to cite anything:

Mickey King Kong was a vampire, who was minutely one of the more than supermillionfold, millionesque, submillion, googolesque, googolfold, googolplexesque, and googolplexfold quasi-reincarnations of the great cone and Janie Seymour, being combinations of supervampirism, superlyncanthropy, super-O, superstigmata, piezoelectricity, superelectricity, tertiary abiogenesis, superabiogenesis, tertiary carmot, and supercarmot.

No sign of any adjectival use (e.g., no "googolfold increases"). Can anyone help? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Usenet yields a couple of results: [82], [83]. There’s also one for googlefold: [84]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added three citations for the adverb sense, including the first Google Books quote that you gave above. I note, though, that the Google Books quote uses a hyphen ("googol-fold"), but the hyphen occurs at a line break, so it's unclear whether the intended spelling is "googolfold" or "googol-fold". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Pursuant to the post in the TR, I couldn't find anything in BGC that was actually the exact word "allotroph" once I clicked on it that wasn't in fact a mention or the second sense, although I'm RFVing the whole thing since I'm not sure the second sense should be included either, as it is not exactly a misspelling but certainly not accurate, either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP treats allotroph as a redirect to w:Heterotroph.
Our definition seems silly: where else would energy come from, the nuclear reactor one was born with?
I see apparent uses of allotroph more often in German scholarly works, with a meaning something like heterotroph, I think. I must leave that to someone with better German and biology/biochemistry than mine.
I saw English use at Google Scholar of allotroph where allotrope seems to me to be what was meant. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The definition might be simultaneously silly and true. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you like to wager that the definition in German would not translate to ours? (Not to say that one would not be able to see the source of the error.) DCDuring TALK 00:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Tatar in Roman letters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Some comments. We have deleted (after some failed RFV's) a number of Tatar entries in Latin spelling.
  1. Officially and most commonly, Tatar (Volga Tatar, not Crimean Tatar, a similar but a different language) is written in Cyrillic.
  2. The correct Tatar romanisation of "Бангладеш" is "Bangladeş", not "Bangladesh".
  3. There are some "efforts" to move Tatar, Kazakh and Kyrgyz spellings from Cyrillic into Latin on corresponding Wiktionaries, often helped by Turks. It happens before Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tatarstan (a republic in Russia) officially adopted Latin. The change may eventually happen (as with Uzbek, Turkmen and Crimean Tatar) but I think it's unhelpful to use the alphabet, which is not in common use.
  4. The changes are made by nationalists, not linguists, so there are many inconsistencies and mistakes. Turkish (-Tatar, etc.) dictionaries use incorrect forms and are full of mistakes. In most cases, the words cannot be verified. The artificial Tatar Latin spellings usually follow Turkish, English, Crimean Tatar or other spellings. The conversions results in a loss, e.g. letter "ь" is often ignored in the Roman spelling.

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This is RFV; it should only matter whether this spelling is attested in Tatar writing. It should not matter what is official and what is not. The fact that this is Tatar in Roman letters is not sufficient for removal via RFV, as per WT:CFI#Attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    No rule against discussing entries on this page Dan Polansky. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Just making sure we go by attestation, not by "this is not the official script", for which, as you know, there have been some tendencies around here despite English Wiktionary's being a descriptivist dictionary. Also making sure that, after this fails as unattested, it is not used as evidence of practice of going by an "official" script. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    By all means, Dan. There is no harm in giving some background. I'm interested to see how much (Volga) Tatar is written in Roman, which may affect Tatar entries in Roman letters. Previous RFV's showed that a number of Tatar written in Roman were actually Crimean Tatar or were copied from from Turkish-Tatar dictionaries with no attestation, some were just made up and could not be found. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly, sometimes you have citations but it's unclear or disputed in what language they actually are. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


A Hawaiian name for a small town in Chile? And one with an impossible syllable structure for Hawaiian (the glottal stop ʻ, like all consonants in Hawaiian, must be followed by a vowel)? I'm skeptical. Hawaiian is an LDL so a single mention is sufficient. Google has nothing but us and mirrors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The same editor added some other translations of Pichilemu that don't seem to turn up any Google results outside of Wikimedia projects and mirrors—I've added some of them below, but there are others too. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe there was an Old English entry as well, which, if memory serves, failed rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Picelemu. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi there guys. I don't recall where exactly this spelling was obtained, probably from my IRC chats back in 2010 (?). Anyways, if there is no source for these spellings, best thing should be to delete them. I have no worries about that. Regards and, everyone keep up the good job at keeping Wiktionary as a correct tool! --Diego Grez (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


Lithuanian and Serbo-Croatian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Latin. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the inflected forms must be deleted as well when this fails, as it surely will. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Azeri. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Latin. This one is harder to search for, since it's spelled the same way as the English and Spanish words, but I can't find anything durably archived that looks like Latin. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Albânia caucásica[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 15:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Because. Keφr 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ready Steady Yeti: don’t blindly trust Wikipedia. They have no reservations when it comes to making up names. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. I can't find it on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by ‎Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only find one Ido use: on devis diftongigar ai, oi, e pro to on skribis aj, oj.Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by ‎Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by ‎Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by ‎Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only find one use: teroristi Kosovo-Albaniana detonigis bombo.Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by ‎Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've found one Ido mention and a couple of Esperanto uses, but no Ido uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by ‎Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Three quotations added. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Three quotations added. embryomystic (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
These are not from permanently recorded media. Furthermore, the second and the third are dependent (WT:CFI#Independent), since they are by the same author. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The term is correct and attestable. What is being verified here? Did the requester mean RFD? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Can citations be provided which pass WT:BRAND? Siuenti (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


"(UK) a pigeon". Probably added by TopCat back in the day (though perhaps as an IP address, since his user name is not in the history); he added a lot of supposed UK birdwatcher slang for types of bird, some of which was unattestable, e.g. Talk:barny. Equinox 03:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in the big OED. No trace in Google Books, nor anywhere on the internet that is searched by Google's crawlers. There might be some pigeon fancier or birdwatcher somewhere in an obscure British region who abbreviates pigeon that way (the northern abbreviations are pid and piddie but they're hardly attestable). I think we should delete the entry. Dbfirs 13:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
How would that be pronounced? Would one write it that way rather than pidge or, possibly, pige? DCDuring TALK 15:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It hadn't occurred to me that pig might be pronounced with a soft g, though, if that was intended, then your suggested spelling: pidge seems more logical. Dbfirs 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Never heard of it. Is it a regional term? Which region? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We have an entry at pidge ("pigeonhole"), which is suggestive of how a pigeon fancier might have shortened pigeon. I haven't found it in print at Books or Usenet. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all agree that if there is a regionalism, then it's probably pidge, but even that isn't really attestable in print. I can't find any trace of pig for pigeon anywhere, and I can't even attest pid, that I have heard, and piddie is marginal. The archaic spelling pidgeon is now vanishingly rare in print, but I recall having a struggle to omit the d when I was learning to spell, possibly because I was familiar with the diminutive "piddie". Dbfirs 20:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


Spanish verb meaning "to yiff". I looked around a little, but there seems to be nothing more than random internet comments. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yiff also has four meanings. Which one is this? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


