Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2009/Unresolved requests

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

November 2009[edit]


The verb section seems to be the original Websters entry. Nothing very clear, and overlapping definitions. -- ALGRIF talk 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Usage notes are too long. Maybe worthwhile in the etymology, but shorter. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

bust a move[edit]

Related terms need organising. Maybe some sense could be merged, maybe not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. Heyzeuss 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Sense #2 definition & example needs work, as well the translations. Tooironic 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Reason explained in the rfc-box in the entry. --Hekaheka 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Intensifier isn't a part of speech. Some intensifiers are adjectives, some adverbs, some both. The class of adverbial intensifiers include some for which the term "intensifier" is a misnomer, eg. "quite", "rather", "barely". The term "degree adverb" includes intensifying adverbs and those other grammatically similar non-intensifying adverbs.
Although I would greatly like to remove items from Interjections, "damn" seems to be used as an interjection. It is also sometimes used as a noun: "a tinker's damn", "Not that I care three damns what figure I may cut" (Goldsmith). DCDuring TALK 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


All of the definitions are worded as adjectives. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Its peculiarity may be that it modifies a statement about the truth or untruth of a proposition. Thus we need some formula other than "in a manner that".
All the examples and synonyms are focused on the future. How about "Sarah possibly has my keys." or "John was possibly asleep at the wheel."? Pingku 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, consider: "What you said is true, possibly." and "What you said is possibly true." It does not have to modify a sentence (or clause).
CGEL classes it as a modal adverb among perhaps 30 others. Modal, domain ("linguistically", "professionally") and evaluative ("fortunately", "ironically", "ominously") are their other adverb-containing subclasses of adjuncts of clauses. Reviewing the adverbs one subclass at a time is enormously revealing of defective entries. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've come across modality before in the context of logic. I note that "possibly" has an obvious link to the epistemic (aka alethic) modal pairing possibility/necessity. (And from modal logic, "not possibly not" = "necessarily", and vice-versa.) It occurs to me that "possibly" could, just by itself, be expressive of a range of modal concepts in the epistemic domain. Maybe it can encroach on the deontic (may/must) as well?
Modal adverbs sound interesting from the point of view of attaching themselves to a variety of verbs, particularly non-modal verbs, thereby attaching an aspect of modality. Pingku 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I am addicted to the weasel words semantically weak modal adverbs (possibly, seemingly, evidently, etc), especially in written communication, because they seemingly (!) soften what might be too direct a statement. They seem slightly less ambiguous than the weak modal verbs.
I have created and partially populated Category:English modal adverbs. Most of them are based on CGEL. I have added a couple of synonyms. Any phrasal ones are not CGEL. It might (!) be useful to break them into syntactic/synonym subgroups (possibly overlapping) to support quality improvement by sense comparisons and to facilitate translations, especially using trans-see where appropriate. Perhaps (!) an Appendix or a couple of Wikisaurus pages would do the job. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the case in point, how about, for a start:
1. (modifying a sentence or clause) {{non-gloss definition|Indicates that the proposition may be true (is not certainly false) regardless of any facts or circumstances known to, stated by or implied by the speaker}}
2. (modifying a verb) {{non-gloss definition|Indicates that the action may successfully be performed (is not impossible) regardless of any facts or circumstances known to, stated by or implied by the speaker that might limit the performance}}
It doesn't fix the problem of wording it like an adverb, but at least it will be flagged. Pingku 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Good finessing of the problem. I've been using {{non-gloss definition}} quite a bit for hard cases. It is easy to justify for all kinds of sentence adverbs. Modals, too, even when not being used as sentence adverbs. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the above, plus one for adjectives, but couldn't remove the old defs - they link to the glosses in the Translations section. From a brief look, the Dutch seems to be an adjective, the Russian may be OK for a general translation, but the Finnish and Swedish have different translations for different glosses. Pingku 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we have to give due process (RfV?) to the bad senses anyway. I don't see how we can avoid ttbc'ing the translations if the senses are wrong. I had optimistically hoped that translators look at the PoS in addition to the gloss, but my optimism seems unwarranted. There is no reason to keep erroneous definitions, just because there are translations. We can keep the existing trans tables with the bad glosses, insert a check-trans notice above them to discourage more translations from being added to the bad glosses, ttbc the translations of bad glosses, and trreq translations of senses we have confidence in. Argh. I hope some of those who translate are watching this. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked fi translations. The second definition is a real brain-twister. It reads "Indicates that the action may successfully be performed...", but all examples are of actions that are impossible to perform. After some pondering one may realize that the trick is in negation, i.e. the examples are of "not possibly". Could someone native write an example of positive use of the word? --Hekaheka 05:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

December 2009[edit]


An editor has noted that the word "may refer to any of the senses of the adjective". As such, this adverb has multiple senses requiring multiple definitions and a Translations table cleanup. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't trust the senses at spiritual enough to take that approach. For now, could we settle for usage examples or citations illustrating use modifying at least verbs and adjectives (if not adverbs) and clauses/sentences? That would satisfy one kind of need. Adverbs are a bit like inflected forms, but more reminiscent of English verb -ing forms and past participles. It seems like a bridge too far to give such entries a full set of senses and translations. Working on adverbs has reminded me of the importance of stem-word entry quality (especially definitions) for the entry quality of morphologically derived terms. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a quote from Churchill:
The first step in the re-creation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany.
I don't think he wished to imply that a country might literally have a soul, or that these countries must necessarily closely align themselves with a (the same?) church or look to God to guide their policies. Perhaps instead he implies a lesser meaning of "spiritual" that applies (in this case) to countries. Presumably, providing leadership in moral and cultural matters suffices.
Thus two possibilities present themselves: (1) Churchill intended a different meaning of "spiritual" that applies to countries or other collective entities; (2) in this case, "spiritually" is only an approximate (not literal) reference to the adjective. Pingku 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


An oenophile's delight. The "see also" items need to be sorted:

  1. Types of wine should be hyponyms under wine#Noun
  2. Cognate terms might go under related terms, though the cognate relationship is more remote (vini- and oeno-prefixed words?)
  3. There seem to be many low-value terms (butler, cantina)
-- DCDuring TALK 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


The second definition isn't a definition, and seems to be redundant to the first one. But it's hard to tell, as I can't work out what it means, if anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to show that as far as NATO is concerned, munitions refer strictly to fireworks and not guns. But I don't know if that's actually the case. —verily nest no settingsuns [ mai tok paeij ] 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Before a rewrite, we should remove any sentences (not headings) that actually contradict any policy, practice, or consensus, documented or not. See WT:RFDO#Wiktionary:Tutorial. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Several nautical related terms with definitions should be separate terms if they meet CFI as seems likely. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Dated wording of senses. Usage note does not discuss applicability by sense. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Handled in part. I have marked the entry with "webster 1913", so that should track the dated wording of senses. The only usage note (from among the three ones) that seems specific to a sense is this: "This is a catenative verb that takes the to infinitive. See Appendix:English catenative verbs".

I have marked the entry with a RFC on the outstanding issue: "Does the usage note on catenative verb apply to all senses? If not, to which senses does it apply?". --Dan Polansky 11:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)