Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

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 | Index Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion.	Requests for deletion add new | history | archives Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}

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

Requests for Verification is Wiktionary’s forum for verifying whether a definition meets our criteria for inclusion.

• See Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements WT:CDE for a full list of the codes, templates, lists, categories etc involved in the cleanup and deletion process.

A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise.

Wikipedia

After that time:

1. The {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} template will be removed.
2. If insufficient evidence is found, it will be archived to the talk page of the entry in question with a note saying it failed RFV, for future reference in case new evidence emerges. Then the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV, whichever is applicable. (If it seems to be a protologism, it will be added to the list of protologisms.)
3. The RFV discussion will then be archived.
4. Terminology note: "rfvpassed" means sufficient verification was found to retain the entry; "rfvfailed" means insufficient evidence of the word in use was found, therefore it was removed.

How does one verify a sense?

• 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, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.
• 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.

  See: criteria for inclusion, format for citations, and standard entry layout.

• Advise on this page that the citations have been placed on the article page.

Note:

• RFV is generally for testing whether information can be safely deleted. Occasionally simple fact-checking questions are posted, particularly for non-English words: these queries are better suited for article talk pages or the Tea room.
• Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. If the information is not gathered, a sysop will make a decision whether to transfer the disputed word to the requests for deletion page. WARNING. If no verification is provided, the word may be deleted from this page.

See also: Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Oldest tagged RFVs

mote volunteer osmotic communication mora 西語 weak vaina ארי enmilden ragleaf zero seeker barn broom blazer lardy moob nouvelle illustration zip file zetland zony g note reverse discrimination chayote mesquite intervarsity clypt quire patent medicine exalt ligamen reefer beat'emest loving cup short sweetening long sweetening astar oodf lornly kaalchakra open-mouthed organo pleno beeves e-fax wing ey compass leather calk originalist

Contents 1 June 2008 1.1 griper 1.2 Þrymskviða 1.3 on the level 1.4 Venizelos 1.5 boss 1.6 echoplex 1.7 surrogatum 2 July 2008 2.1 pirate 2.2 Yank 2.3 be 2.4 jackrabbit start 2.5 guarriboom 2.6 assward 2.7 asswards 2.8 key log 2.9 so be it 2.10 stagiaire 2.11 quinella 2.12 首乌汁 3 August 2008 3.1 fallen 3.2 patent medicine 3.3 Neugeborene / Neugeborenes 3.3.1 Neugeborene 3.3.2 Neugeborenes 3.4 proof of concept 3.5 preferences - senses 3.6 surrogatum principle 3.7 profligate 3.8 manipulexity 3.9 buttwoman 3.10 write-off 3.11 ABC cities 3.12 ABCD cities 3.13 ecosomatic 3.14 badding 3.15 hostessship, headmistressship, goddessship 3.16 fi 3.17 rear admiral (lower half) 3.18 rear admiral (upper half) 3.19 Golden Gate Bridge 4 September 2008 4.1 nom nom nom 4.2 rolling down the windows 4.3 out the window 4.4 youtube 4.5 hamster 4.6 baggs 4.7 pookie 4.8 Pickett's charge 4.9 cookbook 4.10 Wikibooks 4.11 bookseller 4.12 deuces wild 4.13 goldy 4.14 word 4.15 change up 4.16 dead ball 4.17 rhotacism 4.18 confectionary 5 October 2008 5.1 cygnine 5.2 utmostly 5.3 eo 5.4 zenzizenzic 5.5 mote 5.6 superginormous 5.7 super-ginormous 5.8 suggilated 5.9 at the high port 5.10 account manager 5.11 marketising 5.12 brivet 5.13 featuristic 5.14 excelsior 6 November 2008 6.1 stabil 6.2 play 6.3 Chamaole 6.4 Velcro 6.5 vigour 6.6 antic 6.7 prived 6.8 jumpup 6.9 apologie 6.10 snout as verb 6.11 growler 6.12 audacity 6.13 rheumatic as noun? 6.14 wikify 6.15 asearch 7 December 2008 7.1 standoff as verb? 7.2 n-dimensional 7.3 gärna 7.4 Washington 7.5 knaggligt 7.6 craft 7.7 Birkenhead 7.8 gemmule 7.9 fmi 7.10 depotate 7.11 Casachia 7.12 annodate 7.13 flameberge 7.14 ultramontane 7.15 unsure 7.16 mannequin 7.17 Kaffir 7.18 þe 7.19 cut up 7.20 reparation 7.21 Islamic fascist 7.22 sloom 7.23 inclusive or 7.24 google-proof 7.25 write a test 7.26 arcana 7.27 dingleberry 7.28 lol 8 January 2009 8.1 guh 8.2 gẃraidd 8.3 prefices 8.4 acronyx 8.5 christer 8.6 India Pale Ale 8.7 valence 8.8 dry 8.9 gomic 8.10 Moxie 8.11 Plutarch 8.12 Xenophanes 8.13 variation 8.14 jumpoff 8.15 -ia 8.16 apostle 8.17 gound 8.18 deflation 8.19 vocal 8.20 broken 8.21 saoirse 8.22 scalpea 8.23 кунакуница 8.24 clear blue water 8.25 bombsite 8.26 pregorexia 8.27 ish 8.28 A-team 8.29 key 8.30 nowever 8.31 non plus 8.32 protologism 8.33 adolescentilism 8.34 quasi 9 February 2009 9.1 microfortnight 9.2 ruthless 9.3 thwack 9.4 resoluter 9.5 commerciality 9.6 Great Satan 9.7 military exercise 9.8 managerial inbreeding 9.9 catch up 9.10 foo-foo 9.11 account for 9.12 haxx0r 9.13 passage 9.14 tête-bêche#French 9.15 fall 9.16 assault rifle 9.17 hammocking 9.18 azzazame 9.19 giggle juice 9.20 paramukti 9.21 megannum 9.22 romaji 10 March 2009 10.1 put into a flap 10.2 relusion 10.3 ¡Ay, caramba! 10.4 good 10.5 tangid 10.6 temperature coefficient 10.7 slay 10.8 peer 10.9 rip 10.10 contribulated 10.11 Aleutian Islands 10.12 rephasing 10.13 corporate nationalism 10.14 gub 10.15 notional 10.16 corner solution response 10.17 ma tante 10.18 ninety-nine 10.19 quantitative analysis 10.20 maximum pain 10.21 passive 10.22 loose scrum 10.23 chinese snooker 10.24 economic vehicle 10.25 ramp up 10.26 form 10.27 cooperation 10.28 digger 10.29 dismal 10.30 Qapla' 10.31 Liberal 10.32 defenestration 10.33 greyboy 10.34 for the first time 10.35 account code 10.36 sulphurhodamine 10.37 monkey boy 10.38 aeaeae 10.39 hydrostatic pressure relief system 10.40 Constitution 10.41 frecency 10.42 houseboi 10.43 Enterprise 10.44 flag 11 April 2009 11.1 Mereon 11.2 diaglot 11.3 done done 11.4 façade 11.5 avoiding 11.6 jack of all trades, master of none 11.7 tussicate 11.8 Passion flower 11.9 backlash 11.10 nosebleed seat 11.11 laserjet 11.12 ecumenical 11.13 patronage 11.14 stargate 11.15 otto of roses 11.16 faggoth 11.17 crescendoes 11.18 trapper 11.19 tinman 11.20 undistingued 11.21 New Game+ 11.22 Iron Age 11.23 laserjet (n) 11.24 transcontinental 11.25 grotto, cave and cavern 11.25.1 grotto 11.25.2 cave 11.25.3 cavern 11.26 workstrand 11.27 чăваш чĕлхи 11.28 em quad, en quad 11.28.1 em quad 11.28.2 en quad 11.29 thirteenty 11.30 OP 11.31 internal branding 11.32 Alpha Centauri 11.33 frack, frack 11.33.1 frak 11.33.2 frack 11.34 बुल्ला 11.35 second quest 11.36 PlayStation 11.37 floccipaucinihilipilification 11.38 fooder 11.39 waggon 11.40 wagon 11.41 cockmaster 12 May 2009 12.1 Spectator 12.2 cap 12.2.1 cap#Etymology 4 12.3 regs 12.4 Wahnfried 12.5 Reichism 12.6 poloniumed 12.7 aura 12.8 pearly 12.9 Corb 12.10 Charlie 12.11 AAA 12.12 Alahu ekber 12.13 hủy diệt 12.14 hagan 12.14.1 reverse hagan 12.15 Mac 12.16 big one 12.17 the big one 12.18 Watergate 12.18.1 Any scandal 12.18.2 Watergate salad 12.19 Blue 12.20 andereño 12.21 go out on the town 12.22 Morocco agency 12.23 Morocco agencies 12.24 DNF 12.25 act 12.26 humoorikas 12.27 ablator 12.28 slapdown 12.29 bosky 12.30 long goodbye 12.31 whomp 12.32 ironist 12.33 blud 12.34 takedown bulldog 12.35 que si 12.36 spoofulate 12.37 cormie 12.38 dragonsword 12.39 Bonfire 12.40 quide 12.41 anarchyist 12.41.1 anarchyists 12.42 ejay 12.43 family 12.44 macrolanguage 12.45 Yngling 12.46 Kathleen Mavourneen 12.47 baffie 12.48 sofeet 12.49 chirp 12.50 defenestrate 12.51 monkey script 12.52 native language 12.53 yearman 12.54 note#Etymology 1 12.55 VL 12.56 album 12.57 beat up 12.58 fix a hole 12.59 interpellation 12.60 babes in the wood 12.61 Sleeping Beauty 12.62 ablütofobi 12.63 array controller 12.64 clock out 12.65 finnoc 12.66 peas and rice 12.67 dabiñe 12.68 WorkCover 12.69 militarian 12.70 Playmo 12.71 pretty 12.72 troll 12.73 /b/tard 12.74 snap 12.75 meanless 12.76 dead sleep 12.77 morning sleep 12.78 Spanish double l 12.79 tittle 12.80 doomer 12.81 vintage 12.82 whackage 13 June 2009 13.1 demo' 13.2 geliophobia 13.3 umlaut 13.4 kuru 13.5 crotch 13.6 paṇḍit 13.7 fresh 13.8 melt into 13.9 override 13.10 alabaster 13.11 go by the board 13.12 wa alaikum assalam 13.13 forecall 13.14 filekey 13.15 nonkilling 13.16 Freelander 13.17 fail 13.18 carrot 13.19 mouth 13.20 hé 13.21 zoöpathologies 13.21.1 zoopathologies 13.22 manageress 13.23 gunky 13.24 Japan-only 13.25 Jesusstick 13.26 kozumatori 13.27 absement 13.28 egyptologist 13.28.1 egyptologists 13.29 egyptology 13.29.1 egyptologies 13.30 dawkins fleas 13.31 cynischt 13.32 introit 13.33 nom 13.34 Viking 13.35 working-hour 13.36 head 13.37 Greenfinger 13.38 Without 13.39 bottle glorifier 13.40 Amerigine 13.41 aĉ 13.42 deliverhede 13.43 -p 13.44 Polack 13.45 up- 13.46 vaina (Spanish) 13.47 ארי 13.48 scatman 13.49 seeker 13.50 blazer 13.51 nouvelle illustration 13.52 villain 13.53 philozoist 13.54 Zephyr 13.55 image 13.56 arguendo 13.57 theatre 13.58 stork tea 13.59 billhook 13.60 perfidy 13.61 Pollock 13.62 Oxford secret 13.63 distribution 13.64 Marmite 13.65 Meister 13.66 homophile 13.67 optical astronomy 13.68 Delčevo 13.69 calling name 14 July 2009 14.1 dark side 14.2 Transwiki:HBYT 14.3 afturbatapíka 14.4 911 14.5 will 14.6 equipment 14.7 liberal religion 14.8 shup 14.9 unicellular 14.10 potchky 14.11 microgenesis 14.12 nest 14.13 zanzy 14.14 jack 14.15 hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomy 14.16 i- 14.17 crack up 14.18 malent 14.19 direct digital marketing 14.20 Turing word 14.21 application delivery network 14.22 nutrider 14.23 Fibber McGee's closet 14.24 fancy pants 14.25 zoobrick 14.26 respectability 14.27 waffle 14.28 llama 14.29 Wikimedia Foundation 14.30 beed 14.31 Yyster-bossie 14.31.1 ysterbos 14.32 green knowledge 14.33 get you 14.34 הוא 14.35 jerk#Translations 14.36 abvolution 14.37 rando 14.38 peeling grapes 14.39 oh my days 14.40 in the stands 14.41 shaggy cut 14.42 funest 14.43 duplifix 14.44 ennealogy 14.45 pain au chocolats 14.46 dingle run 14.47 stun guitar 14.48 forest 14.49 make for 14.50 cyberskeleton 14.51 one-finger salute 14.52 Trudeau salute 14.53 sackung 14.54 mistakes were made 14.55 retread 14.56 possie 14.57 tabby 14.58 chocolate soldier 14.59 snarler 14.60 crimenetly 14.61 artsy 14.62 birther 14.63 Winnipeg handshake 14.64 bundookery 14.65 ghetto snowflake 14.66 unring 14.67 Taliban 14.68 go off the boil 14.69 robber 14.70 out the door 14.71 all over grumble 14.72 multi-addiction 14.73 ar- 14.74 C&A 14.75 WHATM 15 August 2009 15.1 outer space 15.2 queerious 15.3 kalopsia 15.4 be taken ill 15.5 mandoline 15.6 RUR 15.7 kumbaya 15.8 diputs 15.9 Mac OS 15.10 W3 15.11 ghost twitter, ghost-tweeter 15.12 moby 15.13 ägha 15.14 auto enrollment 15.15 parole 15.16 blood in the water 15.17 from here to ya-ya 15.18 bum rush 15.19 zombie 15.20 yellowishly 15.21 dirty 15.22 no brain 15.23 twitroll 15.24 careerist 15.25 parisome 15.26 etter 15.27 naat 15.28 Shakespeare 15.29 Statue of Liberty shower 15.30 Quebecer Bloc 15.31 bloquist 15.32 Peenu 15.33 Obama 15.34 Dennis the Menace 15.35 bezjak 15.36 aestus 15.37 commentard 15.38 returded 15.39 retarth 15.40 paganica 15.41 cambuca 15.42 Liberal Democrat 15.43 cock pump 15.44 ceterum censeo 15.45 avant la lettre 15.46 Tesco's 15.47 Vader 15.48 äga 15.49 aleptinemia 15.50 swim with sharks 15.51 edumarketing 15.52 douze 15.53 twitterable 15.54 Baruch HaShem 15.55 oober 15.56 hole-whole merger 15.57 redeconvolved 15.58 speleoart 15.59 have a green thumb 15.60 under glass 15.61 3W 15.62 anorexigenic 15.63 crux 15.64 Winnie the Pooh 15.65 マグル 15.66 blessing 15.67 quindicivirate 15.68 revenant 15.69 ouidan 15.70 elucidate 15.71 keep one's pecker up 15.72 double positive 15.73 gone winchester 15.74 nel giro di 15.75 Rus. 15.76 retroussé 15.77 morphe 15.78 dolce 15.79 wittle 15.80 yiff 15.81 etes 15.82 tenant 15.83 remaining 15.84 scrouge 15.85 hourslong 15.86 Relent (transitive) 15.87 faire le grand saut 15.88 oograh 15.89 ex-stepfather 15.90 surface coating 15.91 obnounce 15.92 gate crash 15.93 achiel 15.94 waiting 15.95 fail 15.96 progasm 15.97 la belle indifference 15.98 Nazism 15.99 two-spirit 15.100 gunsel 15.101 PanTheism 15.102 chimo 15.103 rainbow 15.104 carbon literacy 15.105 bouquinism 16 September 2009 16.1 Star Wars stuff 16.1.1 Chewbacca 16.1.2 Darth 16.1.3 Death Star 16.1.4 droid 16.1.5 Ewok 16.1.6 Jabba the Hutt 16.1.7 Jedi 16.1.8 Jedi Master 16.1.9 Jedi mind trick 16.1.10 Lichtschwert 16.1.11 sith lord 16.1.12 Skywalker 16.1.13 stormtrooper 16.1.14 Tatooine planet 16.1.15 Todesstern 16.1.16 Wookie 16.1.17 Wookiee 16.1.18 Yoda 16.2 ideo locator 16.3 Yoshi 16.4 fast food outplacement 16.5 WT 16.6 -zygous 16.7 front 16.8 center of excellence 16.9 ahead of time 16.10 bavaroise 16.11 phoneshot 16.12 Transwiki:Wampumannaz 16.13 Daivajna 16.14 Transwiki:Nae Nowts 16.15 acronimologo 16.16 email 16.17 redamancy 16.18 management-cybernetics 16.19 well done 16.20 prancing 16.21 ownshack 16.22 IFOL 16.23 blag 16.24 præfaceth 16.25 Amerimanga 16.26 catechistly 16.27 phœnomenon 16.27.1 phœnomena 16.28 verlopen 16.29 ikr 16.30 oojie-boojie 16.31 net-tario 16.32 normopraxis 16.33 intermud 16.34 groak 16.35 zodiac 16.36 giant tortoise 16.37 deshopper 16.38 klawchi 16.39 fangoriously 16.40 philerast 16.41 chek#English 16.42 call bullshit 16.43 Transwiki:Kensington Princesses 16.44 boomerang kid 16.45 abnodate 16.45.1 abnodation 16.46 doppelganger 16.47 aspie 16.48 Act of Congress 16.49 youse 16.50 depanelisation 16.51 patriotism 16.52 floo powder 16.53 curry 16.54 Leucas 16.55 grape juice 16.56 lizard 16.57 Transwiki:Jersey Slore 16.58 Arctic 16.59 evadite 16.60 creepypasta 16.61 nationism 16.62 zΩ 16.63 ZΩ 16.64 herm 16.65 yippie 16.66 excoriation 16.67 gain-buy 16.68 Amsterdamize 16.69 Transwiki:Helsmat 16.70 helluation 16.71 mactator 16.72 gay card 16.73 dog's dinner 16.74 mammeated 16.75 parthenogenesis 16.76 stridewallop 16.77 fornale 16.78 girlsy 16.79 skrill 16.80 abligurition 16.81 acerote 16.82 nert 16.83 white coal 16.84 compilator 16.85 addecimate 16.86 adact 16.87 Heley 16.88 anteloquy 16.89 apophoret 16.90 gizzing 16.91 hoodwink 16.92 WOMBAT 16.93 celeripedean 16.94 monkery 16.95 hake 16.96 bout 16.97 bus. 16.98 secondee 16.99 creationism 16.100 cepevorous 16.101 ersätzer 16.102 cupcaking 16.103 regression tree 16.104 coup de maitre 16.105 gomic 16.106 revenge 16.107 adequator 16.108 dord 16.109 nonplussed 16.110 pûe 16.111 biopunk 16.112 homosexual 16.113 spijten 16.114 philalethia 16.115 Peanuts 16.116 agape 16.117 tuigen 16.118 faccedilade 16.119 moist 16.120 articulation 16.121 limelon 16.122 Chiayi 17 October 2009 17.1 eng 17.2 dokita 17.3 Benito Mussolini 17.4 gra mo chree 17.5 skirmish 17.6 Benito Mussolini 17.7 Betäubungsmittelverschreibungsverordnung 17.8 celeberrimous 17.9 spanso 17.10 electricity 17.11 pete 17.12 opisthenar 17.13 Transwiki:Spixie 17.14 Transwiki:Spetchel 17.15 transsexual 17.16 hate sex 17.17 good night 17.18 ninja 17.19 ailihphilia 17.20 shluff 17.21 Antirio 17.22 Transwiki:Klempen 17.23 pauciloquy 17.24 refundant 17.25 whaupin 17.26 pettanko 17.27 xanthophobia 17.28 bzuh 17.29 MAWG 17.30 pentium 17.31 fetch 17.32 processional marketing 17.33 Albanya 17.34 nonvirile 17.35 Rolyism 17.36 fonduck 17.37 smittling 17.38 heteroradical 17.39 oat 17.40 private joke 17.41 yond 17.42 ac 17.43 let alone 17.44 fboms 17.45 ergo 17.46 take exception to 17.47 gumpstump 17.48 have to do 17.49 zwavelzuurtjes 17.50 Ur-turtle 17.51 Britain English 17.52 Britain and Northern Ireland 17.53 ho hos 17.54 isonym 17.55 wrap up 17.56 Draw-can-Sir 17.56.1 Draw-can-Sirs 17.57 Jose 17.58 Kelbob 17.59 Jafakean 17.60 tourist's eagle 17.61 skilly 17.62 Ginny Ollit 17.63 purp sand 17.64 computer head 17.65 Joe 90s 17.66 necromance 17.67 Eastgate 17.68 land of fruits and nuts 17.69 balen 17.70 tingo 17.71 double dog dare 17.72 drunch 17.73 gift horse 17.74 haiku 17.75 carpetbagger 17.76 parking 17.77 pretgogga 17.78 Elx 17.79 gigster 17.80 brain helmet 17.81 DILLIGAF 17.82 deus ex machina 17.83 ideonomy 17.84 Bjarnesque 17.85 Dynamic Offer System 17.86 apparation 17.87 abagadugu 17.88 shability 17.89 angam 17.90 fag enabler 17.91 progressive 17.92 out of the box 17.93 cord 17.94 wonder 17.95 gricer 17.96 British and Irish Isles 17.97 Irish Isles 17.98 lvxing 17.99 camp 17.100 toaster 17.101 ouwel 17.102 folklore 17.103 zumbo 17.104 oinker 17.105 house 17.106 brindled-gnu 17.107 unmanly 17.108 geloscopy 17.109 confinskate 17.110 genotyping 17.110.1 genotyped