The first cite is not durably archived, the second is a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And the third has the wrong capitalisation. This editor is very obviously "Pass a Method"/"Zigazoo" and whatever else he has been calling himself. He already asked for an infinite block, and he is creating the same unattestable junk again, so I am blocking this IP too. Equinox 04:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Dubious etymology, just looks like a misspelling. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty on Dutch, but I think it's attestable. Unfortunately Dutch Wiktionary doesn't list the diminutive. Diminutives do not always follow the ending of the parent noun. This is something DrJos can answer, I imagine. Donnanz (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Last time the arguments about whether or not to keep olinguito and the like came up, we agreed to keep it provisionally as a "hot word" to see whether usage satisfying CFI would appear once the term had existed for more than a year. This worked out for the English term, but I'm not sure there are any durably archived citations of this in Italian (I tried "gli olinguiti" and "l'olinguito" and did not find a single Italian use in a book), and more than a year has passed since Italians first used the word. This time, if we come up short we must delete the Italian entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Books are not the only source of citations. One definite print use from May 2014 here and one I'm uncertain about here (the website is "Partnered with la Repubblica", but I dont know whether that means la Repubblica reprints anything from it) which would push it over the one year mark. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it’s spelled wrong for Italian. The Italian should be olinghito, as mentioned here. —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


ènal lists ènaux as a plural. Neither seem to be attested. I can only find ènal in combination e.g. "pent-4-ènal" (Chimie Organique, 2002) and never on its own. Énal is what I'd expect it to be called if it ever was used on its own, but perhaps it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)



  1. Rather than.
    I would die affor giving up my virtue.

I can find no citation for this usage as a conjunction meaning "rather than". It's not in the OED, and the example sentence (also unsourced) is perfectly compatible with meaning given in the OED: a variant (Middle English) spelling of "afore" (= before). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Relatedly, some of the quotations for the verb sense of affor look to me like they are actually uses of the preposition meaning "before" (though I don't know enough Middle English to be sure about all of them). If someone familiar with Middle English and Early Modern English could sort those out, that would be wonderful. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and not just some - nearly all of the verb citations match afore (before) rather than "afford". A look at Google Books also finds no hits for "afforring" except an obvious OCR error for "affording"; nor for "afforred" (similar errors for "afforded"); nor for "affors", which appears as various misreadings such as "affors'd" (i.e. "aforesaid"), OCR error for "actors", and similar. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no such verb. Why has it been sitting there in our entry for seven years? We need to delete this part of speech, but we can keep the cites as prepositions. The OED has afore as a conjunction meaning "before", but marks it as "Now archaic and regional". In my native dialect, "afore" is used to mean rather than where others might use "before" with the same meaning (see our entry: "rather or sooner than") at our entry for before (conjunction). I've never seen it spelt affor, but the OED has one cite with this spelling (as a conjunction in 1470). Dbfirs 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "types of quilted or depressed effects in fabrics". Added as a noun with no gender. I cannot find such a noun, therefore I can't add a gender! Renard Migrant (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (informal) A non-standard Roman numeral representing four hundred and ninety (490); CDXC.

Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

All I can find is this mention: XD does not represent 490 because the value of X is less than one-tenth the value of D.Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything promising on b.g.c, and OneLook's got nothing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): azure (heraldic colour). A French term rarely used in Portuguese (always italicized, indicating a foreign word). —This unsigned comment was added by Liuscomaes (talkcontribs).

Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


rfv is tagged but not listed --123snake45 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


rfv is tagged but not listed --123snake45 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


There is no that word at the Turkish! --123snake45 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the result of this, it would be nice for this, in Kazakh and Turkish (if that survives) to get an actual definition. program is decently polysemous, and thus a poor definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): (Non-standard, Fast Speech) but

Ungoliant (falai) 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/grupovolareijui/status/263297880809435138 (a reply)
hard to find it written. even harder recorded without a search tool. maybe that's indeed a wrong sense because I see myself using it instead of "mas" but not with a "but" sense.
—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

railway line[edit]

Sense 1: A rail is a rail, two parallel rails are needed in a railway line. I don't think that monorails are called railway lines either, just in case someone comes up with that argument. Donnanz (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm more confused about the other senses. To me, a railway line doesn't necessarily need two or more tracks, nor is there any distinction in meaning between having one track or several. The distinguishing part, for me, is that a railway line connects two or more places together. This is different from a railway track in that the latter generally refers to the physical track, without referring to its end points. —CodeCat 18:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. A line has to connect two places, if it doesn't (like if it's in a massive warehouse) it's just track. But I think there are two possible meanings, the physical track itself ("leaves on the line") and the route ("a new proposed line between Boston and New York"). Renard Migrant (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC).
The two terms can be synonymous. A railway track could be just a siding, or a single-track railway line linking several places. I live between two double-track railway lines which carry trains in and out of London Waterloo. Further away there are four-track railway lines in Surrey (Clapham Junction-Woking) and between London Paddington and Slough (and Reading I think). Each four-track railway line has four railway lines or tracks. I thought I explained it reasonably well in sense 3, it's only sense one I'm querying. Donnanz (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
To me, if one "pulls up the old railway/railroad tracks", that might mean only removing the rails and possibly any other salvageable components, but normally railway/railroad track would include the ties/sleepers, if any, and track bed, possibly the right of way too. A railway/railroad line necessarily includes track, but is basically a route, as was said above. In addition, in the US, at least in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, railway/railroad line could also refer to the company that owned a railway line that served a route or the entire system of branches and possibly other "lines", eg, the (Rock Island line (common name of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad and the title of a once-popular song).
Other dictionaries have the "track-and-roadbed" sense for railway line.
But what I'd like to know is how the industry survived without terminological clarity. Such confusion is no way to run a railroad[85]. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
There are wild variations in railway terminology between the US and UK, but I don't think a professional railwayman would call a single rail, even if it's CWR (continuous long welded) a railway line, wherever he is. Maybe the media does, but they're usually only a bunch of amateurs when it comes to railway matters. Donnanz (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
English isn't only used by specialists though. You don't need a PhD in physics to use the word 'temperature' for example. I don't see why a single-rail track couldn't be considered a line as long as it is a medium for trains to transport themselves from A to B. What about in Japan? English can be used about places where English isn't habitually spoken. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Though looking back that's not what's being disputed, as interesting as the debate is. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Often an RfV or RfD draws needed attention to an entry. So it is a good opportunity to do some cleanup. Also, I'm often reminded of possible missing colloquial entries, like no/any/helluva way to run a railroad, in the course of these discussions. If we put the non-RfV content in a different or smaller typeface, it might make clearer what was the main thread and what was peripheral. But do we really have to? DCDuring TALK 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to leave monorails out of this debate, as the rail is (usually) actually a beam. See National Motor Museum Monorail. Donnanz (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I might as well add monorail cat to WT:LOP. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The name monorail was correct when it was first invented, but with the evolution of the species has become a semi-misnomer - not a protologism in the sense of that word. Donnanz (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No, protologism means it isn't used. You're arguing about whether what they currently use is a rail or not. I say it is, because trains are running on it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
A monorail is a means of transport, not a rail. The term has been in existence for a century or so. As I said in the beginning, a rail is a rail, so when does it become a beam? Donnanz (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Flowing; unstable; inconstant; variable. I tried the first couple at onelook.com and they had no entry. Any evidence to say they are wrong, chaps? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of it as an adjective, but the phrase "in a state of flux" is quite common. But flux is being used as a noun there. But "a flux situation" can be found on Google. Donnanz (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The OED has flux as an obsolete adjective, meaning "that is in a state of flux; ever-changing, fluctuating, inconstant, variable", with last cite being from 1797. More recent usages in Google Books seem to be just attributive use of the noun, but I haven't scrutinised all examples. Dbfirs 11:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
All nouns, including proper nouns, can be used attributively. But they are still nouns. @Dbfirs we should check that the OED is right, no? Can you copy up the citations if you can see them? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The OED's citations are as follows:
a1677 I. Barrow Of Contentm. (1685) 106 Considering..the flux nature of all things here.
1741 Mem. Martinus Scriblerus 44 in Pope Wks. II A Corporation..is..a flux body.
1768 W. Blackstone Comm. Laws Eng. III. xxi. 318 The record..was more serviceable..in a dead and immutable language than in any flux or living one.
1797 G. Staunton Authentic Acct. Embassy to China II. vii. 573 The form of those characters has not been so flux as the sound of words.
The first two are possibly attributive usage of the noun, but the last two seem to be adjectival use. This usage is obsolete, of course, but I expect we can find one more in Google Books, for example ... which is not so flux, mutable, and perishable, (according to them) as the grosser parts of the body from 1780 (The monthly review, or, literary journal - Volume 61 - Page 224). Dbfirs 10:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is predicative:

