Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
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, the word’s usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such.
  • 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 {{rfv-passed}}, {{rfv-failed}}, or {{rfv-archived}}). 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


August 2013[edit]


Moved from RFM. Original posting:

Fictional-universe only term, should be Appendix:Moby-Dick/warwood. See also Talk:cryptex. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Moby Dick is a well-known work. Are we sure this is a nonce word? — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Melville may have had a specific species in mind: there's a pair of Proto-Polynesian roots that happen to be homophones in many of the Polynesian languages: one for brave/warrior and the other for a tree with dark-colored, very hard wood (originally w:Casuarina equisetifolia, but transferred to w:Acacia koa in Hawaii). He's known to have spent time in w:Nuku Hiva, w:Tahiti and w:Hawaii, all three of which have the pair of homophones in question.
Even so, it looks like the term itself is his own coinage: perhaps for the exotic, "primitive"/"tribal" imagery, and perhaps to avoid using foreign names like koa or toa. There's a Warwood place name/surname that muddies things up a bit, so I can't be completely sure- but I haven't been able to find anything outside of Melville. There's a reference in a description of scrimshaw repeated verbatim in several books, (only available as snippets), but it could easily be borrowed from Melville. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've added two citations. Presumably this just means something like "wood that is used for war". DTLHS (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The Moby Dick citation is independent of the other citations that DTLHS and I have found. It apparently refers to a specific, but unknown, type of wood, whereas war-wood is a kenning meaning "spear" or "shield,"[1] used in translations of heroic poems like Beowulf. I've moved the citations for the latter sense to Citations:war-wood, since it only occurs in that form. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This [2] quotes Melville with the unhyphenated spelling; "...little canoes of dark wood, like the rich warwood of his native isle."
  • From [3]
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of warwood leafmeal lie.
  • I have also found "sweet warwood" in a patent [4] but I guess this is an error for "sweet wormwood".
  • SpinningSpark 22:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's an error for sweet wormwood. That, along with sweet annie and annual wormwood are by far the most common common names for the species. It looks like a spellchecker error, except I can't imagine it's common enough to show up in spellchecker dictionary files. Very odd.Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
More likely a simple error from a non-English speaker. SpinningSpark 12:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Found another one, not connected to Melville or canoes. That makes three by my count, I'll add them to the page. SpinningSpark 13:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, strike that, I wasn't paying attention to the discussion above about moving cites for OE kennings to the page for the hyphenated form. However, I have now added another cite from Melville which makes the Hawaiian tree theory in the etymology dubious, even if limited strictly to Melville's usage (he is writing about the w:Mexican-American War). SpinningSpark 17:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


The entire English entry with the following def:

  1. {{context|New York City|historical}} The main water supply pipe to a building or apartment

I suspect this is a response to usage that mentions a "Croton" supply to buildings, which I would argue is merely an attributive reference to the Croton aqueduct, and to the water, not the pipe. In the same way, I might refer to the DWP supply to the apartment building where I live, without needing to define the pipe as a "DWP". I don't really want to spend the time at the moment to sift through the evidence to be sure, so I'm bringing it here.

I should also mention that this was originally given a proper-noun POS, which is inherently incompatible with the definition, and that it also contained a separate etymology with a noun that was an exact copy of the translingual section. I came very close to just reverting the whole edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There might be room for an English L2 section for Croton as a toponym, for the river, watershed, etc. I don't think that we would do dams, aqueducts etc. I can't imagine that someone is willing to do all the work that is probably required to engage in a probably futile search for attestation of the challenged sense.
BTW, Dewap would be attestable as "A bond issued by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power". DCDuring TALK 12:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I found one cite that almost supports the existing sense: an NY Times article (1879) referring to a broken Croton pipe. I'm guessing that the search range could be temporally limited to between 1840 and 1939, but more recent fiction might use it to add historical flavor.
Since we seem to like proper nouns so much, I'm willing to add and cite the metonomic sense of Croton as something like "the NYC water supply". DCDuring TALK 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not much fun to try to cite things when the JS for displaying quotations doesn't work. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Try hard-refreshing. Our ULS killer with many random innocent victims has been removed. I am working on a new version with predictable mass innocent victims. Keφr 19:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hard-refreshed, cleared my cache: No joy. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. It works if I have no cache at all: FF private window. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
But only for a few minutes. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I seem to be having a problem with this particular page, but I haven't isolated a cause. Nothing seems wrong on the page. DCDuring TALK 14:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Problems may be solved. Who knows why? Though I copied the WebFonts killer from Keφr's js. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


All I can see on the web are some dictionary definitions that use the exact same wording. Some examples of actual usage please. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The single result in Google Books is https://www.google.com/search?q=%22transreption%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 where it uses the term in anger exactly once:
  • "Since this is a somewhat silly example, I've used the active:ncodeToString tool to provide the simplest transreption available for any Java object: turn it into a string."
Frankly, almost every instance I see in Google search is related to NetKernels, which makes me suspect it's mainly a specific jargon. There are, however, traces around for wider use, as http://www.isocat.org/files/archive.html
  • "2010-4-7
    The 922 revision provides the following functionality:
    ● worked around the Relax NG transreption error"
... Ah, there's http://www.infoq.com/articles/netkernel-intro, which contains what might be the source of the term:
  • "However, at the logical level, code is not aware of physical level types. This leads to a new concept called transrepresentation. If a client requests a representation type that an endpoint does not provide then the microkernel can intermediate. When a mismatch is detected, the microkernel searches for a Transreptor that can convert from one type to the other.
Transreptors turn out to be very useful. Conceptually, a transreptor converts information from one physical form to another. This covers a significant amount of computer processing including:
The key point is that this is a lossless transformation, information is preserved while the physical representation is changed. [...]
In addition, transreption allows the system to move information from inefficient forms into efficiently processable forms, for example, source code to byte code. These transitions occur frequently but only require a one-time conversion cost and thereafter can be obtained in the efficient form. In a formal sense, transreption removes entropy from resources.
So we have evidence as to the etymology of the word (contraction of transrepresentation), and some evidence that it's used in the wild, but not a lot, and probably not that would survive the standards for verification.
-- Catsidhe (verba, facta) 07:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A ditch along the side of a road."

It is possible that this is true, but I've never heard the word used this way. Of course, I'm just a city-and-suburbs boy and would call such a ditch a ditch, limiting gutter to the low bit, usually next to a curb. Is it UK? The image exactly fits my understanding of the term, though the image alone does not convey the meaning. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Not really a ditch; but it's the part that collects rainwater from the street's camber and directs it to the nearest drain. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Basically it's due to the camber of the road. But this is sense #1 "A low area, especially by the side of a road adjacent to a curb, to carry off water." so it does need verifying; if this does exist it needs citations. Not quite sure how to achieve that since they will likely support #1 and #2 at the same time, where #1 definitely exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It would take an unusual citation, certainly. But a "ditch along the side of the road" is not the same as a good definition of gutter. The new def 1 allows for the gutter to be distinct from the road, rather than part of it, which, on reflection, seems wrong. I'll reword def 1 unless someone thinks that's wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That (ie, Sierra Leone) looks like a second, somewhat ambiguous cite, with the one already in the entry. Some gutters have been used for sanitary sewage and are usually deeper. I'm used to paving, but hard-packed dirt, presumably the same as the principal surface of an accompanying road, might also be an adequate surface for drainage. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, the cites don't really belong here. They belong in the entry. Our new sense-id links get us to the relevant sense. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm putting them here for discussion, I'm still not sure what's going on with this entry. I don't see how you can think the Sierra Leonne quote is ambiguous. The meaning is plain if the whole page is read. SpinningSpark 18:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditch: "a long narrow excavation dug in the earth (as for drainage)".
How could one tell that the gutter referred to in the citations was a "ditch". The Japan citation is not consistent with that as a car wheel is unlikely to get stuck in a dirt channel, it would be hard to characterize a dirt channel as being just a bit wider than a car tire (as a narrow dirt channel usually forms a V), a direct channel is unlikely to be covered with movable plates, etc. The Sierra Leone citation provides almost no information about the configuration of the gutter relative to the road. The 1838 US citation refers to a cross gutter, which is not consistent with my sense of the word and the definitions, which seem to have the gutter run in the same direction as whatever reference surface may be mentioned. The US citation explicitly refers to ditches for drainage by the side of the road, apparently not integral with the principal surface of the road. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say the The Sierra Leone cite can be read as a ditch from context. The fact that they hide in it for one thing. For another, it's Sierra Leone so hardly likely to be something high tech. If that's not enough, elsewhere in the book we have Joe and salieu were digging a gutter to drain the water settling round the house. Which while not connected with a road at least shows the author is means gutter=ditch in this work. It is asking a lot for a quote which uses the word in this sense and immediately follows it with a dicdef. SpinningSpark 22:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to word sense 1 to include the full range of such possibilities. I think that it would even include the "gutter to drain the water settling round the house". DCDuring TALK 00:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It never hurts to have citations on the Citations page, even (or especially) if they don't exactly fit existing definitions or are ambiguous. Our definitions are not timeless unchanging bits of perfection, in case you hadn't noticed. That a citation is not a good illustration of current definitions should remind us that most usage does not really support very elaborate definitions. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't be asked to spend time nicely formatting cites for an entry you might decide to delete. SpinningSpark 22:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Citations should always be retained, as they always give clues about some aspect of meaning, even when they do not support a particular definition. For example, I found a citation referring to a single gutter in the middle of a street in Paris. This would seem to have a bearing on the challenged sense referring to a gutter as being an area of a road intended for traffic, suggesting that the "traffic" element is probably incidental, though surprising to those familiar only with modern two-channel road design with camber and curb. The cross-gutter cite would compel us to make sure we do not exclude such a gutter configuration. Using the templates like {{quote-book}} makes it relatively painless to achieve pretty formatting by cutting and pasting from the google search page, deleting the extraneous, and adding tags like "title=", "year=", etc. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that the citations that support the idea of an unpaved gutter also show that such a gutter is intended for drainage (possibly of sewage, BTW). That would argue for combining sense 2 and sense 1, eliminating any mention of paving or curbs in the main definition, relegating them to an "especially". Also a gutter could be in the center of a road or run across it. "Channel" may give too specific an idea, but I can't think of a better common word. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is just an expansion of the bowling-derived sense. Soap (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    How do you know that the bowling sense isn't derived from the ditch sense? SpinningSpark 14:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps he's joking. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


Baechle in Otterberg.jpg

Rfv-sense: "The part of a street meant for vehicles."

There are two cites, one of which seems to clearly support this definition, the other being ambiguous. Two more? DCDuring TALK 15:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Adjective: "Suitable for the gutter; vulgar, disreputable."

AFAIK, this is the figurative sense of the noun, which is used attributively. I don't think it is gradable or comparable or is used as a predicate. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the adjective, this occurred to me too. But how would we define the noun? If it's a noun that's only used attributively, then perhaps it's just an uncomparable adjective instead. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You can choose from the two adjoining senses, the one marked figurative which I added and the pre-existing one, which I had overlooked. One of the usage examples shows a use, fairly common in the US, as a substantive. We don't need both of the senses. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
A gutter can be in the middle of the street. I don’t think either quotation unambiguously supports the given definition. Michael Z. 2013-09-17 15:28 z
It seems to me that some contributor was struck by the usage with traffic and made that fact the center element of a definition, whereas it seems to me to be a consequence of a certain configuration of street-drainage design. Such a configuration is sufficiently far from my normal experience that I forgot that I have seen gutters that run in the middle of a street and transverse to the flow of traffic, as at an intersection. Perhaps I would/should have RfDed it instead, because it is a poor definition, building on a non-essential aspect of some gutters. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

file allocation table[edit]

Defined as a generic term, but Google Books rather suggests this is a proper noun referring to a specific file system. Proof of generic use is not provided. -- Liliana 15:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[5] uses the term in connection with Unix and describes something which is definitely not the usual Microsoft/IBM FAT system. [6] uses the term generically as does [7]. SpinningSpark 21:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you quote those uses in context? For example your first link is to a book named "Operating Systems: A Concept-based Approach". your second link is to "Cache and Memory Hierarchy Design: A Performance-directed Approach". The authors of your third example (A. A. Puntambekar and I. A. Dhotre) might be second language users (like me), e.g. "Features of Book" (instead of "Features of this Book"). -- 23:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do you need me to quote in context? Can you not read it in context in the link?. I am not going to go to the effort of transcribing citations for an entry that might get deleted. I don't understand the point you are making by bolding the word "approach" in the book titles. Is this meant to somehow detract from them as sources? The Puntambekar and Dhotre cite is definitely not poor English with a missing article. Section 13.10 of the book is "Allocation Methods" with subsections 13.10.1 (Contiguous Allocation), 13.10.2 (Linked Allocation), and 13.10.3 (Indexed Allocation) all describing a file allocation table for that method, discussed generically without reference to any particular operating system. If "file allocation system table" meant a specific system to the authors then they would not be able to use it in all three sections. SpinningSpark 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep I can read them now (and they are OK). I couldn't read them, because google had counted too many views. -- 12:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


This symbol was invented as a placeholder for the dollar sign in text encodings that had to be acceptable in non-dollar-using countries. It’s very nature means that it is unuseful. Has it ever been used (as opposed to merely being defined in glossaries and references)? Michael Z. 2013-09-12 21:59 z

I have a vague feeling that it was used in RISC OS (i.e. as something that would be presented to the user in some situations — perhaps currency-related), but can't remember any details... Or maybe not: all I can find by searching is that that slot was sometimes used for the (then new and unassigned) euro sign. Equinox 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Google and Bing refuse to search for it at all. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2007/03/15/1885864.aspx offers some hints about places where it's been used; maybe a 80s-era book on BASIC from Sweden or Russia might have it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
We can leave this on RfV for two months, since it resists searching.
The challenge is finding uses of this term (symbol), rather than merely mentions or definitions of it, since it is merely a placeholder. It might be used as a placeholder character for a different currency symbol in unpublished text, which would be difficult enough to cite, but I think it might be only a placeholder in the encoding tables, in which case it is probably not a term at all. Note that the cited terms lorem ipsum and etaoin shrdlu are names of placeholders – the names for this symbol are louse and sputnik, not ¤.
Don’t mistake text encoding or rendering errors for uses. If a writer was using a font that displayed a rouble, or yuan, or euro symbol, and expected his audience to see the same, that is the use of a particular code point, but not of this symbol. Also, uses in programming languages are not in any wt:CFI#Natural languages, and so do not count for inclusion in Wiktionary. Michael Z. 2013-09-17 15:14 z
If you have any citations that a writer used this, please show us. Otherwise, let's not speculate that a writer accidentally used this in absence of evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Does the symbol have a name? DCDuring TALK 13:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It is the old IBM international currency sign. It is used in Java as a placeholder for the current currency symbol when formatting a number: —Stephen (Talk) 13:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
AFAIR, it's not "a placeholder for the dollar sign", because for the dollar sign one would use $. In some countries (ehmm, UK)  was IIRC used for the national currency, but they switched to # (which seems to link to Wiktionary:Main Page, see Unsupported titles/Number sign). -- 00:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


Scots. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


Scots. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for ân Vietnamese reading, as it's not listed either in the Unihan database nor at the Nom Foundation website. Bumm13 (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see that whoever added the Vietnamese section assumed that matches its phonetic component () character's primary reading. This assumes that it isn't somehow irregular or that linguistic drift hasn't occurred, so a citation would be very helpful. Bumm13 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]


Rfv-sense for hải reading in Vietnamese section as it's not in either the Unihan database nor at the Nom Foundation website. Bumm13 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

consulting detective[edit]

Is this a real thing? Are there any consulting detectives in real life, or even any in fiction aside from Sherlock Holmes? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

[8]. Google Books has a lot to say on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This term certainly passes the primary CFI clauses, as it occurs in many Sherlock Holmes novels which are well-known works, the question is whether it is an in-universe term. google books:"consulting detective" -"holmes" -"poe" has more than enough results, but it seems a context label “detective mystery fiction” is warranted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes - I don't think the book you linked to is using "consulting detective" in the same sense as the definition in the entry. It seems to be using it to mean police detectives who are brought in to help solve a crime outside the jurisdiction in which they work because they have special expertise or experience (e.g. a police detective from San Francisco going up to help the police in Seattle), rather than a private detective who collaborates with the police à la Holmes. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

be, ce, ĉa, etc. (EO "alternative letter names")[edit]

Are these actually used by anyone? According to Wikipedia, the usage of these alternative names is a "proposal by Kálmán Kalocsay", but it sounds like one of those things that nobody ever actually started using. A quick Google search for these brings up the Wiktionary entries themselves, a website proposing that people use these letter names instead of the normal ones, and a confused forum post with a bunch of replies indicating that nobody has ever heard of this alternative version of the names. (Entries up for RFV are those added to the eo letters list template in this edit.)

(If anyone can show evidence that these are used, durably archived or not, I'll withdraw the RFV even if it doesn't technically satisfy CFI, since passing CFI is frequently hard for smaller languages.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(This was apparently also brought up by an IP a while back: Category talk:eo:Latin letter names. --Yair rand (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC))
When accurate transmission is necessary, seems like one should rather use Asfalto/Barbaro/Centimetro/Ĉefo/Doktoro... ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


I don't know the second sense (to thrust, to knock). http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/neuken (one needs to click through to neuken (geslachtsgemeenschap hebben)) cites M. Philippa e.a. dat de oorspr. betekenis van dit woord ‘stoten, rukken e.d.’ geweest moet zijn. If "neuken" is used in this sense in modern Dutch (or even Middle Dutch), Marlies Philippa would probably like to see those attestations. -- 18:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

nl:neuken actually gives it to mean 'to push' not 'to knock; to thrust'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It gives stoten#Dutch as a translation, which is part of ‘stoten, rukken e.d.’. Philippa says "geweest moet zijn" ("must have been", in this case "must have meant"), that is, she thinks it's the only explanation, but admits she doesn't have examples. -- 21:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I overlooked another explanation: there are attestations of neuken in the sense of "to thrust, to knock" (like [9] in 1873), but those are much too late to explain the taboo sense (om sijns eijsers vrou eens te mogen neuken, 1653). -- 20:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides, if I would translate "stoten" to physics, it's more about impulse than pressure, "hoofd/teen stoten". "de verkenners stoten op de vijand", "iemand wegstoten" vs. "iemand wegduwen". -- 21:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


So-called English word. (Definition is seen word-for-word in several other dodgy sites on the net) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got much time today, but if the other JA-reading editors don't clean this up before me, I'll have a go at it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


As far as I know, not cited in Vandalic nor in this form. I think his name was reported in Latin as Geisericus, in which case that would perhaps be the entry, but I'm not sure if that counts. In standardised spelling, I assume his name would be something like *Gaiseriks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Another Simpsons-based word. —CodeCat 13:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Google reveals Ich weiss nicht, ich finde das sehr allumpassend. There are also some informal dialogues (in blogs and chats) providing more refrences.


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It exists, though I doubt those using the term worry about a precise number and a study. Most usage refers to tribalities in the Arabian Peninsula, and there is another, trivially citable, sense: “the state of being tribal” (from the expected tribal + -ity). — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment The definition is nonsense - you can't be "limited to a median". I assume they mean that in a study of tribalities in different areas, the largest in each area had an average of 231 people, but that's not dictionary detail. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

grass tops[edit]

Rfv-sense X 2

  1. Adjective: It looks as if the usage is not of a true adjective, but rather attributive use of the noun.
  2. 2nd full definition: "A lobbying strategy which aims to involve people with power or influence at a local level." I am skeptical that there can be three instances of this use, which seems careless.

-- DCDuring TALK 15:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As an adjective. I realize that the first two are just versions of the same quote, but one is printed with a hyphen and the other with a space:
  • 2003, Tom Palmer, "Leaders' Retreat to Focus on Budget", The Ledger, 16 August 2003:
    "If it's just grass-tops and not grassroots, we won't get a good result," he said.
  • 2003, "Polk With a Vision", The Ledger, 22 August 2003:
    Larry Skidmore, Polk's director of human services, said that's exactly what was planned: "If it's just grass tops and not grassroots, we won't get a good result."
  • 2003, Cara Gardner, "Prepping For Surgery", The Pacific Northwest Inlander, 6 November 2003:
    "Some of the work is grassroots," he said, "and some of it is grass-tops -- like this summit."
  • 2007, Carla Marinucci, "Obama’s team oozes optimism", San Francisco Chronicle, 12 November 2007:
    Schwartz said Clinton’s campaign in California — which has been heavy on endorsements and organization — is more “grasstops” than “grassroots,” while the Illinois senator has “a campaign of inspiration and not obligation.”
  • 2011, Mark Totten, "Viewpoint: Promoting the potential of The Promise", Kalamazoo Gazette, 1 April 2011:
    But the response is not just grasstops; it's also grassroots.
  • 2012, Sophie Yan, "New group seeks to incite political action", Brown Daily Herald (Brown University), 3 December 2012:
    “We are grassroots, not grass-tops,” Kaplan said, meaning Common Sense Action seeks the opinions of all members regardless of leadership status within the group.
-Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed the second (not counting the plural) noun sense because you're probably right that it's impossible to cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The 2012 cite seems more easily interpretable as the noun. The others still don't seem right as adjectives, but they certainly seem to meet our formal standards. Please give me a little time to find some support for my dissatisfaction or to become reconciled to the usage. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
These all seem to be nouns. You can say 'these are dogs' but it doesn't mean 'dogs' is an adjective because it follows 'to be'. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think those with a singular verb not be explained away that way. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The verb agrees with the subject not the object. Grasstops isn't being used as a subject in any of these so it's just a question of agreement between the noun/pronoun and the verb, which is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
So sorry. The subject AND the verb in several cases is singular. I would expect agreement.
In addition, we have one instance of a comparative. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There was another discussion a while ago in which questions were raised over whether some cites represented an adjective modifying a noun or a noun attributively modifying a second noun. I took a few things away from that discussion about how to search for less ambiguous cites for a would-be adjective: look for comparatives ("more hippie"), instances of gradation ("extremely hippie," "a little hippie"), and instances of the word being used independently of a noun ("this is hippie" vs. "hippie food"). If there's anything I could do to refine that formula, I'd appreciate some pointers. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple more that I found:
-Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
For attestation these last two probably don't count because it is not at all clear that they are durably archived, but they help me personally get reconciled to the use of this as an adjective. I think your previous evidence (except the 2012 cite) is sufficient for attestation. It would be nice for someone else to weigh in.
As for refining the kind of citations for discriminating word-class membership, I have based everything on my readings of Huddleston & Pullum's CGEL. I don't know what other sources could supplement that, but there probably are some articles. Ruakh has had some good ideas for handling some tough cases. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense X 2. Same as above. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Food sense. I was trying to find an origin for this meaning of this word, and I couldn't even find this meaning for this word anywhere. — E | talk 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a difficult one to cite, due to a band called Pork Tornado, and a few newsgroup users with the name. I've added two cites so far, and will try and find another one or two to bulk it up a bit. The term is actually quite common in Ireland, although I think it is a recent introduction there (last 10 - 15 years).--Dmol (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
A follow-up question would be, then, if it should be entered as a phrase ('pork tornado'), and not a single word, since that seems to be the way you've been finding it. — E | talk 21:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I searched for beef tornado and found some errors for tournedos. Could it be an error for that somehow? Equinox 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it from Italian or some other romance language? tornar, etc. How is it pronounced? DTLHS (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm tempted to change it to being a misspelling of tournedo, and then leave it at that. It is common. In that case, I would argue against adding pork tornado, or beef tornado, as they would be sum-of-parts. The original entry was mine, is it ok for me to just change it, or should I wait for some agreement. --Dmol (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed it being a misspelling for tournedos in my brief Google searches, but the tornado and the tournedos are two distinctly different foods, so I dunno. Maybe there's two things here: one sense of tornado a term in its own right, for a certain preparation of pork, and one a misspelling for tournedos, influenced by the previous? Who knows. Dmol, you seem to have the firsthand knowledge here, so whatever you think best, I'd say go for it. — E | talk 23:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
(tangent:) I hadn't heard of meaty tornados or of tournedos till now, but I have encountered a different food sense of the word tornado in the US: a sweet frozen dairy product apparently similar to a milkshake. google books:"chocolate tornado" turns up a few relevant hits, as well as several duplicates and hits for still more food products. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
An off-brand/competitor's variation (and weather-named-takeoff) on a Blizzard, perhaps? — E | talk 00:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You can get these at Cumberland Farms in the USA. I don't think it has anything to do with Tournedos and I don't think it has to specifically be made of pork. See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G2OrSefHCLM/TyKhleTOeyI/AAAAAAAAE4k/9kLgcDl8Oxw/s320/photo.JPG We're probably talking about two different foods though, so there's the "tournedo" sense and the "really tight tortilla wrap" sense. Soap (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Supposedly "Estonia". See Talk:爱斯导尼亚. The name copied from Wu Wikipedia, which is full of newly coined terms (in a newly coined writing system). All Chinese topolects use the official spelling 愛沙尼亞 (trad.) / 爱沙尼亚 (simpl.) but pronounce it in their way. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Ungoliant (Falai) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 03:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "toxicity due to poisonous substances derived from fish". DTLHS (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Tosh. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Not tosh. The usage is rare and overshadowed by that of the other sense, but it exists: this and this are pretty obvious, but the rest are cryptic snippets. this and this are likely, given the context, but it's not open-and-shut. It's pretty hard to tell which sense is used in a given snippet, since a great deal of human poisoning from fish is the result of toxic organisms ingested by fish that poison both the fish and the people who eat the fish. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds plausible, if we believe what the entry for ichthyotoxin says: it is both a substance poisonous to fish and a poisonous substance produced by fish. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If a fish has a defense against predatory fish that includes a toxin, I would hold that one would call the phenomenon idioichthyotoxicity because it killed fish rather than because it was produced by a fish. I was unable to find any instances in the academic literature about fish that inconsistent with that view, which literature has well in excess of 90% of the book and article citations. The instance of human poisoning discussed in that literature make it clear that ichthytoxicity is about ichthycide, with human poisoning through seafood a derivative phenomenon about with the word is not used.
The two citations that Chuck found (the same that I had found) are not from that literature, but rather from more human focused and possibly less scholarly literature, where concern for human distress trumps ichthycide by a wide margin.
I don't think in each of the two usage communities, the dominant usage probably almost completely blocks the other, which may account for the anger that seemed present at and before the beginning of this discussion. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it only me, but I consistently fail to grasp the point in DCD's writings? What should we do with the entry? --Hekaheka (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two meanings, one widely attested only in scientific usage (AFAICT), and a rare, possibly unattestable one used as if intended for a general population. Confusion seems to result from the same toxin that causes ichthycide also causing distress in humans. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hekaheka could always try communicating directly, as if I were in the room. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to appear etc. quickly". Seems to be straight out of Urban Dictionary. Google seems to suggest that this actually exists, at least in the past tense ([10]), but what does it actually mean? Can it be durably cited? This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Spanish, augmentative of pivón. — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 03:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