[edit] June 2008

[edit] griper

• Sense 2: "an oppressor",
• Sense 3: "an extortioner" Thryduulf 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The three senses were copied straight out of Webster 1913, FWIW.—msh210℠ 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any uses of the term in those senses; in a year, neither has anyone else. Rfv-fail, despite Webster? — Beobach972 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

15 months seems enough to me, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is annoying, but ... cited. :-) I have followed the OED in merging the two senses, which don't seem to have been particularly distinct. -- Visviva 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Þrymskviða

Isn't this Anglicized, as described on wikipedia? If so it shouldn't have the ==English== heading Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Category:Books of the Poetic Edda. Conrad.Irwin 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This could possibly be attested in English, but it looks like it would be rare. I have changed it to an Old Norse entry, which can be linked to an English (anglicised) entry — Beobach972 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Verified. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Striking as verified. bd2412 T 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] on the level

rfv-sense: "A discreet reference to freemasonry." Usage example given: Are you on the level? (meaning: "Are you a freemason like myself?").

And I don't believe the freemasonry etymology either. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had always thought that there was a reference to Freemasonry in this expression. However, the reference given has this quote "The use of the terms "square" or "level" as metaphors for honesty and trustworthiness also can be found in the annals of Rome, Greece, Egypt and China. They were not invented by the freemasons." So there you go. Probably needs a usage note though (to stop a readdition). SemperBlotto 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really take the Masons' word for it either, one way or the other. But my dictionaries suggest that "level" and "square" in the figurative meanings we have today certainly go back to Classical Latin. I am willing to be proven wrong about this term. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rfv-fail this unless someone feels like the reference given is sufficient. However, I think this does have another sense beyond just 'honest', a general sense of 'a member of the same group' (not limited to freemasons). — Beobach972 18:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would support the definition. It's been said to me a couple of times. I don't know if it originated with Freemasonry or not, but it's definitely a phrase associated with the movement. Ƿidsiþ 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Venizelos

Hard to find clearly English citations, as opposed to transliterations.

Actually, I'm not sure how to distinguish the two.—msh210℠ 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Definition is "a surname" - doesn't actually tell us anything. SemperBlotto 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what else you want. Surnames don't have definitions. They have etymologies, of course, and their lowercase versions sometimes have meanings, but the names themselves are, well, just names. No?—msh210℠ 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • So, what is the verdict? I added it here, since it is linked with the words Venizelism and Venizelist and these words exist at the Oxford dictionary online. For a similar example see the entry for Lenin and Leninism and Leninist. Thank you in advance. A.Cython 01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We have names like Brown, Goethe, and eg Augustus → Augustan. The name is found in enough books that I would think it would pass just like the above-mentioned Lenin. — Beobach972 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't entirely understand what the requirements are for surnames to be considered English at the moment, but I've taken a stab at Citations:Venizelos. The full citation format would be kind of dopey in this case, IMO (if anyone disagrees, please feel free to convert them). The Eleftherios sense also cited as a shorthand for the man in question. It could also be cited as a byword in period literature for a particularly aggressive politician, but I'm done. -- Visviva 15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] boss

The verb sense - is it ever used without "about"/"around"? The example uses "boss". If it is always "boss about"/"boss around", then this should be stated in the sense, something like this: (followed by "about" or "around"). What then happens to the derived terms is questionable. — Paul G 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not look to me that it is always with "around" or "about". Verifying this does not address your issue, which seems more of an TR thing.

One sense of "boss" is like "head" or "chair" used as leadership verbs. In that sense it doesn't take "around". A qualifying phrase like "usually with around or about" would probably cover it, but additional senses also seem necessary. There is almost always a case to be made for additional senses for entries, in my limited experience. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cited, although I'm not sure the first example isn't part of a set phrase 'boss and spoil' (with perhaps a different meaning than 'lord over'). Rfv-passed? — Beobach972 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I just checked COCA for "[boss] * and [spoil]" (any form of "boss" wildcard word "and" any form of "spoil"). No hits in 385MM word corpus. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] echoplex

I see a lot of noun uses, not matching this definition, but no verb uses. But I've only looked fairly cursorily.—msh210℠ 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I only know this as a noun from ancient computing. It is what we now take for granted when using a PC - when we hit a key, the character is displayed on a screen so we can check that we hit the right one. SemperBlotto 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The computer sense, as a verb:
   • 1993: Uyless D. Black, Computer networks: protocols, standards, and interfaces, caption of an image on page 99

     Data placed in async. format, transmitted, and echoplexed.

2. The computer sense, possibly as a noun instead:
   • 1985: Martin D. Seyer, The IBM PC/XT: making the right connections, page 132

     The PC operator can then backspace and retype the character. The device that is to echo the characters should be optioned for echoplexing.

   • 1988: Martin D. Seyer, Complete guide to RS232 and parallel connections, page 212

     When a terminal is connected to a computer port supporting echoplexing, the terminal will not locally display the character until it is received from the line.

3. The musical/echo sense, possibly as an adjective instead:
   • 2003: Peter Buckley, The rough guide to rock, page 1

     [...] like whales pirouetting to the tones of a string quartet in E, before Butcher's lush vocals swept in over Philip Glass motifs and an echoplexed bagpipe.

   • 2003: Rob Bowman, Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records, page 257

     William "Wee Gee" Howard takes the lead vocal and Dennis Coffey plays the heavily echoplexed guitar, while Johnny Allen [...]

These aren't coherent enough (ie, they don't all apply to the same sense and they possibly don't all apply to the same POS) to rfv-pass yet. — Beobach972 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] surrogatum

Law? Canada? Taxes? Ety? DCDuring TALK 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now rfv-sense. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is now an entry at surrogatum principle. Does "surrogatum" mean "surrogatum principle"? Are there quotes of someone writing, say, "under surrogatum, this would be treated as a dividend" ?

[Note: the below comments have been merged from a separate section.]

• Verification: See the Wikipedia article Surrogatum, complete with citations and court cases. WritersCramp 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already a section for discussing this entry above. Please place all comments there. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC) no longer relevant. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Clocked out. DCDuring TALK 10:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum_principle below. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] July 2008

[edit] pirate

Rfv-sense: noun, one who illegally copies or receives such copies of copyrighted material. Now, I've heard the verb sense, to be sure. But a noun sense? "Heidi hasn't bought a CD in years, she get's everything off the net. She's such a pirate." just sounds really odd to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we will find attributive use of the noun in phrases like "a pirate CD-duplicating factory". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have split the sense into "making copies" sense (easy to cite) and "receiving pirated goods" sense (not as easy to cite), both with rfv tags. I have broadened the "making copies" sense to include all intellectual property (trademark, design, patent}. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited "make illegal copies" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the adjective sense. I've only ever heard a participle of the verb used in an adjectival sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted an rfv tag at the adjective, but perhaps it should be an rfd. It seems like attributive use of the noun. The only uses of "more pirate than" is in expressions like "more pirate than shipping agent". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds very odd to me as well, but google books:"software|music|movie pirate" gets a few hundred hits. There are a lot of nouns like this, that can't easily be used alone, but that follow specific patterns of meaning when they take attributive modifiers. A similar (but slightly different) case may be seen at [[waterfall]], where you can say "a waterfall of ____" but can't easily let "waterfall" stand alone unless you mean a literal cataract. I think such senses are worth including — certainly software pirate, music pirate, etc. don't all warrant separate inclusion — but it's probably a good idea to use usage notes and {{non-gloss definition}}s to clarify everything. —Ruakh_TALK 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a PoV push that has to do with saying that receiving a pirated copy makes you a pirate. I don't think that usage has caught on. It may be a crime but it isn't called piracy. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember hearing the use of pirate in the 1960s to refer to a "pirate radio station," (Wikipedia entry) which might have been a radio station set-up offshore (of, e.g., the UK) that broadcast to the mainland. The use of "piracy" (and therefore "pirate") to refer to illegal copying of music, etc. may have followed from that. Though I think these uses of the words have been planted for the benefit of publishers — "piracy" sounds a lot sexier than "illegal copying" — I believe they have become common usage. — HowardBGolden 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yank

Rfv-sense: (US) Someone living, or who was born, above the Mason-Dixon line. Seems overly specific, but I'm not sure.

That would be a southern US usage. The southern border of Pennsylvania was the Mason-Dixon line. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, though part of the the Union in the Civil War. The Mason-Dixon line is extended figuratively along the Ohio River. West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas are "gray areas". Yankee is more common in the South than Yank, I think, for this meaning, which is declining, I think. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And rfv-sense: (pejorative) Someone from the USA with bad manners while visiting another country. Doubtful. (Note that we already have the sense (elsewhere) Anyone from the United States.)—msh210℠ 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we say "sometimes perjorative", and omit the behaviour abroad. This sounds like someone's personal prejudice, and certainly reads more into the word than exists in its general usage outside the USA. (Same for uncapitalised yank unless we find citations for specialised London usage.) Dbfirs 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is RfV. There is not much to discuss until the senses are cited. Can we find 3 uses in the sense mentioned? But it can't just be someone who is called a "Yank" and has bad manners. I'm still unclear as to how this is supposed to work. Would it be necessary to find usage where someone who is not actually from the US is called a "Yank" pejoratively ? DCDuring TALK 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That "bad manners" part is a stereotype of Americans in general, and can apply to any slang referring to Americans. I think we should remove the sense; it's like adding "likely to go to war" or "likely to be fat" as definitions.--♠TBC♠ 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sense #1 cited, please take a look. On reflection, I'm not completely happy with the cites — all are Civil War–era, with the first one being a vet's recollection 35 years later, and the other two being much more recent historical fiction — but they do at least demonstrate that it's a sense that a reader might come across.

Sense #3 RFV failed, removed.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

After further review: why didn't we just say this was short for "Yankee", at least in sense 1. In any event, it looks good to me. When I hear the word "Yank" in my head it always has a non-US accent, sometimes just a barely distinguishable Canadian one. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] be

Rfv-sense. The defintion "Used to indicate temperature" seems to me not to be justified. It tags along with "Used to indicate age", "Used to indicate height", and "Used to indicate weather conditions", however, I don't think we can say, for instance, "It's 65 today" with the ease that we can say "it's warm today" or "he's 5'10" ". The example given, "It’s in the eighties outside, and next week it’s expected to be in the nineties!", also suggests that this definition isn't able to stand on its own. __meco 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like it might be converted to an "rfd-redundant sense". The last five senses all seem to be instances of using "be" with a bare number (not exactly a noun or adjective) to indicate a count or measurement. The senses above (5 and 6, I think) that give non-gloss definitions of "be" as link a subject to an adjective or to a noun phrase. Is what is needed here {{non-gloss definition|Used to link a subject to a count or measurement}}? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the three count/measurement definitions (age/height/weather) can be done away with that simply. They are idiomatic in a way that would be lost in the generalization which you suggest. You can say of a person that "she is 43" and everybody would know that the unit implied is years. If you did the same about an arbitrary tree or a car ("it is 15") you would most likely engender a confused stare. I don't think I fully grasp the implications and use of the non-gloss definition template, but I sense that it is perhaps part of the solution here. __meco 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by "be". "She is 98" could refer to weight, body temperature, or age. The value of the number and the context of the discussion usually limit the number of senses possible. Nor is it limited to people. A tree or a car could "be 10". Certainly my pet could be. I doubt that you would have much trouble with many native speakers with "The surface of the Sun is only 10,000, whereas the interior is 15 million." The common element is the linkage. Arguably the linkage to measurement differs from the other linkages defined at "be". DCDuring TALK 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by 'be'": Yes, I agree; however, I added those senses as a result of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#he is n, where two editors (Rod and EP, though Rod sounded iffy) expressed a desire for them. The argument was basically that many other languages normally use other kinds of constructions for these meanings; not a great argument, since most of these senses apply to all or most English linking verbs (not just be), but there you have it. (Note: since three editors eventually expressed opposition to these senses — you, me, and msh210 — it might be worth RFD-ing them.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before, and IIRC we agreed that an appendix on English copulae, linked from the several words that function this way would go a long way towards solving the issue. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. It's a little hard on users to have five virtually redundant senses on top of ten others. The translation tables and such an appendix could carry the burden of precision while the entry itself could be a bit shorter. Maybe we can put off any RfDs until we have the appendix, which many of the more learned among us will team up to do in their copious free time. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

google groups:"it's 65 today" gets two relevant hits, and google groups:"it's 65 outside" gets another six. You're right that it's not as common as age, height, etc.; I think the reason for that is that we tend to be less precise with weather than with personal statistics, and when we are being precise, we generally include units. —Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jackrabbit start

Sum of parts? Pretty sure it's a noun. (Needs formatting, and a better definition) SemperBlotto 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Found numerous references of it, indicating that it is commonly used. If you count the second sense for jackrabbit, I guess it could be considered SoP, but I'm not sure. It does need to be cleaned up though.--TBC 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's sum of parts; this is merely using jackrabbit attributively. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this argument is correct, does this mean that jackrabbit can be an adjective? Pingku 14:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; most English nouns can be used attributively, meaning that they can precede another noun (or in some cases an adjective) without becoming a full adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Given this, and what references I've found for jackrabbit start, the SoP argument seems compelling. How about a redirect to jackrabbit, which appears to deal with it?Pingku 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the sense in question is a verb, not a noun; I would have expected "jackrabbiting start." -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing this as SOP for most speakers; I don't know that I've ever encountered "jackrabbit" as a verb in use, while I have read and heard "jackrabbit start" any number of times. This suggests to me that in most vocabularies (including my own) this is a set phrase, not a combination of jackrabbit+start. -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not from the verb. Why can't it be attributive use of the noun, not that that would preclude its inclusion as an entry? Is "jackrabbit" a common term in the UK? If not, that alone would argue for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The noun is currently defined as the animal only; I don't see how that could possibly be sum-of-parts. -- Visviva 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not SoP. There is no figurative sense for the bare noun alone. Whether the noun or the verb is the origin, I wouldn't know how to resolve. I just thought that the attributive-use-of-a-noun pattern is so common as to barely require any thought as to etymology. The metaphor just seems obvious. The noun "jackrabbit" is much more common, I think, and seems a more natural source of derivation. I don't have any evidence one way or the other for the relative ages of "jackrabbit" as verb and "jackrabbit start", which might not be conclusive as to the PoS anyway. DCDuring TALK 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DCDuring, I'm not UK but from Australia (where rabbits are an introduced pest). I did a search through NewsBank (Australian newspapers only) and found a whopping 74 hits for "jackrabbit". Many of these were references to the animal, to a particular band, or to "Jackrabbit Slim's" from "Pulp Fiction". Also several refs to the novel (and prison slang term) "Jackrabbit Parole". There was one reference to "jackrabbit starts", which was covering a US story. The colloquial references were mostly centred around speed, acceleration and shyness (the latter particularly as a reason for the other two). A "political jackrabbit" appears to be a politician who goes to lengths not to be accosted by reporters. Jackrabbit also appears to be a role in the game of rugby, perhaps a "utility back". Finally, I found this, from my home town:

"Botswana runner Tiyapo Maso was caught by a lead pack of 20 at the 25km, having enjoyed more than a hour of global fame with jackrabbit tactics over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and out to Centennial Park which could only have one conclusion -- pain. He finished 78th in 2:38.53." ("Marathon magic for Ethiopians Abera tames tough course", The Adelaide Advertiser - Monday, October 2, 2000, author: Paul Malone.)