  • 1789, Thomas Cooper, Tracts, Ethical, Theological and Political[86]:
    ... for if the particles of the brain be so loose, and so flux as here represented, then is the soul united not to one, as every immaterialist hath hitherto supposed, ...

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Both the 1789 and 1797 cites seem to clearly support an Adjective PoS. There are probably more. Perhaps searching for collocation of flux with common adverbs will generate more. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    The 1780 looks good too, which would be three. But I can't find more at Books with very, too, and so, nor could I find those citations. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One more predicative:

  • 1831, multiple authors, The Law of Reason[87]:
    Were the body so flux as here represented, then the soul is not united to one, but to an almost infinite number of bodies in succession.
    (Not sure whether this is truly independent of the Cooper quotation above: notice the very similar phrasing about representation and soul being (or not) united to one.)

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Attributive flux modified by very (google books:"a very flux"):

  • 1820, author?, The British Review, and London Critical Journal[88]:
    This is one sort of reputation ; obviously of a very flux character : ...
  • 1961,Susan Yorke, Captain China[89]:
    He impressed her as a mere youth in a very flux state, and if a lord held a contrary notion to hers, how could she be right?
  • 2000, Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in America[90]:
    I have no “political ambitions,” per se, but I think we have a very flux situation in Colorado & ...

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

tiny house[edit]

I had deleted this as SoP, but creator User:Lagoset said:

A tiny house, aka micro-house, is a 50 m2 house [91] . You can read more about the concept and movement, not only in English, but also in other languages, where is adopted with the English name (in Spanish, tried casa diminuta). [92]. More references: [93] [94] [95] []--Lagoset (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My reply: "Found Small house movement. As far as I can tell, it doesn't have to be exactly 50 m2, nor "open to the public space" (whatever that means...?) so it's just a house that is tiny, even if they happen to be a trend at the moment." Perhaps others know more about this and want to weigh in with citations? Equinox 12:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Smells a bit spammy to me. Removed the link, if Lagoset reintroduces it I will strongly suspect a spam agenda. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
But it's spam for a "good cause". DCDuring TALK 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

selfie stick[edit]

Tagged by User:LoveLoveHat, not listed. Equinox 21:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This word definitely seems to exist—see, for instance, the many selfie sticks for sale on Amazon. But I can only find two durably archived citations, which I've added to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found another quotation in a social science journal—however, all three quotations are from late 2014, so they don't meet the requirement of spanning more than a year. Should we call it a hot word? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems appropriately labelled as hot word. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
In my imagined to-be-eventually-written-down criteria for hot words, I actually explicitly exclude "inventions" — since I think these are more likely to be temporary fads than other neologisms. Keφr 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a case for that, but this probably will either be deleted or no longer be hot by the time that gets voted on.
I found a cluster of cites from the website of various print newspapers and CNET that dates from late August 2014 and another from another one dated in 2013 from an Australian website that looks like it is web-only, but might not be. Do others share my estimation that none of these meet our "durably archived" criterion? If so, the "hot word" calendar begins with the 18 December 2014 Usenet citation. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Just tag it with hot word. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but we need to check on it 15 months or so after the first cite (a book published December 2014) to confirm that it has become a lasting part of the language, unless you'd like us to flout that part of CFI. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Like you said that's 12 months from now. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Less if there the possible cites above are valid. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Found newspaper cites going back to March 2014. Seems that selfie sticks became popular in Asia around that time. Whereas they didn't become popular globally until late 2014. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


Only used in one book, as far as I can tell. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: That cannot undergo inflection, conjugation or declension.

Added in diff.

One quotation is in Citations:invariable; not sure how good it is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be plenty here: [96]. Equinox 15:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added three more quotations to the citations page, for a total of four. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, we use it to mean this. Are we really the only ones to do so? I doubt it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is amusing to note that the sole citation discussing the phenomenon in English is "Singular invariable nouns include mud and impatience, and plural invariable nouns include scissors and trousers. You cannot have *muds, *impatiences, *a scissor, or *a trouser." We have all of them and not by mistake. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
You can have a trouser leg or trouser pocket, so trousers is variable when used as an attributive. I tend to use indeclinable for some Norwegian adjectives (and nouns), but I guess invariable could be used instead. Donnanz (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Looks totally wrong to me - maybe something like "sluggish unemployment" (wtf?) ? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be two separate Google Books hits that relate to music. I'm having trouble working out what elements it's made up of, though. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Schlacken + -los + -ig + -keit. Google Books search for schlackenlos. Though Schlacke is according to Duden used mostly in technical senses, the derived terms seem to be used almost exclusively in high culture generally, not just music. Schlackenlosigkeit seems to me to be a rather loose translation of clinical perfection. It must be something like "freedom from imperfection" ("imperfectionlessness" !). DCDuring TALK 14:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A calque would be slagless(y)ness, slag being a cognate with some of the same meaning as Schlacke. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this request! I'm not good in German, but just take a look at the context of this full word on Google Books. This seems to be the best option to translate this. I added this word just because no online dict has the translation. --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I await a native German speaker for this one. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Schlacke is a mass consisting of the undesired substances that have been removed from the desired metal when liquifying ores. (Currently definition 2-4 of slag.) I looked over the first three pages of the Google Books link. It's an even measure of references to metallurgy and usages of the word as a paraphrase for "immaculate". The current definition in Wiktionary doesn't fit that usage, which stays closer to the metallurgic sense, in that the authors mean to say "without undesired elements". I'll change the entry in question. Korn (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
But what about the use in this document – http://www.icartists.co.uk/sites/default/files/Rudolf_Kempe_DVD_Booklet.pdf? It contains text in 4 languages, including German, where Schlackenlosigkeit is defined as clinical precision. My friend working on a musical biography asked me to find the translation for this word. And I found this PDF. The second reason, why this translation should be considered is that it fits perfect to whole translation of a musical biography. --Rezonansowy (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There is also an article on German wiki containing this word – de:Die_Musik_des_Erich_Zann#Analyse. --Rezonansowy (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The German article on The Music of Erich Zann also uses it to mean "free of undesired elements". These elements are mentioned in the next sentence to be crossreferences to his mythical cosmos and foreshadowings. As for the leaflet, well... The word is indeed used as a translation for "clinical precision", but German does have the term "klinische Präzision" as a common phrase as well, and judging from both the usages provided by Google Books and the non-figurative meaning of the word, I would not consider those two terms to be synonymous, even if in the right context either can work. Korn (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rezonansowy: I think the translator's art is to convey the meaning of the original text as a whole, at least at the paragraph and sentence level, not necessarily at the level of each individual word. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you also take a look at some results from DuckDuckGo? Does everything matches with free of undesired elements or something similar? --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the guy for that job. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: So who is? Would anyone support progress of this request please? --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You might try User:Matthias Buchmeier, who is a native German speaker. I've tried someone else. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the word seems to be quite rare the Google hits that I get seem to fit our definitions. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, after Korn's corrections the entry looks good. Some of the citations of sense 2 (e.g. "Schlackenlosigkeit und verdichtender Kürze") are so idiomatic / figurative that I can see why a translator would choose to render them non-literally. As DCDuring said, the translator was conveying the thrust of the text as a whole. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "An empty set". I think not. (Also why "an"? Assuming the axiom of extensionality, one of the least controversial ones, the empty set is unique.) Keφr 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As per diff, can we get any input from User:Bequw? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen it as the null link in computer science.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
What is a null link? Keφr 02:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Another way of saying null pointer. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 03:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I do recall seeing this in older texts. Now to dig up cites… that'll be harder.​—msh210 (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, aren't we missing an ==Ancient Greek==/===Letter=== sense?​—msh210 (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Fwiw, [[w:empty set]] says "Other notations for the empty set include 'Λ'", citing John B. Conway, Functions of One Complex Variable, 2nd edition, page 12, and [[w:ru:пустое множество]] says "Реже пустое множество обозначают одним из следующих символов: 0 и Λ". (I haven't a copy of Conway.)​—msh210 (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone must have been drunk. Keφr 14:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]