The etymology (aureus + -olum) suggests this is a mistake for aureolus. All I can find is someone’s last name. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Is anything I've added to Citations:auroleus at all helpful? You're right that most of the hits on Google Books are for Paracelsus' full name, but tellingly misspelt as Philippus Auroleus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim. My guess is that this is a misspelling that crops up in many languages, including English, Latin, German, Spanish, Italian, and Korean. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
That covers translingual. If the Latin is indeed a misspelling, we need someone to confirm it is common enough to warrant an entry. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the threshold for Latin misspellings? Bear in mind that I've only searched for the nominative singular masculine; there are thirty-five other forms. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone here developed something to facilitate searches for all inflected forms of a lemma, using our inflection tables or someone else's? Is Google smart enough to do this in its supported languages? DCDuring TALK 19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've created {{la-decl-1&2 bgc}} which automatically creates exact-phrase Google-Books searches for the declined forms generated by {{la-decl-1&2}} (and works similarly to it). Here it is in action in the case of auroleus (the code below is {{la-decl-1&2 bgc|aurole}}):
Number Singular Plural
Case \ Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter
nominative auroleus aurolea auroleum,
aurolei auroleae,
genitive aurolei auroleae,
aurolei auroleorum,
dative auroleo auroleae,
auroleo auroleis auroleis auroleis
accusative auroleum,
auroleos auroleas aurolea
ablative auroleo aurolea,
auroleo auroleis auroleis auroleis
vocative aurolee aurolea auroleum,
aurolei auroleae,


It's a bit messy at the moment, but it's a start. I can think of three definite improvements:
  1. Removal of the google books: prefix and the phrase-marking quotation marks from every search term (so it looks like {{la-decl-1&2}});
  2. Institution of "macron-blindness" (so it acts more like {{la-decl-1&2}}); — Stricken. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)       and,
  3. Removal of redundant links for isomorphic forms, meaning that, for example, the nominative singular feminine form would be linked, but the ablative singular feminine, vocative singular feminine, nominative neuter plural, accusative neuter plural, and vocative neuter plural forms would all be unlinked (saving editors from wasting their time making several identical searches).
I don't have the time to work on the template any more right now. Y'all are welcome to step in anytime to improve on my work. ;-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it could create a single link to all the quoted forms separated by " OR "? --WikiTiki89 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Right. I've done a lot of work on {{la-decl-1&2 bgc}}, as well as on {{la-decl-adj-table-m+f+n bgc}}, which it transcludes. The result, in my opinion, is a rather great improvement: I've instituted improvements № 1 and № 3 which I listed above, and I've added a "SEARCH ALL FORMS" function per WikiTiki's suggestion. I no longer think improvement № 2 would be a good idea (hence my strikethrough), because actual Latin text (this and other dictionaries' standardised presentation notwithstanding) often uses diacritics and/or ligatures, especially during the Mediaeval and Early Modern periods. I intend to add supplementary support for case endings with the spellings (nom. sg. n., acc. sg. m., acc. sg. n., voc. sg. n.), (gen. sg. f., dat. sg. f., nom. pl. f., voc. pl. f.), (acc. sg. f.), (abl. sg. f.), -orũ (gen. pl. m., gen. pl. n.), and -arũ (gen. pl. f.); if anyone knows of any other regular spelling variants for the case endings, let me know, and I'll add them, too. If use of {{la-decl-1&2 bgc}} catches on, I can create b.g.c.-searchers for the other Latin declension templates, if desired. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. I had not realized how difficult it would be to do it "right". I look forward to similar work in other languages and, eventually, some kind of generalization or standardization of how this kind of search is invoked in all inflected languages. Current English is really too easy to do using manual methods, but earlier modern English would also benefit. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I do have an idea for a template to aid in searching for variant Early-Modern spellings of English compound words (or any word with distinct elements, really), but I don't have the energy to devote to that right now, having just created {{la-decl-adj-table-m+f+n bgc}} and {{la-decl-1&2 bgc}}. Would you like me to inform you when I've made some progress with it? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you should tell the world. Latin and EME are languages for which all-forms search has come up explicitly in RfV. It might well come up in other languages as more questionable entries are added, the more certain ones having already been added. It would seem that each of this kind of template should be added to a suitably named generic category as well as a suitable language category. For now, Category:External link templates, which includes {{googles}} will have to do. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It's nice to know my work is appreciated. :-) Re notifying the community of these templates' existence, I had intended to post messages to the user talk pages of all the users who've added Latin Babel boxes to their user pages, but quickly abandoned that I idea when I noticed that Category:User la lists 264 such users. Instead, I was going to add a notification thereof to Wiktionary:News for editors, but it seems I can't edit that page (Is editing it only open to administrators?), so I asked that someone else do it (see Wiktionary talk:News for editors#new Latin whole-lexeme–search templates); if you are able to, would you mind posting the notification for me, please? Re categorisation, I had already created Category:Latin inflection-table search templates (which itself is a member of Category:Latin inflection-table templates and the currently non-existent Category:Inflection-table search templates by language) for them; per your suggestion, I've also added both templates to Category:External link templates.
Please note that I have written documentation for the templates; it may well help comprehensibility (the documentation for {{la-decl-adj-table-m+f+n bgc}}, at >9½kB, is particularly thorough). I'll keep you posted on any developments pertaining to the compound-words searcher. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done DCDuring TALK 19:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I've now added the supplementary support for case endings with the spellings , , , , -orũ, and -arũ.
Unfortunately, there seems to be something wrong with the "SEARCH ALL FORMS" function (or, rather, with Google Books’ search engine):
Because A-query B-query, it is logically necessary that A-hits B-hits, yet A-hits B-hits. I don't think that the "SEARCH ALL FORMS" function can be relied upon to give accurate results. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Does Google now allow the pipe character instead of "OR"? --WikiTiki89 20:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and it works like OR, except that it doesn't have the problem mentioned here. Compare the above with google books:"auroleus" OR "aurolea" OR "auroleum" OR "aurolei" OR "auroleae" OR "auroleorum" OR "aurolearum" OR "auroleo" OR "auroleis" OR "auroleam" OR "auroleos" OR "auroleas" OR "aurolee" and google books:"auroleus" OR "aurolea" OR "auroleum" OR "aurolei" OR "auroleae" OR "auroleorum" OR "aurolearum" OR "auroleo" OR "auroleis" OR "auroleam" OR "auroleos" OR "auroleas" OR "aurolee" OR "auroleũ" OR "auroleæ" OR "auroleorũ" OR "aurolearũ" OR "auroleã" OR "auroleâ". — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see a difference between "OR" and "|", but whatever. --WikiTiki89 21:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no difference in their function in the four example queries I've linked to hitherto; however, the following four queries should indicate an important difference between their functions:
Notice that the fourth search query, which has its first "OR unbookended by search terms", returns <22% the number of hits returned by the other three search queries. By contrast, the first and third search queries return the same number of hits, even though the third search query has its first | unbookended by search terms. Does that elucidate the difference between the functions of OR and | in Google Books search queries for you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I see. It is a syntactic issue rather than a functional issue. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. Sorry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are some statistics generated from that table above:


  • 576 total hits for all forms of *auroleus

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To make this work really well it might be useful to allow one to search on only the forms that were not found in English and Romance language dictionaries. In this case all the nominative singular forms are used in taxonomic names, aureola is an English word, Aureolus is part of the full Latin name of Paracelsus, etc. Maybe some "ifexist" tests would help find at least those that had Wiktionary entries. I think one could determine whether a Wiktionary entry that did exist included an English, taxonomic, or non-Latin Romance language term. DCDuring TALK 23:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Could one not simply discount the links generated for the terms that have an unacceptable noise-to-signal ratio? As for the "SEARCH ALL FORMS" function, I don't think there's much point investing the effort in adding those ifexist tests to a function that is demonstrably unreliable on a more fundamental level. In the specific case of the forms of *auroleus, it doesn't look like any of them are legitimate entries: they're just misspellings in various languages of the forms of aureolus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is an equivalent table for the forms of the correctly spelt aureolus:

Number Singular Plural
Case \ Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter
nominative aureolus aureola aureolum,
aureoli aureolae,
genitive aureoli aureolae,
aureoli aureolorum,
dative aureolo aureolae,
aureolo aureolis aureolis aureolis
accusative aureolum,
aureolos aureolas aureola
ablative aureolo aureola,
aureolo aureolis aureolis aureolis
vocative aureole aureola aureolum,
aureoli aureolae,


And here are the statistics generated from it:


  • 1,522,208 total hits for all forms of aureolus

Taken as whole lexemes, the relative frequency of aureolus:auroleus on Google Books is 2,642⁵⁄₁₈:1. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to DCDuring's suggestion above (see his post timestamped 23:04, 13 November 2013 [UTC]) that one ought to remove from consideration forms homographic with terms in other languages:
  • 1,522,208 (LEXaureolus) − 133,000 (aureolus, species epithet and proper name) − 701,000 (aureola, species epithet and English word) − 30,400 (aureolum, species epithet) − 3,670 (aureolae, English plural noun) − 284 (aureolæ, English plural noun) − 430,000 (aureole, English word) − 41,100 (aureolas, English plural noun) = 1,522,208 − 1,339,454 = 182,754
With those forms eliminated, the relative frequency of aureolus:auroleus on Google Books is 317⁹⁄₃₂:1; which is to say that LEX*auroleus occurs at less than 0·32% the frequency of LEXaureolus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In support of my heretofore unchallenged hypothesis that this word is a misspelling wherever it occurs, I hypothesise that this misspelling occurs because it doesn't immediately look wrong, and that this is because it looks like a member of the fairly large class of adjectives derived from the suffix -eus; coupled with the existence of aurōra, this makes *auroleus and its forms look like natural Latin. (Which is without mentioning aurōreus and even *aureoleus!) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this lexeme's entries be deleted, with MISSPELLING OF aureol[case ending] given as their deletion comments. That way, any future editor who attempts to readd the misspelt entry will be given the reason not to do so, and we won't have other editors' misspellings generating blue links. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not just do a soft redirect with {{misspelling of}}? --WikiTiki89 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Because that generates those undesirable blue links for said misspellings. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]


Rfv-sense: (Sanskrit) problem

Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Listed in spokensanskrit.de. —Stephen (Talk) 00:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


google books:"extravolution", google groups:"extravolution", extravolution at OneLook Dictionary Search. Given the search results, could be speeded as obviously unattested and whoever claims otherwise would still have the option of placing citations at Citations:extravolution. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - to gather. Not according to the French Wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's ramasser. Remasser might be a variant, but I suspect it's just a rare error and therefore not includable. It might mean remassage though. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's an archaic form, definitely real, seems common in the 1700s and 1800s. http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/ramasser Doesn't mention it much to my surprise. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Corrected (as remassage). Feel free to add archaic usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that we edited this as the same time. Does it mean remassage? I'm not seeing it on Google Books. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I've re-tagged the entry and un-struck the header, since it seems from Mg's comments above that this still needs to be cited. - -sche (discuss) 09:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for definition "water that does not recede and cannot be diverted". Purportedly given in the Kangxi Dictionary (1716), the definition isn't in the Unihan database (which, in itself, isn't a problem) and almost seems to contradict one or more of the definitions given at zdic.net (Han Dian dictionary site). It'd be nice to have someone native or near-native in reading Chinese have a look at this definition to see if it's valid. Bumm13 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not near-native in reading Chinese, but it looks like this definition is indeed in the Kangxi dictionary: "水不通不可别流" [14]. Mr. Granger (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Kangxi dictionary cites the very old Yupian dictionary, which gives the same definition. Mr. Granger (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, after working with several sources and translation tools, I finally was able to parse the "cannot be diverted" part (不可别流). The "that does not recede" definition seems a bit odd to me, as the literal translation that I'm getting for that part is "stopped" or "blocked" (不通, a compound word) rather than "recede". Bumm13 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
That's true in modern Chinese, but in classical Chinese, words are generally monosyllabic, so my guess would be that it should be parsed as two words: 不=not, 通=pass through. (But again, I'm no expert - we need someone who can read classical Chinese.) Mr. Granger (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense:A group of nations for the purpose of a knockout tournament.

I don't think it is necessarily a group of nations, a group of teams would do too. I am unsure if it is called a knockout tournament while teams/nations are still playing in pools, perhaps the knockout stages are described as "direct knockout" or whatever. -- 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward mistake. Doesn't refer to the nations; doesn't have to be nations can be cities or people or animals (or objects I suppose, anything!) It refers to the group and not for a knockout tournament, but for a competition (I can't think who you'd use this outside of a competition, anyone?) Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it is often used for the initial stages of what will later become a knockout tournament. Also note that, at least sometimes, but I think often, the word "group" is used when the teams aren't national teams. Even other words are used when the pools are split geographically (e.g. to save travel time/expenses). -- 20:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think in most cases, there are at least two pools, Pool A and Pool B (the only exception I can think of is the medal round of the 1980 U.S. Hockey tournament). And, yes, there are some competitions that have two round robin stages Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (psychology, psychoanalysis, Freud) Simultaneously familiar and foreign, often uncomfortably so; translation of Freud's German unheimlich ("no longer secret").

I request attestation per WT:ATTEST. Sense originally added on 7 January 2007‎ in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation by who? Perhaps not all translators would use the same word. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that this is a widespread, standard English term for Freud's unheimlich. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Mr. Granger (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Still needs citing. When cited, we can see if the citations lead to a specific gloss or usage note such as "in translations of Freud". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Would it help that the essay titled Das Unheimliche (1919) is canonically titled "The Uncanny" in English translation? I imagine the entire essay would count as citation. The supplied translation of "Unheimlich" as "no longer secret" is somewhat baffling. It clearly breaks down as "un-homely", meaning "not comfortably familiar", and "uncanny" = "beyond one's ken" seems a good direct translation (in terms of the implications of being disturbing and potentially distressing). --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Cited. Mr. Granger (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the cites added in diff by you, we now have enough evidence to see that "the uncanny" is used in reference to Freud. But what about evidence attesting "Simultaneously familiar and foreign, often uncomfortably so" definition? I emphasize the apparent contradition in the definition. On one more note, the def says '... German unheimlich ("no longer secret")', where "no longer secret" seems implausible given both unheimlich and unheimlich in Duden online. On a final note, the sense actually attested in references to Freud should IMHO significantly differ from the sense of "strange, and mysteriously unsettling" (which we already have) in order to be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the definition could use to be reworded. Maybe something like "similar to what is familiar, but having an unnerving foreign quality"? I don't know enough German to comment on the "no longer secret" gloss, except to say that the word heimlich apparently does mean "secret".
I do think this definition is distinct from "strange and mysteriously unsettling". When someone discussing Freud uses the word uncanny, they have this very specific meaning in mind, not a general idea of "mysteriously unsettling". Mr. Granger (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

postaĵumadi and postaĵumado[edit]

Verb and noun respectively, meaning moon (display buttocks). I can't find them being used anywhere outside of Wikimedia projects. Mr. Granger (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Tekstaro. CEED instead translates "moon" with the less euphemistic pugumi.
  • 1995, Peter Benson, Comprehensive English-Esperanto Dictionary, El Cerrito: Esperanto League for North America, page 335:
    moon, [] (show buttocks), pugumi [tr]; []
~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Even pugumi looks suspicious to me - the only use I can find is as a translation of the Latin word pedico, which means sodomize. Mr. Granger (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems a cromulent use of -um- to me, but tekstaro and bgc have not produced any cites, and Sekretaj Sonetoj didn't use that one. Might have to scour the newsgroups. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - syllable used in solfège. — E | talk 19:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether this is English or ==Translingual==. Here are 1, 2, 3 hits in (what I take to be) French (found using google books:za ut mi|re fa|sol. Note that I have not by any means exhausted that search: there may well be more hits there).​—msh210 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
In that case, would it be French only? — E | talk 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's one in Spanish: [20]. Mr. Granger (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


I can find plenty of Google hits confirming that it is a legitimate greeting used in a particular county in TN. IDK if it's widespread enough for a dictionary though. — E | talk 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

According to WT:CFI#Attestation, you need to be able to find three independent, durably archived citations (try Google Books or Usenet). You also need to put the correct {{context}} labels that indicate where it is used. --WikiTiki89 02:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Unless it's a dead language, but I think they are all still very much alive in Tennessee. Whether they are able to write so we can cite them is an entirely different question. SpinningSpark 00:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


There are no citations and the usage examples are in the plural only. If we are going to have a singular entry for what is in most folks' current English a plural-only noun, we should have citations for each sense in the singular. I suspect that usage in speech is minimal, mostly something like "What is a shenanigan anyway?" DCDuring TALK 05:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The entry "shenanigans has one sense less than "shenanigan". The only translation table provided for "shenanigans" is for the non-existent sense, i.e. the one that is provided in singular only. Somebody's fingers have been faster than his brain. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The translation table was "borrowed" without modification from the shenanigan entry, along with just about everything else- even interwikis. Just about the only thing they didn't copy was the missing sense. Not all that great a job- they managed to add an "s" to all the instances of shenanigan, but that was about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
SpinningSpark 14:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Which of these support which of the three definitions? Two of the definitions would seem to be worded as uncountable ("trickery" and "play"). The citations all fit a definition like "trick". None support the other senses. It is only the other senses that I am familiar with and only in the plural. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Whenever I read the singular form I feel that the author is playing with the word, ie, that it is a "literary"-type use. I don't think I have ever heard it used in the singular in my life. I'm not entirely alone: at COCA the plural outnumbers the singular 28 to 1; at BNC the count is 36 to 0. But looking at COHA it seems that use of the singular preceded use in the plural and has continued into the present. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have converted the RfV of all three senses to an RfV of the singular of the two senses that I know only in the plural. It would be nice to see the citations supporting the singular sense actually where they belong, in the entry, under the definition they support. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Adjective: of or relating to gamma rays or gamma radiation. I repeat, adjective. Surely this is a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[24] shows "gamma-ray bursts", "gamma-ray astronomy", "gamma-ray spectroscopy", and more. It kind of seems like it's just being used attributively, except for the hyphen - it looks to me like it's written without a hyphen normally but with a hyphen when it's being used to modify a noun. Mr. Granger (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hyphenating the component words of a noun phrase is standard when the noun phrase is used attributively; "'gamma-ray bursts', 'gamma-ray astronomy', [and] 'gamma-ray spectroscopy'" are more correct than "gamma ray bursts", "gamma ray astronomy", and "gamma ray spectroscopy". That doesn't make these noun-phrases-used-attributively true adjectives, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks to pass the RFV, though someone should add the cites to the entry; the POS question is a good one, but doesn't affect whether we have the entry. Note that we have quite a few {{form of|attributive form|...}} (or similar) entries; some are =Adjective=s, some =Noun=s (or =Proper Noun=s where the unhyphenated versions are =Proper Noun=s). We should probably decide on one or the other at some point.​—msh210 (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm challenging the current definition, not ones we may have in future. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


I ask that proper attestations as per WT:ATTEST are entered into Wiktionary for all the senses. The most likely pertinent criterion is "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year", where I emphasize "permanently recorded media" as traditionally interpreted in RFV processes; I don't believe "The New York Times" quotes currently listed for the 4th sense are permanently recorded as per the traditional interpretation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There are now three citations for sense two. There are also at least three citations for the "catch-all" sense four, but I am leery about having such a sense as a "definition" of word. bd2412 T 03:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
There are examples of catch-all senses out there. For example, see sense 3 of board. I don't like them either, but what else can you do with a term that is used in a catch-all way?
As for the status of the NYT citations, I can easily find other printed NYT print citations. When I put them in, I was getting kind of lazy. I'm absolutely certain r-word meaning retirement and recession would easily pass strict CFI in just half an hour of looking. R-word meaning retirement pops up whenever a star athlete is way past his prime: Favre has been dancing around the R-word for three years now and the like. R-word meaning recession pops up whenever the economy starts slowing down: Despite poor jobs reports two quarters in a row, the White House refuses to mention the R-word is common enough. Choor monster (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
My issue with the catch-all sense is really an RfD issue - that it is SOP; I believe that it is only where attestation supports a particular sense (as with sense 2 here) that the configuration of letter-hyphen-"word" becomes idiomatic. bd2412 T 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The construction may be SOP, but no particular sense ever is. Do you want a RfV for sense 3 of board? Compare with Appendix:Snowclones. I've been browsing through all sorts of citations, and in some of them, I'm stymied for a bit as to what the word being euphemized actually is. Here is a deliberately humorous example. In fact, the only instance of SOP would be something like one example I came across: a scientific study which reported success at training Japanese listeners with English as a late second language to hear the difference between L and R. The study involved listening to pairs like "light" and "right", "long" and "wrong", etc., and summarized results in terms of L-words versus R-words. Along the way I've been finding other senses that I recognize of usages I've come across but when I went on my minispree last month, simply never came to mind, eg, t-word=terrorism The FBI will not use the T-word, or m-word=marriage, l-word=love, r-word=relationship, etc. Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up, I do want an RFD of sense 3 of board. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me. I think we need a standard policy for these "snowclone"-words. They are in some kind of linguistic limbo, between being a genuine word and being a standard construction of sorts. A more obscure example, introduced by me and which drove me nuts trying to shoehorn it in was sosh, as an all-purpose abbreviation for fixed phrases beginning with "social". For example, "social security number" (what's your sosh?, a common question when calling certain bureaucracies, "social studies", (at college, like "chem 101", short for "chemistry 101"). A more experienced editor fixed it up for me a bit, but I still was not happy with the results. Choor monster (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Any attestation meeting WT:ATTEST? The sole current definition: "A person who has a psychological fear of sexual relations or sexual intercourse". google books:"genophobe", google groups:"genophobe", genophobe at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Added one cite. Mr. Granger (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Added two more cites. Now there are three. Mr. Granger (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That 1943 cite does not have enough context to determine the meaning of the word and I think it is likely that it refers to something else. --WikiTiki89 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In the 1943 cite, the next sentence mentions the word "genophilic", glossing it as "philoprogenitive". It seems obvious to me that by this they mean "sex-loving", which suggests that their use of "genophobe" is for this sense. Mr. Granger (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on our entries for philoprogenitive and genophilia, it could just as easily mean "fear of one's offspring". Either way, that context should be added to our entry as part of the citation. --WikiTiki89 19:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. That does seem more likely. Mr. Granger (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


Russian. Tagged with this reason: non-existent, the correct form is по-испа́нски (po-ispánski). --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

google books:"и испански" --WikiTiki89 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Convinced. I will de-tag and add usage notes. It seems it's only used to avoid repetition of prefix "по-". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Is that the only circumstance it's used in — ellipsis, where the prefix is present just two words earlier? I'm not convinced that proves "испански" to be a word. (Even if we treat it as one, we might make use of {{only used in}} or something like it.) Consider that searches like google books:"civil and personal rights" and google books:"Herren- und Damenbekleidung" don't suggest that "civil" is a noun meaning "civil rights" or that "Herren" means "men's clothing". - -sche (discuss) 23:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It depends on how you analyze it. I've always thought of it as being its own adverb that requires the preposition/prefix/whatever-you-wanna-call-it по (po). —This unsigned comment was added by Wikitiki89 (talkcontribs).
I couldn't find such adverbs without the prefix "по-" in any dictionary. Yes, they are only used when the prefix was used earlier but repeating the prefix is quite common as well: по-русски, по-английски, по-немецки, etc. So, the formatting of such forms is still a question mark. No matter how you analyse it, adverbs are not formed in Russian by simply adding "-ски". It is a special case of ellipsis. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn’t say that it is about adding "-ски" to form adverbs, but changing "-ский" to "-ски" (cf. политически, психологически, идеологически, систематически, практически, теоретически, экологически, технологически, категорически, тематически, лингвистически). —Stephen (Talk) 09:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't work for all types of adverbs, though, e.g. you can't simply remove "по-" from adverbs like по-дружески, по-человечески, по-господски, по-русски, по-английски OR from по-военному, по-деловому, по-новому and get a valid adverb. What -sche has described fits this situation but I don't know how to format it yet. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
re google search: Please notice that all google hits (with a single exception) are at least century old. They are from the times when "по-" could have been written without hyphen. The only modern ref may be attributed to author's stylistic trick. Therefore I would suggest to keep the entry with the mark "archaic" and usage restricted to enumerative ellipsis. Altenmann (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
As an alternative to my suggestion of having an only used in-type template, what about a form of template that would display "ellipsis of"? - -sche (discuss) 22:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

birota automataria[edit]

Latin for "motorcycle". Mr. Granger (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I found one citation at the site mentioned above. See Citations:birota automataria. I'd appreciate any improvements in the formatting. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

tabula rotata gubernabilis[edit]

Latin for "kick scooter". Mr. Granger (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


The three citations are actually for turtlings (2) and turtle-lings (1). None of them support this form! I can barely see it on Google Books either. Equinox 23:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's used with this spelling here [[25]] —This unsigned comment was added by Leasnam (talkcontribs) at 04:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC).
  • RFV failed, entry deleted. I've moved the cites to turtling, with an edit-summary note crediting Leasnam. —RuakhTALK 03:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

suave na nave[edit]

Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "A distinctive feeling, aura, or atmosphere." TBNL (tagged but not listed). - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh, surprising. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 05:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm disputing the meaning. It seems that it would be more accurate to say "A distinctive feeling, aura, or atmosphere that karma is about to take effect."
Take for example, "If you focus your mind you can feel the rain before it starts." Does this justify the a new definition of rain as "A distinctive feeling, aura, or atmosphere that it's about to rain."? --WikiTiki89 05:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that is the meaning of any of the cites provided and for some of them that interpretation is pretty impossible. The third cite, for instance, is a recording engineer setting up a studio for the right karma. He surely does not mean that he can prevent karma from biting him in the arse for a previous action by setting it up just right. Cite five is an architect looking for a property with more wall space. The karma is referring to whether the place feels right, not whether the karma from a previous incarnation will be enacted there. That may be how karma=feeling arose etymologically, but it is still a different usage. SpinningSpark 09:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit that I made that comment after only looking at the first cite (the one actually quoted here). Now after looking at all of them, I do see that my interpretation is impossible for a few of them, but even for most of them I think my interpretation is more likely. --WikiTiki89 14:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
In the first cite the author is talking about the gut instinct that comes from experience. This becomes entirely plain if the entire paragraph is read. He starts off talking about "using your gut", goes on with the quote above about the karma (atmosphere) of a bar where a fight is about to break out, and later asks "[h]ow many soldiers are alive today because something just did not feel right and they changed their direction..." This use of karma cannot possibly be read as any kind of repayment for past actions; it is all about using one's gut to assess the atmosphere (karma) of a current situation and possibly change it by taking preemptive action. Karma as a force of nature is inevitable and cannot be avoided, ergo, this usage is not that karma. SpinningSpark 00:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I stand corrected. The part of the quote that demonstrates that should be included when the citation is added to the entry. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "immigrant". Is it individual?