Pingku 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For the marathon story I would have thought the "hare" (from Aesop) a more slightly more apt metaphor. I don't think that every attestable metaphorical use of a noun must be included as a definition, though I have nothing against such efforts. In this case, the metaphor emphasises rapid acceleration, especially to make good an escape. Perhaps we should have some similar sense at jackrabbit. "Jackrabbit", especially because of its etymology, struck me as a likely part of Australian English as well as US English. Are imported jackrabbits the object of the famous rabbit fence? DCDuring TALK 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "hare" would have been more apt, but sports reporting is not always logical. :) But then a jackrabbit is a hare. Several of the articles I found saw fit to remind people (i.e. Australians) of that. The rabbits in Australia were imported by nostalgic Englishmen, and the difference between rabbits and hares remains a bit of a mystery to many. :)

I should emphasise the number of hits I had. 74. That means I was able to do the quick "study" I presented, but also indicates that "jackrabbit" is not a commonly used term in Australia (though it will probably be understood). The sort of "study" I just did might be useful elsewhere (especially if done rigorously), but might take a lot more effort. :) Pingku 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] guarriboom

I was trying to find the plural form of this so I could add {{en-noun}} when I found there are only 24 Google hits, most of them from wiktionary or similar sites and none indicating usage. Perhaps it is a misspelling. Pistachio 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a book hit, published 2003 before the wiktionary page, so at least it isn't completely made up. Nadando 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got some information, but not usage of that name. Another name like gwarri or guarri might be better. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this is English? The book Nadando found is using African language examples, and the word boom is Dutch for "tree" (and presumably means the same in Afrikaans). This might be an Afrikaans word. --EncycloPetey 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the book Nadando links to says it's English: "So it is that Khoisan languages, particularly Nama and Khoe, provide many loanwords in the English of South Africa, especially in the area of useful and medicinal plants. Here are some examples: […] guarriboom 'shrub whose fruit can be fermented for vinegar', [comes] from Khoe gwarri, also borrowed into Zulu umgwali; […] .^[40]" The footnote 40 says "Examples […] from Silva 1997" which is "Penny Silva, 'The Lexis of South African English: Reflections of a Multilingual Society', in Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), Englishes around the World: Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997), ii. 159–76". But Silva (who now is the "director" (?) of the OED, by the way) doesn't actually mention guarriboom at all (unless I'm missing it) in that article. She says, though, that "Khoikhoi [=Khoe] words in S[outh] A[frican] E[nglish] include […] the plant names […] guarri, […] ." I don't know whether she means that teh word was borrowed as is, or merely that that Khoikhoi word made it into SAE, possibly altered. She does mention that "[m]ost of the Khoikhoi borrowings now found in SAE were acquired via" Dutch and Xhosa — which might explain the boom.—msh210℠ 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed Ms. Silva for clarification, and she informs me that she "would say that in South African English guarri is more common than guarriboom (formed with Dutch/Afrikaans boom tree, as you suggest): I've attached the entry for GUARRI n., from the Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles, OUP, Oxford (1996), as this gives you an idea of the range of compounds formed by the word: guarriboom is only one of them, as you'll see." So, to answer EP's original question, yes, it's English. That DSAEHP quotation she attached to the e-mail includes, as she says, other related words, but also includes variant spellings: "guarri, gwarrie /'gwari/ n. Also ghwarrie, guárri, guarrie, guarry, guerri(e), gwarri, gwary, kwarrie, quarri."—msh210℠ 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] assward

Defined as "backward", I think (if this exists in English) it is more likely to be interpreted by an English speaker as "toward the rectum". --EncycloPetey 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". Also, all uses are adverbs; there are no citations for use as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Only backwards for something that has an ass end, I suppose. And that would be why I removed the adjective senses and amended the definition in line with the citations once they were in hand. Thanks for the close attention you have given these words, which both seem to meet CFI and are not in other dictionaries. Such words can help Wiktionary seem to offer more coverage than competing dictionaries, one hopes. I am sorry that the sense that you were seeking does not seem supported by the citations provided. It is a wiki so please feel free to make whatever emendments you feel are appropriate, including finding citations that support your intuitions. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But only if I find citations, and the literature I normally read is unlikely to be helpful ;) --EncycloPetey 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor what I read. I search b.g.c. to find cites for words that are a challenge to cite, as these two. Some are more edifying than others. A lot of vulgarities, invective, slang, and recently trendy stuff is in fiction, usually chic lit and tough-guy novels. I never would have gotten to these two except for RU's "not counted" list. DCDuring TALK 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these may be related to assways, a term I'm somewhat familiar with. Here's an example sentence:

You're doing it assways.

(equivalent to something like "You're doing it all wrong".)

Maybe the (slightly derogatory) sense of backward meaning "old-fashioned" is also relevant.50 Xylophone Players talk 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] asswards

As with assward, above. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". --EncycloPetey 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] key log

Rfv-sense: The key issue or problem, which if (re)solved, would make the current task easy to complete. The issue around which the whole problem revolves. Also: Literal sense seems SoP: The log which, if removed, would free up the whole logjam. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Found some references for the second sense. "Electric utilities are the key log." TIME Magazine, "the "key log" of the economic jam was the public utility situation" TIME Magazine, "Vietnam Negotiations: The Key Log" New York Times, "The key log In the educational jam is the department" New York Times.--TBC 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to get access to the NYTimes cites. Inserted Time cite, qv. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the first sense, keep as per keystone. Also, I believe it's a technical term in the logging industry (not sure about it, though).--TBC 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have even one real usage of the logging sense. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] so be it

Sense2: A translation and echo of amen. Not sure I get this. Does it add anything beyond sense1? -- WikiPedant 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"so be it" would be an alternative sense for "amen", not the other way around. As such, delete this sense, and make "so be it" a separate sense on the "amen" entry (currently it's combined with the religious sense).--TBC 18:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying, TBC. Do you mean that amen also means "(indicating acceptance of a bad situation)"? I'm unfamiliar with that sense, though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.—msh210℠ 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify; I' trying to say that sense1 for amen should be split into two. "End of prayers" is hardly synonymous with "so be it" (also, so be it does not necessarily always refer to accepting a bad situation).--TBC 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a literal translation of אָמֵן (amen), but do think it means the same as amen does: it expresses a wish/prayer that something just stated occur. I imagine that that's the RFVed sense means. Did you mean this to be a request for verification of that, WikiPedant?—msh210℠ 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, msh, that sense (expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated should happen) did not occur to me. It would be distinct from sense1. I wonder how well it can be attested. I ordinarily associate "so be it" with a situation which the speaker finds less than congenial but which he/she is prepared to accept (after swallowing hard). -- WikiPedant 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what amen is? Our definition for amen is "so be it"! Perhaps both should be rewritten as "(expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated occur)" if it's citable. Or perhaps something else is meant by the "amen" sense of so be it and by the "so be it" sense of amen. Any ideas as to what else it could be?—msh210℠ 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree on two counts. First of all, it's true that taken literally, "so be it" is a jussive use of the subjunctive and therefore expresses a desired state (just like "G-d's will be done", "be it resolved that […] ", etc.); but my experience matches WikiPedant's, that it always means "O.K., fine, whatever, I can take it." Second of all, in my experience "amen" indicates agreement with something just uttered — "This is the best country on Earth, and everyone who doesn't like it can get the Hell out." "Amen!" — and expresses a wish/prayer only in the special case that the thing just uttered was a wish/prayer — "I wish the people of this country would learn to live together in peace and harmony." "Amen!" (though in some religious circles there's a tendency to blur the distinction between what should be and what will be, such that "Someday everyone will live together peacefully." "Amen!" means both). —Ruakh_TALK 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "echo of amen" sense given for so be it is evident from [1]. And it's definitely a sense distinct from the "I can take it" sense. But you're right: amen means agreement with a recent statement, not only expressing a wish for the future.—msh210℠ 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't even understand what it meant, a "translation of amen" - amen is an English word anyway. Removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stagiaire

I think this is French. The English is stagiary according to the OED. (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 07:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the French, never heard of it in English. We usually say trainee or intern if it’s a noun, or probationary if an adjective. —Stephen 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the word is used quite some times in English too, probably just directly stolen from French. To give some examples, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. --Eivind (t) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Council of the Inner Temple in advertising training posts with, for example, the European Commission, the United Nations,etc use the "french" spelling, without, however, italicising as they would for Latin or other foreign words. I was unable to find any recent use of "stagiary" in this sense, whilst all the post-graduates I spoke to recognised "staadj-ee-air" but not "stagg-ee-airy". —This unsigned comment was added by 217.155.198.152 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

[edit] quinella

Verb sense: to have two members of the same team finish one and two in a competition. Supposedly went through RfV in 2006, but cites out of format, don't seem durably archived. Search didn't reveal any archived discussion of RfV process. Verb might be citable. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

google news archive:quinellaed|quinellaing gets more than 133 hits; the sense seems to be “to win both first place and second place in (a competition)”, usually in clauses of the form “<competitor> and <competitor> quinnellaed <competition>”. It doesn't seem to be a given that the two competitors must be from the same team; and even aside from this, our current definition needs to be rephrased to correctly identify the subject. —Ruakh_TALK 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's something I didn't get. I thought at least that the horses would be from the same stable, the Olympians would both be from Africa, if not Kenya, etc. The problem with with subject derives from the sense of the "sides" being a little nebulous, but, to me, unmistakable. I wonder if a bettor can "quinella" a race, so that the "same side" is more open-ended than def. now shows. Though the noun usage is mostly about betting, the verb didn't seem to be. Most of the usage seemed to be from the Melbourne Age and a New Zealand newspaper that might be repeating the same stories. I didn't check bylines, but this might be the product of one writer. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem that the two winners have to be "same" somehow, just not the same team necessarily. The problem I meant about the subject is that our definition implies the subject should be some third party, since this sense of "have" is used to mark a non-participant as a topic ("yesterday I had a good friend get hurt in a car crash" means something like "yesterday a good friend of mine got hurt in a car crash, and you can imagine how that makes me feel"). So according to our definition, the subject could perhaps refer to the team/stable/continent/country, or to the bettor/audience/venue; but in fact, it seems usually to refer to the first-and-second-place winners themselves. —Ruakh_TALK 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you don't want to hear of trifected, which is what Kenya often does in the distance events. (Unless Ethiopia is also there ;-) (yes, there are a few random googles, but more are mis-forms of trisected)Robert Ullmann 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RU: Do you have google alerts set to notify you when Kenya comes up in Wiktionary? DCDuring TALK 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 首乌汁

The definition says that it is the name of a patented medicine. I'm not sure that would qualify under WT:CFI. This link provides a description of the medicine. -- A-cai 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a brand name of a liquid patent medicine produced in Guangzhou, which can be found in pretty much any Chinese herbalist's shop or Chinese supermarket with a traditional medicine section). It's so prevalent among the Chinese communities around the world I think it could appear here like Tylenol, Prozac, Rohypnol, Kleenex. 24.29.228.33 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "patented medicine" - our definition of "patent medicine" is was wrong; it is a medicine that was originally proprietary, but is now generic so that anyone can make their own version, just like anyone can make aspirin, which was itself once a trademark. bd2412 T 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 2008

[edit] fallen

Rfv-sense: 1. The Devil; 2. An evil spirit, a fiend. I can find no support for these in any on-line dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that fallen is sometimes used as a shortened form of the term "fallen angel" (which would explain the first and second senses). I'll have to find some cites, however.--TBC 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Books turns up some relevant results (using the search term, "the fallen")--TBC 18:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Insert at least three of the best citations for each sense and we'll go from there. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find a few usable ones, but most of the results use "fallen" (in the demon sense) in their titles. I should be able to manage to find three, however.--TBC 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] patent medicine

Hippietrail tagged this as an RfV over a year ago, based on the discrepancy between our definition and Wikipedia's. I did some research and found the following:

• "Patent medicine is an English term which refers to the registration with the British Patent Office of a given compound as a medicine. In the United States it refers to those drugs which are sold without a prescription. Thus, in the United States, the term "patent medicine" is a misnomer since no patent is required." Robert H. Coombs, Lincoln J. Fry, Patricia G. Lewis, Socialization in Drug Abuse (1976), p. 10.
• "The term "patent medicine" originated in England and referred to "patents of royal favor" that kings granted to their bootmakers, tailors, and medicine makers. By definition, true patent medicines revealed their ingredients on their labels as a condition of maintaining their patent on that formulation. The so-called "patent medicines" produced in America were actually proprietary drugs in which the unique shape and color of the bottles along with the label designs were protected by trademark. The actual ingredients within the bottles, however, were kept secret — a practice that only added to the medicine's mystique. "Patent medicine" became a misused term due to the lack of distinction between patented and unpatented medicines in ads and on store shelves." Charles R. Whitlock, Ben Chandler, Mediscams: Dangerous Medical Practices and Health Care Frauds, (2003), p. 39.
• "Just a word as to the distinction made between proprietary medicines and "patent medicines." Strictly speaking, practically all nostrums on the market are proprietary medicines and but very few are true patent medicines. A patent medicine, in the legal sense of the word, is a medicine whose composition or method of making, or both, has been patented. Evidently, therefore, a patent medicine is not a secret preparation because its composition must appear in the patent specifications. Nearly every nostrum, instead of being patented, is given a fanciful name and that name is registered at Washington; the name thus becomes the property of the nostrum exploiter for all time. While the composition of the preparation, and the curative effects claimed for it, may be changed at the whim of its owner, his proprietorship in the name remains intact. As has been said, a true patent medicine is not a secret preparation; moreover, the product becomes public property at the end of seventeen years. As the term "patent medicine" has come to have a definite meaning to the public, this term is used in its colloquial sense throughout the book. That is to say, all nostrums advertised and sold direct to the public are referred to as "patent medicines"; those which are advertised directly only to physicians are spoken of as 'proprietaries.'" American Medical Association, Nostrums and Quackery (1921), p. 6.

So it seems that what we have here is a UK/U.S. usage divide, with the U.S. usage clearly divorced from ownership of an actual patent. bd2412 T 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• According to the OED: "a proprietary medicine manufactured under patent and available without prescription". You're right that in the US it seems to have become a synonym for simply "non-prescription medicine". Is it ever used this way in the UK I wonder? I don't think I've ever heard it. Ƿidsiþ 09:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Although the OED has only the "official" meaning, the term is sometimes used in its wider sense in the UK (certainly in Northern England), but this is probably just "patent" in its wider sense of "In extended use: to which a person has a proprietary claim. Also: special for its purpose; ingenious, well-contrived" (OED). Dbfirs 09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In the US, there is no necessary connection between a drug being patented and being a prescription drug or being sold over the counter or being a "controlled substance". In the US patent medicine is dated (19th-early 20th century, I think), but referred to non-prescription medicines. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neugeborene / Neugeborenes

[edit] Neugeborene

[edit] Neugeborenes

Genitive form: I think the correct genitive form is Neugeborenen, as in "Die Haut des Neugeborenen ist rosa." Mutante 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Neugeborenes can't be the genitive, only the nominative/accusative, and only in syntactic positions where the strong form is called for, since this noun is inflected like an adjective. Angr 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proof of concept

Recently resolved on rfc, but now there is a rfv issue, namely the two plurals.

My initial reaction on seeing them was to think that "proof of concepts" should be deleted, in the same way that "mother-in-laws" and "court-martials" are frowned upon. On further consideration, though, I think there is room for two plurals here, but with slightly different senses.

I would say that "proofs of concept" is the "simple" plural, as in In every software house I've worked in the past, I've had to provide proofs of concept of my work. This sentence emphasises the multiple proofs. I would reserve "proof of concepts" for the concept of proving multiple concepts; that is, "proof" is uncountable in this sense.

Hmmm. And what about "proofs of concepts"? "Proof of concepts" doesn't sound right, but let the citations speak! DCDuring TALK 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All three exist in number, "proofs of concepts" having 100 raw b.g.c. hits, the others 5 or 6 times as many. So much for it only being uncountable. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is a more subtle point here: does "proof of concept" have countable and uncountable senses? In This document provides proof of concept, "proof of concept" is uncountable, whereas in This document is a proof of concept, it is countable (and therefore allows for These documents are proofs of concept). If "proof of concept" is uncountable only (as I have always understood it to be), then we have no plurals at all, but if it is countable only or countable as well, we need a usage note to distinguish between the two plurals, as, to my mind, they are not interchangeable. — Paul G 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"a proof of concepts" (indicating countability) gets 29 raw b.g.c. hits, some of which are clearly countable uses of some noun sense. Interestingly, as I look at these I find that my own notion of "concept" in this collocation can refer to either the integrated concept of something as a whole or the separable component concepts. I'm not sure that we will help any user very much by trying to explain this in the "proof of concept" entry. "Concept" has different meanings, possibly, but not necessarily worth distinguishing in a dictionary entry. (It would be like having a sense for "container" saying that it was an object that contained other containers because it could be used that way.) Proof has both countable and uncountable senses. "Proof of concept" seems to carry over all the combinations of senses and plural/uncountability of the components, while still meriting an entry because it is idiomatic. Is it worth having a long-winded usage note about the combination plurals, when the component terms could carry most of the water? I would consider using {{infl|en|noun}}. The usage note could direct the user to the component entries. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] preferences - senses

Rfv-senses: pluralia tantum that which one chooses over something else and computing}user-specified settings of parameters in a computer program

I don't see how def is p.t. and why the second is listed as a plural, or why it is deemed a "computing-specific" sense. But I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] surrogatum principle

I have made this entry and cited it, but am unsure about two of the three citations. I could not find more. It may be that the citations should be used to support surrogatum in its disputed Canadian tax sense, which got pushed in June, without yielding acceptable citations. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum above. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - check the Wikipedia article, there are plenty of citations and court cases in which surrogatum principle is used [13]. WritersCramp 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] profligate

Rfv-sense: Verb to drive away. "Cite" looks like it is of attributive use of noun. Contributor may have been confused by it appearing as "to profligate". Webster 1913 showed is as obsolete Latinism. Webster 1828 showed it as "not used." It certainly needs cites. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] manipulexity

Not citable (durable medai) except at usenet. en.wikt is only dictionary with the term. It is a valid term coined by perl maven Larry Wall. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Larry Wall paper is on google scholar, and reasonably widely mirrored - so should probably count as durable. There are four groups cites, which might make it technically includable, if they are independent. (I would claim they are not as three of them use whipupitude in the same breath and thus this should RFVfail).