"Vernacular for people". I think that's peep. A quick search for "a peop" only found things that were scannos for "a people". Renard Migrant (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Books has a very few matches for the plural "peops", but it's vanishingly rare compared with "peeps". Equinox 21:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Ido, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added one quotation. A thorough search might be able to find more. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


Jèrriais, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Jèrriais, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Jèrriais, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Ido, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Delete the entry "ಹೊಉಗಾಙ್." There is literally no Internet attestation. —This unsigned comment was added by Princeps linguae (talkcontribs) at 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC).


Rfv-sense: One who photoshops celebrity faces onto nude photos.

Ungoliant (falai) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a durable source. This, however, does seem to support the claim. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: An aromantic or platonic attraction (by analogy with crush).

I've encountered this sense before "in the wild," so it's not something made up by the editor who added it to the entry, but I'm having trouble finding uses in CFI-compliant cites. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it before too, though not very often. I managed to find one quotation, which I've added to the one that was already in the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)



  1. A kind of bird called ruddy goose or ruddy shelduck Tadorna ferruginea.

The musical term comes from Sanskrit चक्रवाक (cakravāka), which can be literally translated as the rfved sense. The problem is that we're talking about usage in English, capitalized and with this spelling. I suspect the contributor threw in this sense because the musical and the duck sense are the same word in Sanskrit (and presumably in some descendent languages), so they figured they must be the same in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "child murderer". I've only ever heard this used to mean "child molester", i.e. someone who sexually abuses children, but I'm not a native speaker of German and there could be senses I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, both Duden and German Wiktionary list only the "child molester" sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I would actually consider this term a very strict sum-of-parts with schänden (desecrate, violate, rape) with the meaning 'child rapist'. You wouldn't apply this term lightly to someone who hasn't conducted strongly sexual acts. Murder just happens to accompany that often. Korn (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of the colour green. Only in word lists, I think. Equinox 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

in Google Books, there are three better meanings
  1. fear of chlorine and chlorine compounds
  2. fear of chloroform
    • 2003 Cholera, Chloroform, and the Science of Medicine : A Life of John Snow
      In 1850 and 1851, however, chlorophobia swept the country, as the agent intended for medical purposes was increasingly perceived as an alleged agent of crime, robbery, rape, and murder. An old man asleep in a hotel room was attacked with chloroform by a man hiding under his bed.
  3. (botany) intolerance to chlorine.
    • Am. J. Botany 25:380-5. Masaeva, M. 1936. Chlorophobia of plants. Bodank. u. Pflanzenernahr. 1:39-56 (C.A. 30, 4891)
The botanical meaning is, as far as I can see, traceable to that single paper, but is cited elsewhere.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
By 'better', you seem to mean 'attested at least once'. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


"Find me later" in text messaging. Can't find anything meaningful online. Perhaps a hoax explanation of the usual FML for "fuck my life"? Equinox 15:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Ladino. Attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One mention in snippet view here. It seems to be a word list with definitions and some etymological information. As far as I can tell, the Turkish seems to be a compound of baş (head) + üstüne (above or on top of), so the Spanish gloss of encima de la cabeza fits the literal meaning of the Turkish (I suspect the Turkish is equivalent as an expression to something like "yes sir!" or "you're the boss!", but I don't speak Turkish). This shows the word in use, but the semantics require some stretching to make it work- close enough to be plausible, though. Since Ladino is no doubt an LDL, the one mention should be sufficient if we accept it. As I said earlier, Ladino is tricky to attest, because the orthography is far from standardized, and because there's geographical variation, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Should it be a language with limited documentation? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It is, since it's not on this list. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Ladino. Attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One use here. I'll let others judge whether it fits the definition (this is the alt-form, so see bashustuné). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for the article's following definitions: apply, smear, plaster and to put on. I couldn't find any sources for these definitions but I thought maybe one of our native Chinese editors might have more insight into the situation than I do. Bumm13 (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Nothing obvious on Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to attestation, but surely any sequence can be potentially turned into a palindrome by just repeating it in the reverse order on the end of what is already there. I suppose words (other than short ones) that can potentially becomes palindromes that are words might be interesting. Race comes to mind (racecar). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What the entry creator seems to have meant is that you can form a palindrome by anagramming. Equinox 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Does it really meet the CFI?

Is it really uncountable? (Could I say, "I'm expecting a great deal of grexit this year"?)

RuakhTALK 02:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It’s citable as Grexit. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added four citations for "Grexit". It's surely not uncountable, but rather a proper noun that is sometimes preceded by "the". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): cobra

