Wiktionary:Tea room

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For Translation requests, see Wiktionary:Translation requests. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations
Tea house party in Japan (not tea ceremony)-J. M. W. Silver.jpg

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

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

Tea room archives +/-
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

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

Oldest tagged RFTs


Contents

October 2014[edit]

Afghan hound[edit]

Is there a reason for keeping both Afghan Hound and Afghan hound? I would keep only Afghan hound, just like we keep only red fox, not Red Fox. Lmaltier (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside of the fields of dog breeding, training, etc, in fiction, for example, Afghan hound seems overwhelmingly preferred. Newspaper usage looks split, with reports on dog shows tending toward capitalization. I expect that those motivated to add entries for dog breeds prefer the capitalized form. If it were easy to get counts of a large sample of usage we could rely on such counts to indicate which should be the main form. I'd say that we need a generic usage note on the spelling for entries with both capitalizations. My preference is that we default to having the lowercase form as the main one (with the usual capitalization of proper noun/adjective components like Afghan). DCDuring TALK 11:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely redirect Afghan Hound to Afghan hound. The "H" is found mostly in those (primarily specialist, non-general) sources that capitalize Important Words in their Jargons. This is the same basic issue that was discussed in WT:BP#Birds (see also my comment there), and Lmaltier's comparison to "Red Fox" is also apt. Ngram. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean a soft redirect for the capitalized form as alternative form to the one used in non-specialist writings. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I detect creeping prescriptivism. If the specialist dog and cat people and horticulturalists capitalize terms not capitalized in general literature, that's something to be described not proscribed. I suppose we could incorporate a usage note into the entry and have hard redirects where possible, but that usage note does not now exist at Afghan hound. I don't see why we should discourage specialists from adding content at the capitalization of their choice. Whatever the situation with birds, where there was disagreement among nearly equal-sized groups of specialists, w:Afghan Hound is the location of corresponding WP entry. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Some points are clear: 1. capitalized or not, it's the same word, with the same spelling. 2. Capitalization can be used for all animal or plant names; it's not a "specialist spelling", not at all, capitalization is used to make more explicit the fact that the name is used in a generic way (it's true in English, and in other languages too). This is what happens in Wikipedia: the Wikipedia page uses Hound when it's a generic use, when referring to the species (but it's not mandatory), and hound when referring to individuals (two Afghan hounds), because it's not a generic use. Capitalization in sentences also makes something more explicit: this is the beginning of a sentence. There are other meanings of capitalization as well. 3. It would be absurd to duplicate all words because all words can be capitalized in some cases. It would be equally absurd to duplicate millions of animal or plant names for this reason. It's not prescriptivism to choose we rather than We as the page title: everybody knows that the word can be capitalized when needed or preferred. Lmaltier (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why such abstract considerations should trump considerations of possible effect on user behavior, in particular our opportunity to get more content. Our search box does not automatically lead to the entry the deletionists here are proposing as the correct one, unlike its handling of initial caps. So users are taken to the search list page, which I take as a sign of lack of content when I find it at other sites, often causing me to go to the next site rather than persist.
The only entries we are likely to see are for dog, cat, and bird breeds, possibly tropical fish or other pet animals as well. I personally would not add them, but would welcome any entries so capitalized with substantial content, eg, pictures, derived terms, etymology, translations, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
A redirect could be the solution. Lmaltier (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Postvocalic -r in English phonemic IPA[edit]

In rhotic varieties of English, the phoneme /ɹ/ triggers different pronunciations of the preceding vowel. For example, /eɪ̯/ + /ɹ/ triggers [ɛəɹ]. But this is completely allophonic as far as I know, as the combination [eɪ̯ɹ] cannot exist in English, nor can [ɛə] at least in rhotic varieties. I think that, at least for phonemic pronunciations, we should not indicate this allophony but note the underlying phonemes that these are allophones of. Otherwise we end up with a half-phonemic transcription, which is not what / / means. —CodeCat 15:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. The situation is much more complicated than that and anyway, in our current system /ɛəɹ/ is defined as a single phoneme, making it completely consistent with a phonemic transcription. --WikiTiki89 17:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
But it's not really a phoneme. Otherwise you could just say that every possible word is its own phoneme, which misses the whole point of splitting words into phonemes in the first place. So what is so complicated about this, that would preclude saying that "stare" is simply "stale" with one consonant phoneme replaced with another? Remember that phonemes are concerned the bare minimal distinguishing pieces that make up words, so any redundancy and allophony is removed. —CodeCat 19:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Phonemes are just abstractions. You choose them in any way that is consistent and convenient. Having whole words be phonemes is not convenient. --WikiTiki89 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
But is "stare" simply "stale" with one consonant phoneme replaced with another? None of the phonetic descriptions of RP or American English that I've read seem to think it is, synchronically. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's not, then it implies there are cases where both vowels can appear before the same consonant, and therefore contrast with each other. But I don't know any cases of that. They seem to be in complementary distribution. —CodeCat 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
w:English phonology seems to agree with me, and doesn't mention any special phonemes before /ɹ/. But it shows things somewhat differently from how I would analyse it. Where I would say that stare has the phoneme /eɪ/, Wikipedia says it has /ɛ/. My analysis is more diachronic I suppose, and partly based on spelling. If you consider the Great Vowel Shift, then it makes perfect sense to see stare as simply stale with one consonant replaced, they were both simply /staːl/ and /staːr/ in late Middle English, which the Great Vowel Shift then changed to /stɛːl/ and /stɛːr/. The vowel of the former then was raised further and diphthongized, while the latter kept its original value till today. In any case, there is no justification in the well-sourced Wikipedia article for considering /ɛə/ or /eə/ distinct phonemes in rhotic accents. —CodeCat 20:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
All that's true historically, but synchronically it's less obvious, and it's not made any easier by the fact that most discussions of English phonology consider only RP (which is nonrhotic) and/or General American (which has the Mary/merry/marry merger). There's very little discussion of rhotic accents in which stare has the same vowel as Mary but a different vowel than merry. Scottish English is described as having the situation you describe, but in ScEng the vowel isn't actually different before r than before l; stare and stale are just /steːr/ and /steːl/. American accents without the MMM merger usually also have æ-tensing, with the result that /ɛə ~ eə/ appears not only in Mary but also in pass and pan. And then there's yeah /jɛə ~ jeə/, which forms a minimal pair with yea /jeɪ/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

CodeCat -- In the historical dialect which was kind of the last common ancestor of modern standard American and modern standard British, there were several vowel sounds which could only occur before an [r] consonant: [ɛː], [ɜː], [oː]. (In almost all modern dialects, old [oːr] and [ɔːr] have now merged, but [ɛːr] and [ɜːr] are often still relevant.) At least [ɛːr] and [oːr] were originally allophones in the historical dialect, but I strongly doubt that that's the case for the descendant of [ɛːr] in many dialects today... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Strictly speaking, "phonemic IPA" is kind of a contradiction. AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"Phonemic IPA" is not a contradiction. The IPA is intended to be used for phonemic transcription just as much as for narrow phonetic transcription. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Angr -- Traditionally "broad transcriptions" have been used to cover over a multitude of minor variants and alternations, but a broad transcription is not usually the same as a phonemic analysis. If a single symbol is used for allophones with strongly divergent articulations -- such as Japanese [h] and [ɸ] etc. -- then it would be hard to say that IPA is being used at all, in the way in which the International Phonetic Association intended it to be used... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, I specifically said rhotic dialects. Concerning the [ɜ] vowel, I would treat it as a phoneme as Wikipedia's sources do, because it resulted from merging former /ɪɹ/, /ɛɹ/ and often also /ʌɹ/ (although in the variety of English I speak, /ɜɹ/ and /ʊɹ/ are still distinct). —CodeCat 22:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Codecat -- in my particular dialect of American English, there is a strong tendency for tense/long vowels and diphthongs to not occur directly before /r/ (except an intervocalic /r/ surround by stressed vowels on both sides, as in "Ahab the Ayrab"), so I doubt whether analyzing [ɛr] as /eɪr/ would make too much sense for my speech... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Who can help with the question: Where is the idiom of "it's still up in the air" from?[edit]

Who can help with the question: Where is the idiom of "it's still up in the air" come from? (Bible or some book) We have the homework of it, anyway, not so many peopole know of it. Thanks to the one who can help with this! :) -- 6:17, 3 October 2014 110.83.73.11

up in the air meaning "uncertain, doubtful" is from 1752. —Stephen (Talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

↑Thank's Stephen!:) But what do you mean by "1752"? Is it a book's name or the time from when people start to use this idiom? -- 17:17, 3 October 2014 110.83.73.112

He means the year, AD or CE.
I conjecture that it is simply from a metaphor: a ball [apple?] (decision, question) is thrown into the air (raised) and, while it is up in the air (still undecided) one doesn't know exactly where it will fall (how it will be decided). One could imagine a bird-based metaphor as well, which might be a better fit, as Newton could have made a good prediction of cwhere the ball would fall, given just a couple of facts. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any use of throw one's hands up in the air until 1850 in David Copperfield, so that seems an unlikely source. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much DCDuring!^^ Such a vivid explanation! I agree with that idea of metaphor theory, especially the bird-based one.

  • I am curious of Stephen's source, as the OED has up in the air not attested before 1873, and then only in the now-rare sense of ‘with heightened emotions’ (e.g. "Labor Department officials went up in the air when they discovered DPA's line of authority included that department"); the current sense of ‘uncertain’ is not attested before 1933. Ƿidsiþ 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    Another possibility for the underlying metaphor is a coin toss. This might be where Stephen's source draws from. For example, I found:
    • 1837, John Bellenden Ker, An Essay on the Archaeology of Our Popular Phrases:
      And does not one of those who are to try the event cast up the coin by an effort made where he stands ? and does not another call that which is to be the issue of the trial while the coin is up in the air?
    I didn't find anything with "up in the air" and coin earlier. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Judging by come of the same author's other bizarrely clueless pronouncements on the origins of phrases (see Talk:a little bird told me), I would rate his credibility somewhere below a random internet post by an idiot. It does attest the presence of the sense, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just happy to find a specimen of up in the air in a related sense. I was happier yet that it was not a mention. And, after all, we accept random internet posts, often apparently by idiots, as evidence for many expressions. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

verbal idioms (french)[edit]

I'd like to add the French idiom "rouler les r" (that's very common, it means pronouncing "R" in an Italian / Spanish / Dutch fashion, as opposed to our French guttural "R"s), but I don't know how to include conjugation in a verbal idiom… BTW if a knowledgeable French speaker is around, the WK-fr page is here: fr:rouler les r Geogi (talk)

I'm assuming this is a translation of the English "rolling the r" (something that we would see as French!); not sure whether we have a sense line for it yet. Equinox 03:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The usual way to express this in English would be "rolling one's R's" or "to roll one's R's" (with "one's" replaced by the possessive pronoun corresponding to the subject of the verb in most usage)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
MWOnline has a sense of roll (to sound with a full reverberating tone) that might make the expression non-idomatic. Is rolling one's r's something distinct from this in general speech or among speech professionals? DCDuring TALK 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds more like something along the same lines as the rolling of thunder. This seems to be much more specialized to the mechanics of speech- you can't roll your m's, for instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
MWOnline also has "to utter with a trill <rolled his r's>". Which of the two MW senses applies in this case?
I don't think we have either definition in [[roll#Verb]], not that it is easy to tell in our single list of 34 verb definitions, inconsistent as it is in presenting transitivity/intransitivity, subordinating specialist terms, grouping relating senses. You'd think we didn't have or follow a style manual. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Commons link in 'wideawake' entry[edit]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wideawake has a link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wideawake which arrives at a page with the message "This page does not currently exist." Perhaps some link in Category:Headgear is relevant. I don't know how to fix the problem. Is there a concise summary someplace of how to edit wiktionary pages?