[edit] buttwoman

Possibly should be butt-woman, I found a couple quotes using that variation.

• 1898, Eden Phillpotts, Children of the Mists,

  Once butt-woman, or sextoness, of Chagford Church, the lady had dwelt alone, as Miss Mary Reed, for fifty-five years—not because opportunity to change her state was denied her, but owing to the fact that experience of life rendered her averse to all family responsibilities.

Anyone able to cite this fully, especially the unhyphenated version? - TheDaveRoss 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added the entry - the unhyphenated version is as spelled on the memorial tablet in Emmanuel Church, Plymouth. I had never come across the word before. Regards Springnuts 06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• A butt-woman can also be a woman who sells butts (flatfish). But in this instance it comes from the word butt meaning hassock; she cleans the church and helps the verger or pew-opener show people to their seats. SemperBlotto 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I created a cited entry at the main form, butt-woman and turned buttwoman into an alternative spelling entry. Three citations could probably be found for "buttwoman," but it's hard to track down because of the obscurity. It is certainly clear that that is an existing alternative spelling (and common enough in dictionaries, for what it's worth). Dominic·t 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] write-off

Phrasal verbs are never hyphenated, but the verb senses might derive from the noun "write-off" (itself derived from the phrasal verb "to write off"). Can anyone confirm? If so, it might be worth adding a usage note pointing this out, to save possible future edit wars; if not, these would belong at write off.

I've already deleted "write off" as the supposed alternative spelling of the noun and "write-off" (which was given at write off as a supposed alternative spelling of the phrasal verb). — Paul G 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as to preferred spellings and predominant practice, at least in print. Not 100% sure that hyphenated and solid-spelled forms are not sometimes used as verbs. "Write off" is sometimes used as a noun. Business jargon is at least as prone to questionable usage as ordinary English and there's no prescriptive authority nor any inclination to pay any attention to one. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree with the entries as they are now. Although alternatives of this particular entry can be found, I would think of such items as "write off" = noun as misusages. -- ALGRIF talk 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ABC cities

There are a few book references that might cover the definition, but most mentions seem to be refering to somewhere else, or get away from the tri-city idea altogher.--Dmol 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ABCD cities

As per ABC cities above.--Dmol 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ecosomatic

A person who believes that the built environment affects behavior, in particular, the belief that social issues such as crime can be influenced by the built environment. I doubt that this sense is citable. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] badding

Nothing obvious on a quick Google. SemperBlotto 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Found one usage. There are many mentions in dialect dictionaries. Apparently a true verb. What is standard for such dialect items. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that is reasonable. Dialect words won't get into print very often. SemperBlotto 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that I should insert dictionary notes to deter a needless subsequent RfV. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hostessship, headmistressship, goddessship

The usage note at hostessship says, "The term appears unhyphenated in the unabridged second edition of Webster's Dictionary, yet is spelled hostess-ship in subsequent editions. This trend is also prevalent in headmistressship and goddessship, which, respectively, may be hyphenated."

• English does not allow the same letter three times consecutively, and usually hyphenates to avoid this (compare cross-stitch), but I acknowledge that these closed-up forms might have currency.
• American English more readily closes up words that are hyphenated in British English. If these terms are to be included, they need to be marked as "US" because they would be considered incorrect in British English.
• The fact that Webster's amended "hostessship" to "hostess-ship" in later editions suggests that they recognised they had made an error.

By the way, "respectively" is redundant here as "may be hyphenated" applies to both words. — Paul G 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of the rule. There is no authority to promulgate a binding rule. Wiktionary does not normally give much weight to rules, except with respect to context tags. I doubt if it is "error" correction as much as changes in prevailing usage or in information about such usage that the other dictionaries follow. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are these items at RfV??? hostessship, because used in w:A Winter's Tale, would meet the well-known work rule. The others are cited. No argument challenging the citations has been made. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the First Folio spells it Hoſteſſeſhip; are you sure that the specific edition quoted in our entry constitutes a well-known work? (Also, I'm not sure the well-known work rule applies to misspellings, as this may be; but then, RFV isn't great at identifying misspellings.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the question of editions in Shakespeare, which is why I got the First Folio reference into the notes. I have no idea what ought to constitute a well-known edition of a well-known work. That it was Samuel Johnson's I thought would help the claim. This is the first time that I've seen this issue come up. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that whatever edition it is, people will read it and can therefore decide to look up the word. At the very least, we should have some sort of "obsolete form of" entry. By the way, because this section isn't precisely titled "hostessship", the RFV link wasn't working, so I thought it was un-listed and removed the tag. Language Lover 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, thanks for mentioning. —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice it was you that added that. I don't really know enough about the history of editions of Shakespeare. —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the First Folio is, more or less, the first "authorized" edition of the plays. Some of the older "Quarto" editions were "pirated". I think the quality of some is considered poor, but Shakespeare was dead by the time the First Folio was printed. In any event this was apparently the first publication of "The Winter's Tale". Presumably the later Folios (let alone the later editions) reflect both true corrections and adjustments to then-contemporary printing and spelling conventions. Because the issue here really is just spelling, we might have to wade into this in more detail than normal. Is the a true Shakespeare scholar in the house? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with DCDuring, RFV is the wrong place for these. Let's compare freeest, which only passed as a misspelling, but that's perhaps because of the recency of the term. However, also compare various other attested terms that violate this so-called "rule" which no one has provided citations for: skulllike, bulllike, gillless, crosssection, etc (please don't RFD any of those until this discussion is over). Bear in mind the sheer number of words that break rules (slough can be pronounced three different ways, efficiencies breaks the "I before E except after C" rule twice, and barbaric pronounces the "bar" combination two different ways). To exclude clearly attested words because they break rules is completely absurd. Teh Rote 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The rule “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’” is only for an [iː] sound; an exception is made for <ies>-terminal plurals of <y>-terminal nouns. Also, you must agree that skull-like, bull-like, gill-less, and cross-section are a lot more common that their unhyphenated forms. In language, I’d wager that any rule of broad application will have its exceptions, especially in one so widely spoken as English. Nevertheless, this does not bar such terms from being included (as long as they are attestable); however, it is only wise that it be noted when they “buck a trend” when some may term such bucking as “violating a rule”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fi

Rfv-sense - musical sense. Not in the OED. Not in Grove music online (not that I can find). SemperBlotto 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This'll be a pain to cite, but it's definitely real. All the normal solfege (sp?) syllables representing notes that are a full step below the next normal solfege syllable (viz do, re, fa, so, and la) have counterparts in -i that are just half a step above, i.e. sharps (viz di, ri, fi, si, and li). Similarly for flats: re, mi, so, la, and ti produce ra, me, se, le, and te. (di=ra, ri=me, fi=se, si=le, li=te.) The system isn't perfect, because in the letter-names, E♯ and F♭ and B♯ and C♭ do exist, they're just equivalent to F, E, C, and B, respectively, whereas the solfege system doesn't even have analogous names, at least for the sharps (I'm less sure about ?fe and ?de, but I've never heard them). Of course, with solfege these things are less necessary, because most people use a movable do, such that sharps and flats aren't as common as with the letter-names. —Ruakh_TALK 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sp.: solfège (French) or solfeggio (Italian) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

google books:do re mi fa so la ti di ri fi si li ra me se le te pulls up a lot of hits, many of them relevant; but I'm having trouble distinguishing mention from use. I'm not sure what the difference even is, for something like this. —Ruakh_TALK 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I move we close this as passed. (I don't want to do it unseconded as is.)​—msh210℠ 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So closed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] rear admiral (lower half)

We don't normally allow such article titles. But is this one pukka? SemperBlotto 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I had the same gut reaction as you, but this does seem to be a standard format phrase. It gets 658 b.g.c hits, although some of them are in the format "rear admiral, lower half,..." or rear admiral lower half instead. The parenthetical form seems the most common on a quick look. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: this is the O-7 rank, formerly known as Commodore, being applied to non-line officers. - Amgine/^talk 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: [14]. It's an official US Navy site. --Hekaheka 13:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rear admiral (upper half)

As above. SemperBlotto 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the O-8 rank, formerly rear admiral being applied also for non-line officers. - Amgine/^talk 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Gate Bridge

Has passed RfD. It's sole current meaning is literal and does not seem to justify its inclusion, but there are no citations shown supporting any other meaning. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Have we ever had a discussion about including proper names of world-famous landmarks? I don't recall one. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor I, but I haven't been here long. The RfD discussion of this was quite brief and resulted in a it passing. This is the only one of a list of these brought to RfD which passsed RfD. I would assume that it would have to meet attributive use requirements under our current rules. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Found in books.google.com: "Hoga, the Golden Gate Bridge of Sweden", "Pont du Gard — the Golden Gate Bridge of 19 BC", "jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality", others where the context is not clear. I don't think an attributive use requirement is healthy because in many cases we'd be trying to force a connotation that may not carry weight. Even if it's credible by our standards, three out of millions of citations doesn't make it noteworthy enough to mention. DAVilla 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought the purpose of the attributive use criteria was just to provide evidence that an otherwise unincludable Proper noun was in significant usage in a non-encyclopedic sense. I can't think of wording for a sense that encompasses these usages. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Wall of China, Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, World Trade Center, Louvre; world famous landmarks are used both attributively and metaphorically all the time, in several ways, we should list the literal meanings and allow the reader to interpret the extended meanings themselves. I say this regardless of whatever the CFI currently has to say about them, if they aren't already allowed they should be. - TheDaveRoss 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The big American dictionaries such as Random House have this and similar names. The fact that they keep getting deleted here convinces me that our criteria have not been thought through or are poorly worded. We should have the names and the criteria need be reworked. —Stephen 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that those dictionaries are just trying to outdo the others by being more encyclopaedic. Perhaps what we really need is a combined Wikimedia search that will suggest Wikipedia results if the dictionary doesn't have them. (Actually, I think we have that already.) Equinox ◑ 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

When we say we don't want to be encyclopedic I always thought we meant in depth of content not in scope of content. There is certainly linguistic relevance to place names and landmarks and monuments, there are often translations, etymologies, irregularities in pluralization, regional namings -- the list goes on. We don't want to be encyclopedic in how we describe words (i.e. we want to define words not describe the object in question) but we shouldn't limit the scope of the words we will define simply for the fear that we might cover the same material that an encyclopedia might also cover. - TheDaveRoss 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The big American dictionaries are at least as scholarly and professional as the OED. They don’t try to "outdo" anyone by being encyclopedic. As long as we are controlled by this irrational, amateurish loathing of multi-word and other complex entries, we will remain a children’s grammar-school glossary. —Stephen 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, want to sneer a bit more? I can tell you're enjoying it. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Among the OneLook references that have this: Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, and Wikipedia. Among source dictionaries: Encarta and Random House. Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, MW, and AHD do not. If we fail to include it directly, the WMF family remains represented. Evidently not every dictionary feels compelled to have even major gazetteer entries. That we have a sister project that has such items would seem to relieve us of the burden of duplicating content.

What WP does not have is a full range of translations. Their etymologies are uneven. I suspect that they do not cover linguistically (toponymically) interesting, but otherwise non-notable places. They do have nicknames. They don't have lists of all the placenames suffixed in "-field" etc.

I can see a role for a WikiGazetteer project that addressed the peculiar needs of topnymy. I don't know that Wiktionary will be a good home for the effort, just as it has not proven a suitable home for the taxonomic hierarchy, for a thesaurus, or even for grammatical formulas (X one's Y off), all of which have linguistic justification, two of which have no plausible alternative home in the WMF family.

Golden Gate Bridge delenda est. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Stephen G., but many dictionaries, especially American college dictionaries do try to outdo each other in the number of entries listed in the jacket marketing text, and in the prominent entries and buzzwords you can find while browsing in the bookstore, at the expense of more valuable lexicographical definitions. They insert non-dictionary encyclopedic entries for self-promotion, with questionable actual value for the customer. Landau 2001, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography says so, in pretty much so many words. If you doubt it, I can hunt down some quotations.

But we don't add any value, or save any bookshelf space, by adding an inadequate copy of a Wikipedia entry instead of a link. Aping the print dictionaries' marketing strategies is a disservice to our “customers.” We also don't have any mandate to translate the name of every person, place and thing into other languages.

The entries we have should depend on their lexicographical identity—looks like Empire State Building arguably noses in, Golden Gate Bridge arguably doesn't— or their onomastic qualities, which we haven't even begun to address. —Michael Z. 2009-06-06 15:58 z

[edit] September 2008

[edit] nom nom nom

Really? SemperBlotto 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be num-num-num. —Stephen 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's pleny of usage with this spelling. Almost half a million sites on Google web, almost 50,000 on images. --Dmol 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an onomatopoeia that's surprisingly widespread (though alternatives "om nom nom" and "om nom" are equally as common). Some cites: "This should feed me for days. [Nom, nom, nom]" (San Francisco Chronicle), "Nom nom nom: Alligator Season Starts Today!" (Miami Times ), "Retro-gamer cupcakes OM NOM NOM NOM" (Boing Boing), "Nom nom nom: Indiana welcomes two new restaurants for students" (The Penn), "This Chain Chomp Cap Is Like "Arf! Arf! Om Nom Nom" (Kotaku)--TBC 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to merge or link this with nom? Currently there are entries for nom and nom nom nom, and a mention of "om nom nom", but we have nothing for "nom nom" (which appears to be a short, somewhat unusual form of "nom nom nom"), or for further repetitions used to intensify the interjection ("om nom nom nom", "nom nom nom nom nom", etc.). I doubt we want a never-ending chain of entries for this. Which ones should we have, and how do we deal with the ones without separate entries? My instinct is to put them all under nom with redirects set up for "nom nom nom", "om nom nom", and "om nom nom nom", but I think that may not be the Wiktionary way. Dfeuer 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to nom: it's SoP, if you will: nom + nom + nom. The only phrase I can think of that's like this but that's not SoP is I say, I say, I say (and I'm not sure about that one).​—msh210℠ 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps ha ha, ha ha ha, ho ho, ho ho ho? Equinox ◑ 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the "om nom" version? Is that the same or separate? Dfeuer 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] rolling down the windows

Is this legit? Does it have wide currency? Is it a noun phrase, or does it belong at "to roll down the windows"? (That is, would you say, "Rolling down the windows is his favourite move" or "He is always rolling down the windows"?) — Paul G 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This entry is missing the usual sense of lowering car windows, which is idiomatic as most newer cars no longer have a handle to "roll" them down. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In terms of books, it seems to appear in three glossaries, but no actual usage [15] [16] [17]. Haven't delved into groups yet. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] out the window

Is this really a noun, as the definition suggests? If so, is it actually "out of the window" ("out" being a slangy way of saying "out of")? A cursory glance at the first 10 Google hits out of 13,500 for "an out the window" gives this as an attributive noun phrase only, mostly (correctly) written as "out-the-window".

If it is not a noun, then I think this is really "go out of the window" and should be defined as "(of an opportunity) to be squandered" or something like that. — Paul G 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's (what we call) an adverb (as in "go out the window") and perhaps also an adjective ("another opportunity out the window!" —or is that just an elision of "(has) gone"? See [18]). Same for down the drain, which we currently list as a preposition and which is tagged with {{rfc}}.—msh210℠ 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I often heard it when I was much younger. I heard it as both adjective (predicate) and adverb. In meaning it was mostly as MSH describes. "That [opportunity] is out the window" or "They had a chance to win the pennant, but now that's out the window" are examples. I can't quite get an attributive use scenario though. I'm not sure how many verbs besides "go" that it can modify as an adverb with the "idiomatic" meaning, which is just a figurative extension of the literal meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still in relatively recent use. Lyrics from a 2001 Sugar Ray song: "All the things that we used to know have gone out the window." --EncycloPetey 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] youtube

I think it possible that YouTube (Citations:YouTube) will make the grade, what about the lowercase version? Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have enough citations for YouTube#Noun and YouTube#Verb, and am closing in on YouTubed#Adjective. I think everyone who can be sued spells it YouTube. Perhaps on groups, unless Google automatically "corrects" the spelling before displaying it ? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this probably deserves an entry, particularly for the thousands of times I've seen the phrase YouTube generation this year. Personally, as a middle-aged man, I only encountered YouTube this year but it is mentioned in various areas: politics, commerce, sociology...--Jackofclubs 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the lowercase version should probably be used as an alternative spelling or at the very least, redirect it back to the uppercase article as I'm sure it's still widely used even though I would probably use it with capitals (= "I'm just YouTubing", "I'm on YouTube", "Just YouTube it!" and so on). I think it's okay it's to be a bit loose with this, at least in the verbal sense, since it's not a very standard form of English grammar to use two capitals in a verb for instance. AndyPandy 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not a word, it is more or less slang. 98.226.32.129 09:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Slang words are still words. See WT:CFI for guidelines. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] hamster

I can't find hamster used as a verb anywhere.--Brett 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Groups is the best for finding terms like this in use. I found various senses for the word, but none seemed to be in use on multiple groups in adequate count. I could not find the sense in question, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. One can also find hamstering in bgc, which refers to some kind of civilian foraging to rural markets for produce, etc., especially during wartime and postwar scarcity in the UK, though this usage seems to have been Dutch and German as well. See hamstern. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirm hamstern is used in German. Not even that rare. Mutante 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Same for Dutch: hamsteren Jcwf 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought that to hamster was to accumulate stuff, much like a packrat def.2 ...

in German hamstern does mean to be like a packrat...--BigBadBen 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] baggs

Alternative spelling of bags, a verb meaning "lay dibs". See dibs. Single citation is from Australia. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't locate the 2006 Daily Telegraph citation on Google news or at either the UK or Australia newspaper sites. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pookie

Several definitions were added and removed in its history. H. (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pickett's charge

Headword does not match strange article title. SemperBlotto 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• This was moved to Pickett's charge‎ - where it now seems rather encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found some cites that might warrant keeping this for its figurative meaning: something like "valiant futile frontal assault", synonymous with charge of the light brigade, but without as good a literary publicist. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I entered this term because it is a catch phrase, a misconstrued rallying cry, a buzz word for optimists and pessimists alike, and a historic event still studied in military academies in many countries. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 03 Oct 2008. 9:10am CDT.