I think, the Ukrainian original sense "miser, moneygrubber, penny pincher, cheapskate" (which I have added) gave rise to the second - "kulak" (a prosperous peasant) after the October 1917 revolution, when the campaign against kulaks was in full swing.--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is after Mel’nyčuk v 3, p 155, which glosses куркуль as «багатий селянин-власник, на якого працюють наймити; [переселенець з іншої місцевості]». Looking at the introduction, I now see that square brackets denote діалектні слова або значення слів (“dialactal terms or senses”). I am adding a label. Michael Z. 2013-11-23 19:01 z
Technically RFV is supposed to supply three non-mention citations. But I think that definition is believable. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This sense sounds quite weird to me, even though Ukrainian is not my first language. Still need citations, otherwise it should be deleted. I can't find anything but mentions, no uses. Just a hint: this pejorative sense for migrants, resettlers may be related to Polish masters, if existence is proven. There's not enough old Ukrainian literature on the web to search for book examples. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless validity of the comments above, the translation as 'immigrant' is invalid; at least inconsistent within wiktionary, where "immigrant" specifically refers to comers from other country. I'd rather suggest a more generic 'migrant'. Altenmann (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A confirmation from another uk dictionary:

Куркуль, -ля́, м. Пришлый, захожій изъ другои мѣстности человѣкъ, поселившійся на постоянное жительство. Екатер. г. Залюбовск. Слов. Д. Эварн. Въ Чигир. у. — прозвище, даваемое въ насмѣшку мѣщанами казакамъ черноморцамъ. / Source: Словарь української мови / Упор. з дод. влас. матеріалу Б. Грінченко : в 4-х т. — К. : Вид-во Академії наук Української РСР, 1958. Том 2, ст. 330.
Here "г. Залюбовск.: is a reference to the dictionary of the ethnographer w:uk:Залюбовський Григорій Антонович. Altenmann (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
However I'd mark this meaning as rare. Altenmann (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that both О. С. Мельничук (1982) and Грінченко (1958) may source their wisdom only to Залюбовський (19th century), since 20th century firmly sees only one meaning of the word. And I can readily imagine that in some localities the colonists were called kurkuls: it is well-known that in Russian Empire many lands of modern Ukraine were devoid of population and Russian tsars invited new settlers from foreign lands, most prominently Germans. There colonists were hard toilers, rich, and used hired labor. So I can readily imagine a Kangaroo-legend-type situation when an enthographer Залюбовський came to some poor steppe village, asked "Who lives over there?" - to get a disgruntled answer "These are kurkuls. They came from Serbia to get rich here. Altenmann (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


“a data object that is able, and feasible, to become a physical object using an additive manufacturing process such as with a 3D printer” — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

N2e (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WT:CFI. Blogs and online articles are not valid, and the citations must span a year. — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I've got it (barely) cited.
Also, there are a surprising number of uses in edited works of the spelling where I would expect feasible, especially by authors who may be non-native speakers. Is there a reason for this apart from homophony? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
*near homophony --WikiTiki89 16:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The third cite is a mention (and so is the first, but the term is used in the title). — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So it's a common misspelling of the noun 'feasible' is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting it. I see the corresponding error for feasibility, too, but it is not common relative to anything, whereas physible as a misspelling is more common than the challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The first Google books hit for me (google books:"physible") has "It is a realm where you behold the invisible and turn it into physible." I can't tell if it's a misspelling of visible or just a pun. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Physible and visible are phonologically identical apart from the first consonant sound, but the spelling is different enough I strongly suspect this to be wordplay not a spelling mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I concur completely. Rather explicitly a variation (perhaps what you call "wordplay") that is intentional, and receiving acceptance and use within the 3D printing and additive manufacturing community. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense I think that this sense is ambiguous, and it should be split into two different senses. I've already added my proposal, which is one sense for "final point" (e.g. the end of a movie), and one sense for "extreme point, edge" (e.g. both ends of a cable; burn the candle at both ends; hold the end of the thread). I haven't touched the original sense "extreme part", but I already tried to move some translations into the new senses. I have to admit I don't speak Mandarin or Ukrainian, but I'm pretty positive that the people who added "qualifier:edge" were thinking the same thing as I do. I'm not a native English speaker, so feel free to suggest a better formulation than "extreme point, edge". Additionally, you might consider adding a corresponding sense to the main part of the article. Jenniepet (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Which sense? I can't see a tagged sense in end. Also, since you're not disputing its existence, rfv seems like the wrong forum; perhaps WT:RFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think (s)he split the translation tables along the lines mentioned. But RfC is a better venue for this. Sometimes (often ?) spatial and temporal definitions are better separated. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the WT:RFV request, undid the changes I had made to the translation senses and used some qualifiers in the original translation sense. I will not be making a clean-up request.Jenniepet (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As a clarification, the difference is not spatial versus temporal. In spatial use, there are two cases. Objects with a start and a finish, e.g. books, and objects with two ends (or more), e.g. thread, table. To give an example in a better known language, in French you would say la fin du livre (the end of the book) and un bout du fil (one end of the thread). Jenniepet (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say that a book is temporal. --WikiTiki89 22:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the kind of discussion that could continue without reaching an end.
A physical (spatial) path can be looked at in two ways, something with a beginning and an end (as when one is starting to take it) or with two ends (as when one is in the middle or when one is looking at it on a map). Purpose or goal is sometimes involved but I don't think it is implied by the word itself. In the case of a spatial application of the word end, the distinction is often not made or not relevant. For something temporal, normal discourse requires a distinction between a beginning and an end. That often corresponds to a purpose or an achievement. Of course end can have an essentially telic sense that is completely non-spatial and inherently temporal, in that in normal discourse a purpose or goal is always after the activity required to achieve it.
I think the question is whether there is an additional telic vs non-telic or spatial vs temporal distinction that would make a useful English distinction and/or help with clarifying translations. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
One relevant distinction between the spatial and temporal is that a physical path has two ends either of which could be called a beginning. A period of time has one beginning and one end, which are not interchangeable in normal discourse. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


If this is found only in Chaucer, shouldn't it have a Middle English header? Either way it needs citations for English, Middle English, or both. --WikiTiki89 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to cite. It's not so easy to tell when it died out and got replaced by damne/damn because a lot of the later attestations of dampne are just citing older works such as Chaucer. But it seems to be unambiguously citable until about 1550. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
We already have the Middle English at dampnen. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, what through me off was the request for a Chaucer quotation. I still think it needs citing as a Modern English word. --WikiTiki89 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well oddly enough WT:CFI doesn't say the citations have to be in the entry, just three durably archived citations. Basically, there are plenty of citations just I can't be bothered to type them up. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It would help if you pointed us to them. Maybe give us a link or name an author? --WikiTiki89 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's two [32][33] —This unsigned comment was added by Spinningspark (talkcontribs) at 17:24, 22 November 2013.
Looks good. For future reference the dates of those are 1547 and 1535 respectively. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Esperanto for "on this side of". Already has one citation. Usenet turns up a few mentions, but no uses that I can find. Mr. Granger (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

have to try twice as hard just to stay standing[edit]

Zero native Google hits for the term (in quotes). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

They're trying (unsuccessfully) to express a common figure of speech based on the line from Through the Looking Glass where the Red Queen says: "it takes all the running you can do just to stay in the same place. And, if you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast". It's basically a snowclone: you have to [verb] twice as [fast/hard/etc.] to stay [in one place/where you are/even/etc]. I think there's an entry in there somewhere, but this obviously isn't it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. There are quite a few Google hits for run twice as fast just to stay in the same place for example. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that a quote (or at least a near paraphrase) from Through the Looking-Glass? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't even see a figure of speech other than stay standing. I would have RFD'd this as SOP. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks like a snowclone, as Chuck says, perhaps in the form he recommends. We could keep it as such in Appendix:Snowclones. This particular form might not make it in principal namespece if it doesn't get any hits in Books. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Even stay standing can be rephrase remain standing, keep standing so it's SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't even seem like a snowclone to me. It's just an idea that can be expressed with a variety of phrasings. It doesn't seem idiomatic enough to be a snowclone. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Construction grammarians would say that an ideal dictionary would have a way of accommodating such things, but their efforts to exemplify such an entry seem to me to have a lot of hand waving. And I don't know how one would be assured of finding the entry one might look for. The best I could imagine would be to have examples redirect to an appendix that had the general form of the construction with some kind of explanation of the restricted sent of possibilities for filling in the slots. This is not an example I would pick to try out the idea. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Do we have evidence of this having been used to produce forms not present in Hebrew or applied to non-Hebrew singular forms or stems? The individual terms need not be attestable. Three instances of productive use at any time 1450 to present would be sufficient. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the policy/vote/discussion page for the policy you describe? —RuakhTALK 21:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
WT:CFI and, for the date which something needs to have been published after to be English, WT:AENM (which notes that the date is actually 1500, not 1450). -os is currently defined as an English suffix "Used to form plurals of some Hebrew and Yiddish loanwords, usually ending in -a or -ah"; per CFI, we need evidence of that. The entry currently links to a couple of words which English borrowed wholesale from Ashkenazi-accented Hebrew or Yiddish; it currently lacks anything that might demonstrate -os to be an English plural-forming suffix. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This plural-formation rule is, of course, only used in cases where the etymon used that plural-formation rule. I doubt anyone is suggesting otherwise, and we don't really need an RFV to resolve that. If there is disagreement on whether we should keep these entries, that's a disagreement over policy (either over what it is, or over what it should be); if you are so confident that your view is correct, then you might as well speedy-delete them, rather than putting up straw men for the pleasure of tearing them down.
Sometimes this abuse of WT:RFV is entertainingly farcical, but most of the time it's just tiresome. It's the main reason I stopped bothering with this page.
RuakhTALK 18:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that any Latinization of any morpheme in any script of any language meets CFI if there are three English instances of one (three different?) borrowings that contain the Latinized morpheme? DCDuring TALK 20:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that if you think this entry should be deleted, you should either start an RFD discussion (if you care to discuss it) or speedy-delete it (if you don't). Listing it here, with requirements that everyone knows can't be satisfied, is disingenuous. —RuakhTALK 21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
But I could imagine them being attestable as productive English suffixes in which case they should certainly be kept. I have no animus against them. I would expect that -im would almost certainly prove attestable in macaronic English formations. Similarly -san is almost certainly attestable in English. These two just seem much less likely. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a RFD discussion, it reached no consensus. I presumed DCDuring started this RFV in response to the RFD. It is not uncommon for discussions at RFD to raise questions of attestability and thus shift to RFV.
You say it's "disingenuous" to list it here with "requirements that everyone knows can't be satisfied", but those requirements are the ones everything else is subject to. If everyone knows the entry doesn't meet them, then it should be deleted and the question should be asked: why was it created? (-oth was created by me for reasons outlined here, in short I presumed it to be as attested or unattested and as idiomatic or unidiomatic as -os and thus deserving of the same treatment.) - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
If the closest you can come to demonstrating a policy that requires "evidence of this having been used to produce forms not present in Hebrew or applied to non-Hebrew singular forms or stems" is to link to the entirety of WT:CFI, then you really might as well dispense with the link; it's not helpful. (And even if CFI did impose the requirements that you ascribe to it, your characterization of them as "the ones everything else is subject to" is impossible to take seriously. You can't possibly be suggesting that you'd apply this "forms not present in [source language]" requirement to whole words; rather, you must be applying this requirement to sub-word morphemes.)
As for the RFD discussion link — thanks. As you can plainly see, it was closed with "no consensus", not with "let's invent attestation requirements, then move it to RFV and impose them". (It's not as though anyone there argued that it met these made-up requirements; it's just that there wasn't consensus that they should be applied.) If DCDuring indeed started this RFV in response to that, then this listing is even more disingenuous than I had supposed.
RuakhTALK 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we should have an entry ki-#English that states that ki- is an English prefix? It so happens that in addition to Swahili#English and Kongo#English, English also borrowed kiSwahili#English and Kikongo#English. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, what is the relationship of those forms? What speakers use both "Swahili" and "Kiswahili", and what do they take the ki- part to mean? My understanding was — and our entries agree with this — that the two forms are synonymous alternatives. —RuakhTALK 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
As a crude check of plausibility I looked at Michael Quinion's Affixes.org site. The site includes -im and -san, but not -os and -oth. I understand that there might be some difficulty in attesting these because affixes are not conveniently searched for on Google, but I thought someone might have a feel for where attestation could be found. I aven't tried COCA and BNC yet. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement in CFI that a putative suffix must be productive and attested as such. This nomination is not policy driven. DCDuring has been pushing the requirement that suffixes must be productive for some time, but I do not recall a community consensus for that requirement. For emphasis, the nomination says "Do we have evidence of this having been used to produce forms ...", italics mine. Proposed RFV outcome: out of scope of RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    First, I asked that there be unambiguous demonstration of productivity at any time in the past 500+ years. I was trying to suggest a more objective means of demonstrating that the affixes convey meaning,
Second, lots of things aren't in CFI and shouldn't be. Attestation of meaning is beyond what detailed rules are likely to sustain. I came up with something that seemed practical.
Third, could you suggest some other means of demonstrating that -os and -oth or other similar affixes convey meaning that has some taint of objectivity and testability (Or is that also to be a realm of whim wrapped in voting and legalism?) 14:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
RFV-failed; deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Same as for -os. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Asherim and Asheroth are both attestable as plurals of Asherah; presumably only one of them is correct in Hebrew. This has ayatollot as a questioned plural of ayatollah (the plural from the Persian would be ayatollah(h)a). Bar-Mitzvah can become Bar-Mitzvoth or Bar-Mitzvot, whilst the correct plural form (AFAICT) is Barei-Mitzvah; likewise, Bat-Mitzvah can become Bat-Mitzvoth or Bat-Mitzvot, whilst its plural form is properly Bnoth-Mitzvah. Brit milah is attestable as brit milot in the plural, even though the correct form is britot milah. Chalukah is attestable as chalukot and as chalukim, even though, as in the case of Asherah, presumably only one of them is right in Hebrew. Is any of that evidence at all helpful? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly helpful.
  1. I wouldn't have thought that the existence of alternative transliterations would be evidence for the existence of target-language morphemes based on the morphemes of the source language.
  2. The forms that would be erroneous were they transliterations are definitely better evidence that there was some more active word-formation process. I still wonder whether that kind of error in the frequency that it occurs would normally be deemed to be sufficient evidence of actual "morphemity" rather than of mere error in comparable cases, but no comparable cases come mind immediately.
Thanks. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Re № 1: Well, presumably, attempted application of this suffix requires familiarity with other words in which the suffix occurs, which would probably include familiarity with the different ways that the suffix can be spelt (Hebrew is quite variable in its transliteration); compare the English -ing-in’ pair. Re № 2: 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 "-oth (or -ot) marks a plural", and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in -ah and the plural meanwhile happens to end in -oth. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I that criterion definitely demonstrates that a suffix should be included. However, I don't think that not fulfilling that criterion automatically means that a suffix shouldn't be included. --WikiTiki89 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this is helpful, whether or ot it is conclusive.
In Deut. 12:3 and 1 Kings 14:23, the plural of asherah seems to be asherim. ISBN 0664241859 says "the Asherah (plural Asherim or Asheroth)".
- -sche (discuss) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean that asherim and asheroth are transliterations of noun forms that are both correct in Hebrew? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
They both occur in Hebrew scripture, so I would say yes, though I suppose one could argue about whether they're scribal errors or whether they both mean the same thing. At any rate, if they're present in the Hebrew, they could be borrowed, whether they're correct or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was my thinking, too. More examples like ayatollot would be ideal. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone who is proficient in Hebrew please state which, if any, of the plurals I listed above (in my post timestamped: 17:06, 30 November 2013) do not occur in Hebrew? Given that, I can then create English entries for them and thereby attest -oth as an English suffix. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think they are all attestable in Hebrew (except ayatollot, because it's not even a Hebrew word). The only question is whether the -ot ending is attested in Hebrew before or after it is attested in English, and that's a tricky question. Bar-mitzvah has been used in English since before Hebrew was revived as a spoken language, although the sense of bar-mitzvah that is more likely to have the ending -ot is the ceremony sense, which isn't attested in English until 1941. Although, it is still likely that the -ot ending in English may have come first. (Just a side note: the correct plural of bar-mitzvah is not barei-mitzvah, but bnei-mitzvah or b'nei-mitzvah.) --WikiTiki89 00:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


And its variant poŝbotelo, which is currently a redirect. Can't find anything on Google Books or Tekstaro. There's one mention on Google Groups, but no uses that I can find. Mr. Granger (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


And the plural, targs. This would probably not pass CFI in English (although feel free to try), but the Volapük word is doomed for sure. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]


Esperanto for "speak a constructed language other than Esperanto". There's one apparent mention (in Finnish?) on Usenet, but no uses that I can find on Usenet, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Esperanto word that is listed as a hypernym of krokodili, although I'm not sure what the difference in meaning between the two words is supposed to be. I can't find anything on Tekstaro, Usenet, or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

date rape[edit]

Rfv-sense for the sense, "Rape committed with the use of a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug". I do not believe that the term is so broadly construed as to apply to any such act, even if it occurs between complete strangers in a non-social setting (for example, if the perpetrator were to break into a random house and force a complete stranger in that house to imbibe such a drug). bd2412 T 17:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "if the perpetrator were to break into a random house and force a complete stranger in that house to imbibe such a drug", that would not be considered date rape. Perhaps the words "in a social setting" should be added to the definition. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is worthwhile to bother trying to find citations to support the definition's arguable inclusion of BD's hypothetical. But I would expect that folks would use date rape when hook-up rape might more precisely fit the situation. Date is fairly elastic. It is euphemistically (and legalistically) used (as is party) about short-term sex-for-money encounters. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
At least that's how it's done in the movies. I do not have any direct experience and my friends have the same story. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Our definitions should be precise enough to avoid sweeping in scenarios not actually covered by a term. Of course, the rape itself is generally not committed in the social setting, but the setting is used as a cover for the drugging. How about, "Rape committed by a perpetrator first secretly administering a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug to the victim, under cover of a social setting"? bd2412 T 18:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
How about we trim it down a bit to: "Rape committed by administering a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug under the cover of a social setting"? --WikiTiki89 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would keep "secretly" (or make it "surreptitiously", which is such a great and sneaky sounding word). Otherwise, I agree. bd2412 T 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
But if it weren't done secretly, wouldn't it still be a date rape? --WikiTiki89 18:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If a guy walks into a bar and in full view of his target drops some pills or powder into her drink, and she goes ahead and drinks it with full knowledge that the drink has been drugged, I would consider that to constitute consent to whatever effect the drug has on the imbiber, and whatever activity follows from that effect. Outside of some weird fantasy role-play type situation, "rape" requires a lack of consent. I suppose a drug could be administered in a way that was secret to the victim, but not to others (i.e., the guy at a party telling his friends, "look what I'm doing", and then spiking the drink of an unaware victim). bd2412 T 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Consent to a drug does not imply consent to sex. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If I were representing a client accused under these facts, I would argue that consent to imbibe a drug offered by a complete stranger in a bar implied consent to whatever acts could reasonably be foreseen to occur under the influence of the drug. I would win that case, too. bd2412 T 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. Even real consent given while intentionally intoxicated can be insufficient for legal consent. Anyway, this is not a court but a dictionary; we don't debate laws, but terminology. Also, the word "rape" in the definition implies lack of consent. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This being an RfV, are there citations that demonstrate that the phrase is so used where the drugging is done with the victim's knowledge? The Urban Dictionary reference you provided in the other discussion refers to a secret drugging. bd2412 T 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For bd2412, couldn't it hypothetically mean raping the fruit a date? I'm not saying any person who has ever existed would interpret it that way, just that it's hypothetically possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Since this is an RfV, not an RfD, ther hypothetical meanings are irrelevant to the definition for which verification is sought. If this were an RfD for sense 1, it would be apparent from the context that the relevant sense of "rape" is unlikely to apply to an inanimate object. However, I would certainly avoid your tendency to assume that the meanings of phrases that have been culturally ingrained in you are therefore obvious to everyone else, regardless of where they are from or what language they speak. bd2412 T 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't claiming any relevance. I'm saying we shouldn't make up hypothetical definitions and then say the word doesn't mean this. For every word, there are literally infinite things it doesn't mean. Why try to make lists of them? It's madness. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said, our definitions should be precise enough to avoid sweeping in a lot of things that the word doesn't mean. We could define fire engine as "a thing that fights fires", but although that is technically correct, our definition is far more precise. I'm not trying to say what the thing isn't; I'm trying to define it so that it is clear what it is. bd2412 T 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Date rape is not a legal term. Rape is. The more one tries to make date rape legalistically precise, the more it seems that date rape = date + rape. Date rape seems to have ambiguity with respect to both components of its meaning. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, this is true. However, this gets us back to the question of what meanings are verifiable in citations showing how the word is used. I believe that the word is generally used to refer to an act following drugging done secretly. bd2412 T 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably, but there is a great haze of ambiguity (which has led to the usage of terms like gray rape). Some write that alcohol is the most common date-rape drug. Usually nowadays at least the first doses of alcohol are self-administered or knowingly accepted. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In any event date-rape drug seems to be easily citable as being taken voluntarily:
  • 1998 August 8, “"Date-rape drug' blamed in woman's...”, The Denver Post:
    Police say a woman passed out and almost died at a downtown Boulder bar after voluntarily taking an overdose of a so-called date-rape drug
  • 1998 July 28, Lisa Perry, “TEST RESULTS CONFIRM DATE RAPE DRUG”, Dayton Daily News (OH), page 3B:
    Test results show a drug voluntarily ingested by two Piqua women is gamma hydroxy butyrate, or GHB, apparently making it the first reported case of the drug's use in the Dayton area. … ... The liquid GHB has gained notoriety as a "date rape" drug
  • 2011 March 13, “Date-rape drug seized in nation's capital”, Canada.com:
    Users sometimes consume it voluntarily, but because it has no odour or taste, it can be given to victims without their knowledge to facilitate crimes.
It seems to me that date rape doesn't necessarily require that the rapist deliver a drug secretly or at all or even that there be a drug of any kind involved. It seems to mean rape by a rapist with whom the victim was in a consensual social relationship (possibly very short term). DCDuring TALK 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sense one of date rape says exactly that. However, there is apparently a second sense which does not involve the "consensual social relationship", but instead involves secret drugging. Why is it called "date rape" even though there is nothing like a "date" involved? Because people started using the drug to carry out rape in the context of a "consensual social relationship", and the drug came to be known as the "date rape drug", with all rapes using the drug thereafter coming to be known as "date rape" via back-formation. Notably, your citations indicate that the substance itself is still known as "date-rape drug" even if it is used under circumstances that do not involve "rape" at all. bd2412 T 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You are assuming that it is back-formation, but I disagree. I think it is more likely that "date rape" first acquired the drug connotation, and then people started using "date rape drugs" to refer to the drugs used that form of "date rape". --WikiTiki89 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That would not be a back-formation.
In Google News, the first usage of date rape that is accurately dated is 1983; the first for date rape drug is 1996. In Books, 1978 and 1996. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
But was it used in our drug-related sense before "date rape drug"? --WikiTiki89 23:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Wikitiki: I haven't looked at that.
The citations in [[date rape]] show that date rape has not been limited to traditional dates. Date may even be a term to disguise the actual situation: hookups following from group hangouts. Date rape is apparently a term used to allow cross-generational discussion.
Date rape drugs can be:
  1. administered secretly or not
  2. self-administered or not
  3. associated or not with actual subsequent rape or intent to commit rape
  4. associated with traditional dates or with hookups, with are included by some in an elastic definition of date, or not
  5. a chemically manufactured pharmaceutical agent in the form of pill or powder, an alcoholic beverage, or a natural product.
I do not think that we want to have enough definitions to cover all sensible combinations of these possibilities, nor can we readily use attestation to tease apart which combinations occurred first.
It seems to me that the usage has most commonly been "date rape" drug (with the double quotes) in its first use in the written material I have looked at at Google. This suggests that the readers are not expected to know or care about the chemistry, but to care that the drugs facilitate "date rape", which itself may be a novel concept (and a misnomer given that dates have been often superseded by hookups). "Date rape" is a hot-button to girls and the relatives of girls.
The two medical dictionaries that are the only OneLook references that have entries for date rape drug define it as only Rohypnol/rohypnol (rufie). If that is accurate, then that radical restriction would seem to make a non-SoP definition, though it does not cover all the usage. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have reworked both definitions. The first definition had not been RFVed, but was tortuously worded; I tried to simplify/clarify it. I modified the second definition to include all (and only) the elements mention above which I thought were part of the meaning of the word. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "simplified variant of " definition; the character is already a traditional character for its primary definition and this instance isn't cited or in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's right. The simplified version of is and is both traditional and simplified. It's not the right way to display simplified/traditional equivalents, anyway. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