Yes check.svg Done I've removed that apparently pointless link! Equinox 17:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
1860 cartoon

By the way, organized supporters of Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860 were known as "Wideawakes" or "Wide Awakes". They marched in parades wearing short capes and carrying metal torches. Lincoln himself is shown as a kind of "Wide awake" in the image... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mundabor[edit]

I was curious about the meaning of the word 'mundabor' when referred to a weblog called by the same name, 'Mundabor's Blog'. The author claims the name is used in Psalm 51 as follows:

Latin:
   Asperges me, Domine, hyssopo et mundabor,
   Lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor.
   Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
 English translation:  
   You will sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop and I shall be cleansed
   You will wash me, and I shall be whitewashed more than snow is.
   Pity me, O God, according to Your great mercy.

Not being particularly knowledgeable in either Latin onor the Psalms, I invite corrections, comments, and suggestions. Traddie (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably it means "I shall be cleansed". Compare English (from Latin) mundatory, and e.g. placebo (lit. "I shall please"). Someone with proper knowledge of Latin can probably elaborate. Equinox 19:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
We do have an entry for mundabor, which says that it's the first-person singular future passive indicative of mundō (I clean, I cleanse). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, obsolete English mundation Leasnam (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thousands and thousands[edit]

There are hundreds of wiki-markup formats and rules. At some point it gets difficult to keep track of them all. How do you guys remember them all so easily as if its second nature? Is it an impressive memory or some other tactic? Zeggazo (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are nearly universal ones, for example in WT:ELE, which almost everyone quickly learns, selectively ignoring some of it, such as some heading orders. There are family similarities and cross-family similarity of structure in templates. The most common templates actually have documentation. And usually each person works with only some of the templates. Also, each individual makes mistakes. Many of them are corrected by others, sometimes by bots. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help fix plural of OS and remove OSes or refine.[edit]

Hi. I am not good at making the changes using wiktionary and wikipedia, so could others, who are fluent in usage of these places, please make the following additional change to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/OS and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/OSes#English:

It is absolutely incorrect to state OSes is plural of OS when OS represents Operating System and Ordnance Survey. The correct plural of the OS initialism is OSs. I have found discussions on this that are old and new. Others have already covered this, but throughout Wiktionary it is sated wrong because an incorrect usage of the automated plural listing is being done. You can reference a detailed examination here: http://technotes.whw1.com/computer-related/operating-systems/22-what-is-the-plural-of-os-operating-system

If and when OS represents Outsize, and Old Style, which are very uncommon, and rarely used, then one may argue it is OSes. So, if someone wants to state two plural variations for OS in Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/OS), depending what the Initialism represents, then that seems fine. But, again, OSes is completely incorrect to represent Operating Systems and Ordnance Surveys. You can reference the plural form of the word Survey here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/survey?s=t to get a understanding why it would be OSs when the phrase ends with the word Surveys. Wikiposter1 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Wikiposter1

"an incorrect usage of the automated plural listing is being done" - incorrect; your -s plural would be the default; the -es has been specifically stated by a user. And you can prove that it's widely used by simply googling "OSes". Your rule does not apply; we are a descriptive dictionary, not a prescriptive one, so we go by actual usage; "OSes" is common. Equinox 21:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I've now added two examples of "OSes" from published books. There are many more to be found. (Note also, if you want to make up arbitrary rules, you could argue for "OSes" because of the confusion between "OSs" and "OSS", or "open-source software"!) Equinox 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, "OSs" is also attested and even looks to be a bit more common. DTLHS (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

change transitive for clothes?[edit]

Can be used for babies, e.g., I changed the baby (the nappie)? Or also my son told me to change him, as his shoes were wet from the rain puddles. I'm not referring to the meaning of the changeling (I changed/swapped/exchanged my son for another). Sobreira (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it can. Ƿidsiþ 10:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

concern in w:passive voice[edit]

I found this in WP:w:agrammatism:

There is little written about agrammatism. The beginnings of the field should be encountered in the work of Peña-Casanova & Bagunyà-Durich (1998), and Junque et al. (1989). These papers do not describe case reports, they are rather concerned in more general topics such as lesion localization or rehabilitation of agrammatic patients.

I obviously changed it to dealing with more general topics, but my doubt is:

  • I guess concern can be used in passive voice: I was concerned, but I wanted to confirm that the preposition used is by. Or I was concerned with/about/in this problem are also valid?

Thx, Sobreira (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

with sounds better. You could also use focused upon. Use of by with concerned smacks at alarm, which is not what you might intend to convey. Leasnam (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

recording[edit]

Hello, in this recording, there is a "boom" at the end, can you remove it please ? Thank you. 198.99.28.95 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Audacity is your friend here. You can edit audio files with it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfornately, Audacity doesn't work in my computer, who can do it for me ? 198.99.28.95 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since sound files are actually at Wikimedia Commons, you could ask at the help desk there about how to request an edit to a sound file. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It sounds a poor recording to me. I'd ask for it to be re-recorded. Dbfirs 14:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

noiseless[edit]

The door opened softly and Mrs. West entered just in time to catch the impatient exclamation - a very lady-like person indeed, in noiseless black silk, and a neat lace cap that surrounded a face only half as old as that of the lady of Lancaster Park.

What does "noiseless" mean in this context? DTLHS (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it means that the silk (clothing) isn't making any rustling sounds; she moves silently in it. Presumably this is ladylike! Equinox 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

dietitian or dietician?[edit]

Both entries need more information, including etymological development. This might be a useful start... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietitian#The_spellings_.22dietitian.22_and_.22dietician.22 —This unsigned comment was added by 203.56.233.124 (talk) at 04:26, October 9, 2014‎.

Thanks. See dietitian. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tesco's financial black hole[edit]

I have noticed that the British press keeps using the term "black hole" to discuss £250m of bogus profits in Tesco's accounts like in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/tsco/11156131/Tesco-audit-chairman-set-to-leave-as-director.html and http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1316101/fifth-exec-sucked-tescos-250m-black-hole/ . However, our page named black hole does not cover this case. Could someone familiar with British accounting terms please add that definition to the black hole page? I am not a British English person, so I am rather unqualified for this. Being an American who is interested in accounting fraud, I would have used the terms "accounting error", "accounting mistake", "accounting fraud", "accounting scandal", "bogus profits", or "cooked books" depending on the whether there was fraud involved or if this was just a genuine mistake. Thanks. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The second, figurative sense covers it perfectly. This not a technical sense at all. It is a term to sell newspapers or get an article read. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, I just added that in response to this. I agree about it not being a technical term, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No wonder it seemed so apt. It almost doesn't need the subsenses. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Earthian noun[edit]

Earthian

noun

A single or multi-celled organism that works to heal itself physically, emotionally and/or spiritually.

the idea that an earthian is only a human shaped organism because it considers itself capable of dominating all other life forms, and considers itself only of communicating with other species when found in this universe is egotistical in the extreme.

Life depends on single celled organisms that convert chemicals into organic matter. Thus the first earthians to exist on this planet were single celled. The single celled organism are staff and the multi-celled organisms are dependent organisms that over time resulted in a symbiotic relationship with and assisted single cells to survive.

We're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the way terms are used or have been used in actual language. We don't include stuff that people just made up, regardless of its merit. On the other hand, if people use a term and it becomes a part of the language, we include it- regardless of what we might personally think about the word. The only way we can include your definition is if we have evidence that it's been used as part of the language (see WT:CFI). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

grommeler[edit]

I was trying to look up grumblu, and another dictionary led me to English grumble and French grommeler. However, grumble has multiple distinct meanings, and grommeler is merely translated as grumble. Does grommeler have both the noise and the complaint meanings of grumble?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Use {{rfgloss}} to see if anyone pays attention. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbird[edit]

The 'etymology' of Thunderbird is most certainly not From the 1960s TV series Thunderbirds as the article currently states. For one thing, the 1950s Ford automobile Thunderbird pre-dates it, and it's also in the Webster's 1913 Revised designating a type of Australian bird, and Etymonline gives an 1848 origin as deriving from translations from several Native American languages. See also T-bird above. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

But our definition is only (currently) for the locomotive, and it may well be correct for that. Equinox 00:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How to indicate verb-subject case combinations?[edit]

For some verbs, e.g. many Polish vulgarities, the meaning depends on the case of the object. For instance, zajebać + subject in dative means "to hit, to punch someone" or "to steal from someone", zajebać + personal or animate subject in accusative means "to kill", and zajebać + inanimate subject in accusative means "to steal something". Is there a standard way to denote the case of the subject for such context-dependent senses? --Tweenk (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use context labels, like {{lb|pl|with inanimate subject in accusative}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Kephir created a special purpose template for these kinds of cases. —CodeCat 18:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, {{+obj|pl|inanimate subject|in|acc|means=object}} and {{+preo|pl|od|gen|means=from someone}}. The names are rather provisional, but I would like them to start with a +; the formatting also has room for improvement. I wish someone picked these up and brought them to production quality. Keφr 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I never heard zajebać used with dative in the sense of "to hit". I think the verb should be wjebać in that case. Keφr 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not very common, but it is used in this sense, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. --Tweenk (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

This is also a retail acronym and the listing needs a 4th definition. I do not know the meaning of "IRC" as a retail term. —This unsigned comment was added by Edward27821 (talkcontribs).

Any citations of usage? Would be helpful. Keφr 19:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Instant rebate coupon or instantly redeemable coupon perhaps? They are the kinds of rebate coupons which are applied at the point of sale rather than through a rebate process. - TheDaveRoss 13:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

all things considered[edit]

My understanding was that this is an informal version of "in conclusion" - i.e. "having taken everything into account..." But the definition given is "despite possible indications to the contrary" which seems different. Anyone have any views on this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I would side with the latter, though on the surface it probably ~should~ mean the former but it doesnt. However i can certainly see it emerging from '(despite/in spite of) all things considered' Leasnam (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always read it the same way that Tooironic has. Sometimes it carries the implication given in the entry - specifically, that while the text appears to push one viewpoint, it acknowledges its own bias and hasn't "considered all things" - but it seems to have quite a few other nuances depending on context. For example, the quote from Robinson Crusoe, "We had a good stock of tea, with which we treated our friends, as above, and we lived very cheerfully and well, all things considered." doesn't mean "We lived well, despite possible indications to the contrary" but that "We lived well, given the constraints of the situation". Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    (In terms of other dictionaries, Cambridge Advanced Learners says "generally good although the situation was not perfect", Cambridge American Idioms says "after carefully thinking about all the facts or opinions" and the Oxford British and World English Dictionary says simply "Taking everything into account".) Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Our entry seems to be trying to hold the user's hand for some discourse analysis. It seems to me to go far beyond what is usefully lexical. That the expression could be used in a variety of situations where its implications are significantly different is true, but the same could be said about about yes and no. The three verbose definitions risk impeding users trying to understand the expression. To understand what a person intends by saying something like this requires knowledge of psychology or game/negotiation theory, which is not provided by this dictionary entry and which my limited imagination cannot see being provided by a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd disagree - I think we have the minimal number of distinct senses right now (although I have moved the most general definition to first place). In terms of more-or-less synonyms, it's 1) by and large, 2) as a matter of fact, 3) as far as it goes. They could be made less verbose ("generally speaking", "actually", "relatively speaking", maybe) but I think each one conveys useful lexical information - much more than a quasi-SOP definition like "taking everything into account" would. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nasal + f sequences in Latin[edit]