I request evidence that this is used to refer specifically to the cobra, as opposed to any other snake. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese well enough to find actual uses for you, but sense 2 of this definition narrows it down to specifically the genus Naja. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That’s a start. That definition claims it is European usage, but the Priberam dictionary, which focuses on European Portuguese, does not mention that narrow sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
So if cobra just means "snake" to Brazilians, what do you call cobras? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
naja. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Spanish. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of cars. Only mentions, no uses. Equinox 20:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of eating or food. Mainly in word lists. Equinox 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of floods. Only in word lists. The one citation given has poor grammar and appears to be a vanity-published poem by a subliterate writer. Equinox 20:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Th eother" and "learing" were typos introduced by an editor. They weren't found in the original text. It's "learning to read was thy great antlophobia." It's think it's a metaphor for finding learning to read as a young child to be overwhelming — fearing that you're going to be inundated by words. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Cited if you count the poem. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of growing old... only in word lists... you know the drill. Equinox 20:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cited. There's an etymology on the Wikipedia article. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That etymology is wrong. The actual Greek form used was γηράσκω (gēráskō, I grow old). The coiner obviously looked it up in a dictionary without knowing any of the grammar and just added phobia to the lemma form- with ungrammatical results. If Ancient Greek didn't have such a truly spectacular array of methods to create nouns from verbs, I might understand- but it does. This just shows how amateurish these phobia names often are ("fear of I grow old"? Yeesh!).Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of flashes of light. Only in word lists. Equinox 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've found two meanings, which I suspect may be the case for a few -phobias: there's the "fear of..." sense, which is what you'll find in the word lists, and there's also a biological "intolerance of..." sense. So selaphobia might be the fear of flashes, or, in ophthalmology, an intolerance to them. chlorophobia might be a fear of Chlorine (or of Chloroform, or simply of the colour green), or a botanic intolerance to Chlorine compounds.
More to the point, there is an issue which came up on my talk page in conversation with Equinox on this matter, and that's what would count for an attestation. I submit that these phobias come as a packet of concepts: the condition, the condition as an adjective, and the thing suffering the condition (-phobia, -phobic, -phobe). (And adverb -phobically?) Many of these terms are very specialised, and may turn up in scientific papers relatively rarely, such that we might have an insufficient number of attestations for any given form, and thus be forced to delete all three forms and with them the entire concept.
It's not quite the same as using examples of the genitive or plural to attest the lemma, but I don't think it's that far off. So I submit that for this sort of "package" of forms, it should be possible to use, eg., "selaphobic" and "selaphobe" to attest "selaphobia", and vice-versa. That is, any of the forms of the package work as attestation of the package. This could be the basis of a "See also" template for such things listing the various forms (so: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, or schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically, although that would be for cross-reference more than the need to aggregate attestations to make critical mass.)
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This does seem close to what we do with verbs (where I've noted a strong consensus to create the -s, -ing, -ed forms even if not all of them are attestable). I don't like the idea, though, since I prefer to treat each word/spelling as a separate item. Equinox 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really consider inflections (plural forms and verb tenses) to be individual words, and thus I don't think they need to be independently cited, unless they're irregular in some way. But nouns, verbs, adjectives, or any other POS should be considered separate words, and thus I think they need to be independently cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My position is that "selaphobic" does not attest "selaphobia"; even if "selaphobic" is attested, "selaphobia" can fail RFV and be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • My fear is that neither form will make critical mass on its own (I've moved the cites you deleted to selaphobic, by the way), both will independently fail CFI, and thus the term in its entirety will be deleted. Even if they are aggregated it will be close, unless someone else has better luck finding another cite for each sense. But still, I see a situation where a word can clearly exist, if rarely, but be deleted through the technicality that one citation used person-first language or some such perfectly regular and predictable variation. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by "person-first language"; one of the forms is a noun, the other is an adjective. They are different words, not just different inflected forms. Three quotations is already a very low threshold; I find it unwise to lower it by pooling morphologically related forms (like "carry", "carrier", and "carriage" or those mentioned by you above: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically). In similar way, each -ness form should be attested on its own, rather than entered when the adjective from which the -ness form is formed is attested. Ditto for agent nouns: they should be attested on their own rather than created automatically when the verb is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        Person-first language is a fashion in disability circles to avoid using the word meaning "person-with-condition" ("autist", "paraplegic"), but instead explicitly saying "person with autism", "person with paraplegia", etc. (The idea is to explicitly state the person as most semantically important, not defining them by the condition.) Many autists, for example, find this ridiculous and faintly patronising, and see person-first language, for our condition at least, akin to saying "person with maleness". In this case you might find that a rare but real condition, with a real, if rare, word would fail attestation because the votes were split between the condition and the person-with-condition, even though they're all referring to the same thing. Which is why I split off the cites for selaphobic, rather than let them vanish completely. Surely someone has better access to ophthalmology papers? Or Epilepsy studies? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Fear of stairs/slopes. Only in word lists. The WP article only cites a word list. Equinox 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cited. Most phobias are just barely citable. It can seem like they're not because finding cites requires combing through pages and pages of wordlists in the Google Books results. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is my position that the likes of "bathmophobia (fear of stairs)" and "bathmophobia, which is a fear of stairs or steep slopes" should not count for attestation. Or they should count to show the meaning, but should not count to the list of quotations in which the word is pressed to do a semantic job on its own. However, there is no consensus for this position, AFAIK; WT:CFI#Conveying meaning supports 'They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind' as fine, which I don't. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Google Books doesn't seem to have enough citations for any single sense. There is the biological "barophobic" (not adapted to high pressures). Equinox 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a third cite for the fear sense. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
What about fear of bars? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you hear the one about a man who didn't walk into a bar? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Another word-list phobia. Equinox 22:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it might be worthwhile to enact something to the effect that /phobia$/ entries may be deleted on sight unless properly cited? And an edit filter to explain it. Keφr 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. Also /philia$/ though that is a lesser problem AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/41. Please check it for errors and run it through any bureaucracy you feel is appropriate: BP, vote, whatever. Keφr 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Made of or with wood

Just attributive use of the noun? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to tell the difference between an uncountable noun and an incomparable adjective. None of the tests at Wiktionary:English adjectives seem to be capable of distinguishing between these two. So what kind of citation would (hypothetically) be able to demonstrate that "wood" is indeed an incomparable adjective as well as a noun? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Predicative use, i.e. you can say “this toy is wooden”, but can you say “this toy is wood”? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd still say that's use of the uncountable noun. Talk:woodland might provide a way forward; very wood and quite wood can't be interpreted as nominal uses, unless I'm missing something. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but I wouldn't expect to find uses of an incomparable adjective with "quite" and "very". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you can. [97] [98] [99] [100] But it's not completely obvious to me whether these are predicative uses of an adjective or an uncountable noun. But if you think they're good enough, I'll add them to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Dubious IMO. It feels like "this music is (genre)": more of a noun usage. Equinox 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I'd apply Occam's razor. If we have a noun entry for a word then there should be some unambiguous evidence for its adjectivity to support an Adjective PoS section. I can find three cites (1, 3 & 4) ["be|am|is|are|be|being|was|were more wood than" -"there is|was more wood than" here] at Google Books for the following collocation: "[be] more wood (than)". If upheld, that would let us keep the Adjective section. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Saying "it's more wood than metal" doesn't make it an adjective, though. —CodeCat 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to see "this table is wood" as an adjectival usage. Dictionaries having this adjectival sense at "wood" include AHD[101] and Merriam-Webster (entry 3)[102]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, now as before, I consider this use of RFV less than fortunate, since for English there are no conclusive purely evidence-based criteria for adjectivity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The OED has only the obsolete adjective (our etymology 2) meaning mad. Are we being wooden about this? We do have steel as an adjective, and the OED doesn't, but why don't we have soap and cardboard as adjectives? (Later note: we do now for cardboard, with good cites. Thanks, Mr. Granger.) Dbfirs 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: In most cases the evidence is extremely clear. Evidence is to be preferred to gum-flapping wherever possible. We can reduce the gum-flapping to evaluation and weighing of evidence, in this case, that of the judgment of lexicographers and the corpus data. It is very hard for me to take as meaningful an individual vote which often represents nothing more than an idiolect or a completely uninformed opinion. And articulate arguments based on agreed-to principles have become scarcer over time. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather go by Merriam-Webster than OED. Merriam-Webster does have an adjective sense for "steel"[103]. We could have an adjective sense in cardboard, just like Merriam-Webster[104]; however, they may have the adjective sense to accompany the figurative adjective sense that they have. Again, since adjectivity is hard to detect based only on evidence, I discourage and oppose this use of RFV. Yes, there are cases where the evidence clearly supports adjectivity, but absence of such evidence requires judgment and discussion to determine the adjectivity, as per the existence of incomparable adjectives. Under the assumption that we take this RFV seriously, occurrences of "this table is wood" should count toward attestation as adjective, IMHO. This RFV should be closed as out-of-scope (my preferable closure), or as passed. We have no evidence to tell us whether "this table is wood" is an adjectival use, so we do have to use judgment or linguistic sense; hence the propriety of RFD for these kind of cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
RFV can be useful and appropriate in such cases, since the POS is part of the sense, and it seems perfectly acceptable to challenge whether there's usage for the sense as an adjective. The problem comes when the evidence is inconclusive: the presumption with rfd is for keeping unless the case is made for deletion, while with rfv it's for deletion unless the case (in the form of citations) is made for keeping. I have no problem with using rfv- unless someone tries to close it as failed when citations have been provided, but they're ambiguous.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You ignored the incomparable adjectives objection, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


rfv-sense: Vulgar slang for semen. Equinox 00:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The same definition appears under cream. Now which is the most vulgar spelling? Donnanz (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about it, neither word is vulgar. Should it be labelled as a figurative or literary sense? Donnanz (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Added "rfv-sense" at the top. (I search the RFV for "rfv-sense" to see which items I can close as failed, which is one source of the usefulness.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow Brite[edit]