IMO, not a word in Russian, wrong script, unattestable. See лытдыбр. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For context: the supposed word is marked as English and the def is this: "(rare, of a blog posting) Concerned with one’s everyday or personal life". Searches: google books:"lytdybr", google groups:"lytdybr", lytdybr at OneLook Dictionary Search. Appears unattested indeed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A Russian section has just been added. I see four Google Books hits which might verify it. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "driver". Looks unattested. google books:"haydayıcı", google groups:"haydayıcı", haydayıcı at OneLook Dictionary Search. Even google:haydayıcı finds almost nothing. Driving regulation: WT:ATTEST, probably "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).", with the emphasis on permanently recorded media. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When this fails, don't forget to remove the term from the translation table at driver. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There are citations above (under the rfv for "sınalgı"):

  • "Elinde uzun kamçı bulunan haydayıcı ön sıradaki atın kulağı dibinde kırbacını ..." İstanbul'da Tramvay - Tramvayların Tarihi by Fehime Tunalı Çalışkan and Zikrullah Kırmızı (1998)
  • "takırtıları, nal sesleri, kırbaç şaklamaları, haydayıcıların çığlıkları, emir erlerinin, askerlerin, subayların küfürleri geliyordu" Harp ve Sulh (L. Tolstoy's War and Peace volume: 1, translated by Zeki Baştımar and published by Turkish National Education Ministry)
  • There is a Google result from Cumhuriyet newspaper which published in 20 June 1939 (page: 8) and there is a crossword question as "hayvan haydayıcı". -- 08:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This word means "coachman" more than "driver". -- 08:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I can find the 1st quotation at http://zkirmizi.110mb.com/ISTANBUL_TRAMVAY_TARIHI.htm, a random website that is not a permanently recorded media (see again WT:ATTEST). The other two quotations I cannot find on the web at all, whyever. As for the number of citations required by CFI, Turkish is listed at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages and thus has as stringent criteria as English. Turkish has over 80 000 000 native speakers per W:Turkish language. Given the currently provided quotations for attestation, I propose future outcome "RFV failed", since the quotations provided do not meet the "permanently recorded media" criterion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Try to search by Google in Turkish. -- 15:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I propose this RFV be closed as failed; if you agree, please do the closure in boldface etc. The would-be citations are also available at Citations:haydayıcı, marked there as "not durably archived" per my assessment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "bad smell". Nothing on Usenet, Google Books, or Tekstaro, and the word doesn't make much morphological sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Verb form. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Adjective form. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

of Koranic proportions[edit]

Header was: of quranic proportions

Zero hits in Books or Groups, one cite in the entry is clearly a one-off play on "of bliblical proportions", while the other has "of epic, Biblical and Quranic proportions", and neither meets CFI. However nice it might be to have matching sets of everything on Wiktionary for every religion, the truth is that some figures of speech are only associated with one or two of them, and CFI goes by usage, not by some equal time/space rule. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like i said on my talk page, Arabic transliterations are difficult to work with because of the large amount of transliterations. The word Quran is especially difficult since it has about half a dozen transliterations. but i have added some citations despite transliteration differences. I think its fine as it is. Pass a Method (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The citations look good to me. Maybe the page should be moved to of Koranic proportions, since that seems to be the spelling that's attested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No. let's keep it as it is. If you look at the Google Ngram stats, the most common transliterations tend to change and it is different for each topic. Pass a Method (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "Koranic" should count toward attestation of "Quranic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I do; it's the same word just a different spelling. I admit it's a tricky one and I don't think there's a policy on it. It's an excellent example of whether WT:CFI just doesn't mention it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sidestepping that issue, all of the citations that seem durable use Koranic, so the entry should be moved. And the definition should be trimmed, since it does seem to be just a rare variation/play on of Biblical proportions. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If this passes, I'm RFDing it as SOP. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Debatable, one citation is "of Biblical and Koranic proportions" which could be considered neither one idiom nor the other but a separate one, and two of the citations are by the same author in the same year. Counting them as one citation gets us down to two citations, which isn't enough. How about Usenet? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rooma hal maalin lama dhisin[edit]

The good news: it looks like it's real. The bad news: it doesn't seem to be citable. Definitely not a homespun Somali proverb, so I'm not surprised it doesn't see much use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the IP's contributions, they added it first as a translation to Rome wasn't built in a day, then created the entry. I doubt it exists, except as a direct translation. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Ido for young female horse. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Ido for young male horse. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Could be, but is it really attestable? DCDuring TALK 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it has been attested already at WT:RFD#power structure. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added three four citations to the entry. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Any from native speakers? Is it common enough to be a common misspelling? DCDuring TALK 20:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's one by an American, but you'll have to turn sideways to read it. I wouldn't call this a misspelling, since no letters have been substituted. bd2412 T 20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: There also appears to be a separate meaning in math.[34], [35], [36], [37]. bd2412 T 04:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

button stitcher[edit]

Derogatory term for lesbian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a protologism. The only reference I could find online was an Urban Dictionary entry created last year. The definition given on UD is more specific than the one given in our entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

double tucker[edit]

Another derogatory term for lesbian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Same with "button stitcher" above: the only reference I could find was an Urban Dictionary entry created last year (and by the same UD user who created the UD entry for "button stitcher"). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

taco bumper[edit]

Allegedly means "lesbian". google books:"taco bumper", google groups:"taco bumper", taco bumper at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I have it cited. The third and fourth quotes I've added are probably not independent, since they're both attributed to someone named "Aware1", but I think the first, second, and third are independent from each other. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


A sort of microscale telekinesis. This is not what I'm seeing in Google Books. Equinox 00:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Found two from Usenet, both relating to role-playing games. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense 2: "an episode of such a program". I've never heard it used this way. --WikiTiki89 04:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

situation comedy replicates the mistake (if it is one). 06:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I suppose if someone says ‘I watched a sitcom last night’, you could argue they don't mean they're watching an entire series, just one episode. But this is the usual mania for over-classification, it should be merged with the main sense (in my opinion). Ƿidsiþ 20:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    If you watched two episodes of one sitcom last night, you wouldn't say "I watched two sitcoms last night." On the other hand if you watched one episode each of two different sitcoms, you probably would say exactly that. --WikiTiki89 21:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

situation comedy[edit]

As kindly pointed out. --WikiTiki89 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "radio". Looks unattested. Searches considered: google books:"ünalgı", google groups:"ünalgı", ünalgı at OneLook Dictionary Search. Even google:ünalgı finds almost nothing. Driving regulation: WT:ATTEST, probably "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).", with the emphasis on permanently recorded media. Another emphasis is conveying meaning: the fact that the would-be word is found at some dictionaries does not count toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Zaten benim "ünalgı"nın anten ayarı 91.0 üzerine kilitli..Source: Selahattin Duman, "Akçalapalı bir günde elerki yazısı..", Vatan Gazetesi (newspaper: 02/13/2004)

Şu ünalgının sesini biraz kıs ki, annen de rahatça sanalgı izlesin. Source: Canan Tan, "Öztürkçeyi abartanlar", Yeni Asır Gazetesi (newspaper: 02/27/2004)

Toplumsal Basın-Yayın, Kitle İletişim Araçları, Yeni Basın-Yayın, ünalgı (radyo) ve sınalgı (tv) eğitimi aldılar. Source İsmail Köseömer, "TÜMEP İzlencesi tam ivinti devam ediyor" Haber BG (news website: 12/11/2013)

I don't understand why you accept Google Groups as a source while you do not accept forum sites or at least user comments on the news-papers' websites. (for example, you could find this kind of comments easily: Bu herkeste direkt çalışmıyor herhalde, yani ünalgı gibi dinlemeleri için listedeki kişilerde de bu uygulamalar yüklü olacak galiba. on Sabah News-paper's website [dated: 03/07/2013]). -- 15:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I propose this RFV be closed as failed; if you agree, please do the closure in boldface etc. The would-be citations are also available at Citations:ünalgı, marked there as "not durably archived" per my assessment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto word for "male horse". It's a plausible use of the -iĉo suffix, but I can't find it being used anywhere. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Google gives me only mentions, not uses. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Urban slang for "bitch". Equinox 20:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Urban Dictionary, it is a w:predictive texting error: the words "chubi" and "bitch" have equivalent keying sequences. Seems unciteable. This, that and the other (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


Esperanto suffix designed to mean the opposite of -aĉ-. I've found a few scannos for words with the -et- suffix, but I can't find any actual uses of words with this suffix. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the entry except the headword says this is a suffix. If so, then the headword is almost certainly wrong. Shouldn't it be -el, as it already is? DCDuring TALK 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
If it is an "interfix", we have a header for that (eg, at -o-). DCDuring TALK 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a suffix that is followed by the nominal suffix -o. --WikiTiki89 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Many Esperanto suffixes are followed by part-of-speech suffixes. For instance, see -aĉ-, -et-, -eg-, and -um-. If -el- is actually used, it is similar. (-el is an unrelated suffix, used in correlatives.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it the custom in the Esperanto community to call what I would call an interfix a suffix? If so, no problem. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep - it dates all the way back to the Unua Libro, where Zamenhof first laid out the grammar of the language. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I should have said it's no more problem than the "Cmavo" heading. Does Esperanto even have a word for interfix? DCDuring TALK 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's as much an interfix as ĉeval- and ĉevalel- are prefixes. In other words, it's not. It's a suffix that attaches to the root before the nominal suffix. However, in most other cases, such as -in-, the entry is just a soft link to -ino. So maybe this should just softlink to -elo. The entry needs cleaning up anyway, as the examples are under the quotations drop-down. --WikiTiki89 19:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We have ĉevalo as a simple word because it can stand alone. We don't have separate entries for stems. A morpheme that can only appear between two other morphemes would seem to fit the definition of interfix, except for it not being semantically empty. Does linguistics lack a word for this? DCDuring TALK 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
-el- does not occur without -o in the same way that ĉeval- does not occur without -o. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
But don't all roots, and therefore presumably all suffixes as well, have an inherent part of speech? —CodeCat 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say no. But I'm no Esperantist. --WikiTiki89 02:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like this proposal has caught on, though mentions of it have been added to Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Me, I'll prefix bon- when I need the opposite of an -aĉo. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Per WT:Tea room#guglen#Esperanto. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


On 15 June 2008 a certain user added a huge number of given names by (one might guess) searching the given names dictionary in WWWJDIC with the keyword "実", unless this user happens to know a huge number of names which all just happen to contain the same character and half of which are impossible to verify. This is one of those which gets under 1000 hits, all of which are online dictionaries, "name recipe" websites, or otherwise dubious sources. I've checked all the "Yumiko"s and these appear bogus:

Haplogy () 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

redistribution of wealth[edit]

Are there contexts in which this actually means taxation, or is this merely used to characterize/describe taxation as the [[redistribution]] of [[wealth]]? (I was tempted to RFD this but felt RFV was the better forum, since the sense would presumably be idiomatic if real.) - -sche (discuss) 03:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any other idiomatic definition is this one fails RFV? It's not clear from the words [[redistribution]] and [[wealth]] that it means using money from taxes and fines (and so on) to give to the poorer in society. Or is that all culture-specific and therefore not part of the definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Not everyone views the term as pejorative, eg, the beneficiaries.
Redistribution of wealth can occur in many ways, eg, from the populace as a whole to government officials, as in a kleptocracy, or from commoners to the beneficiaries of Enclosure. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget charities as well. And communist revolutionaries that literally take everyone's possessions and literally redistribute them. --WikiTiki89 16:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) It doesn't actually mean using taxes and fines, it just often implies that. Just like when someone says "The government is taking all my money," it implies taxes, but does not mean that "taking money" means "taxing". --WikiTiki89 16:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I added an economics definition (which I think should be there if we end up keeping this entry). See also Redistribution of income and wealth. The taxation sense should probably be deleted in any case unless someone can provide indisputable quotes. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - form of metadata. I've not come across this sense, and can't see it in any other dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a thing. I've added some citations to the citations page. Universal Meta Data Models explains the structure. —This unsigned comment was added by Spinningspark (talkcontribs).


German surname. Is it right? I would have thought Fußgänger perhaps. I searched for "Herr Fussganger" etc. on Google and got nothing much. Equinox 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

google books:"Herr Fußgänger" returns one cite for Fußgänger and one for "FUSSGÄNGER", which could be either Fußgänger or Fussgänger. Fussganger could easily be an Anglicization. --WikiTiki89 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The all-caps form of Fußgänger is "FUSSGÄNGER", the "telegraph" German form (any situation with no ß, ä, ö, ü) is "Fussgaenger". "Fussganger" is definitely not German but as Wikitiki89 suggested, an Anglicization. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this contributor has been adding entries for names he or she has merely come across and is basing the language header on something like the perceived nationality of the individual rather than anything about the name itself. I deleted a "Russian" entry of theirs that was in Roman letters and thoroughly anglicized in spelling. I'm tempted to rfv their whole body of contributions. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Fussganger for an anonymous user's comments on this (originally posted to my talk page). Equinox 16:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems reasonable (as Fussgänger) :- where it would be the German equivalent of the English surname Walker. But there is nobody of that name on the German Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Ido for "male chick". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Ido for "female chick". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Appears not to exist in English. With the sole exception of this all Google hits are not English. This, that and the other (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

na zdrowie (in English)[edit]

Seems equally probable to be attestable or not. I would be less nervous if it had some citations. Keφr 21:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also possible that it is a mistranslation of the Russian на здоро́вье (na zdoróvʹje), which is seldom or never used by native Russians in this sense (#4) but used by foreigners when toasting with Russians (the Russian entry needs some attention). за ваше/твоё здоро́вье (za vaše/tvojó zdoróvʹje) is a more natural way of toasting but far from the only way to say "cheers". See also "na zdorovye", "na zdorovie" in Google Books or Google search. The mistranslation might be influenced by Polish or other Slavic languages, IMHO. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a conflation of the term from Slavic languages. In the song "To Life" in Fiddler on the Roof, when the Russians come into the bar, they sing "Za vashe zdorovye, heaven bless you both, na zdrovye." (since it's a movie, I don't know how it was actually spelled in the script). Notice that the first time, they say "zdorovye" but the second time they say "zdrovye". Also, in the movie The Deer Hunter, there is a scene where the family, who are Russian immigrants, toast "na zdrovye" (again, it's a movie, so I don't know how it was spelled, but it was certainly pronounced without the "o" between "d" and "r"). I have never heard "na zdorovye" (with two O's) from any (non-Russian) English speaker. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not a conflation, nor mistranslation: it is a regular Polish-language phrase. The real question is whether it is attested in English language, in a way as, e.g., schmuck does. Altenmann (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood me, but I was talking about exactly that above. When an English speaker mimics a Russian with a Polish phrase, I think it's conflation. --WikiTiki89 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly "of or relating to the Italian system of social security". Google Books hits seem to be scannos of providential. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Initialism of "American Academy of Family Practice". The reference given lists AAFP (without periods) as an abbreviation of "American Academy of Family Physicians". I can't seem to find any citations for the spelling with periods. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


  • Rfv-sense: Sharp.
  • Rfv-sense: Characterised by low cunning and sharp practise.

Not in dictionaries: snide at OneLook Dictionary Search. Added in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I know what either of them means. Sharp has quite a few distinct meanings, and I don't know what 'sharp practise' is (though I can have a decent guess at what low cunning is). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that there is already "4. Tricky; deceptive; false; spurious; contemptible.", so the low-cunning sense has to be cited as distinct from that. As for "sharp", I estimate it was intended in the physical sense in which "V" has a sharp point at the bottom in contrast to "U", since the diff above introduced an etymology tracing the word to snithe (sharp, cutting). By the way, there is sharp practice at OneLook Dictionary Search and sharp practice, albeit with "c". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The noun practice is with a c; in the definition it's a misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The two items I have sent to RFV seem to come from Century 1911, in which they form a single sense: "Sharp; characterized by low cunning and sharp practice; tricky; also, false; spurious"[38]. So the sense of "sharp" would probably be Wiktionary's "8. (colloquial) Illegal or dishonest. "--Dan Polansky (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

rational numbers[edit]

In the (currently still ongoing) RFD discussion, several people—including our resident mathematician, msh210—suggested that RFV was more appropriate than RFD. So: is rational numbers attested with any meaning other than {{non-gloss definition|plural of rational number}}, where rational number is defined as "a number (a member of the set of numbers) that can be expressed as a ratio of integers"? See RFD for some discussion of what kind of citations might verify a sense other than the plural of rational number sense. - -sche (discuss) 03:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me post the same citation that I already provided on the AFD page,
  • First, we review his method for showing that the cardinality of the rational numbers is the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers.
Because the cite is talking about cardinality it must be referring to a set in the mathematical sense rather than simply the plural of rational number since cardinality is only meaningful with regard to a set. The claim that the cardinality is the same as that of the natural numbers can only be interpreted as the cardinality of the set of all rational numbers is the same as the set of all natural numbers since subsets of these numbers will, in general, not have the same cardinality. Anyone who knows the first thing about this subject will instantly recognise that the "he" in this cite is Georg Cantor and that this is his famous theorem on infinite sets - stunningly counter-inuitive.
There are more cites on the citations page. SpinningSpark 09:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's another cite that is even clearer,
  • Since the rational numbers have been shown to be denumerable, one might suspect that any infinite set is denumerable, and that this is the ultimate result of the analysis of the infinite.
The term rational numbers is here clearly intended to be taken as a member of infinite sets. SpinningSpark 10:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This one is interesting,
  • We shall, however, show that the property of completeness does not hold good for the ordered field of rational numbers, i.e., the ordered field ℚ of rationals is not order complete.
The author uses rational numbers with the meaning of a set, and then immediately rewords using the mathematical symbol ℚ which makes it unambiguous that the set is meant in the initial wording. SpinningSpark 12:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Widespread use in the relevant mathematical literature (textbooks, etc.). DCDuring TALK 14:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't understand this nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the reason it is here is that there is an argument at RFD that rational numbers cannot be unambiguously cited with the meaning of "set of all rational numbers", as opposed to simply the plural of rational number (which might include all of them). The issue was not settled after I provided the first cite, so I don't know if I'm wasting my time on this one. SpinningSpark 09:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Many of the cites on the citations page seem ambiguous to me as to whether they use the term to refer to the set or to its constituents. I've added some in the main entry page that satisfy my sense of rigour, and seem to use the term in the singular. — Pingkudimmi 11:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've given a rationale above for three of those cites not being ambiguous (which is half of them). I can make an at least arguable case for the rest of them as well. SpinningSpark 13:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps my "many" was only four after all, my standard being ambiguity - that they are compatible with the other sense.
In your third citation above, the author repeats (with minor change) the formulation "the ordered field of rational numbers," which I read as the field (a fancy kind of set) comprising the rational numbers (plural sense). The symbol ℚ, to my ears, is an item under discussion that is defined as "the ordered field of rationals." To me, the citation seems perfectly compatible with the plural sense of "rational numbers."
That said, it was fairly easy to find supporting citations I was happy with. — Pingkudimmi 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something, or is it blindingly obvious that if there is such a thing as a rational number then the set of all such things would naturally be called "rational numbers"? Why does this require a separate definition?? Ƿidsiþ 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • In the RFD, they mentioned something about distinguishing between the rational numbers "class" versus the rational numbers "set", though I don't particularly see a linguistic distinction myself even in a mathematical context. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • See w:class (set theory). In this context the distinction between classes and sets is not significant; every respectable set theory can incorporate rational numbers as a set. Keφr 13:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
What else, then? The booleans, set (or class, if you will) of all absolute truth values? DAVilla 11:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The question here is whether or not the term can be cited with the claimed meaning. Whether or not we should have an entry is a different question and a matter for RFD. It seems to me that a second debate has been pointlessly opened here for something it was already fairly clear could be cited. SpinningSpark 14:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


I think he means the car. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Gore Tex is most certainly not a car, and there is no indication that the original editor meant car. It is a brand of fabric used to make rain coats, first brought fimly into the public eye by its most famous wearer, Harold Wilson. As for cites, GTX seems to be used as part of some brand names of waterproof outdoor products like walking boots, probably because they contain Gore Tex, but I am not seeing any evidence that GTX is used as a synonym for Gore Tex in a sentence. SpinningSpark 09:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
What? No, google books:GTX hits give GTX as the sense of car, as in the popular car brand name; that's what I was referring to. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that GTX is a car, but the entry you have challenged does not have that definition, it has "Gore-Tex" as the definition. When you list something on this page it means you are requesting citations for the listed sense, not some other sense that might exist. SpinningSpark 02:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
NO! I'm challenging this sense and merely suggesting the entry be replaced with the car, how hard is this to get? Please stop twisting my words, I can very well read, I understand the definition and I know what this page is for. Anyway, this is getting terribly off-topic. Are you going to cite it or not? And if not, what is your business pointlessly arguing with me? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


From Ancient Greek anthrop- "human" + pod "foot"


  1. bipedal humanoid

All I can seem to find are a type of creature in science fiction, lots of scannos for arthropod, one or two references to a human-like foot/leg, and a few apparent misspellings of anthropoid. The tricky part is distinguishing instances of this definition from misspellings of anthropoid. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely is gastropod means having a stomach for a foot, anthropod means something that has a human being for a foot. Awesome. Assuming it fails move to WT:BJAODN. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A person who is in his or her twenties."

Wasn't me. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Used in that sense by Tolkien in Lord of the Rings, but he probably made it up for that book. I have no idea if it saw any use independent of him. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you add the Tolkien citation, and I'll try to look for others. --WikiTiki89 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I added the Tolkien quote, but strictly speaking it isn't for tween in the sense of 'person in their twenties' but rather for tweens in the sense of 'period of life between 20 and 32'. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I was going to say Lord of the Rings is a well-known work, but the citation shows tween is an in-universe term. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Somehow the same Tolkien quote got added twice (albeit from different editions), but attesting different senses. That makes no sense to me. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept it where it makes sense, per Angr. DAVilla 06:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]


Looks like Cehihin just looked up the words nhỏ and mọn in the Nôm Lookup Tool, then concluded that combining a random result for each would yield the Hán tự form of nhỏ mọn. Nhỏ mọn is a real Vietnamese word, but the NLT returns characters used in different time periods that haven't necessarily been used together. The NLT's entries for 𡮈 and 𨳒 are sourced from Hán-Nôm Institute data that apparently isn't available online.