The historic event is encyclopedic and we have the WP link for that. The citations I found support the meanings that are on the citations page, IMO. It wouldn't surprise me if additional citations or reconstrual of the existing citations might support the senses you mention, but a dictionary entry cannot cover all the divergent interpretations of a historic event. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cookbook

RFV etymology. On a hunch, I'd imagine that the etymology is just cook + book, and not from German. I was going to change it, but maybe RFV is a better place. --Jackofclubs 08:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly cook + book, but that's not a very common compound style in English. It wouldn't shock me if it was a calque of German Kochbuch. —Ruakh_TALK 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MWOnline dates it at 1809, which, to me, makes the calque seem more plausible. Some dictionaries call it an Americanism, with "cookery book" the UK term. German popular cultural influence in the US was strong at that time. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks

Was rfd'd without being listed - does anyone know what kind of cites we are looking for to show that this exists? Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a brand name or company name. As CFI is currently written, cites would have to be attributive. DAVilla 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I thought we hadn't yet figured out what to do with the "Names of specific entities" stuff. Why should this be deleted if we still have entries for Wiktionary, all the other WM projects, the US presidents, and all that other junk with no attributive cites? --Yair rand 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not capable of deleting all those entries simultaneously. I deleted this one because it was here, had been here for over a month and a half, and had only one citation (which wasn't attributive, or figurative, or generic, or anything, but rather was a simple mention of the Web-site, together with an explanation of what it was). If you'd like to RFV and/or RFD all those other entries, be my guest. In the meantime, I really don't think "[[[[Foo]]]] hasn't been deleted yet" is a compelling argument to leave [[[[bar]]]] in place after it's failed RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bookseller

1. A person engaged in the business of selling books.
2. A person who works in a bookshop/bookstore.

I'm not sure how the second sense differs from the first. Surely if you work in a bookshop, you are engaged in the business of selling books. — Paul G 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all 1s are 2s. Not all 2s are necessarily 1s, either.

1. A 1 could be a manager or owner of a bookstore. For example, The Riggios, who own much of Barnes and Noble in the US, are not often in any of their 800 stores, nor are many of the employees, many of whom might call their administrative or managerial duties "bookselling". One could be a non-store-based bookseller as well.
2. Are 2s such as textbook buyers, coffee-shop functionaries and cash register operators booksellers? (There is a joke involving a guy complaining about his job cleaning up after the elephants, the punchline of which is "What? And quit show business?") DCDuring TALK 12:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, partly. I know booksellers who operate their business out of their home, so there is no shop or store. The first definition covers those people. However, I cannot imagine anyone who "works in a bookshop/bookstore" who is not "engaged in the business of selling books" being called a "bookseller". I think the definitions should be merged as "A person engaged in the business of selling books, especially one who works in a bookshop/bookstore". Functionaries who purchase books are bookbuyers, and people who sell coffee only are not booksellers. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't sense 1 include companies as well as people? E.g. "Barnes & Noble is a major US bookseller." Methinks that would make the second sense more distinct. -- Visviva 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deuces wild

(baseball) two on, two out, 2-2 count, 2-2 tie (or variant thereof). Never heard of it. Says its a noun. Can't tell without cites. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First three hits are mention in various baseball dictionaries, I couldn't find a use. Then again this is most likely a term which would be used by a radio or television announcer and would therefore be written down less frequently. The flip side of that is that baseball has been around for a while and most terms which have true currency there make their way to published writing eventually. Some non-durable quotes which may be useful:

• It was deuces wild for Damon Sublett, who had been out of action since October 14. He played 2B and was 2-for-4, with 2 RBI and 2 runs scored. Sublett hit a 2 run go-ahead homerun in the 5th inning. (this one seems to be referring to the general prevalence of twos, not the situation) - link
• Players on the Lewis Cass baseball team shake their hats with the scoreboard showing two balls, two strikes and two outs indicating the next pitch is a ‘roll of the dice’ Thursday in the Class 2A Cass Sectional final against Northfield. (photo title is "deuces wild" - link
• Fukudome is up, with Deuces Wild, and a chance to do some damage for Tabata’s Cougars. Remember, it’s never a blowout in fantasy. (Sorry!) Okay, full count, runners on the corners… and… foul ball… and Ball 4! Alright, bases loaded for the ninth Cub to bat this inning, Micah Hoffpauir. (in this one it seems to only mean 2 outs, as there is clearly a 3 ball count) - link
• On the radio, Vin Scully is weaving together a story about the old days, talking about how a Pittsburgh team once won a game because of a pillow fight in the stands, which may be the one tactic the Dodgers haven't tried. // "Deuces wild," Scully says. "Two balls, two strikes, two out." (this one is from the LA Times website, not sure if it was ever published) - link

In general I am not seeing a distinction between usage for the specific count and situations (not even baseball specific ones) where there are a bunch of twos. I would say generalize and keep or toss altogether. - TheDaveRoss 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] goldy

golden. Not in OneLook dictionaries (except Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's in the OED. Not marked as obsolete or anything. SemperBlotto 07:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] word

Rfv-sense: (music) Spoken-word poetry accompanied by one or two musical instruments and performed as a unit. I'd like to know more about this from citations and/or usage examples. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] change up

Is this a US protologism? To me, it just means to change gear (in a car) to a higher gear. SemperBlotto 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Real and fairly long-standing in US vernacular; perh orig AAVE. The stuff about Obama is complete BS AFAIK. -- Visviva 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - needs formatting though, and probably an improved definition. SemperBlotto 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted two senses that I know: one baseball, one general. I know that I can get plenty of cites for the baseball sense, probably for the general one. I'm not sure of the relationship between the general one I added and the rfv'd one. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dead ball

Rfv-sense: (cricket) An arm signal given by the umpire in certain circumstances when the ball becomes dead (arms crossed and re-crossed below the waist).

Is it appropriate and accurate to assign this name to a signal from the umpire? Should this be done for all signals made by people in various identifiable circumstances? A policeman giving a stop sign, should that be a definition of stop? __meco 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that there would be much usage of "dead ball" to refer to the signal as opposed to what was signified. This contrasts with "wave", "salute", "thumbs up", "red light". We could have at least three senses: the state of the ball, the determination by the umpire that the ball was in that state, the indication that the ball was in that state. And perhaps in professional sports, the official record that the ball was in that state. But that way madness lies, for most entries. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a troublesome citation:

• 2005, "Cricket for beginners", part IV, BBC News, Aug 26, 2005

  In one of Australia's recent innings, the umpire gave a dead ball as the ball hit ....

That would seem to refer to the signal rather than the signified. I think I will leave this to the philosophers. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rhotacism

Rfv-sense for “inability to pronounce the letter R”.
This seems to be contrary to the other two senses. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all are right. See w:rhotacism. —Stephen 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Our information might have been copied thence, or, conversely, Wikipedia’s information might have been copied hence. None of that article’s references confirm this sense. IMO, Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable authority when that which it asserts is not referenced. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here’s one:

• 2005: Bernard Fogel, PhD, CCC-SLP, Exercising the Rhotacism in Absence of Pathology (ADVANCE)

  It is universally accepted that the rhotacism, a defective utterance of the /r/ sounds, is usually the last and most difficult American English consonant to correct functionally.

  I use two methods to help correct the rhotacism.

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They are correct, referenced or not. A famous case of rhotacism, meaning the inability to pronounce r’s, is the comic character w:Elmer Fudd. It is very easy to find references if you need them...for example: http://books.google.com/books?q=inability+rhotacism&btnG=Search+Books —Stephen 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Verified (provisionally). They may have been correct, but the lack of references to reliable authorities meant that that wasn’t evident. It’s verification that matters — truth that cannot be shown to be truth just isn’t good enough. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The challenged sense now has four supporting citations. RfV passed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] confectionary

Rfv-sense: confectionary ≅ confectionery.
It’s marked as Australian, but it might just be non-standard. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in Macquarie, tagged as obsolete. However, it's also in the OED in this sense, with no tags but with the most recent citation from 1844. I would need some evidence that it is really Australian, and not just globally obsolete; an initial b.g.c. search gives no such indication, although this sense is difficult to filter from the others. Definitely real, in any event; note many occurrences of "confectionaries and sweetmeats" and vice versa. -- Visviva 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the context tag is wrong, that it is more general, certainly US. The OneLook dictionaries mostly include the sense, but not Oxford or Cambridge, so it might not be used in the UK. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 2008

[edit] cygnine

looks like a word, of course, but where's the evidence?

Plenty of evidence. For example, Roget's Thesaurus. It’s a word like asinine, leonine, canine, porcine, feline, chevaline, and so on. —Stephen 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an academic journal, contrasting anserine (duck-like) with cygnine (swan-like). --EncycloPetey 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1901 — Elliott Coues, On the Classification of Water Birds, "Publications of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia": v. 53: 193-218, p216, footnote

  The genus Choristopus, Eyton, apparently Anserine rather than Cygnine, is said to possess this character […]

Is it just me, or in your cite, does it seem to mean "being a swan" or "being of the swan family" rather than "swanlike"? I think it's just an adjective version of "swan", with all the different meanings that you'd expect ("of, pertaining to, being, or resembling a swan or swans"). Also, we seem to be missing a noun sense referring to some sort of Australian natural poison. (BTW, my impression from b.g.c., which our entry agrees with, is that "anserine" actually pertains to geese rather than to ducks.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] utmostly

Listed as an adjective, defined as an adverb, but illogically constructed. There are Google books hits, but I'm not sure that "in an utmost manner" explains anything. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• One of a number from the same user. All bad, most have been cleaned up, some deleted - I would have deleted this one. SemperBlotto 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  I did, but it was re-entered. With Google Books hits, it seemed better to take it somewhere it could be improved. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Many days have been passed, so the RFV should be removed at anytime. Steel Blade 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The originally challenged adjective sense has but one cite, not from a well-known work. The adverb PoS was added and cited by Visviva and is apparently good. The adjective sense now has an RfV-sense tag, but it is unlikely we can do better than Visviva at attesting it. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] eo

Rfv-sense: Latin pronoun, colloquial form of ego.

[edit] zenzizenzic

It's in the OED entry for zenzic, but with only one quotation, which capitalizes it, writes it with a capital letter, defines it, and spells it differently (Zenzizenzike). —Ruakh_TALK 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added 3 citations from google books. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to count this as passed. One of those cites is for zenzizenzizenzic. The other two don't have the same part of speech, and I can't decipher the adjective cite. —Ruakh_TALK 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but right now we're just trying to find 3 usages to pass: not three for each part of speech. With 392 hits on Google and 3 uses in Google books, generally the word is passing. The compound was my oversight: I did not notice it was part of a line-breaked longer word, when I added it. To replace that, there's a third cite at Google books but I can't get the snippet to work: Robert Burton, Philosophaster: Philosophaster - Page 41 by Robert Burton, Connie McQuillen, 1993. Goldenrowley 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's three per sense, else how would {{rfv-sense}} work? —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mote

Added by an anon contributor, the -e looks wrong for a feminine noun in Lithuanian. --EncycloPetey 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also old rfv for English verb sense. See mote#Etymology 3. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] superginormous

[edit] super-ginormous

I see little evidence of use on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is little evidence but maybe in uses as well. —This comment was unsigned.

If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary. Why waste time on it? You are better off to find the usage first before you take the trouble to make a good entry. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is a waste of time of doing so. You can decide whatever you feel about the word "superginormous". What do you mean by "If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary."? It was used.... please search for Google. :/ But ONLY you can decide, not me. —This comment was unsigned.

120 hits for a word on the entire web is basically nothing. In contrast there are 930,000 hits for "ginormous" and 106,000,000 for "big". Numerous misspellings and nonsense words get more than 120 hits. A longer word, "internationalism", gets 970,000.

You could find the citations at google books, google news, google scholar, or google groups. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cited, I think; there appear to be exactly three CFI-meeting uses (in our standard corpora, anyway), spanning just about exactly one year. -- Visviva 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now its passing depends on whether we accept a cite of "super-ginormous" as relevant for "superginormous". I could go either way on that, I suppose, but haven't knowingly accepted alternative forms for attestation purposes in the past. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I think we all may and should leave its definitions the way it is and all it needs now is an alternative form of superginormous. —This comment was unsigned.

Each entry is to be cited separately. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. —This comment was unsigned.

I don't think cites for an alternative form should count as cites for the main form. As it stands, I like the sound of the word, but it needs to be deleted- one cite is hyphenated, thus ruining everything IMHO. Teh Rote 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm done here. Happy citing! BTW, there's a new cite for the hyphenated version. -- Visviva 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation of prefixes is a matter of personal taste, and as super-ginormous is the same word as superginormous quotes with or without the hyphen should be fine. If we are to keep this (which we probably should), it possibly wants marking as {{rare}}, {{informal}}, {{neologism}} or all of the above. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the three citations: Should both entries appear? Should the one with one cite be a redirect to the one with two cites? Should there be a cite on the redirect page? DCDuring TALK 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it is only one word - just because someone decided it'd look neater hyphenated does not make it different - so if we keep one we should keep both. The standard "Wiktionary way" to do this is to use "{{alternative form of}}" or something similar. I reckon we should hard-redirect the Citations page though (if not the entries too</troll>). Conrad.Irwin 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Open question: Are alternative forms shown one word (needing three citations or either form) or two (needing three citations of each form)? If this isn't decided here, it will have to go to WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the hyphenated form as unattestable: it's been almost a year now. This leaves us with superginormous, one of whose three citations is hyphenated. I suppose we need a third unhyphenated one to close this. Equinox ◑ 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] suggilated

bruised black and blue as a result of a beating. Actually would be a past and past participle of suggilate, which appeared in Webster's 1828. Not much use for any of the four forms. 1 News. 2 groups. One group hit might be a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Several in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] at the high port

And while we're at it, can someone who really knows tell me in what position you'd be holding a rifle if you were holding it at the high port? I know it's a position of readiness, for example held while running at the double. Somewhere online it said 'at the high port' means to hold the rifle above one's head with both arms outstretched, but I'm thinking that might be a modern extension of the term applied to such a punishment or exercise. Oh, and our current entry for at the high port describes a rare slang sense stemming from the "readiness, quickness" of soldiers in this particular rifle position. We need to list the real rifle position, but I can't find it's description anywhere convincingly. -- Thisis0 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ':Edit: Ok, so I just found this Apparently, it does mean hold a rifle in the port position well over the head. Any other thoughts welcome. Any cites for the slang sense? -- Thisis0 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs a picture or two, once we're sure of what the sources mean. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] account manager

Rfv-sense: (business) Someone who is in charge of financial accounts, especially in businesses. I always that that definition given was of what was called an "accounts manager" in the UK, Oz, and NZ and an "accounting manager" in the US (and Canada?). I also thought that an "account manager" was a salesman. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I claim no linguistic accuracy, but isn't an account manager somebody who manages one account (=single customer's interaction with your company) and so accounts manager would be somebody who manages several (and could probably equally be called account manager, because it's a bit unusual to pluralise the attributive adj)? I think I've heard both, but it's not the area I work in, so I can't be certain. OTOH you have customer liaison but not customers liaison, so I don't know how likely the accounts is; it just seems like something I've heard. Equinox 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Raw Google hits: account mgr 25M, accounts mgr 1M, accounting mgr 3M. Account manager is a person who is in charge of one or more named customers or of a specified segment of the market. Accounting refers to financial bookkeeping and accounting mgr is thus a different thing. The Rfv'ed definition seems to be of an accounting manager and should indeed be deleted here. A separate entry for "accounting manager" would in my opinion be pretty close to a SoP, and no more worth inclusion than e.g. sales manager or purchasing manager. --Hekaheka 04:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on bgc scanning "accounts manager" seems to also be used more-or-less synonymously with "account manager". I can refer to "my account manager" and refer to someone who has a title of either "account manager" or "accounts manager". Also an "account manager" could be in charge of directed the provision of goods and services to one or more customers and only have incidental selling responsibilities. There may be other possibilities. It does seem possible that the term is occasionally used as the RfV'd sense says, but I didn't collect the cites as I saw them. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

From the US west coast I hear it all the time in business as account manager (not accounting). My understanding working for them is that they manage accounts (business clients). Goldenrowley 06:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to reach the conclusion? Nobody has defended "account manager" as manager of financial accounts and thus the sense should be deleted, --Hekaheka 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] marketising

If this is real, then it needs a definition rather than an example. SemperBlotto 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of bgc citations for marketize/marketise (now added), mostly for process of converting toward a market economy, applied to Western public sector and to former socialist economies. I'll look more for the sense given. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on usage: I think in the USA we'd either use (commonly) marketing or (rarely) marketizing instead of this spelling. A version with "z" as an alternate spelling has two times as many hits at Google Books. Wouldn't it be more British to use the "s" version? If yes, I find it odd to see an example of two American products Sony and iPod used as an example for a British spelling? Goldenrowley 06:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If we don't get cites for the noun (like plural form}, this will just be a participle anyway. At marketize we have the 2 senses I found in use. This should be a "soft redirect" to there or marketise. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] brivet

Nothing obvious in Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of entries have now been turned up, using the word in the right context. I don't know if they will be sufficient, but the article's talk page contains fuller discussion. Llykstw 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an OED consult would be in order. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the OED Online. (I don't think SemperBlotto would have RFV'd it if it were.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SB'd mentioned that he'd looked it up there, but I forgot to strike my request. Thanks. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Google Books references are now listed on the discussion page, albeit some with a variant spelling 'brivit', plus the usual in-context uses 'in the wild'. Are we getting close to resolving this rfv? 213.86.133.215 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] featuristic

Protologism? There are some Google hits but very many of them seem to be errors for futuristic. Italian translation did not exist (removed). One hit for the French translation given. SemperBlotto 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed; deleted. Equinox ◑ 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] excelsior

Really used as an adverb in English? Perhaps it should be an interjection. Equinox 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd bet on interjection and not adverb. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing. Somebody has changed the adverb to a usage note. Equinox ◑ 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 2008

[edit] stabil

There is currently no attestation of the Czech entry of stabil, and two native speakers--me and User:Karelklic--do not know the term. --Dan Polansky 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech-speaker User:Duncan MacCall is the one who wrote that stabil means landline phone. —Stephen 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The main discussion on the subject took place here. To sum it up: the word exists and it's used, though not quite as much as I had thought, but as I was only able to prove this by sourses which aren't durably archived, and thus failed to meet our CFI, I'm not opposed to its being deleted by anybody else (while strongly rejecting to do so myself). --Duncan 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] play

(intransitive) To deal with a situation in a diplomatic manner. Can this possibly be intransitive? What sort of sentence might it appear in? Equinox 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If we meet with Shakashvili, how will it play?