As far as I know, many sources agree that Latin turned sequences of vowel + nasal consonant into nasal vowels before fricatives. These then became long non-nasal vowels in the development to Vulgar Latin. But while there are plenty of cases with -s-, what about -f-? Most sources seem to write īnfāns with the length marks suggesting nasalisation, but the development to Old French enfes suggests that this sequence was not affected the same way. Instead of becoming a long vowel, the development is as a short vowel with the usual lowering, and the nasal consonant is preserved. So I wonder, were these sequences nasalised in the same way in earlier Latin? It seems unlikely [ˈĩːfãːs] could become enfes, so was it really [ˈɪɱfãːs]? —CodeCat 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Some traditionalist sources claim that in Classical Latin "A vowel before nf, ns, gm, gn is long by nature" (Gildersleeve and Lodge's Latin Grammar p. 7), but I'm not sure how this correlates with developments into Romance... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

CPB[edit]

The Library of Congress (US) utilizes in their call number system a "CPB" initialism which I assume stands for PaperBack or Paperback Book; however the "C" is unclear and of course it would be better to know for sure which of the two options is accurate. Speednat (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Paperback apparently. It doesn't look like this initialism is ever used on its own outside book serial numbers though, so it's probably not dictionary material. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

pretender#Spanish[edit]

According to sense 1, pretender means "to pretend", with the given example "Juan pretended to be dead". But according to the usage note, "Pretender is a false friend, and does not mean pretend in the sense of to claim that or act as if something is different from what it actually is." So... which is correct? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It does mean pretend, but with the meaning "pretend to the throne". --Type56op9 (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I know it’s confusing, but both are correct. Spanish pretender does not mean pretend exactly, but its meanings are varied and broad enough that it can sometimes be used to mean that. Spanish pretender means (1) to try to do, intend to do; (2) to aspire to do, want to do, mean to do, hope to do; (3) to claim to do; (4) to hope to achieve; (5) to expect one to do; (6) to apply for; (7) to court. The sentence...
Juan pretendió estar muerto para evitar que el oso lo atacara.
Juan pretended to be dead so the bear wouldn't attack him.
...seems reasonable to me, although I would prefer to use the verb fingir for this. —Stephen (Talk) 08:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ×[edit]

I am no good at pinning down accents, but is there somewhere west of the North Atlantic where "×", in the phrase "10 x the capacity", is regularly pronounced "eks" rather than "times", or is it just Ned Desmond's idiolect -- see 01.41 in the attached video (or from 01.36 in context) [4]? I don't recall ever hearing it before. --Enginear 09:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You could just characterize it as a w:spelling pronunciation, though abbreviations are not always included. In the US I have never heard anyone pronounce et al. as et alia. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
If the times symbol is not followed by a multiplicand, isn’t it common to pronounce it as ex, such as 20x DVD drive and 150x zoom? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Much the same in the UK -- I've only heard et al, and 20eks may be normal too, though I can't at present remember any pronunciation for that. I think I've only ever heard 9 times zoom, etc, but to be fair, I haven't heard many people talk about zoom lenses. I was merely intrigued at hearing 10eks the capacity since I'd never heard eks spoken when in the middle of a phrase (I would take 20× as being the description of the drive type, rather than the × alone being part of the phrase; in the phrase recording speed 20 × playback I would expect to hear times. So I was wondering if the eks usage in the middle of a phrase was widespread in some area of the USA or Canada. Many -- perhaps most -- abbreviations have common "spelling pronunciations", but a fair number do not, and in my limited experience (mainly London, UK), this (if it is an abbreviation) has been one of the latter. One further oddity is that it is not an x or X, since those are not usually written with the two strokes exactly at right angles. It is an ×, drawn as a + turned through 45° (though I'm not claiming that that is its origin). Anyway, if it is thought of as a symbol, rather than an abbreviation, similar comments apply -- in my experience of maths, Σ is often pronounced sigma even though that is longer than saying sum, and δx is pronounced delta eks so often that I've forgotten the formal title for what δ represents, possibly small incremental difference. But we usually say plus, minus, times, and various things for divided by. And we speak of the plus sign, minus sign, multiplication (or times) sign and divide (or various others) sign. Just idle curiosity though -- I'm not suggesting we should change the entry for ×. --Enginear 18:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Here in California, I use eks for things like zooms and optical-drive speeds, but this is the first time (as far as I can remember) that I've heard anything like "ten eks the capacity". Perhaps it's a attempt to sound more "techie" by imitating the style of written shorthand. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion: "The capicity is 3x [ex or times]", but "It is 3x [times] the capacity". This is regardless of whether it is a zoom, optical-drive speed, or whatever else. --WikiTiki89 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If I heard "x" meaning "times" pronounced as "ex", I doubt I'd even understand it. 86.160.82.218 02:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Only ever heard it as "times" (or "multiply" etc.); it's been "times" in CD-ROM drive speeds too. Equinox 03:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Searching YouTube for "10x the" and "5x the" turns up quite a few videos about various American states' lottery cards. Apparently filming yourself playing a cheap scratch-off is a thing? Almost all the videos pronounce it "times" (e.g. [5], [6]), but here's one that says "eks". I don't think "eks" is restricted to or typical of Illinois, though; my hunch is that it's found in informal contexts throughout the US and maybe elsewhere, just less commonly than "times". - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cantonese pronunciation of 隕石[edit]

@Wyang, Atitarev, kc kennylau: I think 隕石 is pronounced jyun4 sek6 instead of wan5 sek6. Besides, I think that Wyangbot is missing some Jyutping readings of certain characters such as . --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: 隕石 is pronounced as wan5 sek6 indeed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

brujería[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2014/October#brujería.

ambidextrous[edit]

How do you define whether or not someone is ambidextrous? Does it mean they can write equally well with both hands or does it mean for every action, they have just as much skill to do that action as its mirror image? For example, somebody might satisfy the second definition of ambidexterity but not satisfy the first definition because they are highly skilled at writing forwards with their right hand and writing backwards with their left hand but less skilled at writing forwards with their left hand and writing backwards with their right hand. In fact does the definition of ambidexterity require that somebody actually uses a tool with both hands equally often rather than that they have the skill to do so? Similarly, if somebody suddenly decides to switch from using their right hand to using their left hand for every thing, are they defined to become left-handed right away because that's the hand they normally use or are they defined to become left-handed once their left hand passes their right hand in skill level? Blackbombchu (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the world's qualified to answer that; it's purely a matter of opinion. Having said that I never met anyone or heard of anyone that's really equally good as lots of things left-handed and right-handed. I think de facto it's used for people who do some tasks naturally left-handed and some tasks naturally right-handed. Dictionaries give broad definitions an ignore completely different nuances that different speakers give to words. That's for a reason, if there are half a billion speakers of a language, who do you cover all those nuances? You don't. In the same way that an average IQ of 100 in a group doesn't mean that all of them have an IQ of exactly 100.
To attempt some sort of answer I'll use specific examples. There's a minor league pitcher called Pat Venditte who can pitch right- and left-handed because he's been raised to do that by his father from a young age. Bu his fastball is about 10mph slower as a leftie. By what I'd call the usual definition of ambidextrous, he qualifies because he can do the task to a high and similar standard right- and left-handed. I doesn't have to be identically good. As for the left-handedness question, some might consider right-handedness a quality you can never get rid of (apart from losing function in your right hand) no matter how much someone only uses their left-handed. 'Preference' doesn't really mean 'choice' in the sense of 'I prefer chocolate to fruit'. Rafael Nadal is famous for being a left-handed tennis player who's right-handed for everything else, so you can call him right-handed or left-handed as long as your context is right.
Back to our entry ambidextrous, I have no idea if the bit about writing is right, is it especially about writing? Furthermore usually it refers to people doing tasks to a similar and competent level both sides. For example a complete inability to do something right- and left-handed not usually an example of ambidexterity! On the other hand "having equal ability in both hands" could be part of a speaker's mental definition of the word, even if on closer examination it turns out not to be factually very good. Words don't need to be limited to factually accurate things, we have words for dragons, unicorns and whatnot. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, words are defined by usage, if most people use use a word to mean X, it comes to mean X, regardless of what some authority might have said up to that point. The tricky part for Wiktionary, or for any dictionary, is to correctly identify the consensus. The latin root implies equally proficient, but this is extremely rare. Even persons who initially have no predisposition to prefer one hand over the other will pick one and get more practice doing particular tasks with a particular hand, leading to a snowball effect. Preferring the left hand for some tasks and the right for others is fairly common and is usually referred to as "being ambidextrous". My son is like that and I'm unaware of any other term for it, at least in common usage. In baseball, players are rarely referred to as ambidextrous; "switch hitter" or "bats left, throws right" are the most common terminology. I had taken that as an indication that "ambidextrous" refers primarily to inborn preference, while learned ability to be proficient with the non-dominant hand for strategic advantage or due to disability isn't really part of how people understand the word.--Wcoole (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

super Muslim[edit]

Definitely ought to be SoP but I can't clearly distinguish the sense at super, so think we are missing one there. Equinox 10:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably one related to the adverbial one: "very, extremely" (one of the citations given is in fact of an adverb). I could find some title matches clearly distinct from "finest quality, excellent": [7], [8], [9].
Just asking, is anyone at all keeping PaM's obsession with Islam, Palestine and meronyms for lesbian in check? Keφr 11:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Both super and super- seem to lack the sense. It is something like "Having the characteristics of its type to an extreme degree", but perhaps someone can up with better wording. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct Latin translation[edit]

I want to verify the Google translator to make sure I have made the correct translation. I don't know the nuances of Latin ... so I want to make sure I have the translation correct. I want to translate "for the one beside me" correctly. The spirit of the phrase is one of camaraderie among those accomplishing group accomplishments, and being there to support the person I'm working with. Originally, "for the man beside me" was what we were planning on translating, but wanted to make a non-gender statement.

The current Google translation is for this is "quoniam absque me". I'd like to ensure this is correct, or get the correct translation if it is not.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

No, what Google gave you is nonsense. It basically means "because apart from me". I'd say pro homine iuxta me "for the person beside me" or pro iuxta me sedente "for the one sitting beside me" or pro iuxta me stante "for the one standing beside me" or even just pro socio meo "for my associate/companion". I'd personally recommend the last one, as Latin is a quite direct language that tends to take things very literally and avoid metaphors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Thank you. I appreciate the help.

swashbuckling[edit]

I've looked at swash and buckling and I can't make any guess whatsoever as to where swashbuckling comes from. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Chambers suggests it's a sort of back-formation. A swashbuckler was someone who clashed his sword against a buckler. Equinox 21:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what the OED 1 says, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

frithy[edit]

Thew definition suggests it's obsolete, but I found usage at http://www.buxtons.net/silky-pocket-boy-folding-saw-2-sizes#product-tabs that seems current and natural, if technical. I suspect that there is a more specific meaning than "woody", but don't know exactly what. I suspect a relationship with various pace names, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frithy_and_Chadacre_Woods ; that article has a reference to a possible etymology, but seems to have a typo, so I'd need to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-460-04449-4 to make sense of it.--Wcoole (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the "brushwood", "undergrowth", "hedge", "partial clearing in the forest" sense that gives the adjective, rather than just woody, but the etymology and changes of meaning are unclear. The OED claims our etymology 3: Old English (ge)fyrhðe. Dbfirs 14:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

pejorative[edit]