Unless a source attesting to this compound can be found, I think this entry should be deleted.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "moon" (display buttocks). The only use of this word I can find [39] is not for this sense - it's a translation of the Latin word pedico. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for Castile-La Mancha. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. The closest I can find is one Usenet cite [40] for Kastilio - La Manĉo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Actually several words, but one section: wussify, wussifies, wussifying, wussified, wussification. Slang is slang and all that, but there's just about only so far I'm willing to go before I start wanting to see verification. I'm pretty dang certain I've never seen any of these in use. I mean, sure. Wuss, wussy, those are valid terms, I'm just not sure about these as slang derivations. Region, citations. And uh, can someone please notify User:Gobonobo if they haven't noticed this, as they seem to be the one who created this. (I would, but it's late here and I've got work tomorrow, and won't be back on before this discussion will most certainly have progressed at least somewhat without me.) --Neskaya sprecan? 09:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Cited at citations:wussify. "De-wussify" also seems to be citable. SpinningSpark 10:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That seems good, and thanks, that'll do for the forms of too… but, I'm still not convinced as far as wussification goes, though? At least, not unless it has at least one citation of its own. Otherwise, it's still just another neologism that hasn't reached CFI yet. --Neskaya sprecan? 10:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Added four quotes to wussification, and there are more on Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for slumlord. Nothing on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto. This is a plausible word (although the definition should probably be adjusted if it passes), but I can't find it being used anywhere online, let alone in durably archived sources. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Latin scribal abbreviation. I have never studied manuscripts, but my understanding was that this siglum was n with a macron, not a tilde. I only consult normalised texts and the occasional inscription, so I really don't know how to go about citing this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's ñ sunt: [41], [42] (also what looks like n̄ sunt). Will that do? It would be no problem to find more examples, if you want them. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone's curious, here's what it looks like in a handwritten manuscript: [43]. It just looks like an n with a line to me in that picture, but based on Google Books it seems that it's ñ, not , when typed. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on Google Books, clod can be dod "when typed". Seriously, though, this is isn't a matter for rfv: the scribal abbreviation definitely has a line over it, and predates the invention of the tilde, but many modern printed editions use the tilde to represent this. The tilde is derived from a flattened n written over the first n to show a double n, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's overlap between the tilde and the suspension mark, since both are scribal marks to show omitted text. I think n with a tilde should be treated as an alternative form of n with a macron, and a usage note should say that the tilde is often substituted due to the wider availability of tildes in typeset and electronic fonts. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If we can find citations that are unambiguously using n̄ instead of ñ, then by all means let's make it an alternative form. (I don't think the picture I linked is unambiguous, considering how messy the handwriting is.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The verb form of the word; "to hasten, to speed up, to go more quickly"

I'm familiar with what this term means but I've never heard nor seen it used in this way, on gbooks or elsewhere. I'm a bit confused about whether to best classify this as adjective or adverb but that's a discussion for another time. Note the two alternative definitions: "nhanh lên" lên is an intensifier equivalent to "up" in hurry up and coincidentally this phrase can also be used as an interjection such as "Quickly!", "Faster!", "Hurry up!", etc; "đi nhanh" means to "go quickly", đi by itself means to go and nhanh is an adverb. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


11 Google Book hits, all of which are mentions. Some even mention it as a French word for 'collector of keyrings'. Possibly another hypothetical word based on Greek that nobody actually uses. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks like a job for {{only in}}. Ƿidsiþ 14:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Have added three references to dateable printed sources.WikiLambo (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    Can you add the quotations in which the word is used? Otherwise there's no way for us to know if the term is being used or just mentioned. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    Well, Urdang is a dictionary - so it is just a dict. entry. The other two books cite the word in a list of collectors and what they collect. Is this what is meant by "just mentioned"? Sorry - finding my way at present in Wiktionary.WikiLambo (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, Wiktionary:CFI#Conveying meaning requires that the word actually be used in context for its meaning, rather than just defined. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. Strange nomenclature to me. I am more familiar with making a distinction between "primary sources" and "secondary sources" - where a dictionary is a secondary source, as it talks about words (i.e. headwords, runons) but doesn't use them. So Urdang would be a secondary source. But the other two are cites provided are primary sources. I am not sure that these should be necessarily considered "just mentioned" just because they are in a list. Essentially, the list and its heading is just a shorthand way of saying "the word for a person who collects X is Y," and they are used in the sources in a didactic kind of way. Trying to teach someone the meaning of a word is more than just mentioning it. But, I can see how this argument isn't going to fly. Personally, I think these type of words have a life of their own (copoclephile has been around for over 20 years) albeit they are inventions (but all words are) that don't seem to have much use other than people saying "did you know the word for X is Y?" Even though no one really uses them much elsewise. A lot of phobias are like that too. In that sense they are an interesting part of English vocabulary. Nevertheless, I guess they don't have to be in Wiktionary.WikiLambo (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative form of pasintĵaŭde, meaning "last Thursday". Nothing on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative form of hommortigo, meaning homicide. All I can find is one result in Ido on Usenet and one mention in a dictionary. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Claimed to be a Welsh word meaning offspring. Probably taken from here, but you can't believe everything (or anything) baby-names books and websites tell you. The comprehensive and unabridged Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru has no entry for this word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: miscarriage (Esperanto). I've only heard this word used to mean abortion. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

picket pool[edit]

This has a Wikipedia article on it, and yet I can only see 6 b.google results for the term, none of them obviously helpful. The one citation in our entry is not even of this headword. Any thoughts? Ƿidsiþ 14:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I thought it was a typo for pocket pool. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It has 30 days. I wish I could understand its connection to any sense of picket. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
w:Picket pool seems to say it's a form of bet; nothing like what our entry says! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry was proposed for speedy deletion, but not regular deletion. The speedy deletion notice said it was a promotion by a specific company and not a generally used betting term. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can make out, this was a term created by a commercial website that doesn't seem to exist any more. I would suggest a quick delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
DCDuring: perhaps it's a pun on pick it, as in picking a winner. Equinox 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds plausible. Thanks. I feel much better now. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for potty mouth. I can find mentions, but no uses on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for whorehouse. Again, I can only find a couple of mentions, no uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for smut. Nothing on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. As a side note, the entry lists this word as countable, but this is strange considering that literaturo is uncountable. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "pornographic film". I found some mentions, and one citation [44] that's not for this sense, but nothing else on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Ido for macerate. Google Books reveals many results in Spanish, Italian, and French, but I couldn't find any in Ido. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


I can find only one use of this word (in quotation marks), all other uses of this capitalization are mentions. I suggest replacing the entry with {{only in|Appendix:English dictionary-only terms}}. The capitalized Nyctophilia is an attested scientific name for something that has a dissectable brain (so, not a plant), possibly the members of the genus Nyctophilus. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is right. Nyctophilia does indeed refer to the genus Nyctophilus, but that is a genus of bats. I cannot imagine that the name comes from anything other than their nocturnal lifestyle and nothing to do with their brains. I'm not sure I really understand the comment; what manner of creature has a brain that is not dissectable? SpinningSpark 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think he was using "dissectable brain" tautologically, to indicate he found the term mostly in association with discussions of brain dissection, not to imply a distinction with an undissectable brain. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It gets a mention in Mosby's Medical Dictionary. While that is still only a mention, I would give it more credence that the average "-phile" or "-phobe" word list since it is aimed at the healthcare profession and published by a well known scientific publisher. SpinningSpark 18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not too much to suggest that he experiences "nyctophilia, " defined by Bertram Lewin as "an erotic pleasure in darkness, which enters as a wish-fulfillment element on fantasies of being in the 'womb,' or more properly, as the German word Mutterlieb suggests, of being in the mother's body". [45]
The above is the only cite that I can find, and even that is not very satisfactory. SpinningSpark 19:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a mention of the "nyctophilic behavior of rodents" in this patent application, which corroborates the definition, but little other use except in reference to the genus of bats. D4g0thur (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Seems either rare or nonexistent. google books:"sesquipedaliophobia", google groups:"sesquipedaliophobia", sesquipedaliophobia at OneLook Dictionary Search. The search finds some mentions; I do not see uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice sesquipedalophobia is attested. Could this word (with the i) be a misspelling? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Created in this revision (hmm, I don't recall ever trying to turn that into a redirect before). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto preposition supposedly used to introduce quotations. I can't find anything on Tekstaro, Usenet, or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Seems not obviously attested in use as opposed to mention. google books:"sesquipedalophobia", google groups:"sesquipedalophobia", sesquipedalophobia at OneLook Dictionary Search. Note that I do not request that properly formatted quotations are added to mainspace or citationspace--although that is ideal; I request that at least the text of the quotations is placed here, with a link to the source of the quotation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowing things like "She believed that I had sesquipedalophobia - the fear of long words" (second page of gbook results). If we are, I can find three cites in the first three pages of gbook results. If we are not then hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia should probably also be nominated as all its cites are in that vain. SpinningSpark 11:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. (PS, it's vein, not vain.) Ƿidsiþ 11:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it should not count, but Wiktionary:CFI#Conveying_meaning suggests otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I added the above cites to the entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


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)


Marking this for RFV in case it turns out this word actually exists, but based on a not-so-thorough look through google books:"decortainment" indicates a few traces of it, but it probably needs renaming to a new title and a different definition. I suggest something like "leisure activity performed through arranging decor in a house" or somesuch. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

om nom nom[edit]

Rfv-sense: the noun sense, tasty food. Can we get better and more durably archived sources than yelp.biz for this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Added two cites. There's probably another floating around, but it's difficult trying to filter out use as an interjection or verb. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:49, 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-sense: to die

From the talkpage: "Which dictionary indicates that this word, on its own, means "di"? 17:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)"

Thus, rfv-sense. (By the way, the senses for die are at chết and tử in case anyone was wondering.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a euphemism for death, eg. ... đi rồi. Wyang (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, and I see the comparisons for 'move on', 'pass on', etc, but the anon challenged the sense so I brought it here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


I think there are some special considerations for -philia and -phobia entries, so I'm submitting this here. —CodeCat 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Special considerations? They have to be cited same as anything else, don't they? I found a grand total of 4 hits on Google Books, some of which suggest that korephilia is specifically the attraction of adult women to underage/prepubescent girls: [46], [47], [48], [49]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In the past, I think a lot of people expressed concern with phobias that had words invented for them for the sake of it? —CodeCat 19:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Like sesquipedaliophobia? --WikiTiki89 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Note that the entry currently lists three senses; if there are only 4 BGC hits, then it looks like some of the senses need to be removed / combined. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Citations:korephilia, which now has five citations. Of those, the actual text of one (1983) is unavailable (which presumably makes it invalid for now), one comprises two quotations – one using the term and the other mentioning it (1993), one merely mentions the term (1996), and the other two use the term (2007, 2008); that makes three legitimate citations, AFAICT. From the evidence they present, I think it is right that we infer that korephilia is specifically a paedophiliac lesbian sexual attraction/orientation. The 1996 citation exhibits the same act/inclination conflation found with paedophilia. If more quotations are needed, the 1983 source would provide one, and the term was probably used in the Paedophile Information Exchange's 1978 publication Paedophilia: Some Questions Answered (as suggested by endnote 44 to chapter 8 in Sexual Citizenship, cited as the 1993 source). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I found two more quotations on Usenet, so I've added them, too. I removed the three definitions that were in the entry, and redefined the word as:

  • (rare) Erotic attraction of a woman or older female toward young (chiefly pre- and/or peripubescent) girls; lesbian pederasty.

Does that seem alright to everyone? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "lesbian pedophilia" instead of "lesbian pederasty"? Pedophilia is about attraction; pederasty is about an act. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should: the sources (1991, 2007, 2008) tend to present korephilia as pederasty's feminine equivalent, and the 2008 source even suggests that korephilia mirrors pederasty's "institutional" character. Pederasty isn't an act, as such (see w:Pederasty); you may be thinking of pedication. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That page defines pederasty as a homosexual relationship (...), which involves acts; mere attraction does not create a relationship.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That's incorrect, IMO; according to that definition, it can be said of a pederastic couple "they started their pederasty [i.e., their pederastic relationship] two years ago", which usage sounds just plain wrong to my ears. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for billion. Nothing on Tekstaro, and no uses that I can find on Usenet or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Ordinal form ("billionth"). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


And the alternative form pugfrapado, which is currently a redirect. Nothing on Google Books or Tekstaro, and only mentions on Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger[edit]

I don't think most of the quotations that are currently listed really confirm the use and sense of this term. All except the third are compounds, and they could just as easily be references to the person Arnold Schwarzenegger and not the noun. I don't think can really count for this term; they really count towards "Arnold Schwarzenegger voice" and so on. Only the third quotation unambiguously refers to this term as an independent noun. Can we find more citations that clearly show this to be a noun in its own right, and not just part of a compound that could refer to the person? —CodeCat 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Attributive use of a noun is use of a noun, at least in English. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, but even so, there's still my other point. None of those "attributive uses" as you call them clearly reflect the sense in the entry, and could easily (even more likely IMO) refer directly to the person instead. —CodeCat 23:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO, "an Arnold Schwarzenegger physique" is a reference to the specific person, and "an Arnold Schwarzenegger voice" is likewise a reference to Ahhnuld's specific Austrian German accent, so neither of those citations supports a common noun meaning "a[ny] muscleman". OTOH, I think that "what an Arnold Schwarzenegger does" and "with an Arnold Schwarzenegger chest" support the noun POS. - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see an objective basis for the distinction. If you are reducing yourself to a datapoint based on linguistic 'feel', then there is no disputing the fact that you feel that way. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well then how else is RFV supposed to work? Aren't we supposed to determine whether words mean what we say they mean? —CodeCat 01:33, 17 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)


I can only find hederated; can anyone find hits of other tenses of this verb? If not, it would seem best to move the content to hederated and describe that term as an adjective. I would have just moved the page, but google books:"hederate" gets a lot of hits, and although the ones I looked at were Latin or scannos, I didn't wade through all of them. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of dictionary definitions here and here, a few older references to hederate of ammonia or of lead (whatever those are), and a botanical work that uses it as an adjective here. The rest is Latin and scannos. On Groups, there's hits due to its being a username (and most, if not all, not on Usenet), but nothing else. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It is clearly a chemical term: I am seeing hederate of baryta, hederate of lime, hederate of potash, hederate of silver [50], hederate of lead [51] as well as several cites to hederate of ammonia mentioned by -sche. It appears to relate to any salt of hederic acid, which is a chemical derived from ivy seeds. SpinningSpark 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"Hederic acid" appears to be obsolete term, it is now called hederagenin. I tried to run NGram for "hederic acid, hederagenin", but there were no results for "hederic acid". "Hederagenin" first appeared in 1919 in that search. "Hederate of" only gets 3 Google hits, all from sources dating back to 1800's. Thus it appears appropriate to tag the noun sense "obsolete". --Hekaheka (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


This is now listed as a verb form, but just to cover the superficially plausible hypothesis that this is an adjective existing separately from the verb hederate, I am asking quotations attesting the existence of this specific form, meeting WT:ATTEST, including the requirement that they are in use rather than mere mentions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I found one more independent citation (beyond the one from The Diamond Age), from William Winstanley's chapter on John Gower. This is the one often quoted and paraphrased. As much as I enjoyed The Diamond Age, it doesn't seem to rank as a well-known work. I've tried Scholar, News, and even Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


A box displaying a summary of taxonomy data. The entry creator gave a reference (Gullan & Cranston), which does have "taxoboxes"; see [52]. However, even the publisher puts the word in quotes as a self-conscious coinage, and the only other usage seems to be on Wikipedia, where a taxobox is (similarly) a sort of template holding taxonomic data. Is it CFI-able? Equinox 04:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I can find nothing in Google Books that is not either a scanno or one of those companies selling Wikipedia articles, maintenance tags and all, as books. bd2412 T 16:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


And the alternative form sangscienco, which is currently a redirect. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative form of inkubsonĝo, meaning nightmare. Nothing on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

inkubsonĝo (ne inkubosonĝo) estas PIVa vorto. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for airline. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. Maybe this is a typo for fluglinio, which is attested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "terrible year". Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet, and the word, if it exists, is morphologically strange. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 07:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

foje post foje[edit]

Esperanto for time after time. I found one citation, which I've added (although I should mention that the passage it's from has quite a few grammatical errors, suggesting that the writer may not be a fluent speaker). Other than that, I can't find anything on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to transfer semen from mouth to mouth while kissing". Deleted by an IP saying "citation needed", so "citation needed" it is. Keφr 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yucky! --Hekaheka (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The second sense (United Nations: to drop food aid across a wide area from an aircraft) needs citations as well. I found nothing relevant by googling "snowdropping food", "snowdropping supplies", "snowdropping aid", "snowdropped food", "snowdropped supplies", "snowdropped aid". --Hekaheka (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Contributors to Spanish Wikcionario agree that this verb is regular in Spanish, not diphthongal. So does the Royal Spanish Academy. If this is changed a number of correct inflected forms need adding and wrong ones deleting.--Keith Edkins (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

After DRAE the regular conjugation prevails, but the diphthongal is obsolete and still in use. Google Ngramm search shows that aferro is about 20 times more frequent than afierro, but afierro is still found in recent books. I've added the regular conjugation and a note to the entry. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
How can it be "obsolete and still in use"? --WikiTiki89 18:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The authoritative DRAE says: Has had diphthongal conjugation. In use mainly with regular conjugation. and gives only the regular conjugation table. I guess that means that the diphthongal conjugation is obsoleted by DRAE, but some people still use it as evidenced by Ngram. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

assalamu alaykum[edit]

Supposedly English. I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is originally an Arabic word, however, if you see Turkish "Selâmün aleyküm" in Turkish wikipedia and click English on the left menu, you may see As-salamu alaykum form. --2001:A98:C060:80:19B5:B11A:B9AC:BBB1 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Compare shalom aleichem --2001:A98:C060:80:19B5:B11A:B9AC:BBB1 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This exists in a grey area. There are plenty of English-language books which use the term in the middle of otherwise English sentences, in a number of forms, sometimes even without italics. It is obviously a representation of Arabic, and one might even consider it a mere transliteration rather than a borrowing. But we have kept English sections for some similar entries, e.g. Talk:ayubowan. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If this were an RFD discussion, I would vote keep. But I don't think that assalamu alaykum is the most common spelling. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd call it code-switching, not an English phrase. Equinox 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not code-switching if it's used by people who don't speak Arabic. --WikiTiki89 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Arrowred.png One doesn't need to speak a language fully in order to engage in code-switching. I don't really speak Spanish, yet when I intentionally use a Spanish word like gracias in an otherwise English discourse, I use it precisely to impart a Spanish sensibility. Likewise if I use merci, or danke, or xièxie, or mahalo, or ...
In this case, assalamu alaykum looks like exactly this kind of code-switching phenomenon -- a foreign term that is used in an English context, but such use is precisely because the term is not English.
I would suggest changing this from ==English== to ==Arabic== and mark it as a romanization.
(FWIW, I strongly oppose the ==English== characterization of ayubowan, again because the term is used precisely because it isn't English, and conveys that non-English-ness.)
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
But assalaamu alaykum is not used "precisely because the term is not English" and not to "impart an Arabic sensibility". It is used because it is a traditional Islamic greeting. --WikiTiki89 05:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr. Not all common words and not from all languages gain currency in another language. Even common terms for "thank you" and "hello" but if they are used in another language, they become part of it, even if the context is limited. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anatoli, Usage of a term in a given language does not automatically make that term a part of that language. There was a similar discussion in April at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#da. I would happily accede that taco is English. However, I would also argue that gracias is not English.
Similarly, I would accede that Allah or Muslim is English, but that assalamu alaykum is not.
  • @Wikitiki, you seem to have almost made my point for me -- "It is used because it is a traditional Islamic greeting", in that it is an Arabic phrase, and Muslims are expected to know at least some Arabic, and imparts the specific sense that it is an Arabic phrase, and establishes the context of Islam and the Arabic language. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    If a word is used in everyday life by English speakers who do not speak Arabic, then it is most certainly an English term. Gracias is not used in every day, but only on occasion for effect. --WikiTiki89 06:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
assalamu alaikum failed RVF but I would revisit and restore it. assalamu alaykum is an alternative spelling. See Talk:assalamu alaikum and السلام عليكم (as-salāmu ʿalaykum)--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here's an Ngram of all forms that seem to have Ngrams. --WikiTiki89 05:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikitiki, these Ngrams establish that the term is used in English contexts. However, they do not address the argument of whether or not the term is English. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The Ngrams are meant to determine the most common spelling, not to establish usage. --WikiTiki89 06:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'm going to move the page to salaam alaikum. --WikiTiki89 07:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have my suspicions that the ngram count of salaam alaikum is skewed by the fact that it parses "as-salaam alaikum" and "as salaam alaikum" as counting for "salaam alaikum". (Certainly google books:"salaam alaikum" suffers from that.) Is there any reason we should expect the "as-" to be dropped by a lot of English speakers and writers? - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, colloquially in Arabic (and other languages that have borrowed the term), the "al-/as-" (definite article) is often dropped. Compare Persian سلام علیکم (salâm aleykom). --WikiTiki89 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried to make an ngram comparison of the frequency of the various greetings to the various responses (the presence of absence of "as-" in the middle of the responses should be picked up more reliably than its presence or absence at the start of the greetings), but the Ngram Viewer stopped working and kept returning gibberish; there must be a glitch somewhere and/or it's overloaded. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
In case-insensitive mode, it sometimes splits a form into different capitalizations. Is that what you are seeing. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:Mzajac, who said here, discussing names, that "We already have a well-exercised standard for what it means [for something to be English]: three attested uses." I commented at the time that this standard left just as much grey area as the other standards under discussion; perhaps he can weigh in on the question of whether or not it applies here / this term is English. Some citations have been typed up here, others are available on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging also User:Prosfilaes, who said above that "I think the deletion of an attestable spelling because we don't have a good L2 to put it under does a disservice to our users". Perhaps he would like to weigh in on which L2 this term should go under. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the “everyday” pronouncement: most incontestably English words aren’t used every day, or even every single year.

Cf. gracias#English. Plenty of foreign words are understood or even merely recognized by anglophones, and used both for their meaning and effect. Even if a writer is using the word to indicate a speaker’s foreignness, or signal translated speech, or just to sound more hip than a writer who uses a more-common variant like salaam alaikum or salaam#English, it is still English usage. Maybe it requires a label or usage note like foreign or Arabic context or unnaturalized. Maybe our CFI sets the bar too low, but that is a separate question. Michael Z. 2014-02-05 21:20 z

I think you might have missed that assalamu alaykum was moved to salaam alaikum and turned into an alternative form entry in the process of this discussion, so I think this discussion applies to salaam alaikum as well. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Michael Z. 2014-02-05 22:12 z
Arrowred.png Could we come up with context labels for these, and perhaps a protocol for how to write usage notes? I'm not opposed to including such entries; as others have noted, users could conceivably come here looking for these terms, as written in the Latin script. I am opposed to including such entries as English as-is, for in many cases, the definition works out to something like what we see for da: along the lines of “[English term] in [other language]”. This strikes me as very sub-optimal. Context labels and usage notes could go a long way to alleviating my concerns about including such terms as English. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The appropriate context label is already there: (Islam). --WikiTiki89 02:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not only religious but linguistic as well, Arabic (Arabic world, Arabism, Arabic English or something similar) could also be useful. Same would apply to "inshallah" and some other expressions. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
In English it is almost exclusively used by Muslims. --WikiTiki89 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. If we do use such a label, "Arabism" is probably the best name, in line with "Germanism", "Gallicism", "Anglicism" and other labels. But those other terms are rarely used, and almost never used in {{context}} on sense lines; instead, they seem to be for the most part spelled out in plain text in etymology sections, or used in {{qualifier}} in translations tables. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


google books:"his lenden" is just scannos of "leaden". google books:"the lendes" gets some Middle English citations that I can't make heads or tails of. - -sche (discuss) 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle English Dictionary = "loins"
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Although when I look for google books:"his lendes" I get a few cites which seem to have lendes as meaning a troop of warriors with a close relationship to a king. (e.g., e.g., e.g.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
All those examples are in the context of France. Are they really Middle English? The second one explicitly identifies the language as Tudesque, whatever that is. SpinningSpark 11:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Frankish, actually. And the term is used, as far as I can see, straight, as a technical term, and not in quotes or italics. So it's referring to a historical concept, but has apparently borrowed the term into the current language (in a similar way to byrnie). And Tudesque links to Theodiscus (theodiscus). --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
He thakked hire aboute the lendes weel (Chaucer) would seem to mean "He thoroughly slapped her on the loins" I would say that the entry should be changed from English to Middle English since there do not appear to be any recent citations. SpinningSpark 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


balneum is commonly a heterogenous noun and has balneae -ārum, f. as its plural (though an entirely neuter second declension usage appeared later). No source to which I have access shows legitimate singular first declension usage i.e. balneam. Endithon (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that if at some point the singular's declension was extended analogically to the plural, the reverse process could conceivably have happened as well. —CodeCat 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's plausible that balneae would have back-formed a singular balnea, but is it attested? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

martial art[edit]

Rfv-sense: by restriction, martial arts originating from East Asia and Southeast Asia; often practiced as a meditative medium, e.g. aikido, judo, kyudo. How is that different to the primary sense? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that more of an RFD thing? --WikiTiki89 23:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that it makes sense: a martial art includes boxing, or bartitsu, or olympic fencing, or Fechtshule, or SCA combat. And that sense is broad and inclusive. And yet, ask most people what they mean by "martial arts", and they will start talking about Shaolin and Karate and Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee and flying spinning back-kicks. The latter sense is semantically restricted, but it is that restricted sense which is more commonly understood. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, people only call martial arts the Asian martial arts. I have yet to see an average person mentioning fencing or boxing as a martial art. But how do we distinguish between a distinct sense and incorrect use of another sense? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That might be so, but finding cites that unambiguously mean the restricted sense is quite another problem. A quick book search seems to show that when writers want a restricted sense they will use a modifier like "Chinese martial arts" etc. By the way, the search terms <"martial art" boxing> and <"martial art" fencing> both get numerous hits indicating that these are widely considered to be martial arts. SpinningSpark 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the confusion here is that most popular martial arts are Asian, but not all. No one would dispute that krav maga, capoeira, etc. are martial arts. It seems to be only the boring ones like wrestling and boxing that aren't cool enough to be referred to as "martial arts" by some people. --WikiTiki89 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


And the alternative form bankedĉambro, which is currently a redirect. Esperanto for banquet room. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 07:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Is this valid as Mandarin? The IP user who created this appears to be our old occult-obsessed anon friend. They also added a JA entry on that page, which generates exactly zero Google hits of any kind for Japanese, so I nixed that on sight. Can anyone vouch for the Mandarin term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm it exists; 12,800,000 hits on Google, 1,370 hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd noticed that it seems to exist.  :) Beyond that, does it actually mean what the anon says it means? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's par for the course. Their method seems to be: 1) Start with an English word they think should have a Chinese- and/or Japanese-language counterpart (nine times out of ten it's a minor footnote to Western culture that's unknown to speakers of those languages) 2) Cook up a translation by a combination of guesswork and Bing Translate 3) Piece together an entry for that translation from bits they copied from other entries, including an interwiki link for the Wiktionary and a Wikipedia template for the Wikipedia for that language. 4) Go on to the next bogus entry without checking anything, since they don't actually read or write the languages they're editing.
Not that they do much better with English-language entries: they have no clue, and it's really rare for anything they've edited to not need cleanup or deletion afterward. They constantly switch IPs, and won't create an account, so there's no way to reliably communicate with them. We've been blocking them as soon as we see their edits, which slows them down, but they always get in at least a few edits each time. This has been going on for three years now, and it isn't likely to end soon. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops! I see you're referring to a different entry. That one's just an ordinary slip-up from someone who knows better, and generally doesn't make that kind of mistake. Oh, well... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)



Plural forms of sagaceco, which is Esperanto for acumen. My impression is that sagaceco is uncountable, and the plural forms aren't on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]


- -sche (discuss) 04:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Needs cleanup (of its use of whitespace and ampersands vs and, and of the grammar of the etymology) if it is OK. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Looks like a dictionary-only word to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative form of flugkompanio, which means airline. Nothing on Usenet, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


And the alternative form duoniĝtempo, which is currently a redirect. Esperanto for half-life. I've found one dictionary entry for duoniĝtempo on Google Books [53], but nothing else on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "An alteration in a painting, evidenced by traces of previous work, showing that the artist has changed his or her mind as to the composition during the process of painting."