But the definition isn't quite right. More like How should it play? and that is impersonal or avalent. Robert Ullmann 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think of the sense used in the cite as applicable in any context (diplomacy, business negotiation, politics, interpersonal relations, entertainment, advertising) where "audience" reaction (one person, many, or mass) matters. It is close to a sense of play out, but MW has go over as a synonym, which is better. (BTW, the entry seems to lack some senses.) DCDuring TALK 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chamaole

Formerly: Transwiki:Chamaole

A Transwikied Chamorro word. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been on the list for a while, but I'd give this the benefit of the doubt and just leave it in as a transwiki for now, because it is not likely we have anyone who speaks Chamorro that can cite in that language. Goldenrowley 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Velcro

Adjective and verb are lowercase, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the adjective altogether, since it's attributive use of the noun. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Removed. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The suable publishers tend to show it capitalised (Books, News, Scholar); Groups has more lower case. Other dictionaries also show it mostly capitalised as a noun, less consistently for verb. Both upper- and lower-case forms are attestable, I expect, even the upper case form of the noun by the tighter standards for trademarks. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries cannot be sued for putting a trademark as a word (look at the money Google wasted on this one!!) as long as they can show citations. Wikt has the CFI process for this. The ONLY thing a trademark holder can do is request the dictionary to place the word as trademarked, as part of the process of maintaining possession. But if the people are using the word as a common noun, verb etc. then hard luck. The only thing that trademark possession means is that, within the territory to which the trademark applies, no other trader can sell a similar product with the same name. Trademarks are, believe it or not, a consumer protection rather than a supplier protection. If it were not like that, then you would not be able to sell a second-hand Ford. ;-) So. To sum up. This entry should probably uppercase trademark, and lowercase noun, verb, etc. IMHO. -- ALGRIF talk 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vigour

Verb? Was it really, or just a poetic nonce somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 13:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

b.g.c. suggests that vigo(u)red (“‘vigo(u)rous, invigorated, having vigo(u)r’”) did exist, but I'm not finding too many uses as a real verb; and the uses that I do find don't seem to have this sense. (I'm really not sure what's up with them.) Still, it's in a few dictionaries — we got it from vigor in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 — so it probably warrants fuller examination. —Ruakh_TALK 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] antic

Rfv-sense: To make grotesque. I couldn't find this sense for "anticking" or "anticked". DCDuring TALK 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For me the first hit at google books:anticked is some edition of Antony and Cleopatra, Act II, Scene 7, line 119, with Anticked us glossed as “(1) Made dancers of us, (2) Made us grotesque.” The first hit at google books:anticked grotesque is another edition, same scene, line 147 (presumably there's some prose in the scene, so that different editions will have different line numbers?), which glosses Anticked as “transformed into antics (grotesque performers)”. (We do have that sense at [[antic#Noun]].) Unless we have a reason to doubt these glosses, I think this would fall under the "well-known work" ConFI. —Ruakh_TALK 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having a dated sense, but I do mind having a dated gloss. "To make grotesque" is not a gloss that communicates to me. Nor does it seem the only or the most direct reading of the Shakespeare passage. All the other uses (not very many independent ones) suggested something like "make fools of" or intransitively "play the fool". Websters 1913 showed that sense as obsolete and cited Shakespeare (no specific citation). MWOnline shows no verb sense. I thought there might be some other citations or contexts that could make sense of the definition as written. Perhaps the OED can shed more light on this. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no more light. The OED Online does have this sense (†1. trans. To make antic or grotesque. Obs.), but its only quotation is the same one from Shakespeare. My understanding is that the OED includes at least one quotation for each sense from each century where it's attested, so apparently this sense isn't attested outside the 17th century (at least so far as the OED is aware). —Ruakh_TALK 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prived

Nominated for deletion many months ago on what were essentially verification grounds. Moving here to close up there. bd2412 T 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More's Utopia ("well-known work") for sense of "deprived" (adj.), arguably Middle English. Also possibly another etymology with same meaning: eye-dialect for "deprived", "'prived". I doubt the "spoilt" sense and the verb. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't even have the verb - I went through the history of prive and there never was an English verb (from which allegedly prived is formed). --Duncan MacCall 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we let this run here for a month, giving a chance for something we've missed, we should be able to clean the entry up. I don't recollect what we do about entries like [['prived]]/[[prived]] < [[deprived]]. DCDuring TALK 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jumpup

Definition is questioned.Goldenrowley 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Def seems close to right. Should be lower case. (I will move it.) Uppercase apparently only used in Australian place names. Not limited to Northern Territory in Oz, also WA. Lower case has other senses. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please inspect cites. 6 support use in Australia, 4 in place name. 2 support sense. One weakly contraindicates. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see jumpup#References. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apologie

Is this French or English or both? Either way the entry needs to be fixed because its categorisation for both Latin derivations and nouns are French.--50 Xylophone Players talk 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] snout as verb

snout has a verb form listed, meaning to provide with a snout. Can we confirm? (Saw some entries at google books that might mean it has a sense for an animal to dig or nose with its snout, I was looking for snouting). RJFJR 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could they possibly mean constructions like large-snouted, hairy-snouted? You can, in a way, read those as "provided with a snout of such a kind", but it doesn't imply a full verb with all the inflections. Equinox 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some random data points, which I am too tired at the moment to do anything constructive with:

• As a legit verb, "snout" can apparently refer to something done to hogs before slaughtering.
• We should definitely also have the sense "to push or probe (as) with a snout", which accounts for at least 1 in 100 hits on b.g.c. (the other 99 being scannos for "shout").
• The sense given is more problematic. I'm inclined to think that it exists, but the only cites I can find are for the past participle, and they're right on the line between verb and adjective: watchtowers snouted with machine guns, shoes snouted with a metal pike. This seems more like [participle]-with-[noun] than [adjective]-with-[noun] (cf. "red with blood"), but I'd like to see at least one clear-cut use.
• "Snouting" also apparently has a sense in early cyclotron lingo, but again attestation seems to be participle-only and therefore dubious as a verb. -- Visviva 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Snouting" seems to be one of w:H. L. Mencken's favorite words. He uses it in a way to suggest three pig behaviors,: sniffing out, rooting, eating greedily:

• 2006, H. L. Mencken, Malcolm Moos ed., On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe‎, page 323:

1. • And the indefatigable Jim Farley, snouting endlessly for more and more jobs for those who vote right and have their hearts in the right place.

It would be wrong to list this under the infinitive verb as lemma, because it is not used in the infinitive. (Listing this way would be a hypercorrective back-formation.)

OED has other verb forms, but this one is a separate entry labelled ppl. a., meaning provided or furnished with a snout, or snout-shaped. Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained/POS_headers allows a Participle header, but comments it “Used in some Russian, Lithuanian, and many Latin entries.”  —Michael Z. 2009-04-11 22:02 z

[edit] growler

Rfv-sense

Agreed - this was the type of iceberg most feared by the Titanic, as it was barely visible.—This comment was unsigned.

Yeah, I've also heard growler for a kind of iceberg before; verification is at [19], but I haven't time now to sort through those.—msh210℠ 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can personally attest to the sense "A roughly half gallon jug typically used to carry beer", as I have friends who brew beer professionally and sell growlers. This sense and the "iceberg" sense appear in Merriam-Webster's 3rd ed. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And the final, UK sense seems attestable [20], but, again, I haven't time now to do it.—msh210℠ 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Striking, since the tags have been removed from the entry. Each of the RFV'd senses has at least one quotation. However, I'm not actually marking them "RFV passed" per se, and anyone wishing to re-RFV them may do so. —Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] audacity

How do the two senses of audacity differ? RJFJR 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The first is expressed with a negative connotation; the second is neutral to positive in its connotation. At least, that's how I read the two senses currently on the page. I'm not sure that both senses would be distinct if we had citations. I've not heard the word used in a particularly positive light. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rheumatic as noun?

example sentence: "The rheumatic was confined to her bed." Can we find citations? Would be a parallel to arthritic as a noun: "the arthritic was confined to her bed." RJFJR 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The OED has the noun as rare for a rheuumatic patient. But rheumatics for rheumatism is very common in the UK. SemperBlotto 08:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikify

Jargon or real? DCDuring TALK 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{wjargon}} sense is not only inadmissible, but also redundant with the first sense, as far as I can tell. I've added two more senses. -- Visviva 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Which senses are you rfving? Wikis are very popular, WikiMedia have the biggest ones, sure, but sense 1 at least meets and surpasses CFI. For the others, I admit, I'd never use the word in that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From the history, I can see that senses 2 and 3 were added shortly after the rfv. I have converted the RfV to 2 RfV-senses for sense 1 and sense 4. Sense 1 seems to have been cited. Sense 4 has not in nearly nine months, so I would say that it has failed. Neither sense 2 not 3 are cited and probably should be, but as part of a new RfV once this one is closed. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] asearch

All the Google hits I could find seem like scannos of "a search". --Jackofclubs 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• You could probably argue for a Middle English header (although I hate that) – I've added a Wyclif cite. It appears a lot in his Bible, which is obviously quite a well-known work. Ƿidsiþ 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's for aserch though. --Jackofclubs 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please render the citation in proper(contemporary) English, I cannot understand it. Bogorm 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Bogorm's problem (which I share) is why separate Middle English entries and translations of (some?) Middle English citations are needed. Given all the spelling variations and inflected forms, we would harvest a lot of entries too. We might find more than 20 forms of terms related to serch. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you mean we should have entries for all spelling variants? If so, I agree. But this is the lemma form. Ƿidsiþ 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sticking to the point. I was arguing for Middle English entries, which you had said above that you hate, using Bogorm's and my difficulties with understanding the Wyclif passage as support. More specifically to the point at hand, the cite is not of the term asearch#English. It seems instead to be of aserch#Middle English or aserche#Middle English or aserchen#Middle English. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I already lost that argument ages ago. There are quite a few ME entries here. But the point is this: when do you draw the line. There are many early-modern texts which are just as hard to understand, and I would find it very weird ‘translating’ those. Also, there are very few words which only exist in Middle English, ie which did not survive into early modern and therefore I think it's more useful to collect this historical development under one =English= heading. (Although annoyingly, asearch isn't a good example because I don't think it did outlast ME!). Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] December 2008

[edit] standoff as verb?

Current definitions for verb don't look like verbs to me. RJFJR 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's an error. As you suggest, forms like standoffed and standoffing would be absurd. I've removed some mistaken verbs of this kind in the past. Having said that, standoffing appears once in Google Books, and user:DCDuring stood up in support of standby as a verb, so I suppose you never know! Equinox 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see any way to use this as a verb except to take it apart into "stand off". -- Pinkfud 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not this one -yet - afaict. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created stand off with correct definitions. This supposed verbal form of what is generally accepted as a noun is a no-no for me. It would need some pretty convincing cites to support the definitions given. I'm not searching, as I believe the search will be a futile waste of time. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We seriously need the nautical usage(s) for stand/stood/stands, stand off, stand into. The cruiser stood into the harbour. The harbour was blockaded by two British frigates standing off the coast. (and that is a verb of course ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest and add them. I had not thought about these, to be honest. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be strictly descriptivist, I think it's clear that many speakers write the bare forms of many intransitive verb-particle idioms without any space or hyphen; for example, "please login" gets >50 MGhits (raw), even though "he logined|loginned" gets <60 (real) and "he loggedin" gets <20 (real). In the case at hand, google books:"designed to standoff" (for example) pulls up three distinct non-scanno verb uses. However, we're not strictly descriptivist; we do have some concept of "misconstruction" or "misspelling". So, how do we want to handle this? Is it a misspelling? (If so, I don't think it's common enough to be included.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The inflected forms are, um, rare. Is [[standoff]] just an alternative spelling of [[stand off]], with a note that it doesn't inflect? or categorised as a defective verb? It wouldn't be unreasonable to indicate it as non-standard too. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section. Please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. To keep this from being rechallenged or "corrected", should we also have a usage note? The inflection-line could be missed of taken as an error. I don't think the talk page copy of this discussion is enough to prevent a repeat. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it. I put it in a template, because it applies to a lot of these idioms, but that may not have been the right decision. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] n-dimensional

[From an earlier comment I made on the talk page.] Isn't this really covered by -dimensional? I think there is nothing special about the letter n here. Mathematicians can use any letter they want. I don't see (or like the idea of) corresponding entries for k-sided, n-sided, k-gon, n-gon (see -gon)... Equinox 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

n-dimensional is a valid term. The n refers to number and means any number. I’ve never heard of "k-dimensional", nor have I heard of n-sided or n-gon. Where did you see those terms? —Stephen 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

n does not "refer[] to 'number' and mean[] any number". If a mathematician wants to refer to some n-dimensional space for some n, then that's what he'll call it: "an n-dimensional space for some n". Not merely "an n-dimensional space", leaving the listener to understand that that means that n is any number. (Same, incidentally for n-gon, n-torus, n-sphere, n-hedron, n space, etc. An exception is p-adic number, and there may be more exceptions, but that's the general rule.) This entry is, per nom, covered by the entry -dimensional and should redirect thereto, or be deleted. But this really belongs at RFD rather than here, I think.—msh210℠ 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat true, but check out google books:"n-dimensional". Still, I think this is SOP: n in general is used this way. —Ruakh_TALK 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree unanimously with Stephen and must even admit that n can mean solely number, there is no other possibility. n-gon sounds more than facetious. Please, keep the entry. Bogorm 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call n-gon facetious. It turns up with regularity in geometry textbooks, even at the grade school level, at least in the US. It is used in the discussion of polygon general properties to mean "any polygon with n sides" (and therefore n angles as well). For example, the sum of the interior angles for any convex n-gon is 180 x (n - 2). The use of the term n-gon in this situation saves the author a step in explaining that n stands for the number of sides/angles. --EncycloPetey 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The point was that Stephen has never heard of n-gon and neither have I, because the habitual letter is k(I am a citizen of the EU). I am forsooth flabbergasted to be apprised of the deviation described by you and taken up with in the USA. Bogorm 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am similarly shocked that n-gon is not standard in the UK (but am not completely surprised, given some other significant notational differences I've seen). The term n-gon makes more sense to me intuitively, since we use N for the set of natural numbers, and thus the value of n must be one of those numbers (excluding n < 3 for Euclidean geometry). Doesn't standard set theory notation use the capital letter for the set, and the corresponding lower case letter for the elements of that set? The variable k isn't used much in the US, at least in the pre-collegiate math texts. I think I've only even seen it used in proofs by mathematical induction. --EncycloPetey 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, n-gon is not uncommon in the UK. Whether or not it is "standard" depends on whom you ask! Dbfirs 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room#-dimensional which includes the question as to whether [[-dimensional]] deserves to be an entry, as it does not appear to me to be a suffix, though the entry bears that PoS header. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be in WT:RFD, not here. N-gon is a definite keep, likewise k-gon if that's what used in the EU, and n-dimensional is no more sum-of-parts than three-dimensional. N-sided looks more like a modifier construction though. DAVilla 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Allowing both k and n doesn't escape the issue that any letter can be used. (More real examples from Books: "which divides P into a q-gon"; "also belong to a p-gon".) three-dimensional may be notable because it is so common; I don't think the rationale for keeping it can be purely that none of these are sums of parts, because something like seven-hundred-and-six-dimensional would be shot down by anyone. Separately: I don't understand how -sided and -dimensional differ in their construction; could you explain what you mean about only one involving a modifier? Equinox 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not entriely sure. Why do we have three-dimensional and four-dimensional after all, and not three-sided or four-sided? Maybe it's that the number of dimensions paints a really different picture in our minds, whereas the number of sides is simple counting.

I'm curious, are p and q prime? If so then a p-gon and an n-gon are not the same thing. In higher-level geometry, each regular polygon is a special creature. Primarily, they can't all be constructed. 67.9.175.207 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another jargon term within my own field. In geophysics, we can and do find buried structures by magnetic, gravitational and seismic surveys. Now, if we find what looks like an ancient lava flow, it's important to know whether the shape is tabular, lenticular, or irregular. Short of digging it up, the best way to do that is with a series of so-called n-dimensional calculations done on the data. The "n" that yields results closest to the data is taken to represent the most probable shape. I'd say this should be kept. -- Pinkfud 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV passed under the "clearly widespread use" clause: it gets millions of Google hits and thousands of Google Books hits, and no one seems to be doubting its existence. If anyone wants to RFD it, be my guest. —Ruakh_TALK 12:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gärna

Rfv-sense of the sense "easily" - I can't think of any context where it would fit, but... \Mike 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is from Lexin Swedish-English dictionary (http://lexin.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/swe-eng): Elden slocknar gärna när veden är sur "a fire goes out easily if the wood is wet". Though, this sense doesn't seem so distant from "willingly". Kettler 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay, but "easily" is a vastly broader term where most of the subsenses do not correspond to this word. \Mike 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Washington

Rfv-sense. Needs cites of attributive use referring to the person. Least controversial is as an adjective. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Washington. (No RfD at entry) DCDuring TALK 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

cited in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Would "Washingtonian" used in reference to G. Washington be considered attributive? E.g.:

• 2005, John W. Matviko, The American President in Popular Culture, p. 4:

  By appearing in uniform, Jackson was able to convey his strong character through these images. Jackson had seized on one element of the Washingtonian myth and clung to it.

bd2412 T 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. That's a different derivative word. Attributive use would include items like "Washington administration", "Washington Monument", "Washington Turnpike", etc. where Washington's surname is used itself as if it were an adjective, to describe something associated with him, his philosophy, or in his honor. --EncycloPetey 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added Washington's Birthday as an entry, which should settle this discussion, as it is clearly used attributively here. --Jackofclubs 08:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how a regularly created genitive is the same as an attributive use of a noun. --Duncan 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Possessive use is not the same as attributive use. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] knaggligt

Rfv-sense "tough". Maybe I'm just tired, but I really get the connection between this pair of words. \Mike 23:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] craft

RfV for the historical–nautical sense; it may also need sense-spliting. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify these uses, but the only sources I have for the net/lines/hooks is Smyth's The Sailor's Word Book (1867). Will split and clean up senses. - Amgine/^talk 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Birkenhead

Moved from rfd for cites of attributive use per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a surname.451 bearers in England and Wales.--Makaokalani 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in the entry. Evidence? What about other 3 senses? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the rfv - I mistook it for the rfd mentioned in the talk page. I have no opinion about earls,they are no use for me anyway, but when a word is an attested surname, it's sensible to add a place name definition, to avoid confusion, and to show which one derives from which. I'm just putting surnames into categories. Place names are creeping in, there should be some limit to them. --Makaokalani 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say seems sensible to me for such entries, although one could argue for placing the place name in an Etymology section, as we sometimes do for unattestable brand names.