Hi. Can I suggest adding a meaning to pejorative, to refer to "pejorative suffixes" and the such. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How are these not simply "[d]isparaging, belittling or derogatory"? Keφr 15:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
What is it that a suffix, for example, disparages, belittles or derogates? Perhaps the intended metonymic meaning of pejorative in "pejorative suffix" is clear to those who operate in the usage context of Wiktionary, but not necessarily to others.
A convenient illustration of the semantic distinction Type56op9 is suggesting can be found in our (and AHD's) definition of pejoration:
  1. The act or process of becoming worse; worsening or degeneration
  2. (linguistics) The process by which a word acquires a more negative meaning over time DCDuring TALK 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Blu-Tack[edit]

Curious as to what this is called outside of the Commonwealth countries? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

See w:Blu-Tack#Similar products. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've read the Wikipedia page, but I was hoping some non-Commonwealthers here might let me know which is common enough to warrant adding a Wiktionary entry. "Blu-Tack", as it stands now, gives none of this information. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I would just call it tack or putty. --WikiTiki89 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Judging by Google, "sticky tack", "poster tack" and plain "tack" are all in use. I would add a sense like "sticky substance used to adhere one thing to another" to [[tack]], but I actually can't find unambiguous uses of it at Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

French term "neuneu"[edit]

The "External links" section indicates a source in "le Trésor de la langue française informatisé" (TLF[i]). However, TLF no longer includes the word - if it ever did.

banquet[edit]

I've read in the etymology of this word that it comes from italian banchetto and that's true but the meaning of banchetto is not "light repast between meals". Banchetto comes from banco and the difference between this two words is that the first one doesn't have a backrest. When people have lots of guest at launch (not a light repast), you don't have enough chairs at home to sit them at a table and then you improvise a banchetto made with a board over something as if it were a bench.--Dafne07 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

sight_for_sore_eyes[edit]

something is screwed up in this entry.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sight_for_sore_eyes Wikidrift (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just that one. There's a module error in many (all?) multi-word English nouns; see also chainman, shoe polish, hot dog. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There are 366 pages in Category:Pages with module errors, but the entry that led me to the problem and all the pages names by Angr seem OK now. The category will take a while to empty. I don't know how to locate whatever software change may have led to this except by looking at contributions by the usual suspects to Module pages. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
To find out what caused it, you can edit an effected page and look at the list in the footer of templates and modules used. Examining the edit histories generally shows which module has been edited during the time period: Module:links is the only one to be edited more than once today. You can also click on the red text from the module error to see which module had the error, but errors are often caused by changes in the data supplied by other modules, so looking at revision histories is necessary for those who don't have the expertise to debug module code. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
By the time I was looking the error has disappeared, so tracing that way didn't work. It would be nice to believe that it was just a data error that affected only some entries rather than a coding error that could affect many more. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The first method doesn't require the error still being present. It's not foolproof: for instance an error caused by a module providing incompatible data to another module could be fixed by changing the other module to not get its data from that module. It may be indirect and imperfect, but it's good enough for figuring out whom to ask about the problem.
This is a good illustration of the peculiarities of the edit queue: there were so many affected entries that the wave of edits propagating the problem overlapped with the wave of edits propagating the fix, so there are still entries appearing in Category:Pages with module errors, only to disappear and be replace with new ones, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

affirmative imperative forms abolirse[edit]


So all the affirmative imperative forms of abolirse are the same? --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Certainly they are not! I'll look at it. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I dunno how to fix it. Sorry. After 10 years on WT, I still totally suck at templates. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

confused[edit]

Bit of an emergency here. I just realised that no translations exist for the most common sense - unable to think clearly or understand! How did this happen? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Easy: the sense was missing altogether until recently. No one in the 10-year history of the entry seems to have noticed its absence until the entry was tagged for attention in April, and no one got around to adding the sense until this week. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Webster 1913 didn't have an entry for the adjective. Perhaps they thought it was covered by the verb definitions. If they had applied our criteria for including an adjective distinct from a past participle, they would have had such an adjective definition as searching COHA for usage of "more confused" shows that the most common current sense was nearly as common for at least fifty years before 1910. Webster 1828 lacked the sense and COHA shows usage only of thoughts, feelings, and sensations being confused, not persons. Century showed the sense as the fourth, also suggesting recency.
As to why the [entry] wasn't subsequently improved: we have no systematic review and evidently not enough users for less systematic wiki processes to work quickly. DCDuring TALK 09:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
MW 2nd (1930s) has an adjective sense more or less equivalent to the currently "most common" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

MGTOW[edit]

Here's discussion from Cloudcuckoolander's talk page regarding the tone of the definition of MGTOW. I'm not a regular Wiktionary editor, but two editors suggested adding this to the tea room. So I'm just going to copy-and-paste what has been discussed there so far, apologies if it's usually done differently. -- 71.208.37.30 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cloudcuckoolander, you didn't give a reason for your recent changes to the MGTOW definition, so I'm going to revert back. If you want to change the MGTOW definition, please discuss it on Talk:MGTOW. -- 71.208.37.30 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The one who modified the definition without discussion was you. The fact that this modification remained in place for nearly a month was an oversight. We don't always catch things right away. Your modification, simply put, was not in keeping with NPOV. There's obviously a delicate balance to be struck when defining words. It wouldn't be accurate to define slowpoke as "a person perceived as moving too slowly," because that's not what it's used to mean. But when a definition requires us to describe an opinion or belief, it isn't neutral to present said opinion or belief as anything other than an opinion or belief. We can't state that MGTOWs are remaining single due to the "risks of marriage" without qualification because that makes it seem as if the riskiness of marriage is objective fact. And we certainly can't use a loaded word like "gynocentrism" in place of the more neutral word "feminism." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't realize these policies were so different from Wikipedia's manual of style which suggests avoiding unsupported attributions in that way. Two questions. First, would you object to the definition being stated in a less pejorative way to MGTOW? The tone of the current definition strikes me as much more condescending than it needs to be with the placement of phrase "what they perceive as" in the definition.
Would you object to a change going from:
a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men committed to remaining single and/or celibate due to what they perceive as the risks of relationships, the undesirable qualities of modern women, and the negative influence of feminism.
to:
a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men who believe the risks of relationships with women are significant enough that they have committed to remaining single and/or celibate.
That would still indicate it's a belief of people who identify as MGTOW. It would also avoid having to use the term 'feminism' (which is irrelevant to the definition) or gynocentrism, and bit about "undesirable qualities of modern women" (which also irrelevant to the definition).
Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth moving this discussion to WT:TR, so that more users will see it. Wikipedia has far more users than we do, and talk pages don't get many eyeballs. Equinox 03:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The Tea Room is probably the most appropriate place to have this discussion. Definitions are based on what available citations say, so if you want to see significant changes made to a definition, you may need to provide CFI-compliant citations to support said changes. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Cloudcuckoolander, you mean provide WT:CFI-compliant citations to support that the tone of the definition should be less condescending? How would I go about doing that? -- 71.208.37.30 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The definitions of words on Wiktionary are derived from citations (i.e. instances in which a word is used in a book, magazine, movie, etc.). If you think the current definition of a word is inaccurate or incomplete, and wish to see it changed, then the case for modifying the definition in line with your suggestions will be stronger if you are able to provide some citations that show the word being used in a way that reflects the specific meaning you ascribe to it.
Regarding tone: sometimes entries will be intentionally or unintentionally biased, contain inappropriate humour, etc. In that case, one wouldn't need to justify editing the entry to remove said elements, since our policies stipulate that definitions be written in a neutral and serious tone. But, to be honest, I don't see anything amiss with the current definition of MGTOW, and I think what you're seeing as condescension is likely just NPOV in action. NPOV is kind of like harsh fluorescent lighting in that it often makes for an unflattering picture regardless of the subject.
The Tea Room is probably the best place to propose/discuss changes to MGTOW entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not neutral. Search for definitons what they perceive as, the only one containing that attribution is the MGTOW definition. If you look at the definition of atheist, for example, it's phrased like the change I suggested. I'll add this discussion to WT:TR. -- 71.208.37.30 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

just a snit[edit]

I grew up with this word used to mean a little bit, but I just noticed that this sense is entirely missing from the snit entry. I see that Merriam-Webster's entry doesn't have that sense either.

I know that side of my family brought along a lot of dialectal German, suggesting a derivation from Schnitt (a cut, a slice, a bit) or something similar. Is anyone else familiar with the little bit sense of snit, or is this just an odd remnant of family baggage? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED doesn't have anything like that either, only n.1 "Obs. The glowing part of the wick of a candle when blown out." and n.2 "slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.). A state of agitation; a fit of rage or bad temper; a tantrum, sulk. Freq. in phr. in a snit." --WikiTiki89 11:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I searched for "snit of"; most of the results were scannos for "suit" (e.g. "snit of clothes"), but I found this, which might be the sense you're talking about (or might be confusion between chit and slip, etc.): "When I came to I found that snit of a door girl standing over me, scowling." (2012, Natalie Essary, Helluva Luxe) Equinox 12:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I did find some instances of google:"a snit bit of", in the sense of "a little bit of something". But I cannot find much that jives with how my family uses "a snit of something" without the "bit". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

by#English[edit]

Is the preposition missing the sense used in "go by sea/bus"? —CodeCat 01:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If it isnt sense 6, which seems to be the nearest...by bus seems to imply by (way/means/method of) bus and is instrumental. Is this not covered by 6? Leasnam (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey look below¶ this page is categorised as a Spanish verb ending in -ir !

Chugger[edit]

At Talk:chugger This, that and the other noted in July that they removed the given etymology "first appeared in print in London newspaper Metro's Say What Column in June 2002, as a provocative invention of jounalist Keith Barker-Main" on the grounds on incredulity.

Happening across this in early October I did some research and found that this etymology is actually correct and the word can be dated to 26 June 2002 [10][11] (more sources and explanation on the talk page).

As such I suggest that it should be restored to the article, but I thought I'd bring it up here first as my talk page post hasn't generated any responses in a month. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't believe it because it was badly written (misspelt "journalist", and Column shouldn't have been capitalized) and also because Metro, as a free newspaper, wouldn't be expected to have the intellectual "power" to coin words. (I certainly know that any attempt to coin a word in my local free commuter newspaper would have no chance of catching on.) These, along with the prominent mention of the person's name (I suspected self-promotion), raised red flags for me. However, it seems like I was wrong in this case. I'd be happy to see a properly-formatted version of the etymology restored to the article. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlisted English Idiom (New/Regional?) "All over hell and breakfast"[edit]

Maybe it's simply that nobody has bothered to enter it, or that it is very new, but perhaps it's a regional expression? Where I come from (South/Central Texas), we use the phrase "all over hell and breakfast" often to describe someone or something constantly moving about or changing locations rapidly. For example, if I went to many different places in town this morning, driving about seemingly at random and appearing very rushed, you would say "He was running all over hell and breakfast this morning". If I was looking for something specific and had to search several stores to get it, you could phrase it as "He looked all over hell and breakfast for it" or "He went all over hell and breakfast to find it".

It's also used, albeit less commonly, when objects are scattered in a mess. Imagine someone drops a bag full of small items (such as marbles); when the bag lands, the impact causes it to burst and the items are strewn about randomly, and you have to search the whole area to gather them all. Telling this anecdote, you might say "They(the items) were scattered all over hell and breakfast".

I hear this expression commonly enough, but does anybody else? If so, perhaps someone should create a page for it and add it to the list of English idioms.--75.1.154.100 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"All over hell and breakfast" gets 7 hits on books.google.com, which is good; "between hell and breakfast" gets 30, which is even better. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this sense of "off" covered?[edit]

> A quote:

Two rooms open off of the library and are named for their decorative schemes, the Room of the Mausoleum of Hadrian, and the Room of the Festoons.