Greeting card character. Passed a lukewarm RFD in 2009. Can it now be cited to meet WT:BRAND? Equinox 07:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the English section. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the only use I could find: [105]. It’s present in some medical dictionaries, so it can be moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms if it fails. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A wall made of stone"

If we are going to have a misleading definition, we at least better show users that it is in use. DCDuring TALK 12:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy to attest using google books:"stonewalls". I propose this nomination is withdrawn to save resources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Feel free not to be lazy about including citations in entries. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Really attested? google books:"selaphobic", google groups:"selaphobic", selaphobic at OneLook Dictionary Search. I'd even consider speedy RFV fail. Each sense needs three attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for both senses: (1) an introvert who likes outdoorsy activities, and (2) a synonym for extrovert. The entry was created with sense (1) by an anon who later registered as User:‎Logophilic K; that sense was replaced by sense (2) by User:SemperBlotto. Logophilic K objected to that in the Tea room, so I've restored both senses and am RFVing both of them here, so we can find out how this word is actually used in durably archived sources. Incidentally, all I can find on b.g.c is this, which is short on context but appears to be sense (2). But I can't find 2 more attestations of it in that sense. As far as I can tell, all other b.g.c hits of "outrovert", "outroverts", and "outroverted" are scannos for the corresponding forms of controvert. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added two citations for the "extrovert" sense. Both appear to be written by non-native English speakers. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a joke, but it might coincidentally turn out to be attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Allegedly the Euler–Mascheroni constant, for which the usual symbol is γ. Sense originally added by Visviva; perhaps he knows more. Keφr 22:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Equinox 01:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently related to goropism. Mentioned here and a few other texts. I have yet to find a use as opposed to a mention in English. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

God's House[edit]

'God's house' is obviously very prevalent in a Christian sense, and its Arabic form meaning Kaaba as well, but I am unsure about this capitalised form having an idiomatic meaning of 'the Kaaba' in English. I looked and couldn't see it using Google Books. Kaixinguo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an entry for God's house. Kaixinguo (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Ido for moraine. I can't find anything, but there's a lot of interference from other languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Galician. Monoteísta is both the masculine and the feminine. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Same thing. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "hairy and poisonous caterpillar". is a simplified form of , which are hardly ever used in Korean, unless it's also an alternative Chinese form with this sense. Note that and have different Korean readings as well - (ho) and (ja). @Wyang, TAKASUGI Shinji:, pls check/comment. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from being the simplified form of 蠔, 蚝 is also a traditional character, pronounced , meaning "hairy caterpillars".
cì - ci3 - 蚝/蚝 - "hairy caterpillars" - 자
háo - hou4 - 蠔/蚝 - "oyster" - 호. Wyang (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Wyang: great job, thank you. I didn't check other dictionaries, sorry. Do you mind checking the Korean entry, please? I should have RFT'ed, not RFV'ed it, no need for citations, I think. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Asperger's syndromes[edit]

Asperger syndromes[edit]

RFV of the plural forms. I think "Asperger('s) syndrome" may be uncountable, like many disease and disorder names. (I was going to use "cholera" as a specific example but "the choleras" seems to be attested.) All the hits I see on google books:"Asperger's syndromes" are of combinations like "criteria for the autistic or Asperger's syndromes" (="criteria for the autistic syndrome or for Asperger's syndrome"), "Kanner's and Asperger's syndromes", etc. The exception is a book called The Semiotic Web, which seem to use "Asperger's syndrome" as a count noun meaning "person with AS". - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hans Asperger only had one syndrome named after him, so I would agree that "Asperger's syndrome" is, as a unique thing, uncountable. Unless you were talking about different experiences of the syndrome as "Asperger's syndromes", as you might talk of "two Englands", but I can't see any evidence that anyone has ever done that. All the attestations I could see are of the "list of syndromes" sort.
I concur that The Semiotic Web uses "Asperger's syndromes" to mean "aspies". It also appears to be unique in this. It's certainly not a usage I'm familiar with (as an aspie myself).
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


I found only one actually use in BGC, and a lot of mentions. My opinion is that cites like "they divided them into the following groups: aletophytes, mesophytes, ..." are mentions, but if the community thinks they are uses, this can probably be cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added three quotations, though the first one might be borderline. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice find on the third one (I forgot to check Scholar). As for the first, I saw it and reckoned it to be a mention, but I'd be curious to see what others think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


"The art of packing something." How would this be used? "She's very good at package"?! Equinox 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

OED does have this sense with quotations; though the sense is listed now as "historical." —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 01:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've now added some citations. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added another citation, for a total of three. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
MW Online has it and shows it as archaic; MW 1913 had it without restriction. Century 1911 did not have it. How was that pronounced, I wonder? DCDuring TALK 02:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Art or act? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The citations strike me as uncountable. The definitions that others have are more or less "the act or process of packing", which could be both countable and uncountable, but is probably uncountable. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: re pronunciation: according to 1906/1907 New American Encyclopedic Dictionary, which gives "the act of packing goods or wares" (without any indication of datedness) as the first of three senses of package (the others being "a pack" and "a charge made for packing goods"), it's pronounced păck'-age (age as ɪġ). Based on how they notate pack (păck) and scavage scăv'-age (age as ɪġ), that seems to equate to IPA(key): /ˈpæk.ɪdʒ/. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll see if I can add that dictionary to my list of favorites. The "art" in the definition made me wonder whether it had a French-derived pronunciation, like IPA(key): /ˈpæk.ɑʒ/. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(This is straying from the subject of whether or not this is attested, but) according to the 1914 Century, this is the original sense — that dictionary gives the etymology as "Old French pacquage (the act of packing)", which contradicts our etymology. Renard, can you shed any light on whether Old French had such a term? - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Btw, the New American Encyclopedic Dictionary mentioned above derives the term from English pack (verb) + -age. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
But they could just be allowing an ahistorical, morphological approach to usurp a proper etymology, as happens sometimes. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Our etymology is suspiciously close to that at “package” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001).. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The OED also says pack + -age, and continues "Compare post-classical Latin paccagium (1299, c1335 in British sources), Middle French, French pacquage (1583, rare)". The first sense is "The action of packing goods, etc.; spec. (now hist.) the privilege of overseeing the packing of certain categories of cloth or other goods". Dbfirs 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Godefroy has a definition and a single 1583 citation, which supports the OED. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Godefroy dictionary is the source of the OED etymology. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You could be right there, though the earliest cite in the OED is from 1510 (State Papers Henry VIII) before the first recorded use of the rare French pacquage. Dbfirs 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


This doesn't actually seem to be attested; the usual term seems to be octofoil. If this fails RFV, remember to fix all the pages that link to it (presumably to make them link to octofoil instead). - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-sources associated galactic nuclei[edit]

Zero hits on Google. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)



  1. (zoology) Any member of the Achaemenidae.