Though I think that many proper noun entries are too duplicative of WP articles, I am really interested in achieving alignment between WT:CFI and our practice. At present I see the supplanting of CFI by votes on individual entries. If we have a policy of including surnames, is our evidence standard the same as for other entries (thereby favoring the names of authors!!!)? I could see the merit in distinct evidence standards for various classes of Proper nouns, but I would like it discussed and voted on. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense changed to etymology section. —Ruakh_TALK 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gemmule

I think it is probably right, but the Wikipedia article only mentions one sense. Some cites would help anyway. H. (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. As someone formally trained in bryology, I have never heard "gemmule" used, nor can I find it in the standard bryology reference works I've checked thus far. Bryologists use the term gemma, and these are already very tiny. There is no use for a diminutive when the object is only one cell or a few cells to begin with. How much smaller could it be? --EncycloPetey 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fmi

—Ruakh_TALK 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try searching Groups for the exact phrase "FMI contact". Equinox ◑ 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] depotate

A 19th Century source says that depotates (ambulance attendants) served with Hannibal's army (3rd Century), so presumably the term originates in Latin? I would like more sourcing for this sense. There is a second sense that sometimes is rendered despotate; is depotate an alternate spelling? --Una Smith 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion shows that the first sense of an "ambulance attendant" is probably a typo/error for Latin deportantes, which is substantive use of a plural participle form. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casachia

Another TBot pseudo-Neo-Latin entry--this one for Kazakhstan. In the 1662 Blaeu Atlas, the region is labelled "Kasakki Tartari" (Khazakh Tartars). This is the only information I have, since the term would have to be relatively recent in Latin. --EncycloPetey 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin Wikipedia says w:Casachia is good. —Stephen 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? There aren't any citations there. The fact that there is an article on the Latin Wikipedia titled w:la:Casachia is not sufficient support to meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] annodate

annodate in English? RJFJR 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, English section removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] flameberge

misspelling of flamberg, flamberge, I think. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ultramontane

Rfv-sense - across the Alps (flagged but not listed)

This looks good to me. We need to say that it is from a Northern viewpoint - so has an opposite sense to that of cisalpine and transalpine. SemperBlotto 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unsure

Rfv-sense: "lacking confidence, conviction or determination"

This appears to be a case of thesaurus creep. The sense most simply is "lacking confidence", with the additional nouns adding no nuanced meaning or expansion. (The lack of conviction, in fact, is not necessarily an element of unsureness - ask any soldier if xe is unsure xe should be a soldier, as opposed to having a conviction xe should be a soldier.) - Amgine/^talk 02:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, should be trimmed. (This seems more like an rfd-sense, but no matter.) -- Visviva 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] mannequin

Requesting verification for "manikin" sense. Does that sense ever occur with this spelling? -- Visviva 09:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaffir

Encarta: Dictionary

[edit] þe

The quotation cited is from 1431, which is before the circa-1470 Middle-English–Early-Modern-English boundary, making it invalid as a citation of an English word. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change the L2 header to Middle English, even if there is usage in something printed post-1500? There are probably many English "obsolete spelling" entries that would probably benefit from such a change, even if they are all in Roman characters. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have citations both præ- and post-1470, then we need two sections: English and Middle English. Of course, the Middle English section would list the definition simply as “the” and not as “Obsolete spelling of the”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Go nuts! DCDuring TALK 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm assuming that this assuages your complain Doremítzwr. If not, please feel free to reinstate rfv, as I have removed it. If so, could you strike this thread? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It does about the misplaced citation; however, I’m curious as to whether þe saw any use in (post-Middle) English. (I imagine it probably did, considering the fact that our citation is from Middle English’s twilight decades…) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The English section now has three citations; are they sufficient to verify this word’s (extremely restricted) use in English? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I see why you're asking. The groups cite seems mention-y. The 1901 cover title use seems like graphics. I'd sooner stipulate that it was still in use after 1500 than have those as precedents. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cut up

Rfv-senses (X2):

1. To aggressively move in front of another vehicle.
2. To be upset.

I've only heard 1 as cut off and 2 as broken up. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sense about being upset, I have heard many times. Is it a UK expression.--Dmol 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of these senses seem OK to me (in the UK). SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The vehicle sense is good, but the "upset" one is subtly wrong. To cut up is not to be upset; to be cut up is. ("She was cut up about it", not "She cut up about it"). Equinox 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I missed that. Not sure how to word the definition in that case.--Dmol 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The vehicle sense is common in UK, at least. Sense 2 is possibly an adjective? I can't think of any active voice use of the verb cut up with this meaning. -- ALGRIF talk 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Collins has it as an adjective, BTW. -- ALGRIF talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we saying that the vehicle sense is "in widespread use" in the UK only, then? DCDuring TALK 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep for #1, cut off isn't even a synonym of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an RfV. Votes don't matter. The two senses would need citations. It appears that sense 2 is just wrong. The word is an adjective, which now appears in the entry, properly tagged. We need for UK speakers to declare sense 1 "in widespread use" in the UK or to find citations. Isn't there a UK speaker who can find such a UK idiom? DCDuring TALK 10:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reparation

Rfv-sense - verb. Nothing obvious in Google books for "reparationing" or "reparationed" that isn't a spelling mistake or OCR error. SemperBlotto 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two real hits for reparationing and one for reparationed, but I'm not sure what they all mean. The -ed one clearly means "to force to pay reparations":

• 2001, J.N. Stroyar, The Children’s War (novel), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 9780743419284, page 191,

  “Money,” Wolf-Dietrich stated categorically. “Look what happened to us in the First World War. Shit, if they had won, we’d have been reparationed back into serfdom. […] ”

and the -ing ones both take regions as their objects, so might mean the same thing, but I don't have enough context to be sure.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic fascist

The sense defined as "(pejorative) Islamic fanaticism, fundamentalist or fundamentalism". What does that have to with fascism politically, and what reputable sources, if any, have used it this way? (I'd question the other senses too, as SOP, but that's another matter.) Equinox 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We're descriptivist; our quotations don't have to be from "reputable sources". If we ignore our entry's failure to distinguish "fascist" from "fascism", it otherwise seems to be accurate; the American Right Wing really does use these terms this way. (At least, I think so. The Right Wing might only use "Islamofascist". google news:"Islamic fascist" gets two hits at the moment, and both are potentially ambiguous.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with facsist or fascism. It is used by the U.S. "Right" because it is a dirty word, which doesn't need to be understood, it is just intended as a slur. (Although is especially effective as a deflection of noting that the present administration of the "Right" does have fascist characteristics.) Many (perhaps most) pejoratives are not literal. But I haven't heard or seen this form, just "Islamofascist". Robert Ullmann 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

75 Books' hits [21], mostly contributive, AFAICT ambiguous about whether the speaker meant our sense 2, 3 or 4. I wonder if senses 3 and 4 might be merged, but the greatest fault I found about sense 4 is that it defines fascist (a person I believe) as fanaticism and fundamentalism - only fundamentalist doesn't seem out of place there IMO, the others should be at Islamic fascism, if anywhere (269 Books' hits [22]). And finally - it shouldn't have too much to do with real fascism, like our sense 1 does, for that would just be asking for deletion as a SoP, wouldn't it? --Duncan 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't have a problem, with the definition as it stands. WritersCramp 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] —This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs).

However, if you do a google web search you get Results 1 - 100 of about 24,100 for "Islamic fascist". (0.48 seconds) WritersCramp 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sloom

Is is really heavy sleeping or just slumber and is there really snoring involved?

The following quote speaks more for slumbering:

The squire sloomed

and slept in his chair; and finally, after a cup of tea, went to bed.^[1]

There also seem to be meanings in Scottish like wilting of flowers etc.

In Dutch the word is an adjective meaning sluggish, particularly in the sense of dumb-witted. Jcwf 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Notes:

1. ^ Barr, Amelia Edith Huddleston, 1831-1919 "The Squire of Sandal-Side A Pastoral Romance"

According to the online Dictionary of the Scots Language ([28]) the Scots meaning suggests light sleeping: A dreamy or sleepy state, a reverie, day-dream, a light sleep, slumber, “an unsettled sleep” for noun and To sleep lightly, doze, slumber fitfully for verb. --Duncan 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inclusive or

Used as a conjunction in running English text. 67.9.175.207 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By geeks? Most people would say "or both" because it is simpler and shorter. Dbfirs 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

clocked out, but headword needs a noun sense. Would translations apply to the noun sense? DCDuring TALK 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Only occasion in which I might imagine using "inclusive or" (or its Finnish equivalent, rather) as conjunction is when reading out a logical formula in the same way as one reads out a mathematical formula (I think we have entries of the expressions used in reading out mathematical formulae). It may be hard to find a permanently archived quotation of this baby, though. Whether it merits an entry, I leave to others to decide. --Hekaheka 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

One way to handle this would be to write a usage note similar to that in the entry exclusive or. --Hekaheka 05:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems right. I've added the noun. It is really the PoS that bothers me. I can imagine that in some geekspeak dialect this might be understood even in speech, but, in the absence of evidence, the conjunction should be deleted. DCDuring TALK 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] google-proof

Only published use seems to be written by google. Conrad.Irwin 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] write a test

A previous RFV verified the usage of the phrase. This one is a separate issue: whether it's sum of parts. The talk page suggests that this is just one construct using write and test (because we also see there "The tests will be written"), so I think that the South African sense should merely appear under write. Equinox 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the citations from the previous RfV? Three of the four links are dead. None seem to have been to attestable sources. Was the previous RfV properly closed?

There are at least two distinct sensess:

1. To make a test; to design examination questions or test cases.
2. To take a test;

I don't doubt that at least the "take a test" sense is in use, though not much in the US. We don't have the appropriate wording at write for these, IMO. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's SoP imo. It's a question for RFD afaIct. (Incidentally, I know the phrase as meaning "take a test" from older UK books, not from SAfr ones. Can anyone confirm that this, perhaps dated, UK usage?)—msh210℠ 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arcana

RfV-sense for “[a] secret essence or remedy; an elixir”. Etymologically plural, but the sense is a countable singular and the inflexion line calls this noun uncountable. Is this mistaken — in terms of the word’s grammatical, if not its semantic, function? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems identical to the second sense of the singular form arcanum. Is this word properly a plurale tantum, whereas its singular uses are {{non-standard}}? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dingleberry

Rfv-sense 3. Another name for the Southern Mountain Cranberry. I doubt it very much! -- ALGRIF talk 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It’s listed in the Dictionary of American Regional English, so it looks like it exists. I find the other two sense more quæstionable, personally. If they do exist, are all the senses related, or do they need to be split by etymology? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The "stupid person" sense is easily attested as slang [29], but I can't say what its etymology might be, or whether the senses might be etymologically related. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All the farmers where I used to live in Cumbria used to call a dingleberry a dingleberry, or a winnet, and a spade a spade, or a shovel. -- ALGRIF talk 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, page 55, says that the slang senses derive from the cranberry sense; I would imagine that the "stupid person" sense derives from the fecal sense. The ODMS also says that "dingleberries" can refer to the female breasts, but their citation for this looks a bit sketchy. I'd be very surprised if that could meet CFI. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the references in the DARE are mentions, not uses, so I don't think that's sufficient (though it is definitely worthy of note). The Range Plant Manual of 1937 may contain a use, but snippet view is not cooperating.[30] This may need to be relegated to "Etymology" if we can't get some more satisfactory attestation. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] lol

Yes, good old "LOL". I bet you're all delighted to see this come up. I am questioning the "lots of love" expansion, which I've seen on several dubious Web sites that list acronyms (and probably copy each other, which might even be how we got it), but I have never seen it used. Can anyone find even one good citation of LOL in this way? Equinox 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's the oft-repeated story (an urban myth?) of how it was mis-used in an e-mail to a widow, but this is an example of mis-use. Dbfirs 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you know people from the older generations then you'll see that it used to be used for "lots of love" a little. A couple of years ago, my mum was in her forties and a little technologically challenged; for months she thought that my sister was being very affectionate ending all her text messages with "lots of love." I know personal experience isn't citable but at least I can assure you that it is definitely a legitimate sense of the word. D4g0thur 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] January 2009

[edit] guh

English interjection. Not in any major dictionary I can get hold of. Usenet has a mass of baffling usages. Equinox 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I note the creation of the English section was an edit done on 26 May 2007, the first and only done by the editor involved. Pingku 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Guh?! Clearly widespread use. OK, maybe not, but I know I've heard this plenty of times. A b.g.c. search is unencouraging... maybe there's a competing spelling? -- Visviva 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Does google groups:"guh it's" help?—msh210℠ 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever heard it from the character Amy Wong on the TV show Futurama. According to her Wikipedia article:

She uses Martian slang, which is simply American slang with altered consonants, such as "Guh" (duh) or "Shman" (man).

Her IMDB quotes page includes examples that aired in 1999 but were set in the year 3000, so it spans 1001 years, and obviously slang in the year 3000 has to be independent of a turn-of-the-third-millennium TV show, no matter how wonderful the show was, so I think it meets CFI. ;-)

—Ruakh_TALK 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruakh, but it might be a tad premature to include etymology from the year 3000. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that guh is the letter G (hard pronunciation) and by extension (a la rap) any of a small set of words beginning with a hard G. For the interjection, this might be 'God'. There is also the rap lyric "We a guh somewhere" (Ziggy Marley), where it appears to mean 'going'. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gẃraidd

Tagged but not listed.
This word does indeed exist in Welsh with the translation root. (However, it is correctly spelt without the acute accent. In Welsh, the stress is normally on the penult; if it is on any other syllable, an acute accent denotes the irregular stress — as, for example, in carafán (“‘caravan’”) and casáu (“‘to hate’”).)
I’ve not come across the adjectival sense of manly before; however, the word’s form makes perfect sense (as the combination of: gŵr (“‘man”, “husband’”) + -aidd (“‘-like”, “-ly”, “-ish’”)). Perhaps the acute accent is used to differentiate the adjective from its nominal homograph; however, I have only ever seen the circumflex and grave accent used for this purpose, and never the diæresis or acute accent.
† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to note: If this adjective does indeed exist (sans acute accent), then our entry for gwraidd will need to be split by pronunciation, with the monosyllable gwraidd (“‘root’”) pronounced as /ɡwraið/ and the disyllable gwraidd (“‘manly’”) pronounced as /ˈɡu.raið/. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:gẃraidd with the results of an enlightening Google search. &mdashhippietrail 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So it is used to avoid homography…
As enlightening as that excerpt is, it is still but a mention, and we need use. The only usage I could find anywhere on the internet was a thirteenth-century pœem (spelling modernised). Is this adjective obsolete? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru p. 1698, in this exact spelling with the acute accent on the w. The dictionary itself gives several quotes showing use of the term, but none from later than the 18th century, and none using this exact spelling. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's obsolete, as the dictionary usually only provides quotes for words up to about the 18th or 19th century. Angr 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] prefices

Plural form of prefix.
Not so; praefixus is not a third-declension Latin noun. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology doesn't matter; the form is used.

• 1981: Reiner Luckenbach, Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie‎ (English edition), page 1571

  The names used in the index...are different from the systematic nomenclature used in the text only insofar as Substitution and Degree-of-Unsaturation Prefices are placed after the name (inverted), and all configurational prefices and symbols...are omitted.

I get over 600 b.g.c. hits doing an advanced search for "prefices" but excluding "prefixes": [31]. --EncycloPetey 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I grant you that it exists; however, it is hypercorrect. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect. To be hypercorrect, it would have to have some degree of correctness to begin with. :P --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So it’s non-standard?
-ex → -ices is a correct pluralising pattern for a fair number of words from the Latin third declension; however, it is misapplied in the case of prefix → prefices, which renders the usage hypercorrect. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my final punctuation (:P). --EncycloPetey 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn’t; my first sentence was intended as a joke, too. Urgh! Too tired methinks… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the (mis-)use is common, do we tag it "common misspelling of prefixes" or "proscribed", or just put a usage note to point out that it is not "correct Latin"? (And do we allow fices as the plural of fix? :P) Dbfirs 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  We can only call it "proscribed" if we find published style guides that disfavor that spelling. We don't have to worry about additional spead beyond the words prefix, suffix, affix, and the like, just as mouse -> mice has not spread to spouse -> spice (“‘?’”) or grouse -> grice (“‘?’”). --EncycloPetey 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I cannot find any style guide that mentions this, but I am surprised at how frequently this spelling occurs, even on academic websites and documents. The only alternative plural in the OED is "praefixa" (different spelling, and from E. BREREWOOD Enq. Lang. & Relig. in 1613). Perhaps we should just put a usage note so that our readers do not think that the "alternative" plural has equal weight. Dbfirs 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Doremitzwr, I think the problem is due to the absence of both words (suffix and præfix) as nouns in Latin, they are simply nonexistent as nouns, but only as participia perfecti passivi of the respective verbs. Someone from the modern grammaticists has decided to botch up this noun from the Latin participle and thus caused the mess with us ascertaining unsuccessfully whether the noun belongs to the first or third declension... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the OED, praefixvm (whence præfix and, more directly, præfixum) does exist in (post-Classical) Latin. Præfix belongs to neither the first nor the third declension; it is a second-declension neuter noun with its case ending removed. Wherefore, its legitimate plural is præfixes; conversely, if one retains the case ending, using præfixum, then the legitimate plural is præfixa. *Præfices is incorrect (specifically, hypercorrect) in any circumstance; it ought to be avoided except if one wishes to convey jocular pædantry (as with thusly &c.). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking, as there seems to be consensus that this does exist. Thanks, EncycloPetey, for the quotation: I've added it to the entry. Anyone wishing to re-RFV this in the future, be my guest. —Ruakh_TALK 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] acronyx

English: Ingrown toenail. Scores, if not hundreds, of mentions. Haven't found an English use. Might be room for Latin entry, used in taxons. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] christer

Sense 2: an exclamation point (supposedly UK usage). Any citations apart from the single one given? Usage in an actual printing context would be particularly convincing. Equinox 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it looks like this entry should be merged into Christer. —Ruakh_TALK 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] India Pale Ale