The definitions at pentimento at OneLook Dictionary Search seem to principally say that it is the trace of previous work that constitutes the pentimento, which is also consistent with this quote from an unknown source: “With the passage of time and a cascade of fawning magazine covers, Bill Clinton’s image has evolved, leaving the repellent sexual scandals a pentimento in a new, more magnetic portrait.”. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "One who educates themselves for their whole life." Tagged (a good catch) by a relatively new user. - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

metric ounce[edit]

RFV for the sense “A metric approximation of the ounce, usually taken as 20 or 30 millilitres (for volume) or grams (for mass).”

It was my understanding that a metric ounce = 28 grams. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, it's 100 grams. —CodeCat 22:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
100 grams is definitely not an "approximation of the (English) ounce". --WikiTiki89 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
w:Ounce#Metric ounces says that it's 25... But either way, this is not an RFV thing because the essential part of the definition ("A metric approximation of the ounce") is obviously going to pass. --WikiTiki89 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A link to the Wikipedia chapter mentioned above would clarify this entry remarkably. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Added. --WikiTiki89 05:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
But CodeCat is right too; WP says, "In 1820, the Dutch redefined their ounce (in Dutch, ons) as 100 grams". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not hard to find citations that define a metric ounce as 30 grams; in fact, I found more of them than citations that define it as 28 grams. I also found citations defining it as 25 grams or "28.35 g [] not 28 g". See Citations:metric ounce. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
28.35 is not called metric ounce. Rather, it is the (approximate) conversion of the (avoirdupois) ounce into metric. The citation metioning it does not say metric ounce, but rather metric ounce weight. That is, the weight of the ounce in metric. The 25g ounce (which I believe is what is normally meant in the English speaking world by metric ounce) is used in connection with the metric pound (or French livre = 500g) because an exact number of them are needed to the pound. The 28g and 30g ounce, on the other hand are used where the original specification was in Imperial units, or some other customary units and there is a need to have something like the same amount again but measured on metric scales. SpinningSpark 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
At present, the only senses which are supported by citations are "25 grams" and "30 grams". metric inch is also citable. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Sense 2: "a Muslim harkaras". (And what's a harkaras? I only know it as a plural.) Equinox 01:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Two senses. Someone wrote a book titled "Eothen", which makes it hard to find citations that aren't capitalized references to that book; I could only find one. - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is Greek ηωθεν which can be cited to Homer. However, nothing in English. Kingslake's book, apparently, is named for the Greek word, not a word in English [54]. SpinningSpark 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "(in poetry) shivering, vulnerable" definition. It sounds plausible enough but I can't find any sources mentioning a poetic sense and my Mandarin just isn't advanced enough for this one. Bumm13 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


I've never seen "KTV" as an English term in Australia, Canada, England, India, or the United States.

I've only ever seen it in mainland China.

I suspect it's "pseudo English" just like German "Handy". Otherwise it's both new and regional.

Can we find some quotations and add the missing Chinese entry? — hippietrail (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 00:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Sense: "The creation of mutually beneficial partnerships between brands that help increase demand."

Two new senses were added to brandscape. However, they didn't fit there, so I moved them to brandscaping. I don't doubt citations can be found for the sense I've nominated, but the one provided by the user who originally added the sense to brandscape is a mention, plus it uses a very distinct spelling ("brand/skap-ing"). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


RFV for the plural-of-kernicterus sense

google books:"kernicteruses" = 0 hits. Kernicterus is uncountable. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure we ought to have this. The thing is, it doesn't seem to be used with verbs other than those of the first conjugation, whose stem ends in ā- (habitaculum from habito, cenaculum from ceno, spectaculum from specto, ientaculum from iento, potaculum from poto, etc.). Thus it would just be a wrong analysis spect-aculum for specta-culum : it's the suffix -culum (conventiculum, etc.), really. --Fsojic (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the same goes for -atio. --Fsojic (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A popular name for an elephant." Seems almost like a speedy as a lowercase common noun, but I give it the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps some elephant-related common noun belongs here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


"Blindness" (presumably in- + vision). I cannot find this in any dictionary. It is on the Wikipedia page, but looks like it could have been added by any joker or vandal. Equinox 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This is in the OED, which gives the quotation "Aristotle..computeth the time of their anopsie or invision by that of their gestation", attributed to Sir Thomas Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica. Webster's also includes it, and lists "Sir T. Browne"'s name. Strangely, according to this source, the Pseudodoxia Epidemica actually says non-vision, not invision. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Presumably Chicago University substituted a word more easily comprehended for one that the OED describes as obsolete and rare. Dbfirs 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess I presumed wrongly. See below. Dbfirs 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering they didn't so much as modernize the spelling of "anopsie" or "Musick", that seems unlikely to me. But in any case, here's a 1904 edition that also says "non-vision": [55]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Sir Thomas Browne died in 1682, and there were six editions of Pseudodoxia Epidemica. I expect that there have been several different printings since then with some substitutions for obsolete words, but at least one of the original editions must have used "invision". The fact that it hasn't been used since the 1600s suggests that, even if it was a word in 1646 (first edition), it isn't now. Dbfirs 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we can find an edition of the work (not just the sentence quoted in the OED) that uses invision, that'll give us one of the three requisite citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This 1658 edition also says "non-viſion". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a first edition, and, even if I could, I don't think I would find two other cites, so I agree that it is unlikely that the word will pass Wiktionary's criterion with this sense, even if the OED allows it. What I do find are a few cites for the meaning "seeing within", "imagination". Dbfirs 11:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any cites for that meaning, but the word is listed in numerous 19th century dictionaries [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. Perhaps it should be listed as dictionary only. I do have this cite,
Unless we bow reverently before God, own our ignorance and His omniscience, humbly and contritely wait upon the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity till He condescends to invision with Himself the lowly spirit — unless we will permit God to declare Himself, instead of ourselves constructing Him, we can have no genuine insight into His being or into our relations to Him. [64]
However, that would seem to mean "share a vision" or "bestow a vision". SpinningSpark 18:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


I know that this is a real word in both Spanish and Portuguese, but I just don't seem to be able to cite either of them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Crikey, I thought this was some new variation on that old meme.
    If it flies, is it a skypear?
    ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)



This adjective does not actually seem to be inflected using -er, -est, despite the claims of some other dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And even if it did, shouldn't it be "absenterminded" and "absentestminded"? ;-) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
um, not really...


"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)


It's not in any of my sources. I looked for uses of this, and found none. I suspect that the second sense comes from confusion with a lesser-used sense of the noun , that of "love affair." Note that this is not to be confused with the 連体詞 (adnominal) 色んな. Haplogy () 07:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Arrowred.png Oofda. Okay, checking the history, I note at least that this is an old entry. Given our current conventions, this page shouldn't exist (except perhaps as a redirect to ).
FWIW, my copy of Shogakukan's big honker does list the following three senses under a 形容動詞 (keiyō dōshi, na-adjective, literally adjectival verb) POS:
  1. of exceptional beauty of form or appearance (with a quote from the w:Utsubo Monogatari, late 10th c.)
  2. knowledgeable about lovemaking, sensual; lascivious, lecherous (with a quote from the w:Ochikubo Monogatari, late 10th c.)
  3. elegant, tasteful, refined (with a quote from w:The Tale of Genji, early 11th c.)
The currently given second sense on the 色な page is apparently a rough translation of the following bolded text in Shogakukan:

2. 恋愛の情趣を解するさま。色好みであるさま。

I'm happy to expand the entry later today, time allowing. And in light of that, I'll turn the 色な page into a redirect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I see, so it does have those senses. I should have looked harder. A second look reveals that it does indeed appear in my copy of Daijien although unfortunately the editors do not see a need to indicate a pos. Given that it's not in less comprehensive sources, I couldn't find any examples by going through my dump of Aozora Bunko, and I've never heard it used that way in my life, maybe those senses are {{context|archaic...}} or obsolete, or just uncommon? Haplogy () 02:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
They might be achraic or even obsolete. Shogakukan doesn't give much indication of a term's currency. Meanwhile, if Daijirin doesn't indicate pitch accent, that's often because the term in question isn't in modern (or at least spoken) use, but these senses use the same reading as the very-common noun. The Shinmeikai doesn't list any adj senses, but that's a smaller (and more ... idiosyncratic) dictionary anyway. A quick look at google:"色な人" doesn't pull up much that's clear -- most of these seem to be 色んな (​ironna) with the interstitial (​n) left out. Might have to ping @TAKASUGI Shinji. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It should be marked as archaic. In fact you may find 色なる in old texts, the modern form 色な probably don’t exist. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "A German." This was originally classified as a proper noun, right next to the sense "the people of the Netherlands", so it's possible that it was intended to say "the German people". That might be citable. But if "Dutch" can be cited as a common noun (presumably inflected like "one Dutch, two Dutches"?) in any meaning, I except it to be in the meaning "a person from the Netherlands". Actually, google books:"two Dutches" suggests that lowercase 'dutch' has more meanings than our entry currently accounts for. - -sche (discuss) 09:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the grammar of it, but I believe this sense is from English speakers commonly confusing the words "Dutch" and "Deutsch". Pengo (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I disagree, Dutch originally referred to Germans and other Germanic peoples before being eventually restricted to the Netherlandish. --WikiTiki89 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Right; Dutch referred generally to all continental West Germanic-speaking people before distinctions were made between the ones from the Netherlands and the ones from Germany. This is reflected by the obsolete sense 1 of the adjective and the obsolete sense 2 of the proper noun. But as a common noun, Dutch was never a count noun meaning "a German", though the Dutch could presumably be used to mean "the Germans", or rather "the continental West Germanic-speaking people(s)". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the non-collective noun sense sounds odd to me and I very much doubt its existence. --WikiTiki89 20:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's quite common to say things like "There were twenty Dutch, thirty French, and not one English". --WikiTiki89 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

subordinate trait[edit]

I'm not familiar with it, nor sure that it ought to have an entry; BGC hits seem to be dominated by a psychology sense (which is probably SOP). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The term is widely used in physiology, but I could not find a good definition anywhere, so I added it here. whatiguana 13 Feb. 2014


Rfv-sense # 2: "bottom, downside". None of the dictionaries in Outlook seem to have this as separate sense. Should it be merged with the 3rd sense "butt, buttocks" (which every Outlook dictionary has)? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This might be hard to verify given all the other senses of behind, though searching for it on the BYU corpora or on Google with a variety of determiners might help. It might be a job for the OED.
BTW, I don't recognize sense 1 either. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Sense 1: now that you say it, right. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've put some citations on the citations page, but these could be taken as sense #1. Sense #2 is still dubious, I think. SpinningSpark 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The "microscope" citation supports sense 1. The other two seem as much metaphor uses for sense 3 as anything else, but we often seem to enshrine metaphors as distinct definitions. But in any event they would seem to support sense 1 rather than sense 2. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy deletion by User:Neitrāls vārds with the note: "a typo? dicts don't list it, proper entries at tämā and ta", but I felt there was just enough doubt as to its nonexistence to merit verification before deletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Neitrāls seems to know his Livonian. He has added several Livonian entries. Spelling "täma" would indicate a "short" a in the end and it is thus not a standard spelling for "tämā" which ends in a "long" vowel. In Livonian a dash above a vowel indicates that it is pronounced "long". --Hekaheka (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, unnominated. Sjögren's dictionary (as old as it may be) had it, since this is a pronoun maybe another alt form won't hurt. However, old books like Sjögren's dictionary need to be used with discretion, for example, he lists one as ükš because the dict. was compiled before ü fronted to i (hence ikš). Also plural of tas as tasūd (as opposed to Viitso's tassõd), etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like it might be a good idea to tag this form "archaic". In fact, I just did it. Feel free to revert, if you disagree. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, if ikš was in fact ükš at the time Sjögren was writing, then having an entry for ükš that describes it as an {{archaic form of|ikš}} (and having similar entries for täma, etc) seems like the best thing to do. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, {{archaic form of}} looks the best. I actually went and created ükš, complete with a partial declension table, a definite contender for the "top 100 most contrived/most pretentious entries on Wiktionary" :D Neitrāls vārds (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Portuguese. About as citeable as my grandmother. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

google books:"your grandmother", google books:"my grandmother". --WikiTiki89 23:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Like tingo, this “word” is a favourite of those who don’t let facts get in the way of a good story. Furthermore, the entry’s creator is one of the major sources of uncitable Portuguese entries. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


As above, inflections included. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


RFV of both the Portuguese and Spanish sections. I see only one actual use in BGC, for Spanish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


I would like to see this attested in use (WT:CFI#Attestation, item 3; WT:CFI#Conveying meaning). Furthermore, I do no see occurrences of "flocci-nauci-nihili-pili-fication" as attesting "floccinaucinihilipilification". Searches: google books:"floccinaucinihilipilification", google groups:"floccinaucinihilipilification", floccinaucinihilipilification at OneLook Dictionary Search --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added four quotations of this spelling used to convey meaning, and there appear to be more on Google Books and Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Nothing obvious on a quick Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

After wading through 900 Google Groups hits, I can say there's not a single cite for the sense in the entry. There are a couple of well-attested senses we can add: a type of very potent marijuana, and an adjective meaning something along the lines of lame, defective, useless, etc. There's also a few examples of a derogatory epithet aimed at disabled people. The rest is people with Crippy as a nickname, a username belonging to someone whose last name is Rippy and first initial is C, and an occasional non-native speaker using "crippy" when they meant "creepy" Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)



Esperanto words for fuck buddy (male and female, respectively). I can only find one use at best: [65]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So is this a blend of -um- and amiko? How amusing. Seems like a protologism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it (or rather, geumikoj) actually has a published usage in La ĉapo de la sterko-vermo. In its glossary, Jorge Camacho defines it thus:
  • 1995, Jorge Camacho, La ĉapo de la sterko-vermo, Glosoj:
    umiko [slange] pli-ol-amika persono, kun kiu oni kutime umas, t.e. havas specialajn rilatojn kaj faras diversajn aferojn, ofte (sed ne nepre) seksajn [A. boyfriend, SF. poikaystävä]; umikino: tia personino [A. girlfriend, SF. tyttöystävä].
    umiko [slang] a more-than-friends person, with whom one habitually does unspecified things, i.e. has special relations and does diverse things, often (but not absolutely) sexual [boyfriend]; umikino: a female such person [girlfriend].
~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for adoptee. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Me either, though I have instead found usages of adoptito for "one who has been adopted". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Warlpiri uses several words for "water", but I haven't found evidence that this is one of them. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Both jiwiri and waji are listed in the Warlpiri dictionary. Beyond that, I can't say. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Warlpiri uses several words for "water", but I haven't found evidence that this is one of them. (It might be a word for "rainbow", though.) - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


The math sense. Note that google:"antirational field" and google:"antirational" site:arxiv.org turn up nothing relevant. I therefore suspect that this is not a term used in math but a word invented for the context (see the quotation in the entry) and not used anywhere else.​—msh210 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to RFV a sense that has no definition. I think it should be speedied. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A definition can be found in the sole attesting quotation. This should not be speedied. Even if there were no definition, a RFV would still be meaningful, asking this question: are there CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations for a technical mathematical sense of "antirational"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually when I made that comment I didn't realize there was already one citation. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There's another cite (snippet only for me), but note that the definition is different from the one in the cite in the entry! I'm guessing this one, too, was used ad hoc.​—msh210 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it might not be independent from the other citation, either. The citation currently in the entry is attributed to Masayoshi Nagata, and the book you just linked to says "Our definition differs slightly from the one given by Nagata [11]." —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I don't think that necessarily disqualifies it from being independent (if the authors were not actually collaborating on it, which is most likely not the case since the definitions are different). Everyone who uses a word has to have read or heard it somewhere and by your logic, that would every word in every language unciteable. However, since the definitions are different, we can't count them together for three citations anyway. --WikiTiki89 06:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added three cites to the citation page. They are clearly the same sense; at least two of the authors give a citation to Nagata. I think the citation found by msh210 is also valid; slight differences in definitions do occur with mathematics authors but this is clearly much the same concept and should be counted as the same sense as far as dictionary entries go. It is rather similar to the inconsistency over whether zero is included in \scriptstyle \mathbb N. SpinningSpark 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

gakko and gakkou[edit]

Haplology (talkcontribs) put a note in the two pages asking if we have "to include alternative transcriptions", and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Arrowred.png Personally, I must say that romanizing 学校 as gakko instead of ​gakkō is a bit like spelling apple as aple, or ate as at -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether. I don't think we have any business including "alternative transcriptions" as a matter of normal policy.
  • [[gakko]] is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: 楽戸 (gakko, in the Nara period, a kind of private-sector school or house of 雅楽 (gagaku, court music) unaffiliated directly with the official court gagaku office); 合期 (gakko, meeting a deadline; turning out as expected or hoped for, also read as gōgo). As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the "alternative transcription" content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
  • [[gakkou]] isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Chief of Party[edit]

Moved from RFD. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Minuscule spelling seems more widely used than the capitalized version > "Alternative capitalization of chief of party" ? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I expect that the lemma should be lowercase, yes... but which senses are citable? - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
1 and 3 are essentially the same. Judging by a quick BGC search, it looks rare/dated but attestable. The second sense is rare-ish but in use. I saw the president of the United States and the mayor of New York called "chief of party" when they were in a role of supporting some fellow-partisan's campaign for a public office. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]


Rfv-sense for Vietnamese (as in archaic Sino-Vietnamese) reading "tụ", as it's not found in either the Unihan database or at the Nom Foundation website database. Bumm13 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


This is one of those "ripped from the headlines" terms that seems to be too recent to meet CFI. There are a surprising number of Google Books hits, but none with even a snippet to verify that it's not a scanno. There are hits on Google Groups, but none seems to be more than a month or two old, and most, if not all, seem to be non-Usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

neknominate (an earlier word?) seems slightly more promising in Groups: [66]. Equinox 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Olinguito? I think this has crossed the threshold into the sort of widespread international use that would justify inclusion despite not meeting the one-year provision of CFI. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: I get hits before one-year on Google Search, however; without any time limitation there is certainly a lot of usage of this word, both on the web and the news:
  • Make no special exception. Everyone knows Google's numbers are wildly inaccurate. If you click through the pages, there are only 31 pages of results. And I have yet to find a single Google Books result that actually has the word in the search result. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Oh, wait, it's already at RFV; people are just voting "keep" and "delete" for some reason. If it meets CFI, it'll be kept; if it doesn't, it'll be deleted and can be re-examined next year. On which note, we should check if that Russian term for "pink slime" that some people were sure would be more than just a one-year fad has seen any current use. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp, if you can find CFI-compliant sources in Google (I imagine mainstream newspapers are fine) then please go ahead and add them. There is the spanning-one-year rule but I think Cloudcuckoo may be right about widespread use. Equinox 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the tip. The poster of the +tag should have to support their assertion. I think the definition is fine with the citations it has now :) I have provided the generic google search with plenty of citations from before a year ago. The person that posted the +tag, should have done his own research first. My suggestion would be to remove the +tag and advise the editor that posted it to do his own research first and not waste other peoples time. i.e. did the editor do anything before posting the +tag? Why should I have to go on a wild goose chase everytime some guy posts a +tag, let him provide the proof to support the +tag, not the other way around. Thanks. WritersCramp (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You're asking someone to prove a negative, i.e. prove that a word isn't in use, or (in this case) hasn't been in use for more than a year. That's not sensible. It's up to you to prove that the word meets our requirement that words have been in use for at least a year before being included. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit, all the editor had to do was perform a simple Google Search using the time range function, then they would have their proof. Example 1. WritersCramp (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Added three from the The Telegraph (UK), the Belfast Telegraph, and the Toronto Star. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately they don't even span a month let alone a year. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Three mainstream newspapers in a month, from different countries, feels like "widespread use" to me — well, given that it isn't based on a marketing stunt/press release (see Talk:wilf) and is also all over social media. Equinox 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not in "widespread use". Widespread use is for words like horse, apple, have, the, etc. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Equinox suggested that someone find mainstream newspaper cites. I'm aware they don't meet the one-year-span provision. I added them in the hope of documenting widespread international use. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the citations, but they are not enough. And international use has nothing to do with being widespread. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Me too. The widespread use clause is for words any speaker of the language in question is expected to know, not for slang a couple of journalists found cool and is likely to be forgotten in a few months. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The verification is anything but a slam-dunk. I looked through the two main sources for CFI-compliant usage examples and found nothing older than January, which is more than enough evidence to just delete it as a protologism. It seemed in enough use recently, though, for me to bring it here where it could be considered in more depth. It's very rare for us to use the widespread-use criterion for such a new term, so it would require discussion before doing so. In short, everything I looked at said I should delete it, but I wanted to give it a chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Editors like Chuck Entz are a hazard to Wiktionary, you are a deletionist and you add nothing to the dictionary. Now click on this link, which you could have done and should have done before you posted your frivilous +tag: Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 . 11:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I notice the Collins Harper website shows peoples potential new word contributions to their dictionary. I notice neknominate is one of them, although that does not affect our discussion, it is just a point of interest :). The webpage might be a good place for Wiktionary editors to find and consider new words to add to Wiktionary. WritersCramp (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    WritersCramp, drop the crap about Chuck Entz. This is an entriely good RFV nomination; your ignorance of CFI does not change that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Dan Polansky read the Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 citation, there are plenty of one-year of longer usage citations!! It is not a valid +tag, he did not even bother to check it, he just posted it without doing any research whatsoever! This is wasting everybody's time! WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Please place the attesting quotations at Citations:neknomination, but only those that meet the permanently recorded media criterion as per WT:ATTEST. Per common practice, permanently recorded media means printed media including those found at Google books, and Usenet. Your search is irrelevant, since it is not constrained to permanently recorded media; the first hit is Facebook, which is not permanently recorded media. Again, leave Chuck alone, and focus on attestation, since you are not going to convince us that the nomination was a poor one. And spare us the exclamation marks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Not completely irrelevant: the Google search shows no durably-archived cites, but there are plenty of references to actions taken by local governments and other official bodies that are likely to have durably-archived records. This looks to be very difficult to verify from online sources, but we only need one cite from before February of 2013 to clinch it. I was ambivalent about nominating this in the first place, and I hope we can verify it. Still, I obviously don't agree that the nomination was frivolous or reckless- I checked the usual sources, and everything pointed to a facebook-only phenomenon that only recently went into broad usage. A broad google search normally just turns up way too much irrelevant stuff to wade through- but in this case, it would have been helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose widespread use. That is, as for WT:ATTEST, the following line should not be applied to this term, IMHO: "clearly widespread use". Other than that, let this RFV run its course as usual, and if not CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations are found, let the entry be deleted. I propose the attesting quotations are placed at Citations:neknomination, since the entry is likely to get deleted, AFAICT. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • How long has the word Euromaidan been in use? WritersCramp (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    Almost certainly not for a full year, givne that the protests began 3.5 months ago; thank you for pointing that out. I have tagged it now, and listed it below. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


And various derived terms: jibabirut, hibabirut, babirutül, hibabirutül, jibabirutül, babirutülamit, babirutil, babirutamit, babirutik. Volapük for different types of babirusa. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


"(computing, of a release package or software installation) Having only the files and settings of a specific release of the software package; without updates or upgrades that were released subsequent to the release of a specific version. A fresh installation of Windows XP has Internet Explorer version 6. QA uses a fresh copy of the old version to test backward-compatibility of new add-ons." I believe that such sentences are merely sense 1 ("Newly produced or obtained"). A fresh copy of a file could just be a new copy one has made; it only so happens that a fresh installation will never include items that were released separately later. Equinox 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just sense 1. In British English (if it wasn't for Microsoft) we'd probably just say "a new installation" and "a new copy" because "fresh" is less often used with sense 1 on this side of the pond. Dbfirs 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

germana vo[edit]

And the alternative form ĝermana vo, which Kwamikagami has made a redirect for some reason. Esperanto for double-u. There are lots of mentions on Usenet, but I can't find any uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Gerhard Koebler's dictionary has this, and lists several alternative forms, witon, wuton, wutu. But they are all marked as unattested, with a *. How Koebler was able to include those terms if there are no attestations of them, I don't know, but I do think it means this should be checked. —CodeCat 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

funny he has an asterick beside it as its well attested: wuton wuldrian weorada dryhten halgan hlioðorcwidum . It supposedly stems from the optative plural for of wītan. Leasnam (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