This is one of a huge number of entries generated by User:Equinox based on the assumption that anything with the ending in -idae refers to a taxonomic family in the animal kingdom, which means it has a corresponding noun ending in -id that refers to a member of that family. Mostly, that's true, but there are exceptions: first of all, botanical names for subclasses also end in -idae, and then there are cases like this one, where a Latin- or Greek-derived term uses the plural from the original language (the w:Achaemenidae were a dynasty of ancient Persian rulers). I might have just speedied this one, but the history shows an earlier attempt at removing this information that was reverted, so I brought it here to be on the safe side: is this ever used to refer to members of a taxonomic, rather than a human, family? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Wikispecies has no mention of an Achaemenidae taxonomic family is quite damning... Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiSpecies is far from complete. I'll look into it. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a particularly complete source for insect taxonomy. I tried Biodiversity Heritage library, Index of Organism Names, Encyclopedia of Life, Catalog of Life, and ITIS. No joy on Achaemendidae as a taxon. There is a genus of bug Achaemenes in Cixiidae family. (BTW, note all the redlinks among the genera at species:Cixiidae, a common situation for insect taxa.) DCDuring TALK 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


I have no idea why I created this in 2010. I can find two citations fairly easily, but literally not one more. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can find two citations fairly easily (citations written by modern French writers), you're more successful than me. Could you add them? I would be very interested. Lmaltier (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes they're at User talk:Renard Migrant#enfourmer, but yes I can write them up. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The 1st one is not modern French (written in 1313). I don't know the date for the 2nd one, but I'm afraid it's the same problem. Lmaltier (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
(For ease of reference: citation 1, citation 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
If they're Old or Middle French, then no problem keeping since those are both LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is only about the modern French section. I'm not a specialist (not at all), but the following links seem very conclusive, the 2nd citation is not modern French either, and the modern French section should be removed:

entierment, entièrement : https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=entierment%2Centi%C3%A8rement&year_start=1500&year_end=1700&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Centierment%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Centi%C3%A8rement%3B%2Cc0

Lmaltier (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


This is the last definitionless Russian noun from Category:Russian entries needing definition. I don't know this word. (There's, of course an inflected form - genitive/accusative of коп (kop) (slang) - "ко́па", from English [[cop]], which makes searching complicated) If someone can find the definition, please add, otherwise it should be deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, found this [106] --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So it is in a dictionary. Now we only need attesting quotations in use as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
As a nominator, I'm withdrawing the request. I may add other etymologies/pronunciations later. Sorry for being a slack on this one :). Vahagn helped with this entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

here and there[edit]

Rfv-sense: "From time to time"

MWOnline has it. I've never heard it. Is it archaic, obsolete? Does the OED have it? DCDuring TALK 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the OED has only the sense of scattered through space, not time. The equivalent expressions for time are now and then and now and again. I suppose the expression is sometimes used of time, by analogy, but I don't really think it means scattered through time. How do we distinguish between a meaning and a metaphor? Dbfirs 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: Thanks. I didn't think so, but I suspect you are right about metaphorical use. We don't have too much trouble with many mature metaphor-derived senses of nouns like head, but "live"-but-dying metaphors (or protologistic metaphor-based senses) are harder. It would be nice to have some actual instances of the purported temporal use that we could assess. OED was my best hope, but I'll try some other dictionaries that sometimes have citations. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
e.g. 2009, John Bogard, The Message from the Cosmos (page 63): "Before we study his ideas, it is useful to note here again that extraterrestrial powers intervened here and there in his life, as early as his birth, then his baptism [] ". Equinox 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, after trawling through more than 200 Google Books, I found another example from 2011, R. E. Donald, Slow Curve on the Coquihalla (chapter 23): "Yep. Since nineteen sixty, or thereabouts. Missed a few years, here and there."
I suppose "at this and that point in space" can be used by analogy to mean "at this and that point in time", just as "now and again" is sometimes used for points in space. We are travellers through the four-dimensional manifold.
I wonder if "intermittently, occasionally" would be a better definition than "from time to time"? Dbfirs 16:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Weird. I'd consider it pretty common, as common as the spatial sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you move at a different speed and so live on a different world line? :) Dbfirs 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's often ambiguous. I find the 2009 cite ambiguous, though not the 2011 cite. In any event, the citations will be proof against a COPYVIO of MW Online, especially if we use them to support wording such as Dbfirs'. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It certainly can mean now and again in my idiolect. I would argue that in most cases, the meaning of spatially scattered and temporally scattered are so inextricably linked for that it must necessarily mean both. For instance in the sentence "The man showed up here and there," the appearances of the man must necessarily be spatially and temporally separated, which might have given rise to the figurative meaning of now and then. I also agree that it is very hard to construct sentences that are explicitly of one meaning or the other. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But you can't say "The man showed up here and there at his kitchen window overlooking the road."
You would have to say "now and again" where the spatial context is restricted. Dbfirs 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "The man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" but instead "Now and again, the man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" or "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road now and again." For some reason, that placement after the verb does not work for me. But in the other two locations, I could definitely say "Here and there, the man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road" and "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road here and there." This, however, may just be the topicalization or backing obscuring the apparent spatial contradiction. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder how widely this is shared. Thank goodness we don't have to depend on individual reporting of their idiolect. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ive found one more cite, not sure about the year because the book seems to have been privately published by the author: Andre Maxwell Jacob, And Then There Was Life! (page 218): "She told Justina and Miles everything, pausing here and there trying to remember every little detail of her day."
If my sample of books is representative of the corpus, then usage for a timelike interval is less than 1% of usage for a spacelike interval. Dbfirs 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised by the rarity of unambiguously temporal cites for this particular term, where both main terms are principally spatial and alternatives like now and then are available. In my idiolect, I try to use the words that are more specific to the temporal realm. At least I think I do. It is fascinating how many basic time words, like prepositions (after, before) have a spatial etymology. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


I can see mentions (dictionary-like definitions) but no actual usage on Google book search. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


"(Ulster) An umbrella." Can't seem to find anything. Equinox 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The word is in Green's Dictionary of Slang, which apparently has full citations for its entries. Does anyone have access to check it? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
(There seems to be citation in this Texan(!) newspaper article but I can't see the whole thing, and the snippet does have OCR issues, so I wouldn't trust it unless someone can verify it: "He was Ii need of an umbrella, and on Christmas Bvi he arrived home from the office carrying a new umberstick.") Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

shocklaid ghoo[edit]

Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

continuous quality improvement[edit]

"quality assurance"

Only from the perspective of someone with the most remote awareness of the field, IMO. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bizbabble. Many wordy terms are invented by idiots who feel the need to invent rubbish to justify their overpaid, useless business positions, while useful, skilled people with e.g. computer tech skills are marginalised. These phrases never mean anything; they are just foul, vile back-slappery by bigmouths. Kill it with fire. Equinox 23:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete - nothing more than the sum of its parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Alternative form of America. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


While it's been misappropriated from time to time in eBay titles, it's still lacking attestations —umbreon126 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

lemon juice[edit]