I wonder if this sense is covered in Wiktionary. I've discovered this sense at Stack Exchange English Language Learners, thanks to a comment made by a native speaker. ---CopperKettle (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See [[off of]]. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
To say that a room or corridor "leads off" another is also common. Equinox 12:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, DCDuring, Equinox! A passage by J.K. Rowling uses "off" without "of"; this use could be common too. Does it mean the sense should be added to off, not only to off of? The quote:

The room set aside for the guidance department at Winterdown Comprehensive opened off the school library. It had no windows and was lit by a single strip light. (The Casual Vacancy, J. K. Rowling)

--CopperKettle (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that many authorities, eg, Garner's Modern American Usage (2009), consider off of to be a usage inferior to off, ie, of is superfluous. In the example above, it is superfluous, but very common in speech. One could also use from instead of off of in that example. Equinox's alternative verb suggestion may be better yet, but some would say lead off of. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

isomorphic - problems with biology explanation[edit]

I find the biology explanation of this word, isomorphic, to be ambigous and a bit hard to understand.

quote "(biology) Having a similar structure or function to something that is not related genetically or through evolution."

First of all it should be "nor through evolution" not or, right?

But the issue I have is the word "related" in reference to evolution. Isomorphic definitely means that there is no genetic relation between the isomorphic structures or functions. But the process which will make similar structures appear through evolution at different places independently makes them related in the sense that they produce the same typ of structure. If a trait is not related genetically then that implies that it does not share a common ancestor with that trait. Emphasizing that the branching in evolution happens before the development of the isomorphic trait would be good for explanation. As it is now the "or through evolution" part confuses by adding something that is obvious from the previous statement (genetically related).

My suggestion: Having a similar structure or function that has evolved independently at a different place and/or time.


Other suggestions? —This comment was unsigned.

I would replace "at a different place and/or time" by something like "in different species". Dakdada (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If biologists can say that 'humans are more closely related (genetically) to fungi than to plants' (They can and do.), then the very wording "not related genetically" is problematic. A similar problem exists with 'through evolution'. Even 'evolved independently' doesn't work without 'independently' implicitly needing to exclude the possibility of having an environment with shared characteristics.
I think the idea is that the isomorphic characteristic has evolved in descendants from a common ancestor that did not have the characteristic. I'll try to find someone who has defined and used the term that way. As the term is being used technically, in the context of biology, we can use technical terms in the definition.
Another approach is the simpler approach of saying 'not closely related genetically'. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We could also define it with reference to isomorphism. See isomorphism ("the similarity in form of organisms of different ancestry") and w:Isomorphism ("a similarity of form or structure between organisms, generally between organisms with independent ancestries, e.g. after convergent evolution."). DCDuring TALK 13:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Isomorphism: "identity in form; in genetics, referring to genotypes of polypoid organisms that produce similar gametes even though containing genes in different combinations on homologous chromosomes." This is how several medical dictionaries define it, focusing on the genes that account for the characteristic, rather than the characteristic itself. This has the advantage of avoiding the problem of characteristics that may only develop in response to macroenvironmental conditions, but the disadvantage of depending on more biological knowledge than many users will have, even if they studied some biology. We may need this kind of definition in addition to the one in question. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That medical definition is quite different from the evolutionary one. Dakdada (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It is talking about the same phenomenon, but more causally. I would propose that it be added, not that it replace a simpler definition that focused on apparent traits. The WP definition is better than the one this discussion started with. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I would prefer this definition from above because of its conciseness and brevity, preferably with reference to the wikipedia article on isomorphism. "the similarity in form of organisms of different ancestry"--109.228.139.93 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition is definitely problematic. As DCDuring points out, all known living organisms are genetically related. Also, as it can be about structure, you could actually have two structures within the one organism that are isomorphic (i.e. having a different genetic basis, although performing the same function). Terms like "genetic basis" or "convergent evolution" or "independent ancestries" (as used in w:Isomorphism (biology)) might help. Pengo (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

sympathy[edit]

There's nothing to cover sympathy in the sense sympathy for Communism, sympathy for Islamic extremism, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had a go at adding something. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

伽羅[edit]

Kyara (伽羅) is a special type of incense made from agarwood, and it's known to be very expensive. —This unsigned comment was added by 168.150.124.25 (talk).

So, what's your question? We have neither English kyara, nor Japanese 伽羅 (きゃら) (kyara) entries. Are you requesting creation of these entries? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
My sources say the Japanese term means "aloeswood"; Taxus cuspidata and aloes-wood perfume. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just finished adding an entry for 伽羅. Please have a look and adjust as deemed necessary.
FWIW, aloeswood and agarwood appear to be synonyms, at least as far as the relevant senses of 伽羅 are concerned. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Massive. Thanks! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

emergency[edit]

I added a quote to emergency, and called it an adjective. However, I'm not convinced it is an adjective. What do you think? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

makhorka, махорка[edit]

Can someone pls. check the taxonomy and formatting? Calling @DCDuring:. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Webelo vs. Webelos[edit]

The term "Webelos" is generally preferred in the Scouting community (even in singular usage) over "Webelo" because the final "s" is derived from the word "Scout". Whether you use "Wolf, Bear, Lion, Scout" as the origin of "Webelos" or the more contemporary "We'll be loyal Scouts" as its derivation, the word Scout(s) is a key word in the words being contracted to form the term "Webelos". The Boy Scouts of America own a trademark on the term Webelos

I propose to move the main definition of the term from "Webelo" to "Webelos". Because singular words in English rarely end with the letter "s", the term "Webelo" is occasionally seen when the term is used in the singular, although this variant is not used in publications by the Boy Scouts of America, the owner of the "Webelos" trademark. I'm not sure how to write the definition of "Webelo" to indicate that this spelling is sometimes seen, but is probably incorrect. Since there is a trademark involved, the normal logic of a dictionary that any commonly seen spelling is correct may not apply in this particular case. I am unaware of any usage of the term in any spelling that refers to anything other than the Scout program, so I don't think that claims of a generic use of a trademark term could apply here.

A previous attempt by another editor to indicate that Webelos was the preferred term was reverted. Because of this, I am proposing this change in the tea room, rather than starting an edit war directly on the "Webelo" and "Webelos" pages. ToddDTaft (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind we are descriptivist and we define terms by how they are used, rather than how certain organisations want to have them used — trademarks or not. Does real-world usage reflect what you are saying? Equinox 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

asbestos[edit]

The entry for asbestos includes an adjective sense meaning "of or related to asbestos". There are lots of translations there too. However, I don't think it should be listed as an adjective, as it is just an attributive use of a noun, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd bet on it not being a true adjective. As it is a question of attestation, we would give the section an RfV. This is a very common problem, but I don't think we can short-cut the RfV process. It might be useful to insert usage examples under the noun PoS, one with it being used as a nominal, another with it being used attributively. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose almost all noun definitions should have both noun and attributive-use translation sections. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think we can skip the RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

pennorth (plural pennorths)?[edit]

Hi :) First time newbie here, please be kind.

Concerning the entry for the word 'pennorth'. It says:

"pennorth (plural pennorths)"

I believe that the plural is like the word 'cannon': ie one cannon, many cannon. No terminating 's'. Indeed, the 'derived terms' shown agree with me:

"two penn’orth, twopenn’orth, two pennorth"

Sorry, I have no references I can cite to back this up.

Now, having said all that, I'm confused -- because I did try to edit the page to remove the offending text [ie amend "pennorth (plural pennorths)" to simply "pennorth"] but ... I couldn't find that text, so couldn't remove it!

Here's hoping you're having a good day :) Pendant (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think both forms are encountered. You can see "pennorths" in some books here: [12]. Equinox 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the examples from Equinox, I think there's actually a subtle difference between "two pennorth" and "two pennorths" in a lot of writing. two penn'orth means "an amount of something that is worth two pence" while two pennorths means "two amounts of something worth one penny each". Compare these two examples:
"Let's have a glass of whisky - Irish, hot, and two pennorth of rum."
"Three two pennorths of rum for himself and wife would have amounted to four weeks' subscription, and this would be considered a very 'small Saturday night allowance' by hundreds of men and women. "
But I'm not sure this distinction was universally maintained. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm drawing a blank: do we have a standardized way of noting that kind of distinction? (Compare Bier.) - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We do the same thing at fish and trade union - give both plurals in the inflection line, and then explain them in the usage note. I think that's the most user-friendly way of doing it - while we could do something like "(plural pennorth (single quantity) or pennorths (discrete quantities))", trying to get that information into one or two words hinders rather than helps user understanding. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

widdershins[edit]

I removed dialectal from this because it's not; as I said in the edit summary, it's used in standard English in books about magic and witchcraft, whether fiction or nonfiction. It does need a tag; "counterclockwise" is the unmarked general English word for "widdershins", so "widdershins" needs a context tag noting that. I just don't know how to concisely define how it's used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(in paganism and dialects), perhaps? Or (uncommon outside paganism)? - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Paganism doesn't really describe its use in modern fantasy; it's a much more common word in everyday use then deasil is. And I actually find the use of dialectal to be problematic in and of itself. Saying it's limited to some group of people isn't very helpful; what group?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

gain ground and lose ground[edit]

The definitions (written by a Wonderfool sock in 2011) for gain ground and lose ground are really not very good. Can someone do better? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added definitions consistent with other dictionaries' definitions and RfVed what we had, though I think the new defs include the existing ones. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

unforgiving[edit]

While we're on the topic of shitty WF entries, the definition for unforgiving ("not forgiving") could do with improvement too. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a run at this one too. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Much better. Taking the liberty of striking this. Equinox 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

department[edit]

While on the topic of lousy definitions, the entry for department leaves a lot to be desired too. I might have a go at improving later myself, if nobody else feels like it. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. The right venue is RfC, though definitional cleanup sometimes doesn't always get full attention there. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I took a run at this one, mostly de-Websterizing it, which goes a long way with many English entries. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gini[edit]

There’s a »w:Gini coefficient«. You might consider adding »Gini« to your various variantions of »gini«. If Gini relates to Gino, I don’t know. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You could have done it (and added [[Gini]] too). Those variations are accessible using the edit tab. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

meed[edit]

I just added a quotation here, could someone check if it's okay? (Q: Should I have added it to Citations:meed instead? What's the difference?) Thanks much ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It was fine. I added some WP links: not essential, but good for users.
Citations pages are handy for showing time pattern and for placement of cites that are "too" numerous or not particularly good illustrations of usage. The latter situation can arise because we need peculiar quotes to establish idiomaticity, what word class a term falls in, or some other point other than meaning.
In this case it would have been nice if someone had said which sense the citations supported. Perhaps they weren't sure. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the [YOUR ITEM HERE] department[edit]

The rfv of in the trouser department has brought to light a hole in our coverage, but I'm not sure how best to deal with it. This expression is just one of a huge number of possible permutations of what looks a lot like a snowclone: "in the X department", where X is some attribute or aspect (or metonymic reference to one), almost always in the singular.

To show some of the variety, here are the first couple dozen permutations gleaned from Google Books:

There were a few repeats of "in the brain department" that I left out, but otherwise there was only one of each- these aren't set phrases.