RFV of both senses. Esperanto. I have never heard of this suffix. The entry gives prezidento as an example, but that doesn't really count—the word prezidento was borrowed into Esperanto as a unit, not composed from the verb prezidi plus a suffix. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Nr. 2 (sorcerer, magician) of the Japanese noun. I could not find any confirmation for this sense. Japanese Wikipedia does not mention it either (it mentions the first sense). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Missed seeing this, but I did see this change on the magician page, leading me to look at the 奇人 entry -- which was mostly bogus, apparently thanks to our magic- and Asian-languages-obsessed anon. So I fixed the entry.
Hope that addresses your concerns. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "stimming" and "to stim" definitions. These were added by an anonymous IP editor and may possibly be joke/vandalism edits (as those terms are often in reference to actions made by those with some form of autism). My sources only give reference to one's body being bent or crooked and not of these other meanings. Bumm13 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Arrowred.png Looks like pure tosh to me. Although this character isn't used in modern Japanese (not found in Kanjidic, though it has apparently been used historically), the Unihan database entry does give JA readings. These readings, yaseru and yamu, mean “to lose weight; to wither; to become sterile” and “to be ill; to become ill; to cease; to die down”. If this character is actually used for the stim meaning, it would appear to be language-specific, and thus it shouldn't go in the ==Translingual== section. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


Possible spam? (some hits for macrospection i.e. inspection with the naked eye) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


The citation in the entry is the only one present in Google Books that fits this sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And even that might be a scanno. I can't really tell from the low resolution snippet. --WikiTiki89 19:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Definitely a scanno. It’s hard to tell what the last letter is exactly but it’s certainly not an r. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the same page at the Internet Archive- it's a scanno for walrusses. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There's also Citations:walruser — "one who hunts walruses" — which is one cite shy of being includable. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


Per Talk:tight and two British speakers not knowing this supposed British slang, I am requesting proof of the "unfair, unkind" sense (not the same as the "miserly" sense, which is separate). Equinox 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the sense might be exclusive to Scouse, but Im struggling to find written evidence. It's not in "The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English"Google finds it for me now!. I could go to Liverpool and record regular usage, but finding written evidence isn't so easy. It's a comparatively recent addition to Scouse slang: tight-fisted = miserly -> mean -> unfair, unkind. Dbfirs 07:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
... later ... The best cite I can find is from a Brookside script, and it could be interpreted as just the tight-fisted / miserly / mean sense with only the implication of unfair. I haven't found any cites of the unkind usage, so perhaps it is not common enough to merit inclusion in Wiktionary yet. If we add mean to the miserly sense, then most written usages are covered, and so are the Scouse slang senses by extension of the word mean. Dbfirs 10:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It's in at least the 2006 edition of the New Partridge, together with three citations. Sense 3. I'm familiar with it from the Wirral area too. A couple more cites, including one dating back to the 70s (note that Willy Russell is a Liverpool playwright - not sure about the origin of the other one):
  • 1977, Willy Russell, Our Day Out, Act One, Scene One
Reilly: Ey, Miss, hang on, hang on... can we come with y', Miss? Can we?
Digga: Go on, Miss, don't be tight, let's come.
  • 2011, Andrew Hicks, "Thai Girl: A story of the one who said 'no'", unnumbered page
"That's right ... so even when life's a grind, the Thais keep smiling. They think the farang are a miserable lot who have to get drunk to enjoy themselves."
"Dutch, that's tight mate, I mean what's wrong with getting pissed. When you're not working, you gotta have a good time," said Darren.
Smurrayinchester (talk) Today, 11:45 (UTC+1)
Thanks for finding those. It's difficult to know for sure how far the "unfair"/"unkind" sense is intended, but I think we can claim a separate regional sense. Dbfirs 20:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

lado rosa da Força[edit]

lado azul da Força[edit]

More unciteable jokes by our very own Daniel Carrero. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


This spelling looks suspicious. The initial entry contained interwiki links to pl:Zabrhe and de:Zabrhe, but these are non-existent (apparently the city's name was spelled Sadbre at some point, and the German name for it is Hindenburg; oh the humanity). Nothing shows up in web searches. Keφr 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

According to w:History of Polish orthography, what is now spelled "cz" was once also spelled "ch". The use of "rh" instead of "rz" may be another old orthographic feature. —CodeCat 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
But let's put postulations aside and try to find whether this exists. --WikiTiki89 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean that since it's probably an old spelling, you'd need to look for old sources. You may not find any in the usual places, but only in more specialised ones. —CodeCat 20:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This is supposedly an English alternative spelling, though. I find it doubtful that a Middle-Ages spelling of a relatively obscure city's name survived in modern English (or, in fact, any language). Keφr 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for genealogical table. No hits on Google Books or even on a regular Google search. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


"Sparing; not lavish; not disposed to give freely; frugal; ungenerous." This sense is not in Chambers. Also, the given usex, "I am chary of giving him too many compliments and favours", does not appear to match the sense; here, the word means "cautious", which is a different (extant) sense. Equinox 22:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

MW Online has: "b: slow to grant, accept, or expend <a person very chary of compliments>", the "expend" element of which is close to the sense challenged. Presumably a search for "chary of gifts|compliments|favors|loans|handouts" would provide support for at least the broader MW sense. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I found sufficient support for it, but I'm skeptical about the breadth of usage in the challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The OED has seven senses, most of them obsolete. It doesn't mark this "sparing" sense as obsolete, but I'd be inclined to believe that it is at least dated. Dbfirs 20:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The OED's cheese-paring, nip-farthing opinions regarding currency will get it, and us, into trouble. I believe the term is in rather common use in contemporary 'Regency Romance' literature, in the cited sense and others. - Amgine/ t·e 22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It was my opinion that the sense was "dated". The OED doesn't make that claim. Which other senses are used in contemporary 'Regency Romance' literature? Dbfirs 08:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

data lake[edit]

Needs cleanup if OK. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)






Volapük for various types of crows. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


I want to add this definition to as:

  • "(UK, Australia, slang) Very, extremely."
    She's clever as, like.

The problem is that it is unciteable as - "as" is such a common, versatile word that even seemingly implausible word combinations ("as as well", "as mate", "as too", "as like") get too many irrelevant hits on Google Books, and it's no good searching books written in promising dialects either (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning might have an intensifying "as" in there somewhere, but it also has hundreds of conventional ones). It's in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (where it's marked as "Australian"), but I can't think of any way to actually find the three citations we need... Any ideas? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: singular form of "you". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been fairly thoroughly studied. Some references can be found here at Garner's. We should have some cites. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems controversial, I personally would not consider "See y'all later" spoken to a single person as being specifically singular, but rather number-neutral. --WikiTiki89 17:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If we are trying to have a dictionary that helps normal humans I don't think number-neutral in a helpful term, whether or not it is part of linguist's vocabulary. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Did I accidentally imply that you have to copy and paste my sentence directly into the entry without changing anything? --WikiTiki89 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. Should he have usage notes? Should we call it singular?
This sense has been the subject of regular criticism on the talk page, so citations of it would certainly be appreciated. I expect Wikitiki is right that "y'all" doesn't have "singular you" as a meaning, but only has "plural you" and something like "you; singular or plural you, the two not being distinguished". - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
While y'all is plural only, it is occasionally said to a sole person. There are several possible explanations for it: (1) lapsus linguae (the speaker is so accustomed to using the plural that he uses it where he should not); (2) the speaker is including the listener’s family, or perhaps his friends or colleagues that regularly accompany him; or (3) the speaker senses that the singular you is too personal and chooses the plural to sound less personal and more distant. —Stephen (Talk) 18:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree, but think that with respect to point 3 it is probably the opposite. Rather than being less personal, y'all is more informal, and therefore may be more personal. bd2412 T 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
As a native speaker of a dialect that includes y'all I can say that option (3) is excluded. Saying y'all to one person in English is nothing at all like saying vous to one person in French. If I say y'all to one person I always mean "you and the people you represent"; for example, if I say to a friend, "How're y'all doing?" I mean "you and your family" and if I say to a supermarket employee, "Do y'all have grits?" I mean "you as a representative of this supermarket". It isn't number-neutral the way you is; it is distinctly plural, though the other members of the group addressed need not be present. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant by personal. The word you can be very personal...if I say, "You, come here!"...it sounds very in-your-face and overly personal. It sounds like you’re about to be punished for something. But if I say, "Y'all come here," then it sounds much less in-your-face, less personal, more generalized, softer, and friendlier. —Stephen (Talk) 22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of personal = informal (i.e. "softer, and friendlier") and impersonal = formal. bd2412 T 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If you said "Y'all come here" to me, I would look around to see who else you were speaking to, and if there was no one else around but me, I would worry you were suffering from double visions or hallucinations. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)




Gender-nonspecific, male, and female, respectively. Völapuk for an extinct species of zebra. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Looks unattestable according to our rules. RAMSET is a manufacturer of powder-actuated tools, but I found no evidence of the word "ramset" being used of the nails that the tool rams into any material it is pointed at. It's not in Onelook. The word seems to be used as verb on various handyman discussion forums, but I found nothing durably archived. So perhaps the noun section should be deleted and the verb section labeled with {{cx|construction|slang|lang=en}}? --Hekaheka (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems sensible. I also fits my experience. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


"A fit to suit. His pipe was as moded as his ideas." I don't understand what this is trying to say. It looks redundant to sense 2, though ("contraction of outmoded", i.e. dated). Equinox 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The history of this entry is instructive: the user who created it only created two other entries, one of which was slippier- I suspect it was an error for modded.The usex was added by the user who fixed the formatting, so it probably is based on a wild guess at the meaning.
IMO this whole entry suffers from incompetence aided by lack of attention. The Adjective header was added by an en-3 Finnish editor, and seems completely wrong: the adjective senses would be covered by the "past tense and past participle of mode" verb sense- if there were a verb section at mode. The only other editors aside from bots were obviously there to fix specific things, and didn't look at the entry as a whole.
So far I haven't been able to find anything in Books remotely like the rfved sense: aside from the "having a mode" or "put in a mode" participle senses, there's a lot of scannos for "moved" (due to old scripts) and "modest", one that supports the "embarrassed" sense, and not much else- but I haven't begun to look through all the hits. I did completely check "was moded" and "as moded" before I started on the bare word. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops! The usex was part of the original entry. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the "Example:" section was intended for the entry as a whole, and was made with the "outmoded" sense in mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

black ox trod upon my foot[edit]

google books:"black ox trod upon my foot" find two important things:

  • seems to be copied verbatim from the book listed under references
  • that seems to be the only attestation on Google Books. No actual usage. 13:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a figurative expression used only in that context. For something to be a proverb, it needs to see regular usage outside the context of the book. Delete. JamesjiaoTC 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
If you allow in your search terms for minor variations, it's not as rare as it first seems: Google Books: "black ox" trod "foot". At any rate, it seems to be mostly Elizabethan, or thereabouts, with some dialectal usage since. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If you check out the first hit in the search Chuck Entz provided, Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hardin Craig (1941) has "The proverb "The Black Ox has not Trod on His Foot" in Renaissance Literature by Archer Taylor that gives a plethora of cites for various forms, defining it as "1. He has not known trouble in the married state", "2. He is inexperienced, he has not known sorrow or care", "3. She has not suffered the ravages of age", and "4. He has not known want.", backed up with at least 20 citations. I think it's a pretty clear keep in some form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Ido for lipid. I can't find a single citation, but it's hard to search for due to interference from Italian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

pendura uma melancia no pescoço[edit]

2 hits. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

qr tc[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

bicha pão com ovo[edit]

2 hits. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Abbreviation of cacete. As an abbreviation of cassete it is easily attestable. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

é nós[edit]

Supposedly proscribed slang meaning “we are”. It is easily attestable, but not with this meaning. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

provar por A + B[edit]

The unabbreviated form, provar por A mais B, is easily attestable, but I only found 2 cites for this.— Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would we keep it at all, even if it is attestable? To "prove by A plus B" and "prouver par A plus B" are also attestable, as are probably similar sentences in many languages but we aren't going to have them, are we? --Hekaheka (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It’s idiomatic in Portuguese. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like standard mathematics phrasing. I'm confused -- how is this idiomatic? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It can be used in any context. For example, the first page of Google Books hits include proving that the reason you missed work was because you were sick, proving who really wrote a song, proving you love someone, proving someone is a surrealist, proving a program is better than the others, proving how tyrannical someone’s heart is, etc. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks can be deceiving — "to prove by A + B" has no unambiguous mathematical meaning; it all depends on what "A", "B" and "+" are. If a proof literally relies merely on adding two numbers, a mathematician would not write "prove by A + B", but "the proof is left as an exercise for the reader". So if this is attestable, I expect most uses to be figurative and unrelated to mathematics. Keφr 19:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


One mention. One use as wordplay. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Transitive sense (create from nothing) is rare but extant. I can't find the alleged intransitive sense. Equinox 19:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "lofty" definition (specifically, the "personality" sense) as I can't find any sources that give this sense and no reference for it was given. Bumm13 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't even find any JA sources that list this character at all. It's apparently only listed in KanjiDic and in the Unihan database (which JA information seems to be cribbed from KanjiDic), but that doesn't satisfy CFI, and it's not in WWWJIDIC, it's not in any of my dead-tree resources to hand, google books:"嶜"+"は" comes up with nothing, and most of google:"嶜"+"は" appears to be either Chinese, or other online dictionary echo chambers.
My guess is that this character shows up in some obscure ancient text that was used to help compile KanjiDic, and that it hasn't been used at all since then. Given that I cannot find any citations in Japanese, I strongly suggest that we expand this RFV to include the JA entry for this character. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese source for this character is the Dai Kan-Wa Jiten (Morohashi dictionary), specifically entry 08481 (from Unihan database entry) Bumm13 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If that's the only place it appears, as it currently seems, then this entry fails citation requirements. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense of two senses:

  1. "(broader sense) Ethnicistic prejudice, discrimination or hostility directed against any other Semitic people (ancient or modern), such as Samaritans, Palestinians, Arabs or Assyrians; anti-Samaritanism, anti-Palestinianism, anti-Arabism, anti-Assyrianism."
  2. "Prejudice or hostility towards adherents of Abrahamic religions."

There having been some discussion throughout the past century about the use of "anti- + Semite" to mean "anti- + [one category of Semite]", I suppose there may be uses of the first of those senses (added in diff), though I expect it may be rare and restricted to specific contexts. The second sense I am not familiar with at all. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Our "beloved" pro-Palestine POV pusher Islam editor added three citations for the former sense, and listed them under the latter. Sigh. Also, can we get rid of these awkward-sounding "ethnicistismic" and "religionistisismicistic" labels? I doubt anti-Semites care what they base their prejudice on. Keφr 07:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the words "ethinicistic" and "religionistic" are not only a handful to read, but also add no additional meaning to the definition. --WikiTiki89 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added the qualifier "rare" to both if that helps. Pass a Method (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It helps, but they still need to be attested. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the citations are fine now. Pass a Method (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Ido for drinking. This word is easily attestable in Esperanto, but I can't find any uses in Ido. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)



Supposedly "occupied Palestinian territories". ngrams results for "oPt" seem to be white noise. Keφr 08:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

common law[edit]

Two senses seem problematic. One appears to be defining "common law system" and the other "common law jurisdiction". Should these senses really appear under common law on its own? Equinox 16:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Really? —CodeCat 18:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In Google Books there are several variations of a joke about a Latin professor (here, for instance), and another humorous use here- but also a couple that aren't explicitly jokes (here and here. There are similar results in Google Groups, with a couple not explicitly labeled as jokes here and here.
It's not at all common, since it requires knowledge of Latin declensional endings to get the joke. If kept, I think it should be labeled as humorous. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The creator apparently wasn't sure [67]; I have added "nonstandard, humorous". Equinox 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't require that much knowledge of Latin; knowledge of English examples like spectrum/spectra and bacterium/bacteria is enough for a person to get the joke. Likewise if I were to jokingly use the word walri even people who've never had a Latin class in their life would get it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
... and if the joke is made often enough, the plural starts to be accepted, as for hippopotami (though I suppose they do live in fluvii, and Livingstone used the illogical plural long before Flanders and Swann). If someone famous starts to call buses "bi" (as an MP once did for omnibi), will that become an accepted plural? Dbfirs 23:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What's illogical about hippopotami? It's the correct Latin plural. The ones that rub me the wrong way are octopi and platypi. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
What's illogical is using another language's plural morpheme when a suitable one exists in one's own language. You don't see Latin speakers using hippopotamoe just because that would be the Latinization of the correct Greek plural. --WikiTiki89 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
... and the word came from Greek as much as from Latin (late Greek ἱπποπόταμος, from ἵππος horse + ποταμός river), hence my joke about fluvii. I agree with your dislike of the much more obviously wrong "octopie" and "platypie". Dbfirs 19:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done punning. Hippopotamoe was too good to pass up. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, but English speakers are suspicious of words that have too many [əs]/[əz] sequences in a row. It's like the old joke: "Q: What's the correct plural of narcissus: narcissus, narcissuses, or narcissi? — A: Daffodils." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That's probably what leads processes to be pronounced processees, but logical explanations of a phenomenon don't make the phenomenon logical. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, it seems to me that sequences of S's don't sound good formally, but are totally acceptable colloquially, creating a backwards world where correct plurals (and possessives) are unacceptable in formal language. --WikiTiki89 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Added four of Chuck Entz’s citations to the entry, as well as an etymology section explaining its pseudolatin origin. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective

Needs citations that are not attributive use of the noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather tempting to speedy it, especially when I see the hyperformal "piscine; ichthyic" above "It was a fine fish dinner". Nobody ever had a piscine, ichthyic dinner. Equinox 02:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


From the Tea Room:

I don't think this exists! A misspelling of machicolate? —This comment was unsigned.

I have added three citations, and verified they are not scannos. It would be hard to find more. Equinox 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It could still be a misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
And even if you believe that this strange spelling was intended, it still looks like an alternative spelling, not a separate word. Dbfirs 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as an uncommon misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the quotes, the first one is from the sequel to the poem quoted in the second one, so it's even rarer than it looks. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It is hard to determine the relative frequency to "machiolated" (of which this is supposedly a misspelling or alternative spelling), since the latter is not very common either. In any case, machiolated should be turned into a standalone entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I think machiolated is really an alternative form/misspelling of machicolated. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the definition of machiolated to point to machicolated. Machiolated is not quite as rare, either in absolute terms or relative to machicolated, so I am not going to RFD it. You can RFD it if you like. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Would anyone object if I change the machiolate entry to "rare spelling of machicolate"? I can't see any difference in the meanings, so I assume that they are the same word. Dbfirs 08:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me to be a very rare misspelling, and thus not includable. - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
At first I thought that all the Google hits were echoes of Wiktionary, but I've found more than three citations, including one from a UK Local Government publication, and from various historical websites, though they mainly cite a usage from Middle English. (I think we have entries for spellings that are even rarer, but I'd be happy to have those deleted.) Should the language header be changed to Middle English, since the word was obviously widely used by Henry VII in numerous licences to build? Dbfirs 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Orthographically updated, post-1500 versions of Middle English works — which is what the citations currently dated 1469 and 2014 are — probably count as ==English== according to the logic set out here. But note that those citations (a) are not independent of each other, since they're both by Henry VII, and (b) support "machiolate" being a synonym/variant of the verb "machicolate", not an adjective. In contrast, the 1825, 1903 and 1990 citations are of an adjective, but the 1825 and 1903 citations are not independent of each other (and one of them seems to be dated incorrectly), according to Chuck's comment above. However, I am persuaded that the spelling is intentional rather than a misspelling.
I suppose this thread should be moved to RFV, since the question is now an RFV question of whether any sense/POS is attested. At the moment, we have effectively one citation (really two non-independent citations) for a verb ("{{cx|rare|archaic}} {{alternative form of|machicolate}}"), and two citations (two non-independent citations + one other citation) for an adjective ("{{cx|rare}} {{alternative form of|machicolated}}"). - -sche (discuss) 08:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This had been listed at RFD (after being mentioned in the Tea Room), because it seemed to be a misspelling. Enough uses have been found to suggest that it is in fact an intentional spelling... but not all of the uses are independent or for the same POS — see my comment of 08:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC) above. There is effectively one citation of machiolate as a verb, and effectively two of it as an adjective, and I just can't find any more. Can you? - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for citing the verb instead of the adjective. The verb occurs in many different documents issued by the administration of HenryVII, but I agree that these are not independent, even when quoted in other documents. I've added one more cite for the adjective. Dbfirs 19:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Thanks for finding so many citations. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

pack rat[edit]

Rfv-sense: (informal) A scavenger.

I think a much better one-word gloss would be hoarder. Also scavenger implies one is collecting items generally considered of low value, whereas a pack rat hoards things which may be of some value to others, but not to the pack rat.

I added a definition which includes both gathering and keeping and generally fits my understanding of the word. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that scavenger implies low value. But other than that, I agree that a better gloss is hoarder. --WikiTiki89 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
MWO's most applicable def for scavenge: "to salvage from discarded or refuse material; also: to salvage usable material from". This strongly implies low value.
Thinking about this a bit more: there is nothing that requires that a human pack rat scavenge his hoardings. He could just keep purchased or made items that others would discard, eg, packaging, string, old newspapers, eight-track audio tapes, instruction manuals to obsolete or discarded equipment. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It does not imply low value. It implies that you find something of value in a pile of seemingly useless material. --WikiTiki89 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
To me value is not intrinsic, but the result of exchange, the last price paid. That is, I am an economist by training and habit of thought. Discarding something gives it zero value. Obviously a salvage yard - or a scavenger - is attempting to convert zero-value items to cash. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Meaning a citizen of the United States. User:Pass a Method added three quotations to this entry shortly after creating it, but of those quotations, two were scannos for Hessian and the other was a mention, not a use. All I can see on Google Books is more scannos. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I must have misread, sorry. Pass a Method (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Pass a Method: RFV is not a vote, and it is not even a "!vote". The outcome depends on the existence of cited usage, not on what people write in bold letters. What is it that you have "misread"? Keφr 17:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'm used to encountering USian (or more rarely Usian as an alternate spelling) as synonym of American, but restricted to the United States senses. That said, our entry at USian was apparently deleted back in 2006 for failing RFV. google books:"USian" shows a lot of noise, but there are some valid hits, like this one:

Before developing this idea of "counter-worlding" any further, I would also note that as a postcolonial-oriented comparativist of Canadian and Québécois literatures, I am inevitably drawn to considering such an approach vis-à-vis the United States – especially within the immediate context of greater pressures on Canada and Quebec to integrate within the USian imperial nexus in terms of national, continental, and international policies and values, as well as the current academic debates over whether the US should be a subject of postcolonial studies or whether analyses of its cultures, writings, and politics would be well served by the new field of North American studies.

... or like this one:

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats, a British political party that are liberal in the British, rather than the American, sense – while for the most part the beliefs of the party as a whole (though not of every member) tend to overlap with the USian definition, for us liberalism is based around the idea of allowing the individual the maximum freedom to run their life as they wish – the role of the state being to remove, rather than to add, restrictions on individual liberty.

I'm sure a third cite could be found. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Add these to Citations:USian, then. This is the RFV for Uessian. Two different things. Keφr 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I was unable to cite Uessian. There were two cites of use as adjective to be found on Usenet, both from 1997, and only one use as a noun from a Texas newspaper. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Said to be an intransitive regional British form of "be". Is it really? The commonness of the name "Abe" makes it hard to search for, even for phrases like "to abe with", "to abe in the"... - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Three citations added. The OED lists several more, mostly with the spellings "abee" and "a-be". All three citations I've added and all 10 or so in the OED are part of the phrase let abe, so maybe that's what we should have an entry for. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to say the same. The OED says "obsolete" for the sense "let alone" (not to mention), and both regional and rare for the sense "desist from". I'd guess that the word might still exist in the Scots language, and hence Scottish English (... any experts here?). I've never heard it in northern England. Dbfirs 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Portuguese. Added by a user who was later banned for, among other things, adding made-up stuff. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense="the north-east African peninsula or region", i.e. "Horn of Africa" or "Horn peninsula", which was rashly deleted. Is it colloquial? Can someone guess that "Horn" is actually a peninsula or a region? It must be local or with someone who lives or travels there a lot in that area. I think it's too ambiguous. Additionally, I think Horn peninsula should be restored and kept. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(E/C)@-sche: Thanks for providing a citation ("...this was the first coup in the Horn ..."). I can tell from it that the reader already knows, which Horn the author is talking about. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The adjective section was so dubious I deleted it outright. And I've added a RFV-sense tag to the other sense, "the states which occupy this peninsula", here and at Horn of Africa: is that really a distinct sense?
The "a peninsula which juts into the Arabian Sea" sense is fairly common as an ellipsis. I don't know if it should be included or not. An ellipsis like "Republic"="Republic of Ireland", based on books saying "relations with the Republic of Ireland continued to worsen [...] in June, the Republic withdrew its ambassador", is something I would definitely exclude. ("State" in particular would probably gain about 300 senses if the aforementioned kind of ellipsis were allowed.) In contrast, my inclination would be to allow "Horn"="Horn of Africa" even if most of the citations are like the one I just added. Hmm... :/ - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "An idealized destination or object of one's ambition". There is one citation from Joyce below it, but it isn't clear that Joyce is using the word in that sense. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you make of these: “The spring cod is our America”, “I have my domestic America”, “So this is my America, she had thought when she first saw the house”? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The context of the first one is: "Herring and cos fishing offered an alternative to emigration, which many chose. 'The spring cod is our America,' said a later report from Møre. [...] Farm owners were leaving for America [...]." It seems to me that America is being used there in, or in trivial allusion to, its usual geographic sense: farmers were leaving for the US because there was no money to be made in farming but there might be money to be made in the US; fishers, meanwhile, could stay put, because there was money to be made in fishing. I would equate that with "Many of them bought blue cars as status symbols. We couldn't afford one, so we bought a foobar. The foobar was our blue car."
The second one is a translation of a Mozambican Portuguese poem, the full verse of which is "I now know that I don't need to go to America. I say this as I get lost in a street in Johannesburg. I have my domestic America. So what?" And the book goes on to say "America as the intertext for Johannesburg would certainly have pleased the Sophiatown writers and musicians of the 1950s, who felt passionately for an imagined America as a template of modernity." It's pretty far from an English use of "America" to mean "idealized destination or object of one's ambition", in my opinion.
The third one concerns an Italian immigrant to (AFAICT) Canada, and the full paragraph is: "So this is my America, she had thought when she first saw the house: the paint chipped and patchy, the front stairs cracked, the tiny front yard littered with old tires. 'Mia casetta in Canada.' None of the houses in her village were as flimsy as this one. Nor had she imagined how confined she would be to the house, locked in partly by her lack of English and her not being able to drive but mostly by the never-ending winter." That, again, seems pretty far from "the object of one's ambition"; the Italian immigrant in question seems unhappy about being stuck in [North] America.
As a side note: if citations of this sense can be found, I'll be curious to see if they're from the US or not. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

kabana / kabanos / cabanossi[edit]

I'm listing an entry I created years ago, as I'm unsure of the following facts.