"(nonstandard) Lemonade, a fruit juice made from lemons". 1. Lemonade isn't a fruit juice, is it? (whereas lemon juice is!) It's a drink with other ingredients. 2. I've never come across this at all; can it be cited? Equinox 14:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed everything after and including the comma. Still need citing. This goes back to the very first edit of lemon juice. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
A few plausible citations:
"She sat me down in a chair on the stone stoop outside the diwan - the very same place - and brought me a glass of lemon juice."
"Spiritual pilgrims can console themselves for giving in to their appetites by making sure to buy fromage made by the monks of Cîteaux; pick up some good bread and sparkling lemon juice to go with the cheese and have a picnic on the way to the abbey."
"They wiped his face with a hot towel, gave him a tall glass of very refreshing lemon juice, and took his temperature, after making him comfortable on a nice clean soft bed inside the ambulance, which sped along its siren wailing."
"Soon after 6 P.M . we walked over to a small shop and had a glass of lemon juice and a banana, thus breaking the fast."
Most seem to refer to Arabic/Indian contexts. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems to refer to the juice of a lemon, no? Is there any indication it's a fizzy, sugary drink? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"Sparkling" and "tall glass" strike me as strong indications that it is not plain juice of a lemon that is being referred to. That would be two close-to-unambiguous (good enough for me) cites. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I searched for things like "glass of lemon juice" and "refreshing lemon juice", on the grounds that I can't see anyone considering just a glass of freshly squeezed lemon juice as something to be drunk in any great quantity as a thirst quencher. A couple more plausible ones I found:
(India) Smita Dongre settled Vikram on the sofa and a young lady dressed in a bright salwar kameez placed ]https://books.google.de/books?id=cTZAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT49&dq=%22sugary+lemon+juice%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6dG-VJayOaTCywPdwYHADg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22sugary%20lemon%20juice%22&f=false lemon juice] and biscuits on the table. [...] Vikram sipped sugary lemon juice.
(Botswana) Upon seating, guests are treated to a complimentary free glass of thirst quenching [107] lemon juice with ice.
(Vietnam) First she gave me a tall glass of lemon juice, followed by white noodles, egg rolls, cucumber salad, fish sauce, and meat rolled in rice bread.
(USA?) Thousands of years ago, the ancient Chinese drank lemon juice as an aid to health. Hot lemonade was such a popular drink that a song writer of the Yuan Dynasty wrote a "Lemon Hot Water Song."
If these look good, I'll write a few of them up properly tomorrow. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha, perhaps it's one of these words that are used differently in "outer circle" Englishes. Equinox 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently there are more kinds of lemon than are dreamt of in our idiolects. There is something called sweet lemon juice which seems to be the juice of sweet lemons. Per WP: "Citrus limetta is a species of citrus. Common names for varieties of this species include sweet limetta, Mediterranean sweet lemon, sweet lemon, and sweet lime." Thus, our assumption that a tall glass of lemon juice was undrinkable unless it was made into a lemonade is wrong. And Citrus limetta is native to South Asia. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Aha! And google books:"sweet lemon juice" confirms that that is a thing. And there's a book called Sweet Lemons (ISBN 1445202956, page 71) which speaks of a woman making "marinade, lemon sauce, lemon chutney, lemonade, lemon juice, lemon in custard, lemon meringue pie etc", where the title implies that the lemon juice in question is made from sweet lemons. And there are also books like The Citrus Cookbook (ISBN 155832822X) which say sweet lemons "make delicious lemonade, however, without the addition of sugar", implying that lemonade made from sweet lemons is called that ("lemonade") and not "lemon juice". - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

tiníléítsoh łikizhígíí[edit]

Navajo for perentie. This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


[Placeholder for "bullshit" pun]

(Amusingly, when searching for this symbol with QQ, I get, among other things, a few calculus textbooks. Google Books API apparently considers this symbol equivalent to the string "DY". No such thing happens with regular b.g.c search, however.) Keφr 11:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • This strikes me as something more likely to be found on Usenet (Google Groups). How hard is it to enable QQ for such? QQ looks like a cool tool, though the documentation is not adequate for someone like me. It doesn't really SELL the tool. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Next to impossible, unfortunately. Google Groups Search does not offer a public JSON API. As for documentation, feel free to write something better… Keφr 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • And I would agree if by "more likely" you meant "" instead of ">". Usenet has always struck me as somewhat traditionalist, so to speak — in this case, sticking to bare ASCII (or at the very least characters you can type on a keyboard without looking them up in a character table) unless there is a necessity to do otherwise. Keφr 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If I understood QQ I could document it. Unfortunately the lack of documentation prevents me.
      • I thought that the image would be the kind of thing that someone would like to be able to produce as a comment on someone else's post. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • There is little to be understood. Just enable it and try it out. Keφr 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Not related to the discussion but the symbol has a smile (eyes and mouth) when viewed on an iPad but there's no smile on PC. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Probably a matter of which font is used by each. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Any attestations meeting WT:ATTEST, including "use in permanently recorded media"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this ever used in running English text? Keφr 18:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added three cites from Usenet. It stands for a lot of other things, too, so it's hard to find citations on Google Books, if there are any (there probably are). - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Dumb question: is this uppercase Latin or uppercase Cyrillic, and does it matter which is which in the cites? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Latin. It matters, which is why Usenet was necessary to cite this. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we managed to find three book citations. Also, google books:"Six days in CCCP" finds a US Congressional Record. Keφr 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think Ungoliant's point is that, in the absence of Usenet citations which clearly use Latin letters, it would potentially be debatable whether the books were using u0043 u0043 u0043 u0050 or u0421 u0421 u0421 u0420. - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For print books, that's a distinction without a difference anyway. Especially before the days of desktop publishing, there would literally have been no difference at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. It’s impossible to know whether a book is using Cyrillic or Latin. I bet most are really using Latin, but it’s good that we have bitching-proof citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that too. But I think as long as they are used in running English text (i.e. not parenthetical mentions or quotations; and the author does not demonstrably use untransliterated Cyrillic terms otherwise) like in the ones we found, it is safe to assume that the letters are Latin. To play devil's advocate a bit, you could argue that maybe the authors of those Usenet cites ostensibly using Latin letters have in fact meant to use the Cyrillic letters, and that their encoding in ASCII is just an irrelevant artefact of the medium (and/or the fact that they cannot type Cyrillic on their keyboards). Keφr 21:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Created by User:JohnC5, citations provided by User:I'm so meta even this acronym. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here? This is a pretty standard Latin conjugation form. (By "standard" I mean "broadly accepted as a normal and predictable verb form"; it is definitely a poetic form, and not used in prose or speech.) I suspect not all Latin verb forms are attested, but if the main verb is attested, isn't it in the interests of making the dictionary as useful as possible to include all the standard verb form entries for that verb? This, that and the other (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
My real question was whether syncopated forms appear in fairly modern Latin writing. I'm all for the addition of Latin syncopated forms (a matter I intend to bring up soon), but I'm just curious about these modern uses of a pretty obscure Classical form. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 09:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, those citations are a bit puzzling. I would consider anyone writing in Latin in the 20th century who is not a classical scholar or an ecclesiastic writer to be quite pompous, so maybe these people were aiming for maximum pomposity by using poetic forms in their prose... This, that and the other (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for Vietnamese reading "điến". This reading isn't found in either the Unihan database or at the Nom Foundation website. Bumm13 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bumm13: http://hvdic.thivien.net/word/%E6%8D%B5 --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Nice find! I'll have to check against that source for future referencing purposes. Bumm13 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)