Is there a way to define this as sense of department, or are we stuck dealing with it as a snowclone? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be possible to cover it at department, though I'm certainly not up to that challenge right now. DCDuring TALK 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we possibly need a non-gloss definition - eg, Used to frame the subject of discussion indirectly or euphemistically - and then a couple of good usage examples. Even if we have this though, I'd say "trouser department" is an exception that we should keep, since it seems to be uniquely metonymic and opaque. For example, I can't find any evidence for "in the blouse department" as a euphemism, and only one of the usages of "in the bra department" on Google Books seems not to refer to actual bras. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree and think the opacity is ascribable to its being euphemistic. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at in the chest department. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lite[edit]

There is nothing at this entry about the meaning "any division of a window or door created by a mullion", a variant of "light". 216.8.172.35 14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Initialisms[edit]

Is this edit OK? Perhaps there's been a change of policy for initialisms and the like that I am not aware of. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

danso[edit]

Can someone with Korean knowledge please look at danso - there's odd formatting, and potential etymology. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

enough to choke a horse[edit]

This is an adjective, not a noun, right? Or am I missing sth? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an idiomatic phrase that doesn't really work very well with the traditional parts of speech notation. "Determiner" probably works best here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Prepositional phrase? — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

greenshirt[edit]

Upper or lowercase? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think both (not sure about both senses though). Upper case seems to be more common and we should probably move the primary entry there. Equinox 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing vertebrate binomials: the most commonly found in books[edit]

Here's the most common binomial names of vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, etc), as found in books (via google ngram data), that we don't have entries for:

  1. Xenopus laevis - Xenopus - African clawed frog - clawed frog
  2. Macaca fascicularis - Macaca - long-tailed macaque - macaque
  3. Salvelinus fontinalis - Salvelinus - American brook charr, brook trout - charr
  4. Peromyscus maniculatus - Peromyscus - deer mouse
  5. Castor canadensis - Castor - American beaver - beaver
  6. Parus major - Parus - great tit - tit
  7. Ursus americanus - Ursus - American black bear - black bear
  8. Hirundo rustica - Hirundo - barn swallow - swallow
  9. Saimiri sciureus - Saimiru - South American squirrel monkey - squirrel monkey
  10. Lepomis macrochirus - Lepomis - bluegill
  11. more... (the complete top 100, including blue links)

Each of these binomial names appear in a huge number of books/volumes/papers. (And it would be great if they were added to Wiktionary)

For all species, not just vertebrates, see User:Pengo/2gram-species, which also has more details about the methodology. [Note: the English common names listed are from a database, and are not necessarily the most commonly accepted names or capitalizations] —Pengo (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have edited the English vernacular names above to the canonical lowercase form we use (same as WP's) and will do the same on the longer list. I am relieved that we at least have vernacular names for five of the top ten above, genus names for eight of the top ten, and vernacular hypernyms for four of the five missing vernacular names. Our coverage remains very spotty. At User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa#From_11/01/2014_dump are the most-linked-to (using {{taxlink}}) missing taxa. At User:DCDuring/Vernacular plant names from Wikipedia disambiguation pages are some vernacular names used for more than one species, sometimes for species from different families and even kingdoms. Regional genus and species lists are available, such as the county and state lists available from the USDA Plants Database. Any of these approaches will lead us to add some of the taxa that users are more likely to come across. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As before, the list of the top 100 has a large number of species of disease agents, presumably found in medical books. As there often are no distinctive vernacular names, the {{taxlink}} approach will not prioritize many of them.
Cool. Just to clarify, 2gram-species is basically the same list I posted before. The above list, extracted from 2gram-chordata, is from the same source list but with everything but vertebrates filtered out (and common names added). Pengo (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

'shun!' as a military command[edit]

  • I've been watching a movie and a ship officer there gave the following command: "Ship's company .. shun!" I started looking online and found that it's an abridgement of attention. Might such niche military use merit the inclusion of this sense in the article shun? --CopperKettle (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. It probably belongs at 'shun as eye dialect or pronunciation spelling or something. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've added it in {{also}} at shun. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, DCDuring! Back to my movie, "In Which We Serve" (1942) as a fact, it has some jargon in it. (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    They pronounce the first two syllables as well, but they are pronounced in a low voice, quiet and drawn out. It’s one of the drill commands. Drill commands have two parts, the call and the execute. The call tells the group which command to prepare for, and the execute is a sharp utterance to go. Attennnnnnnnn-SHUN! Dress-riiiiiiight-DRESS! Stand-aaaaaat-EASE! Shoulderrrrrr-ARMS! Orderrrrrrr-ARMS! Abouuuuuut-FACE! Column-riiiiiiiight-MARCH! The group hears the entire sequence, but onlookers may only hear the execution syllable. Another common pronunciation of Attennnnnnnnn-SHUN is Attennnnnnnnn-HUT! This one is common among less professional groups, small police forces, marching bands, etc. The U.S. mililtary does not permit the use of Attennnnnnnnn-HUT! —Stephen (Talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

nothing to it[edit]

This isn't a noun... --Type56op9 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just don't try to call it an interjection. The definition wording has it as an adjective, which is inadequate.
This is certainly used as a polite response in lieu of "you're welcome", which would warrant a non-gloss definition that also explained how it differs from you're welcome. It is also used literally, so {{&lit}} is warranted. I think it can appear after forms of be both with a literal meaning and one related to the use in the "you're welcome" sense (needs cites). In the last uses it is certainly a nominal. We usually call noun phrases 'nouns', but this one seems so restricted in how it can be used that it might better be called a phrase. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

sanjo[edit]

Someone with Korean knowledge could improve this. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

sss[edit]

A crappy Wonderfool entry. It's gotta be an interjection, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Classic WF. Yeah I've changed it to an intj. Equinox 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What emotion is the snake expressing? DCDuring TALK 12:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Intjs are not always emotions, animal noises especially. Equinox 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't add it, you wouldn't have to nominate it. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is this term even here? It's an Onomatopoeia, but somehow, it just doesn't seem like an actual "word". Muaadth on fire (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Equinox: Under what definition of interjection can this be called an Interjection? Here are MW Online's definitions:
1 a : the act of uttering exclamations : ejaculation
b : the act of putting in between : interposition
2: an ejaculatory utterance usually lacking grammatical connection: as
a : a word or phrase used in exclamation (as Heavens! Dear me!)
b : a cry or inarticulate utterance (as Alas! ouch! phooey! ugh!) expressing an emotion
3 : something that is interjected or that interrupts
If there is another definition under which it does fit, we should attest it and add it, and notify MW as a courtesy.
Also what 'meaning' does 'sss' have? DCDuring TALK 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"Meow" and "woof" are interjections but do not express emotion any more than "sss". Chambers has "a syntactically independent word or phrase of an exclamatory nature, usu (EQUINOX NOTE: NOT ALWAYS) expressing strong or sudden emotion". Equinox 19:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See sss! at bottom of table. —Stephen (Talk) 19:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Pshaw! DCDuring TALK 20:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TV land[edit]

Might this be a proper noun? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent question. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

इसरो[edit]

What part of speech should this be? I put it in as an initialism, since Category:Hindi initialisms already exists, but it's not really a Hindi initialism so much as a Hindi transliteration of an English acronym. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would call it a Hindi acronym. —Stephen (Talk) 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright infringement[edit]

Hi, I hope I'm putting this in the right place. I'm the wiktionary user Habemus, and I really haven't been active for a long time, but I think I wasn't really worrying a lot about copyrights. I feel I probably used http://www.kanjinetworks.com/index.cfm and maybe a book I have for some of the Kanji [Chinese Character] etymologies I worked on a long time ago. Is there a way that should be added... or....? And a lot of the stuff I added I wasn't really paying attention to copyright.... Like should I have cited Google searches or dictionaries? Maybe it's best just to leave anything other than the kanji or delete anything I did. I was maybe like 15~16. So, maybe just undo any changes I did other than the kanji pages and link the kanji etymologies from that website? Would that be best? I don't want to be doing anything wrong, so it would be great to clear up that stuff. >< I really don't plan on being an editor much and it would be great if someone could just help clear that stuff up. And while it probably didn't violate copyright, I probably used Bachelor for Ainu stuff if I did much. Thanks, Habemus (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Habemus: Thanks for alerting us: an admin will probably take a look. Why is it you don't plan on editing here much? We'd be happy to have you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, other than being scrupulous about copyright infringement, no reason in particular. Just "not my thing"? But thanks for that and thanks for all you guys do! Thanks again! Habemus (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: Hi - has there been any progress on this? Thank you! Habemus (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

front garden[edit]

If you are a speaker of American English could you look at the image at front garden and tell me if that is a 'front garden' to you? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely 'English', but a front garden. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but now I am really confused. I thought that that would be a front yard to you. What is a front yard? I was going to mark 'front garden' as 'British'. Kaixinguo (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess I'd call it a yard if a child could play in it, eg, it had a relatively level lawn, though I'd rather call that a front lawn. As I read the entry for front garden, that term is used/understood in all Anglophone countries, but front yard is a synonym only in the US, as in the UK it has a different meaning. I'd also call something a yard if it were walled, with walls one could not step over, or were paved (whether or not walled), as few front lawns/front yards are in the US, in contrast to back yards/patios, which often are. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What that pictures looks like to me is a front garden that takes up all or most of the front yard, so it is both. Had it not flowers and such, it would be a front yard, which is typically a lawn, but in this instance the front yard is clearly a garden, with a lined walk. Leasnam (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
For me, what's shown in the photo is definitely not a front yard, because it's not an expanse of grass. I wouldn't call it a "front garden" either, because that's not a term in my dialect. I'd just call it a garden in front of the house. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you mind if I ask what your dialect might be? Thanks. So, how would the following be described in America? link link and picture five on this link: link? Kaixinguo (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
How about this (first pic):link? To me that is still a 'front garden' even though there are only a few poxy roses. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
And this: (pics one and three):link? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd call all of them 'yards', front or back by their location. For the one in which only a small patch of grass is visible through the gate, I assume it is mostly lawn beyond the wall. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I speak American English. I guess I'd call all of the things in those linked photos "lawns", except maybe this one since there's no visible expanse of grass. It's difficult to be sure what American-English term I'd use for something that isn't usual in America, and the landscaping in these photos isn't usual in America. It's sort of like roundabouts, which Wiktionary tells us are called traffic circles in America, but in fact, they pretty much are only found in New England, so those of us from the rest of the country don't have a word for them, and when we encounter them for the first time in the UK, then we call them roundabouts because that's what our British hosts call them. Likewise, if I were staying in one of these houses, I'd probably call the outside area the garden, simply because that's what my British hosts would call it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)\
I would call them 'lawns' too, but lawns in 'front gardens' or 'back gardens'. I am still not clear on whether or not 'front garden' and 'back garden' ought to be given label the 'UK'. I wonder whether the 'UK' definition of 'front yard' which I added ought to be deleted as well; in reality when is a yard (enclosed paved area) ever at the front of a house? Perhaps my definition is really an account of how someone from England would imagine a 'front yard' if we didn't realise that it is synonymous with 'front garden', rather than being a term that is used ever in the UK. Kaixinguo (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the American definition of a garden is more rigorous than the UK one; any lawn or even a few square metres of paving with some nice potted plants could be called a 'garden' in the UK. Perhaps there is some relation to the tradition of having a garden and that it is seen as a bit of a failure here to just have a lawn and no plants. Also, I like the house in Highgate quite a lot, I only need an extra £2,749,990. Kaixinguo (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For me (southern California), it's a front yard with a garden in it. I would call any open space adjacent to a house a yard, whether it's got plants, concrete or bare dirt in it. If you mention a yard to me, I'll visualize a lawn with plantings around it, but none of those is necessary for it to be a yard. As for "front garden", I've never referred to anything that way, even if there's nothing but plants in front of the house. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That's my usage as well. (I grew up in New York.) JulieKahan (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

steamer[edit]

"A vessel in which articles are subjected to the action of steam, as in washing, and in various processes of manufacture."