For kabana, is the etymology from the Polish word kabanos which is pork only, not pork and beef. Is it Australian or is it more widespread.

The entry for kabanos lists Polish only, but has a link back to kabana, which seems contradictory.

Should kabana link to cabanossi (which we don't have yet) or vice versa. The Wikipedia article on cabanossi does seem to describe what I know to be kabana and links there.--Dmol (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Cited. Every book using this word I could find was published in Australia, so I think it’s a safe bet to add the Australian context label. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


This entry contains a whole lot more senses than there are citations of this word by different authors in modern (post-1500) English. George Stephens used the "transition" sense a lot, so only two more citations are needed for it; I also managed to find one citation of the "exceed" sense. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we can save this entry by condensing the nearly-redundant senses together. Do "go beyond", "overrun", "exceed" and "overdose" have such different meanings that they can't be replaced with a simple "to outdo, to overdo."? A lot of cites seem to be using it in a Dutch or Danish context (eg. in discussions of Kierkegaard, the House of Orange or the Dutch colonies), which adds to the complexity, and some are probably Scots rather than English (eg this). I've added a few cites; I think there are ultimately two verb senses here - "to pass over" and "to surpass" - and two noun senses - "a passage over something; a right of way" (from Scots) and "a transition" (from Dutch/Danish) - and perhaps even these could be combined as literal and metaphorical takes on the same root sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    The "short overganging chimney" citation (from a snippet) for the "to pass over" is almost certainly a scanno for "short overhanging chimney", which latter collocation has 16 Google Books hits, with "overhanging chimney" getting a raw Google count of 1,080. DCDuring TALK 10:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I checked the original text - it does say "overganging" in the book. Normally, I'd assume it was a typo, but since it's a Scottish journal, I gave it a pass. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
But it really looks like a mistake for the common collocation in climbing literature. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
See this cite from the same Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough then. Discount that one, and maybe the "overgang to maintain Catholic freedom" one as well. That seems like it might be just a quotation of the Dutch word. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've collapsed the noun and verb sections down to a single sense each, but kept the RFV open. The adjective sense looks doomed - I can't find any evidence that anyone other George Stephens ever described runes as "overgang", so I assume its just an idiosyncrasy of his. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


I ask for attestation per WT:ATTEST, since I can't find enough attesting quotations. Consider placing them at Citations:Usonan, since at least one can probably be found. google books:"Usonan", google groups:"Usonan", Usonan at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

After going through all seven pages of Google Books results, I've found lots of Esperanto hits for usonan, a few mentions, and lots of scannos for "us on an", but only one definite hit [68] as well as one that is a possible hit, but not clearly legible [69]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's an early variant of Usonian that didn't catch on. See the usage notes at Usona. I would think simply being derived from Usona, which is well-attested, would be enough to keep it here, since it's the natural adjective form. Soap (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


German interaction meaning guten Morgen (good morning). Google Books does show quite a few hits for "morgn" as a contracted form of morgen/Morgen, however I can't find many hits where it's used specifically as an interjection. Also I'm not sure if we (should) include such forms which simply reflect contractions in spoken language... Longtrend (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't even be pronounced differently from morgen (which is pronounced [ˈmɔʁɡŋ̩] or [ˈmɔɐ̯ɡŋ̩] in colloquial speech); it's pure eye dialect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
See RFD discussion for Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#daughterin'. It seems that we have nothing against eye dialect. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

a friend in need is a friend indeed[edit]

RFV-sense "A needy friend is an undesirable friend." - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I also RFV-sensed the second sense "Someone who needs your help is likely to be more friendly towards you." which I think is just a misinterpretation of the proverb (i.e. "in need" is interpreted as referring to the friend rather than to the speaker or listener), and I don't think anyone uses the proverb that way. --WikiTiki89 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There are definitely people who understand/use "a friend in need" to mean "a friend who is in need" rather than "someone who is a friend to you when you are in need", probably because that's how "in need" functions in many (most?) other cases, e.g. Children in Need. But "...is likely to be more friendly towards you" seems like a cynical interpretation. I've added (as a new sense) a different definition that I think better matches the neutral/positive tone of the citations I added with it. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


Rfv-sense: "ethnic cleansing". Keφr 04:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


After removing the Arabic IPA and the Arabic pronunciation file from this page, I realized that the whole entry looks like it was copied from (presumably some past version of) the Arabic entry محمد. --WikiTiki89 05:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only a transliteration of the male name Muhammad, which in Urdu is also written as محمد. Checked against one dictionary I use for Hindi. Hindi and Urdu entries go hand in hand. I'm converting it to the proper noun. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the dictionary in reference was actually used. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you're comfortable removing the sense I RFV'd then I'm satisfied. --WikiTiki89 05:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


The incompetent general's brilliant aid: should this be spelt aide? If so, this example sentence is misleading. Donnanz (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice there is a sense 7: aide-de-camp. Perhaps the example sentence can be moved there. Donnanz (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, both the OED and the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary say that "aid" is an acceptable alternative for "aide" (with the OED noting that using "aid" for "aide" is chiefly found in US military contexts). I agree with Donnanz that sense 7 already covers this. In any case, sense 3 seems to describe things, not persons, and I would just delete this old and unhelpful e.g. sentence from sense 3. -- · (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The numbers for each sense seem to have been mucked up, either by the rfv or the following quote. Donnanz (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, Donnanz, within the numbered senses you should use the template {{rfv-sense}}. I fixed it. -- · (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks; it's the first rfv I have ever done (and probably not the last). Donnanz (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


It looks like literal but not idiomatic translation from English. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Knowing the IP who created it, it's probably just the result of running the English through Bing Translate. If they ever get anything right it's by sheer luck- they've repeatedly demonstrated they have no knowledge of Chinese or Japanese, but have created dozens of entries in those languages anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he added a lot of bogus translations at devil's luck. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The one hit in the Google books - 魔鬼有魔鬼的運氣 "devils have devil's luck" must be a result from a literal translation of Emil Ludwig's Napoleon's biography. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Chinese Internet is quite big now, so 11K hits in web searches may not be a lot. There's a lot of Chinglish out there. It may be a neologism but too new to be included. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not English, no. But someone who speaks Dutch might have a better idea. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've had a stab, but someone who actually knows Dutch should definitely clean it up. A lot. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A Dutch spelling of lock and load, maybe? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure it's "Cloth-lead", being a cast or pressed lead seal with marks to show quality and origin of bolts of cloth. One of the quotes I found mentioned "staalloden" as well. See also http://wf4.nl/Index/indexlakenloden1.htm for examples of the object, and this bachelors thesis (in Dutch) on the subject. On further investigation, "Cloth Seal" might be a better translation, but that would still need an explanation for what a "Cloth Seal" actually is.
unless you're joking. I can't always tell. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 06:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - "a word or phrase that sounds the same as an other". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Added three citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The cites look good to me. The entry would benefit from application of {{examples-right}} with about three clear, entertaining examples. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese pregar[edit]

I was wondering if any native Portuguese speakers could verify or attest the sense of "to pray" for pregar? The native Portuguese speakers I've talked to said they weren't even aware of this meaning for the word, and just the other ones of "to preach" and "to nail". The standard Portuguese dictionaries don't seem to list it either. Though I have seen an etymological site that once mentions it as a descendant of Latin 'precari', which is interesting, considering the debate about this meaning of "pray"; I'm not sure if this is completely accurate though. I've also seen it listed under an old Italian etymological dictionary when listing cognates of 'pregare', but the Spanish 'pregar' (which does not have the sense of preach or pray) is conspicuously absent while Portuguese is included. Could it just be an archaic or uncommon sense? And could it, if it does legitimately exist, have derived from that of "to preach" or is it an originally independent verb derived from precari, meaning it should go under a separate "Etymology 3"? Word dewd544 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedied as created in error. I found nothing on this, not even mentions. I guess it is a regionalism limited to my area.
One of my dictionaries mentions a sense of pregar derived from precari: to beg for something, which it marks as archaic. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


All senses. The citations make a good case for "haranging" as an alternative form or misspelling of "haranguing", but a cursory Google books search doesn't find anything useful for harang itself, either as a verb or a noun. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Books searches for "haranged" and "his harangs" give numerous valid results for the verb and noun senses respectively. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd still question whether "haranged" proves the existance of "harang" - dropping the -ue from "harangue" when conjugating it seems like a more plausible explanation. Still, searching "would harang" has found a very small number of results. Do we mark this as an alternative form, or a misspelling? Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't record all attestable misspellings, only "common" ones, but without any specification of "common". I would think a frequency of at least one percent of the correct spelling AND some reasonably large absolute number would be required for something to be considered a common misspelling. The ing- and ed-forms may be common even if the bare form is not. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Cited. Seems to be an obsolete spelling rather than a misspelling. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


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 ([70]). 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)


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)


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: [71] [72] [73]. 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 for bend and horse-keeper senses (I haven't found any sources mentioning those definitions). Bumm13 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


This entry was deleted by Metaknowledge (talkcontribs), saying "This is a Russian word with an entry at почемучка, not an English word." But I think there is a reasonable chance that it is attestable, so I restored it and am RFVing it. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Books and Google Groups both have a fair few mentions - almost all in lists of "untranslatable words" - but no uses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I don't think the two citations you added should count. The 1968 one uses it as the name of a ship, and the 2014 one uses it clearly as a foreign word, putting it in quotes after defining it. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a unit of [cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin]". I find it doubtful that anyone has ever said something like "He sent them 2 altcoins." Keφr 11:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the first sense of "cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin" is in use, but hard to find durable citations for. It may be a candidate for {{hot word}}. The second, however, seems nonexistent. Keφr 12:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

death note[edit]

Was moved today from Appendix:Death Note (which had an RFD tag on it, though I can't find the old discussion in WT:RFDO). Needs to be attested outside of its fictional universe. Equinox 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Two citations given. One is using nonsense words without any meaning, and the other appears to be an error for "gleefully". I don't think this word exists as defined at all. Equinox 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with you. The quotes don't convince me. Is it a candidate for deletion? Donnanz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A nice round number of hits at google books:"bleefully": round, as in zero.
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Like "bleefully" above, despite unsatisfactory citations, this does not seem to be an actual word at all. Equinox 14:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Once again I agree with you. A possible corruption or misspelling of gleeful. Delete it? Donnanz (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Only two hits at google books:"bleeful", one of which is clearly not English, instead being poorly scanned Dutch in a Fraktur typeface, and the other on closer inspection also looks like a scanno (though to be honest the image is so small it's hard to tell quite what's going on).
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


A set of -in' terms were recently sent to RFD, where sentiment was to move any doubtful ones to RFV. This is the only one which seems doubtful to me (the rest all seem to be citable, most trivially so). - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be deleted. It's a mistake from my google ngram data. It's come from an ngram of "daughter-in" [law]. Pengo (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have done a reasonably thorough a Google books search and found nothing. Specifically, I searched for instances of "daughterin'", "motherin' and daughterin'", "fatherin' and daughterin'", "daughterin' for", "daughterin' by", "daughterin' with", and "daughterin' of", and found absolutely nothing for any combination that was not a scanno for some variation of "daughter in" or "daughter-in". bd2412 T 00:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm also skeptical, but someone may come up with some search approach that finds something before the later of May 8 or when someone decides to close this after that date. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for blood clot. Nothing on Google Books or Google Groups; a Google web search turns up several mentions but no uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for xylography. Nothing on Google Groups or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


I can't find any English books that use this term (in Google Books). Probably should be spelled bullabesa? Needs a Spanish Catalan entry. Pengo (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I found nothing in English and only one use in Spanish. Pretty much every Google Books hit is in Catalan. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


"Any religion seen as non-Abrahamic." Equinox 07:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This seems counterintuitive. Since "Satan" is a character appearing only in Abrahamic works in the first place, Satanism is an Abrahamic religion. bd2412 T 13:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't know if it's citable as a word, but people who lump all other religions together as Satanism is certainly a thing. LaVey Satanism is about as Abrahamic as Scientology or Wicca; while they may have been born in an Abrahamic environment or as a response to Abrahamic religions, they don't share the family similarity that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a good illustration of the distortions in Pass a Method's way of looking at things: it's true that religious bigots tend to attribute other religions to the influence of Satan- but that's not the same as using the term "Satanism" to refer to those religions. PAM also tries to mechanically substitute Abrahamic for traditional terms such as Christian, without really paying attention to the semantic characteristics of the term being replaced. In this case, it's not whether it's Abrahamic, but whether it's different: there are plenty of Christian bigots that consider Islam, Judaism and even different Christian denominations to be "of the Devil". This is one of the worst of a long line of really bad misinterpretations by this contributor. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we get it. For what it may be worth, PaM only changed that definition from "Any religion seen as either non-Christian or anti-Christian", and previously it had "and" inside. Can we get that cited at least? Keφr 14:13, 10 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)


Rfv-sense: "wheat Triticum"

Judging by the hyponyms, the actual definition might be "grain" or "cereal grain", but it also might be some grouping that does not neatly correspond to any such English word. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, referenced anyway. It doesn't say much for the quality of the reference, which seems to manifest deficient knowledge of English and taxonomy. Clearly the Albanian hyponyms shown are hyponyms of grurë, but the English definientes (?) "wheat Triticum" do not have species of barley (Hordeum spp) as hyponyms. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually it isn't clear at all that the Albanian hyponyms shown are hyponyms of grurë, merely that they are derived terms from grurë. After all, seahorse isn't a hyponym of horse, nor is peanut a hyponym of nut. In fact, given the etymology of the word, it's entirely possible that it originally meant grain in general, and its derived terms still reflect that meaning, but the word by itself has come to mean specifically wheat, just as in Slavic žito/жито originally meant grain but in many languages has come to mean specifically rye, or like English corn which originally meant grain but came to mean "oats in parts of Scotland and Ireland, wheat or barley in England and Wales, and maize or sweetcorn in the Americas". I don't know anything about Albanian, so I don't know if that's actually the case, but it is a plausible explanation for why the derived terms listed don't appear to be actual semantic hyponyms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that we are paying attention to the entry, we need to persevere. I don't think changing the heading would be a good idea without some sq-4,5,N input or another, better(?) reference. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You are ignoring the possibility of grurë being used as an equivalent of both wheat and cereal. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
In an dictionary written in English that would require two sense lines, IMO. Resolving this kind of thing could often be done if one knew with some certainty the genera or species etc that were included as referents, as the taxonomic system is relatively low in ambiguity. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The word's primar meaning is wheat, for cereals in Albanian we use drithër, while grain is kokërr. For the historical sense development I agree with Angr's argument Etimo (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This nomination seems rather questionable, you're rfv'ing based solely on the hyponyms, not the definition? Move to close. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: If the definition is correct then the hyponyms are wrong and vice versa. Something has to change.
Also there is no requirement for justification of RfVs. We aspire to have citations (with English equivalents if not in English) for all words in all languages. The fact that our non-English entries rarely have them is a testimony to the relatively early stage of development of our coverage of terms in languages other than English. Without some uniformity of requirements (including unambiguous glosses, citations, RfV, RfD) for terms in all languages our slogan ("All words in all languages") is grossly deceptive. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the best guess would be that the terms shown under the Hyponyms header should actually be shown instead under a new Derived terms header as @Angr: suggests. If @Etimo: agrees, we could put this to bed without prejudice as citations don't seem to be forthcoming anyway, no matter the imperative that citations be provided in response to an RfV. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The term has been cited for days. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Any takers? (plural is wrong) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


I'm reasonably certain that scoutcraft is uncountable. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

google books:"scoutcrafts" finds quite a number of plural usages, e.g. [74], [75], [76], and more. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm striking the two of the above links because on further inspection they turned out to be science-fiction terms meaning "scout vehicle". But the one remaining link above really does have to do with scouting. There are other relevant hits from Boys Life too, as well as this which I can see only in snippet view, but I can see that it says, "Camp Yagowanea [...] is for boys from ten to seventeen. Scoutcrafts and water sports are featured", so it appears to be relevant too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, cool your jets. Two of the links have been questioned. Is their enough evidence for scoutcraft as a science fiction vehicle used for scouting? As such, I'm Rfv-ing scoutcraft below. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Some more citations for the original RFV (a total of four) have now been added to scoutcrafts. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The “Cited” was posted because citations had been added to the entry, not because of the links. Do pay attention. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A spacecraft used for scouting Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited (by Mr. Granger). You will find the citations in the entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Verb sense: "to deny the existence or significance of something obviously real or important". In "Quining Qualia" Dennett gives a few quotations of philosophers, but I am quite tempted to quine them. Keφr 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Dennett's The Philosophical Lexicon (1st edition 1988) is available online. It is satirical, but some of Dennett's neologisms may have been taken up in a philosophical context at least. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Found some others, added them to the entry. Also, there is a sense of "to prepend to something a quotation of itself"; GEB uses it, for instance, many other works reference it.

  • 1984, Douglas R. Hofstadter, "Analogies and Metaphors to Explain Gödel's Theorem", Mathematics: People, Problems, Results (edited by Douglas M. Campbell, John C. Higgins), Taylor & Francis (ISBN 9780534032036), page 274
    "Quining" is what I called it in my book. (He certainly didn't call it that!) Quining is an operation that I define on any string of English. [] Here is an example of a quined phrase: "is a sentence with no subject" is a sentence with no subject.
  • 1997, Nathaniel S. Hellerstein, Diamond: A Paradox Logic, World Scientific (ISBN 9789810228507), page 183
    Diamond arises in Gödelian meta-mathematics. In meta-math, sentences can refer to each other's provability, and to quining. This yields self-reference: T = "is provable when quined" is provable when quined.

Keφr 20:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Two more Hofstadterian cites:

  • 2001, Howard Mirowitz, Re: Why is L&T in quotation marks?, rec.music.dylan, Usenet
    In "Love And Theft", Dylan quined the love and theft in his songs in the album's title, "Love And Theft". So the subtext, the meaning of the entire album, when preceded by its quotation, its symbol, yields a paradox.
  • 2001, Jim Evans, Re: Quining for the fjords, rec.humor.oracle.d, Usenet
    And, of course, the existence of various sigmonsters guarantees entire quined-posts.

Also, of a related sense "to create a quine (self-reproducing program)/an indirect self-reference":

  • 2006, John Doty, Re: Create a word that returns its own name?, comp.lang.forth, Usenet
    Over a year ago, I wrote the following to my son (who had helped me implement dynamic linking in LSE64, but didn't know the language well) after he told me about a homework assignment involving quining in Lisp: []

Both are hardly citable, though. Keφr 06:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I've added the "append something to a quotation of itself" sense to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "empty set". Never ever seen this: is the standard symbol, if there is any use of γ at all, I suspect it is ad-hoc. How do we cite symbols anyway? Keφr 11:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is easier to search for than most symbols - Google will search for it since it's a letter. No evidence that I can find for γ as an empty set - the only search results that it finds are all partial hits for "non-empty set". Incidentally, sets are almost always written with capital letters, which makes me suspicious of this one - the vast majority of hits use Γ, not γ, to refer to sets. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly English. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly citeable in italicised text:
  • Just as we were given a Xmas tree and hollies, we were presented with a shōchikubai,* a very well-made artificial one, and a vase with pines and daffodils by Kumasakas and Yokotas respectively.
  • Both of them are connected with ideas of good fortune and together with bamboo they constitute the traditional shōchikubai depiction which often accompanies gifts or celebratory decoration.
  • The interior center is ornamented with shōchikubai design encircled by a band of interlocking triangles.
It appears without italics and unglossed in a few books on Asian design (although the first one might be a mistake, since its italicised once in the same book):
  • Three separate sets of gay shōchikubai motifs grow upward from the hem.
  • the outer cover with three shaped piercings and decorated in iroe hiramakie and togidashi on a roironuri ground with card-shaped panels depicting the shōchikubai, maple leaves, leaves, grasses, etc.
  • Made by Hoyensai (Kaku-maru-sai), on a piece engraved with the shōchikubai in katakiri.
Nonetheless, I don't personally find this evidence overwhelming (the fact that it's easier to find with a macron indicates its mostly being used by people who understand Japanese, as opposed to, say, shōnen, which is more common in English texts as shounen or shonen). I wouldn't object to keeping it, but I also wouldn't object to just pointing people to the Japanese definition either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The above citations look good to me. I think the definition currently in the entry would benefit from some trimming/clean-up. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


The decade that began with the year 2000. I don't see anything on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow uses it all the time. The 2nd quote is from last night: 04/17/2014, 1st story, 1m 17s – 1m 20s.
Second source: Federico Moramarco (2010) The City of Eden: Poems from a Life Paperback. The last section is called "The Two Thousandsies". Reviewed here.[77]
kwami (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't include quotations as example sentences without attribution.... Anyway, that book gives us one durably archived citation. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why it would be called that. I would just call it the "two-thousands". --WikiTiki89 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
But is the 2000's the decade or the millennium? The obsolete term "noughties" similarly disambiguated the 1900's as the decade 1900–1910 from the 1900's as the 20th century. kwami (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. I always called that decade the "nineteen-hundreds" as well. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You're expecting usage to make sense? It looks to me like a deliberately silly attempt to make the name of the last decade sound like those of the previous decades. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you hit the spot just right there with "silly". --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Found three other, independent uses on the net. Put them in the citations tab. kwami (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like none of those three are durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Our guideline recommends using web sources: "Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google", etc. How is something archived by Google "durable", but something archived by WaybackMachine is not? What are our criteria? We could archive a few with WebCite. kwami (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We had a discussion about this not too long ago (see here). It is possible for a website to opt out of Wayback Machine and have all of its archives deleted. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But that's not a problem with WebCite. kwami (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place for a discussion about changing our policy. We are not WebCite, and when and if we start allowing citations from the web, we will most likely also have to increase our web citation threshold for inclusion. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A dozen citations is certainly an increase. kwami (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about a dozen? Anyway, as of now web citations are not allowed at all. --WikiTiki89 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You said "we will most likely also have to increase our web-citation threshold for inclusion", as if that were an objection. kwami (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's when and if we start allowing them. So it's irrelevant. --WikiTiki89 05:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hit at Google Groups:

  • Back in the early two-thousandsies I was briefly obsessed with the idea of using license plate numbers as messaging addresses. (2012-1-10)[78] —This unsigned comment was added by Kwamikagami (talkcontribs).
That's not Usenet. --WikiTiki89 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Google says it's an archive of Usenet postings. kwami (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Where? Keφr 06:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Google Groups is a discussion forum thing that also serves as an archive of Usenet. Not everything in Google Groups is Usenet. I'm not an expert on Usenet, but I do know that Usenet group identifiers generally look something like "alt.language.latin", while that quote is in a group called "Buffalo OpenCoffee Club". --WikiTiki89 06:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't used usenet in ages, and my accounts have all expired. I'd have to reinstall the software just to scan it. kwami (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


I request this for verification. No redirects on Wikipedia. I don't see anything on Google. Supposedly an alternative form of Danelaw in the English language. And please add citations to Citations:Danlaga. LalalalaSta (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you RFVing a word that you added? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It was originally listed on the Danelaw page as an alternative form. And why, is it not allowed here to RFV your own page? I see some references now, but is this word really only in English? Please verify. LalalalaSta (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
By creating an entry, you take at least some responsibility for it. You should create an entry only if you are able to judge whether the term is correct (even with something as weak as "native speaker's gut feeling") and meets our criteria for inclusion. And you should have something more to put on the page than just a link back to the page where you found the redlink. If you cannot do that, leave it alone. Keφr 20:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Big Brother[edit]

Fictional character sense. Since challenges of meeting WT:FICTION are answered with citations, I figured I should rather bring it here rather than at RFD. Keφr 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Other dictionaries do not seem to have the mathematical sense. Therefore, three quotes would be called for. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[79], [80] and [81] are optical/astronomical cites. [82] was the only mathematical one I could find at quick notice. [83] is an abstract of a preprint (of an otherwise Chinese paper) that uses abaxial in the optical sense. [84] is another preprint with Chinese authors, this time in plasma physics. I'm going to say that if arXiv doesn't have mathematical documents using it, it's not in use, at least currently, in mathematics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


If anyone wanted to talk about a 13-foot meter, this would be the logical name for it- but, judging from Google Groups and Google Books, I doubt anyone actually uses it. Even Google search yields only 17 hits, of which 16 are dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

13-foot meter? That does not seem right. Keφr 05:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
$ units meter foot
        * 3.2808399
        / 0.3048


Linked Wikipedia article does not exist. Single cited book uses the term hyphenated, i.e. "smell-brain". Is the single-word form real? I don't think so. Equinox 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Alt form of cast iron. Common scanno in Google Books, etc. but I am having trouble finding real instances. Just an error? Equinox 01:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Verify as both English and Chinese term, please, see diff. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


I can only see mentions. Could we have some actual usages please. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)