I doubt this can be attested in attributive use, but it deserves a shot. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The is a common noun, so it should not require attributive use; regular citations will do. It's a common style of ale, brewed by many breweries, at least on the West coast of the US. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's just an ordinary noun phrase. Several varieties, brewed by several different companies, in the UK. Not as popular as it was though. SemperBlotto 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be India pale ale? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not principally a "common noun" or "ordinary noun phrase" in the UK, where IPA is a particular brand. You can easily go into a pub in the UK and Ha! I double-checked this and I'm wrong. Apparently, several brands offer an IPA. Around here, there's some particular green-and-gold brand, though, and I assumed that must be the trade mark that no other UK brand could use. You live and learn. Update: oh yeah, I think DCDuring is right that "pale ale" doesn't deserve capitalisation for a generic term. Equinox 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You’re probably thinking of Greene King. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be attestable in title case, but almost all occurrences that I've found with that spelling are references to specific products. I have made and cited an entry at India pale ale. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it at all noteworthy that the Wikipedia page for India pale ale redirects to the article at India Pale Ale? Irrespective of that, I agree with DCDuring that our main entry ought to be at India pale ale, with India Pale Ale existing as an alternative-spelling entry directed thereto. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting one or the other as an alternative spelling sounds like a good idea. --EncycloPetey 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] valence

Rfv-sense: fringes on a blanket. This should be an alternative spelling of valance, right? Valance does not have this specific meaning, afaict. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or a misspelling. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some dictionaries have it as alternative. I'm wondering whether there is some regional difference. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Or a confusion between the almost identical spellings and perhaps pronunciations. An etymology for valance might help. Pingku 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dry

Rfv-sense: "To forget the words, to lose your way in a speech."—msh210℠ 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this sense be at dry up, where it's missing? --Duncan 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Added the sense to dry up, left it, so far, rfv-ed, at dry. --Duncan 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume so. I don't see how it could be dry. Equinox 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be specific to the acting profession - any thespians out there? Dbfirs 09:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gomic

There have been some doubts expressed about this word's validity, both on the talk page and on Wiktionary:Feedback, so I figured it should go through the standard verification process. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it fails, we have to fix the translation table s.v. faggot.—msh210℠ 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If used in Romanian (more likely Moldovan), it is a borrowing from Russian гомик, a standard pejorative term for than sense. —Stephen 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moxie

Not as popular as Mountain Dew. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymon for moxie. The OED gives one uppercase cite sort of in this sense, dated 1890. (see it here) -- Visviva 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology of Moxie itself would be nice. But we don't have any American Indian translations of wintergreen (if the WP speculation is good enough for us), let alone one appropriate for Maine. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the OED reserves judgment and refers the reader to the DARE, and for once the DARE entry is conveniently available. I note with some amusement that the DARE's earliest cites for moxie/Moxie qua wintergreen considerably post-date the first production of Moxie ... perhaps the berry was actually named after the drink. ;-) -- Visviva 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plutarch

No attributive usage for this name given. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The existence of Plutarchian (and Xenophanic) is highly suggestive. -- Visviva 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that certain authors, whose works are widely known and who are frequently referred to by a portion of their full name without ever giving the full name, merit an entry for the short form of their name. I think particularly of writers like Aeschylus, Plato, Tacitus, Livy, Chaucer, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Dickens, and the like. The short form is often used as a shorthand for the corpus of their works, or for one particularly well-known work. Consider: "I was reading Tacitus last night," would be understood to mean that you were reading a book by Publius Cornelius Tacitus, most likely his Historiae, even without giving his full name. Simply having an entry for Tacitus that said "given name of classical Latin derivation" and "a lunar impact crater" would not be in the least enlightening. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found this interesting quote (b.g.c.):

• 2001: Jessica Martin, Walton's Live's, chapter 2, page 34

  Part of the intention in this chapter is to ask whether to call a biographer a 'Plutarch' is to pull a name of a popular classical biographer at random out of a hat of appropriate but imprecise possible compliments, or whether it confers a particular kind of commendation on Walton's practice.

So, apparently there is a tradition of calling a biographer a "Plutarch". Martin actually cites a 17th century discussion of this issue from Dryden. --EncycloPetey 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophanes

No attributive use given for the person. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wha’?! Why RfV this one? He’s a famous præ-Socratic! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Because being an Ancient Greek doesn't get you a free pass from meeting WT:CFI. This one would make it as a name word. I'm sure that WP has a page for all the famous Xenophaneses. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the English transliteration of a Greek, given name. We include names. I will try to tweak the def a bit, to make it more in line with a dictionary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added three cites that I think reflect occasional use of this as a byword for a Xenophanic thinker. Where are we on bywords? Can this now be split into a separate sense a la Robespierre? -- Visviva 07:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

After the addition of the cites the use of the given name as a byword is incontestable and thereby the article becomes justified. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think that we should split the two senses. The "religious thinker" sense is obviously cited at this point...although I am a little uncertain as to what its POS would be, so I'll let someone else make that split. It seems the sense referring to the specific historical entity has been removed, so I wonder if we still need three cites for the given name sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the more explicit reference to the pre-Socratic, since no one will get “the Colophonian poet, philosopher and religious critic” who doesn’t already know who the eponymous Xenophanes is (and will therefore not need to look up his name hereon). In re splitting: the one and only Xenophanes (Wikipedia has an article on only one “Xenophanes” — no others are notable, it seems) is a proper noun, whereas the “religious thinker” sense derives from that eponym, and is a common noun (irrespective of its initial majuscule). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"atr.use"'dget aMEGA-RASBRY4MOST USE-LES PROP[concept if ulike],EVA--user-BLINDppl!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perfectly good entry. One day we'll get CFI changed to "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

But doing so may just make en.wikt a shorter WP.

As to the citation standard that has been introduced: if we permit any citation of the form "[det] [X Y] of Z", where [X Y] constitute a proper noun, then Marilyn Monroe, Jerry Rice, Derek Jeter, Michael Jackson, Judge Crater, Charles Manson, etc. will soon be in here. This would be a powerful precedent indeed. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If properly cited and explained, I think these should be welcome here. How many people now understand what Uncle Vanya means when he says "I could have been a Schopenhauer"? How many will understand it in another century? Or when some relict bit of literary criticism declares so-and-so to be "the Addison of his day"? But as with brand names, the standard should be aggressively enforced, and proper names without such citation -- that is, those that are not shown to refer to anything but their normal referent -- should be removed. -- Visviva 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the value of it, but that value in one traditionally captured by encyclopedias. I think that accepting there quotes requires a reinterpretation of the attestation rules that have been deemed to apply to proper names. In effect it is a material easing of our standards. Is this justified as "attributive use" in a broader sense of attributive than we have been using? Has the consensus on how we cite Proper nouns changed over the last year or did I misunderstand the consensus? This might be a very reasonable place to redraw the line for inclusion. But how does this apply to proper names that are attestable in this way only in another language? Does it have any effect of the citation of fictional characters? I suppose we aren't doing all that great a job of getting folks to improve the quality of entries anyway, so we may as well just increase quantity. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] variation

• Rfv-sense: "A distinct group of objects or things"

The sense is absent in Webster 1913, Century 1911, and Merriam-Webster online. I can't remember the word in this sense. --Dan Polansky 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense if restricted to biology/genetics. See [32] DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It works as a specific instance of difference, distinct from the phenomenon of difference. I've added an example sentence. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] jumpoff

Probably not capitalized, if it is citable. --EncycloPetey 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a dance competition? <confused> - Amgine/^talk 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the lower-case spelling and found one book citation. Need two more. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] -ia

Rfv-sense: (English) "Used in forming analogous pluralia tantum, such as paraphernalia and Mammalia."

Two problems with this: (1) Mammalia is a Translingual word from Latin, not an English-original word, (2) the suffix added in paraphernalia seems to be -alia. Are there actually any English words formed from this putative English suffix, that do not fit one of the other two senses given? --EncycloPetey 07:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Difficult. Perhaps automobilia (car collectibles), imponderabilia (inexplicable things)? If the suffix here is -lia or -ilia then perhaps we need another entry for that. Equinox 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrativia is common on Usenet, I think. I've always understood it to be uncountable rather than plurale, but maybe I'm wrong.—msh210℠ 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would consider it plural, like news (which I think ought to have the entry changed to say as such). These examples, if they meet CFI, all sound like they justify the suffix, and would serve as good replacement examples in the entry. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that many of these entries would actually fall under -bilia. I can only explain this as a reference to memorabilia. 70.171.228.228 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] apostle

One user pointed sense 4 out as "unreferenced and unlikely". Instead of dismissing that entirely, especially as I'm unaware of that sense myself, I figure RFV would be a good idea. If it's verifiable, we should be able to get citations for it. Even if that happens, though, it should probably be an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Leftmostcat 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a separate etymology, as now shown. It is very tedious to cite. Are there any dictionaries or glossaries that include the spelling? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to verify the challenged sense. I found three other legal senses. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

this should do nicely. The apostilles referred to are defined by the 1961 Hague Convention, so google on apostle 1961 Hague convention will get you lots of hits. The first books hit is Black's, which should be plenty good enough for us. (;-) Robert Ullmann 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a related story: Cambridge_Apostles. --Hekaheka 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] gound

Sleep? Never heard of it. —Stephen 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Robley Dunglison's Medical Lexicon] has the entry "CHASSIE (F.), Lema, Lippa, Glama, Glemē, Gra'mia, Lemos'itas, Sebum palpebra'lē; the gum of the eye, (Prov.) Gound or Gownde, from chasser, 'to drive out.' A sebaceous humour, secreted mainly by the follicles of Meibomius, which sometimes glues the eyelids together." and the entries "GOWNDE OF THE EYE, Chassie." and "GOUND OF THE EYE, Chassie.".—msh210℠ 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] deflation

Rfv-sense: does "deflation" mean reduction of the money supply or does it mean only a reduction in the general level of prices, possibly/probably/always caused by a reduction of the money supply. (Same question applies to all kinds of flations in-, re-, disin-, hyperin-.) clear citations needed, even if tendentious. DCDuring TALK 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The disputed definition is "A contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods." Use of the term 'relative to' seems to imply a ratio, leaving open the possibility that the money/credit supply is increasing, but the availability of goods is increasing faster. (It is not clear, to me anyway, that this would necessarily lead to a reduction in prices.) Perhaps the def should be reworded to clarify exactly what is being calculated. Pingku 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] vocal

Rfv-sense: insurance sense. (This might actually be an issue for RFD, I'm not sure.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] broken

Sense 9 has the entirely vague quality of seeming wrong to me. I've searched for citations for it but have found nothing. It's entirely possible I'm not searching for the right things, though. It's indicated as being in the Merriam-Webster by one user but this doesn't necessarily mean it's attestable. I wonder if Merriam-Webster is simply being non-discerning with the sense "broken down", used in my experience as a past participle. E.g., The erring soldier was broken down to private for his insubordination. —Leftmostcat 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] saoirse

I haven't found any example or dictionary entry of this form for Scottish Gaelic - seems like an Irish form only. (Created by anon together with the Irish form.) --Duncan 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First, keep in mind that I'm maybe only gd-0.5. Certainly not good enough to put it on my Babel. I did a quick bit of googling (for "tha saoirse") and came up with this reference and a couple hits from the GAIDHLIG-B mailing list. I don't know if they're correct. But it may be possible to come up with some better cites using similar searches. It's possible that it's simply happening by analogy with Irish, as the dictionaries are listing saorsa as the correct gd form. Hopefully that helps at least a bit. —Leftmostcat 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] scalpea

I can find one iffy b.g.c. hit; the other returns from the search were typos/scannos for scalped. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] кунакуница

The Bulgarian section must either be hoax or tagged as obsolete (if any sources are found). In the first case one must get rid of the section, in the second - tag it. In a voluminous dictionary it is shown that the Bulgarian word for marten is бялка and куна is not listed at all. Bogorm 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The fist has been removed by the contributor. Can we verify the second? There seems to be no dictionary of modern Bulgarian which lists this word (see above, the term is бялка). Bogorm 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's listed in Vasmer's dictionary as a Bulgarian cognate, so it must exist, if not in standard language than in dialects, older texts or somewhere.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] clear blue water

gap between goals and achievements of political parties. Is this still in use? Where? Should it be RfDed? —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 January 2009.

[edit] bombsite

Not seeing much of this spelling. Bomb site is of course much more common.—msh210℠ 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that's just because I Googled bombsite. Googling +bombsite yields lotsa hits, I see now; can I cancel my request for verification without bothering to cite?—msh210℠ 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Closing. Equinox ◑ 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopening: sense 2 - Is there a figuraitve use? The example given for the figuraitve sense says "like a bombsite", which does not suggest that the second defintion is valid. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pregorexia

The person who created the entry notes: "It was noted as a buzzword of 2008 by NYTimes." Has it been around long enough to meet CFI? --EncycloPetey 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find durably archived hits from before last August; but, it was used in the British Journal of Midwifery, in an article title no less, back in September. Assuming that said is a refereed academic journal (and it does seem to be), then I believe this does meet CFI. —Ruakh_TALK 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ish

citations, regional? Multiple senses seem to overlap. The "adverb" and "adjective" would be indistinguishable from "-ish" in speech, so we need print citations. Is there a citable missing noun (="shit")? DCDuring TALK 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New citation of this word usage:

Using -ish in a non-standard way as in "Good(ish) News from Procter & Gamble: No Ad Cutback Here"[33]

—This unsigned comment was added by 76.170.221.227 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

I can not find evidence in b.g.c. (fiction} [423 raw hits for "ish"] for the purported adjective and interjection. Most hits are eye dialect for "is" (ish#Etymology 1), the proper nickname "Ish", and the ubiquitous adverbial development of the suffix ish#Adverb, but for which I have found only 2 cites in standalone use. I'd be inclined to keep the adverb and mention the potential broader use in usage notes. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-team

Any evidence for this used as a verb? --EncycloPetey 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. "A Team" means the 1st squad of a special forces unit or ODA (see description of ODA]) or (e.g.) a sports club. The whole point of the television series (w:A-Team) was that the members were anything but the "A Team". (I always enjoyed the show, where they would always succeed mostly by accident, at which point the leader would intone "I love it when a plan comes together!"; and the expenditure of many thousands of rounds of automatic fire, with no one ever getting hit ;-)

Might be a noun entry, but I doubt the verb from the TV series' concept has any use. Robert Ullmann 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, verb section removed. —Ruakh_TALK 13:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] key

Verb, sense 7 (just added by an anon.): To link (as one might do with a key or legend). -- WikiPedant 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added 1 cite for now.—msh210℠ 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nowever

Most Google hits seem to be either for "now ever" or typos for "however". A few real hits, but all for the same work? SemperBlotto 12:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] non plus

RfV tag since June 2007. Not cited during 9 months in RfV. We have long had nonplus. I have added non-plus which is abundantly attestable. I have not found English for the inflected forms of non plus. I have not determined an easy effective way to separate English non plus from Latin and French. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, English removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] protologism

An anon. recently restored this page to a full entry. I was about to revert him, but I’m not sure whether I should. Protologism kinda looks like it could satisfy the CFI, unless there are some independence issues in re Wiktionary that I’m not considering. What do others think? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google protologism|protologisms (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive): No b.g.c. or news-archive hits. Two Scholar hits, but it's not clear to me whether either was in a refereed academic journal, or even durably archived somewhere. Several Google Groups hits, but all are problematic — either mentions, or non-Usenet, or directly quoting from Wiktionary or Wikipedia, or using it in a list, or by our very own Language Lover (talk • contribs). (I guess the one by Language Lover isn't actually problematic, but there's something weird about quoting our own contributors' Usenet posts. I'd really rather not do it without good reason.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep it, with the existing warning. An occasional visitor in Wiktionary's discussion pages might want to check what is meant with it. --Hekaheka 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass the letter and spirit of CFI, then it doesn't belong in the dictionary. If we invent our own words, and then break our own rules to publish them, then we shouldn't be in this business. Move it to Wiktionary:protologism if you really want to keep it. —Michael Z. 2009-04-03 02:10 z

Found what I believe is a durable quote from the April 2007 issue of Prospect. (At least it is in the online version of that British magazine.) I'd say that one likely isn't problematic. No mention whatsoever about Wiki-anything in the article. — Carolina wren discussió 04:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, converted back to {{only in|{{in glossary}}}}. —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] adolescentilism

• Moved from WT:RFD DAVilla 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one citation so far is any good. The Devil does not convey meaning, and Annabelle du Fouet is mention not use. DAVilla 06:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2003 use by The Devil does indeed convey meaning, in the same way that the following dialogue conveys meaning:

>I often eat apples.

That’s very healthy of you.

The above dialogue only conveys the meaning that apples are a foodstuff and that it is a healthy thing to eat them regularly; it says nothing about apples being a type of fruit, that they are about the size of a tennis ball, that they can vary in colour (usually greenish to reddish), but that doesn’t mean that the use of apple in that sentence isn’t intended to convey those qualities. If we expected the full meaning of a term to be explicit in a quotation for it to count, we wouldn’t have any entries for terms expressing complex concepts. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of apple we could get many citations in support of any attribute of a good definition. In the case of a rare word, we can perhaps get three citations in support of its existence and we can infer what it might mean. The current definition is clearly an overfitting of a definition.

The definition ("The desire to act like or be treated as an adolescent.") has at least three attributes: "desire to act like" (vs. behavior alone) or "desire to be treated as" (vs. enjoying the behavior in itself) and "adolescent". One could easily argue that the "adolescent" element is contained in the stem. I don't think that -ism or -ile are specific enough to make clear what this means simply from the morphology. Three citations would be just enough to specify one of the two definitions. The citations don't seem specific enough to allow one to determine either meaning to be correct.

There is no such term in, for example, the 1012 pages of entries in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2006) (nor "teenism"). Perhaps it would be possible to make some inferences from the meanings of puerilism and infantilism or the meaning of adolescentile. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you’ve just made all the arguments on both sides. Sentential context of use isn’t the only important context. Appeals to etymology, the patterns of meanings of related words, and the prefatory definitions of the authors themselves are all vital for correct definitions. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] quasi

Rfv-sense: conjunction. Not in OneLook dictionaries. OED? Use in law? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would gloss it as "as it were". It is in the OED as an adverb ("now rare"), which seems about right. On the other hand, many of the OED's cites are either in italics or quotes. The cites that I came across on my own were also mostly in italics (thus presumably intended as quasi#Latin): [34] [35]. On the other hand, this one isn't: [36] (on the third hand, I can quite tell what the guy is