I was thinking of broadening this to include a hand-held steamer. Here's a link to one on sale at John Lewis (just the first good picture I found). I'm not sure if it justifies and additional sense because it does the same job using steam, just it isn't a vessel. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A possible cheat is to add one or more "or"s to the definition (as "or device" after "vessel"), rather than a whole new definition. If some languages make a distinction an energetic contributor could subsequently split the senses. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

full speed ahead[edit]

Given as a noun, says it can be used as an adjective and an adverb. However, the quote looks like an interjection. Bit of a confusion for the humble reader. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So add usage examples. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

how much[edit]

Adverb? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

much is defined as an adverb, so I'd say that requires that this be an adverb too. —CodeCat 10:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is always a determiner, with the use under Adverb being an instance of a fused-head use. This would be in accord with CGEL (2002), I think. It functions as a nominal in the usage example and can even be the object of a preposition ("You're selling that for how much?"). But I would not want to call it a noun or pronoun. The OneLook references (us, Oxford, UD) provide no help on word class.
I don't know how normal users interpret and get value from either of PoS headers, but we have chosen to add Determiner to the more traditional ones. I think it conveys more information to those who understand it than Adverb does in this case. Perhaps a usage note on fused heads would help some users a little, without harming too many others (because they probably would find it easier to ignore a usage note). DCDuring TALK 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:en:Sports abbreviations[edit]

Could this be a viable category? Purplebackpack89 00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather name it Category:English sports abbreviations. —CodeCat 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
But...could it work as a category or not? Purplebackpack89 00:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dún Laoghaire Pronunciation.[edit]

The entry for Dún Laoghaire recently had pronunciation added. I don't understand IPA, but noticed there is only one pronunciation given. The usual is "Dun" rhyming with "bun", but I've also heard it said as "doon". Is this a regional variation?--Dmol (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's actually the Irish pronunciation. In English in my experience it's pronounced as if spelled "dun leary" /dʊnˈlɪːɹi/. —CodeCat 10:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don't know the answer to your question, but I have to say that that's Irish pronunciation not English. The pronunciation it gives would sound a bit like "Doon Leera" (with a dark L and a tapped R). I've always pronounced it "Dun Leary" (/dʌn 'lɪəri/), but that's definitely my ignorant Sasanach pronunciation. I don't know what actual English-speaking Dubliners call it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
When I was in Dublin, I heard the local English speakers pronounce the first word to rhyme with bun and the second word to rhyme with dearie, which is what CodeCat and Smurrayinchester both said. The Irish (Gaelic) pronunciation of the second word depends on the speaker's dialect: in Munster it's /l̪ˠeːɾʲə/; in Connacht and Ulster /l̪ˠiːɾʲə/. The first word is /d̪ˠuːnˠ/ in all dialects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

distain[edit]

Goes in circles through derivatives, but is never defined. Something I distain. --Dcshank (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Muses[edit]

Would it be possible to add a new label Muses to topic cat? --Fsojic (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations:lean into[edit]

The term lean in/lean-in seems to be gaining some traction in a non-SoP, figurative sense. I think it means "to put oneself into (an extended effort)". It is now the title of a book by Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, who first publicly used the term as shown below.

  • 2011, Sheryl Sandberg, Forrestal Lecture at the United States Naval Academy.
    We need to find a way for women to not drop out, but to lean in to their careers and give them the flexibility they need to stay in the workforce.

I have not yet found much independent use of the term (Books, Groups, News) and lean in at OneLook Dictionary Search shows no reference defining it in this sense. It's hard to find web use of it. Does anyone have any intuition one way or the other about this? DCDuring TALK 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

lean into is definitely better, though lean into at OneLook Dictionary Search doesn't have this sense, only an Irish slang sense. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

selbst[edit]

Can someone who knows the nitty-gritty of German grammar take a look at this diff. Obviously marking an entry "Ambiguous part of speech" is a bad idea, but is the IP correct that this is more of a pronoun than an adjective adverb (in sense 1, at least)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The senses needed to be split; that probably caused or encouraged the IP's edit. I have split them. When the word means "personally, by one's self / by oneself", de.Wikt labels it a demonstrative pronoun; DWDS also labels it a pronoun. When it means "even", de.Wikt labels it an adverb and a particle; DWDS labels it an adverb. The Duden labels it a particle in both meanings. "Particle" seems to be our catch-all for things which don't unambiguously belong to another part of speech, so we could use "particle" for one or both headers, if there were disagreement about using more specific headers. - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
When meaning "personally, by oneself", it seems to be an adverb as well. At least, it occupies the same syntactical position that an adverb would. The same for Dutch zelf as well. —CodeCat 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nhjoavi[edit]

ive, wasnt, theyre, etc. etc. as "nonstandard alternatives" for I've, wasn't, they're... Are these useful entries in any way? Equinox 19:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not very, but citations and distribution of alternatives might be useful for the study of such non-standard orthography. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

nonsense[edit]

nonsensical[edit]

Would somebody have an idea when the first occurrences of these words go back to? I've the feeling that they can't be that old. --Fsojic (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

According to “nonsense” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001).: "1610s, from non- + sense; perhaps influenced by French nonsens." Same source has nonsensical around 1650. I suspect ultimate source is OED. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between and etymologies of English gog, agog, goggle[edit]

I encountered the word agog recently for the first time in a while, and I got to wondering about it. I hypothesized that this term is a- (adjectivizing prefix indicating state, as in afire or awake) + gog (to bug one's eyes out, meaning inferred by me, not listed in our entry). By extension, goggle would be gog + -le (verbal suffix indicating frequent or continuous action, as in crackcrackle).

Upon looking up the terms here, though, I find conflicting and apparently incomplete etymologies (which I omit here; please see the entries themselves), pointing variously to French, Italian, Welsh, and Irish. I cannot trace any of these further back, however, as all are dead ends (French gogues, Welsh gogi, and Irish gog do not exist, and there's no etym at Italian agognare).

Does anyone have any more detail that could be added to our entries? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

One promising possibility is goggle-eyed in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 which has a Middle English source for that term. The same page may be the source for gog and goggle etymologies given. The Middle English is confirmed in the apparently exhaustive multivolume Middle English Dictionary here. The ATILF entry for gogues doesn't seem to me to support gogues being from Old French. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

acerata[edit]

There are three question marks in this article, where (I guess) an editor doubts the veracity of the meaning. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

back to nature[edit]

An adjective? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My first thought would be adverb. But that question is best settled by citations. Keφr 09:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Lots of Google Books citations for "the back to nature", but usually with hyphens and often within quotes ('the back-to-nature movement', 'the "back-to-nature" women). Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikihiero has too little hieroglyphs[edit]

Wikihiero has too little hieroglyphs (less than A100 in JSesh is A500), am I allowed to post images of Ancient Egyptian words.Can someone import hieroglyphs from JSesh to Wikihiero, Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by Xand2 (talkcontribs) at 16:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

We have no control over this. You should ask at mw:. Or at bugzilla:. (Sorry, phabricator:. Another over-hyped and confusing piece of software WMF introduced for no reason.)
Speaking of hieroglyphs, given that they have been included in Unicode since at least version 5.2, why are we not using Unicode hieroglyphs? Keφr 08:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikihiero allows much more complex composition than you can do with Unicode. Kaldari (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-1 for going with Unicode! 1) there are many hiero variants for one word and so putting the definition under the transliterated title makes more sense; 2) can't get arrangement; 3) can't enter them with Manuel de Codage syntax; 4) they are thin and tiny and I can't see how anyone can read them. Hyarmendacil (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

euforia, euforía[edit]

Are these synonyms? Alternative forms? Cognates? —CodeCat 02:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Two extraneous facts are relevant here:
  1. The authoritative DRAE doesn't recognize euforía.
  2. The euforía entry was contributed by Luciferwildcat.
That's not to say euforía doesn't exist- it gets 99 hits on Google Books- but euforia gets 477,000 hits. I would call it either an alternative form or a misspelling, but I don't know Spanish well enough to say which. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I went through the GB hits and wrote down the author’s location:
  • Alicante: 1
  • Argentina: 8
  • Bolivia: 2
  • Chile: 1
  • Colombia: 1
  • Cuba: 1
  • Ecuador: 2
  • Germany: 1
  • Granada: 2
  • Madrid: 3
  • Peru: 1
  • Seville: 2
  • Spain (other): 2
  • Uruguay: 2
  • Venezuela: 2
  •  ?: 6
A clear case for the labels rare and chiefly South America. Nonstandard may also be necessary, as one of the authors placed a sic after the word, another surrounded it with quotation marks and one hit was an etymological work mentioning that people only use academia and euforia but not academía and euforía. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Two vulgar terms[edit]

I have difficulty believing that cunt lips written as two words refers to the labia majora, while cuntlips written together refers to the labia minora, but I have no inclination whatsoever to research these two terms on Google Books. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think either term is that specific in intent. bd2412 T 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

lavo#Latin[edit]

According to De Vaan 2008, in early texts there is a distinction between lavere (transitive, to wash something) and lavāre (intransitive, to wash oneself). The former is contained in compounds ending in -luere. Is this an Old Latin distinction (which we now treat as a separate language) or was this carried on into Classical Latin? —CodeCat 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Enucleate: additional definition: "explain"?[edit]

Thefreedictionary.com gives an additional definition of "enucleate" (and quotes sources for it): [archaic] to explain, elucidate or clarify. This definition also appears to be applied by a crossword on which I am working, which uses Chambers as its authority. Should this additional definition be added to the entry for "enucleate"? It's not clear to me how this definition relates to the others already given, other than, perhaps, in the sense of extracting (i.e. finding) the hub or nub of something.

Confirmed that Chambers has this sense. We should probably try to cite it for ourselves. Equinox 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

public transport and mass transit[edit]

Is there any difference between public transport and mass transit? If not, I think we should add a "trans-see" to mass transit. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that mass transit only seems to apply to local transport within cities, which makes it slightly narrower than public transport. I've never heard Amtrak or Greyhound buses referred to as "mass transit" (see, eg, this cite), but their British equivalents (long-distance train companies like Virgin, and National Express) are very commonly referred to as public transport. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Both terms have only been in wide use in the second half of the 20th century. Mass transit, public transit, and indeed the associated sense of transit seem to be principally US terms.
I think there are negative social-class/status associations derived from the words mass and public, but that it is stronger with mass. For example, I think mass transit in NYC tends not to be used often to refer to commuter railroads, which serve a generally more affluent ridership, though they do not radically differ from subways. (Cost and crowding differ predictably.) As both terms are very colloquial, usage is probably sensitive to the tendency to avoid referring to class distinctions needlessly. In the US (COCA), public transit is nearly three times as frequent as mass transit. Public transit does not appear at all in BNC.
So, I think the desirability of not using {{trans-see}} depends on whether we have good enough usage notes and labels to allow translators the opportunity to capture connotative distinctions. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comparing all six combinations of mass/public and transit/transport/transportation shows that public transport overwhelms all others combined 45 to 1 in the UK. (Most use of mass transport in both the UK and the US is in scientific and technical literature in a completely different sense.) In the US the terms used are public transportation (43%), mass transit (32%), public transit (16%), public transport (6%), and mass transportation (3%). I am not sure I can tease out all the differences or account for relative frequency. I'd be inclined to say that transit is used distinctively in the US, that public transport merits an entry for whatever its UK meaning us, and that there is no corresponding lexical term in the US. But apparently Wiktionary contributors abhor vacuums. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

spelling hepful/hepfull[edit]

I find the differences between American and English spelling confusing; looking up the word "helpful(l?"), I find that the spelling "helpfull" to be an archaic form. Does that mean it is no longer English English? How about all the countless other words ending in -ll or -l? Any answers appreciated to help clear up this matter for once and for all for me. —This unsigned comment was added by Finnjim62 (talkcontribs) at 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

Helpfull has been much less common than helpful at least since 1700. The one-'L' spelling of words compounded from full seems to apply to all such words that are in common use, careful. See Category:English words suffixed with -ful. Unfortunately nobody has created a comparable category for English words ending in full, but looking at a few cases should confirm that double-'L' spellings are archaic and would be considered non-standard, though they would be understood. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you're getting mixed up with verb forms like traveling (US) vs. travelling (UK). In the case of the -ful suffix, it's spelled the same in both regions. Equinox 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

higher than a kite[edit]

I was gonna make this as a comparative form of high as a kite. What do you reckon? Maybe an alternative form? --Type56op9 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative form indeed, comparisons do not grade (because what would be the superlative?). If this is attested, at least. Keφr 14:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
the highest kite in the world? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

head covering[edit]

This entry needs a better definition. Does "head covering" refer to anything which covers the head, from a motorcyclist's helmet to a Jewish kippah, or is the meaning more limited? A Google search for pictures of "head covering" would seem to indicate that the term chiefly refers to some sort of scarf or other textile worn by women to cover their hair. Then, on the other hand, we define "hat" as "covering for the head, often in the approximate form of a cone or a cylinder closed at its top end" and "helmet" as "protective head covering". Why is headgear not mentioned as synonym? Confusing, to say the least. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is not merely an SoP term, then it must be defined better. I have heard it used as you say to refer to "scarf or other textile worn by women to cover their hair", usually in a place where custom requires that a woman not be bare-headed, such as places of worship in certain religions, where usually men are supposed to doff their hats. It seems to be explicitly intended to allow wide latitude in how one conforms to the stricture against female bare-headedness. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
For religious use, see Christian headcovering. --194.100.213.249 14:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

tried to enter a new entry for shabka but marked as spam?[edit]

Hi,

I tried to create a new entry but it got marked as spam. Seems it was something to do with <ref> </ref> although that seemed fine.

The entry was for shabka and is below - any help appreciated.

Sarasincom (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several fatal problems here: first of all, the spelling shabka is only for the English word (note that I used lowercase)- the stuff about Arabic usage would go at the spelling in Arabic script. After searching Google Books a bit, it looks to me like only your second section applies to English. I went ahead and created an entry based on it. Secondly, we don't use references like Wikipedia does- all of your inline citations and links are unnecessary. Third, this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia- you're supposed to define things, not explain them. If you take more than one or two lines per definition, you're doing something wrong. Another problem is that we don't have Wikipedia's {{reflist}} template- our version is for a completely different purpose.
To sum it up: you were trying to create a Wikipedia encyclopedia article instead of a Wiktionary dictionary entry, and you were trying to cover both Arabic and English in one place. If I had seen your version as a new entry, I probably would have deleted it as "No usable content given", since it would have taken more work to figure out which part of your lengthy dissertation could be converted to a definition of an English word than it would to just delete it and start over from scratch. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
==English==

===Noun===
{{en-noun}}

Shabka is the common and widely accepted English transliteration of an Arabic word  شبكة that translates as net, web, network or ring.  While the precise origins of the word Shabka are not easily pinpointed, indications are that it came from the area of Egypt/Sahara.  Usage varies across the Middle East and North Africa, but all meanings stem from a common root: net, web, ring.  It is used, for example, to denote netting embroidery in North Africa and the Gulf; communications networks, human and electronic; and engagement rings across the Middle East in general, the net association being related to traditional designs of these rings that included a section of netting.  
#:''steep ravines running in all directions which give it the typical aspect which the Saharans call '''shabka''' (net)''
#*'''1938''', E.J. Brill, ''E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936'', Luzac & Co Netherlands

These are the most common uses of shabka
*1 In the Sahara and North Africa it is used to describe a complex network of overground and underground ravines and waterways.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GpQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=shabka+network&source=bl&ots=w-fUbzfIXr&sig=8v01kHN_04_zqn0PAmjPcBC8AgA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VgQeU6DAK4XU4wTg0IHIDw&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=shabka%20network&f=false E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936]</ref>.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R44VRnNCzAYC&pg=PA533&lpg=PA533&dq=shabka+meaning&source=bl&ots=xofV1VE41Z&sig=ny9EAvLWKNvCFPvj7ua8D9tl5kg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7oUdU-mQKaHe7AaGiIG4Bw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=shabka%20meaning&f=false International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, Volume 4]</ref>
*2 Across much of the Middle East at large it is used to describe the ‘intertwining/tying’<ref>[http://www.prb.org/pdf05/marriageinarabworld_eng.pdf Population Reference Bureau]</ref> of a couple together through an engagement ring that was traditionally a ring with a golden net <ref>[http://ema.revues.org/104 Egypte Mond Arabe]</ref>.  This is a highly contentious issue in many places as this ‘engagement ring’ is prohibitively expensive for many people.<ref>[http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/917/fe1.htm Al-Ahram]</ref>
*3 In Sumero-Babylonian mythology it is attached to the Annunaki to mean a spatial web or net of everything past, present and future and multiple dimensions.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aCVVAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=shabka+arabic&source=bl&ots=mTuLswisnL&sig=1zPmlXATri5bAxS8yQYnJCRtgxg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BWUhU_mnPKLU0QWs74GwAw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=shabka%20arabic&f=false De Lafayette Mega Encyclopedia of Anunnaki, Ulema-Anunnaki, Volume 2]</ref>
*4 In the Arabian Gulf it is used to describe a headdress that is literally a ‘net’ such as this at the British Museum<ref>[http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3312915&partId=1&material=18396&page=92&view=list The British Museum]</ref> and as described in the Oman and Zanzibar Virtual Museum.<ref>[http://www.omanisilver.com/contents/en-us/d334.html Oman and Zanzibar Virtual Museum]</ref>
*5 It is used by groups to describe networks of people and organisations such as [http://www.Shabka.org shabka.org] and [http://www.shabakaegypt.org Arab Network for NGO's].

*6 It is a new Arabic TLD domain name شبكة which was approved by ICANN <ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/c.2.9.2.d/20131021-xn--ngbc5azd ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)]</ref> in March 2013.

*7 It is used to describe the network mesh found in mosques such as Hassan Mosque in Morocco<ref>[http://www.roughguides.com/destinations/africa/morocco/atlantic-coast-rabat-essaouira/rabat/hassan-mosque-tower/ Rough Guides]</ref> and Mosque at Qayrawan in Tunisia <ref>[https://www.inkling.com/read/global-history-of-architecture-ching-2nd/1000-ce/mosque-at-qayrawan A Global History of Architecture]</ref>
*8 It is a family name used in Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon as well as a company name used by some businesses across the Middle East that are involved in either telecoms/electronics or networking.

==References==

{{reflist}}

host country[edit]

I'm not satisfied with the senses I've described here. Any suggestions? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete it, IMO. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You forgot "country that harbors parasites". But in all seriousness, I think the definitions you added are all SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Feels SoP to me too. They are all countries that are hosting something; you could equally say "host nation" for any of them, so this isn't even a specific set phrase. Equinox 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm honestly not entirely sure that we have all the required senses covered at host.
Also, it may be that there are definitions of host nation in national or international law that are thereby idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I also feel that there is nothing idiomatic here. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Host" is ambiguous, and because not all of the definitions of "host" can be used with country. Purplebackpack89 03:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, it's "brown leaf" again, "leaf" can be a book page... like hitting my head against a brick wall though. Equinox 12:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that you comparing things to brown leaf has brought me around to the position that having brown leaf isn't that bad of an idea, right? That's on you. When I started here, I might have agreed with you that it was fine for brown leaf to be a redlink. Now, your continual slippery-slope arguments (if we have this, we have to have brown leaf or whatever) have brought me around to the position that having brown leaf would do nobody any harm whatsoever. I see no practical purpose for SOP. It's not like GNG on Wikipedia, which makes sense: articles should be sourced. It's just an arbitrary cut-off that seeks to arbitrarily limit the number of entries we have. Purplebackpack89 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."- Emerson... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way: the "brown leaf" thing isn't a slippery-slope argument- it's reductio ad absurdem. It doesn't matter whether all of those entries are actually created: the point is that applying your reasoning to perfectly normal cases produces nonsense. Likewise, "four score and seven years ago" is a set phrase, it's of great political and cultural importance (in the US, anyway), people nowadays are likely to want to know what it means, and score is quite ambiguous (did I miss any of the usual arguments?), but it would be a complete waste of space as a dictionary entry. There's nothing in it that you can't find by looking up its component words and using a little common sense.
I think the central issue in all of these deletion debates is that, as a wikipedian, your instincts are based on notability: if the concept is significant or important, then the term for it deserves a dictionary entry. We don't have a notability requirement- we have SOP and the like. There's nothing wrong with wikipedian principles- they were arrived at by the Wikipedia community for the purposes of developing an encyclopedia, and are very good for that. Our CFI were arrived at by the Wiktionary community for the purposes of building a dictionary, and- in spite of need for adjustment here and there- are very good for that. I have no intention of going to Wikipedia and challenging the notability requirement- that would be dumb. Why are you coming here and challenging SOP? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Chuck, there are a lot of things that I disagree with in your previous comments, some of which are just plain wrong:
  1. "Waste of space". We're not paper. We've got space to waste!
  2. "Why am I coming here and challenging SOP?" It's not like I went here and the very first thing I did was vote keep, and the second thing I did was have a BP or TR thread about abolishing SOP. But the reason I'm challenging it is because I don't believe it makes intuitive sense the way GNG does. GNG solves the problem Wikipedia had: that there were a lot of low-quality unsourced articles. Wiktionary's problem, as I see it, is that it's lacking in entries other online dictionaries have, meaning that people who want those entries will never use Wiktionary.
  3. "I have no intention of going to Wikipedia and challenging the notability requirement." OK. You could if you wanted to, though, that's the thing. The way wikis work is that nothing is completely set in stone, and if you don't like a policy, it's OK to express displeasure with it. There are many Wikipedia editors who consistently vote against GNG, and yet have a 0% of being blocked or having their editing privileges taken away. Why? Because voting isn't disruptive. Disruption would be creating or re-creating loads of junk entries. But I haven't done that.
Just because I disapprove of SOP (and, to this day, that is your primary complaint about me) is not a reason to block me, sanction me, or agonize me in hopes I leave. Purplebackpack89 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want to have a policy discussion, take it to WT:BP. See w:WP:VOTE for what others in Wikimedia community think about votes and discussion, policies, guidelines, and practice. The principal purpose of policy for this page is to eliminate such fact- and argument-free, repetitious, boring blather as yours on whatever inclusion/exclusion decisions tickle your fancy. DCDuring TALK 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that there's a vote going on right now about whether or not to allow what you call "blather" in RfD discussions, and right now, the people who want to eliminate blather are losing, right? But don't worry, DC, your Christmas present will be a VOTE on demoting CFI to guideline in lieu of coal. Purplebackpack89 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
What is this "demoting to guideline" that you speak of constantly? Keφr 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir:: I've explained this to you once, but if you missed it, here it is again: policies and guidelines are two different things. Policies generally cover all or almost all the project, guidelines need not. Policies have to be followed 100% of the time; guidelines can be disregarded for a specific case. Wiktionary doesn't seem to make a differentiation between policies and guidelines, but it should. While the intent of the original crafters of CFI may have been for it to be a guideline, it's been held of late that CFI is policy. Purplebackpack89 21:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me see. In 2005, User:Jun-Dai added WT:CFI to Category:Policy - Wiktionary Semi-Official. In 2006, User:Richardb changed it to a {{Policy-SO}} tag, which back then looked like this. In 2007, User:Connel MacKenzie redirected {{Policy-SO}} to {{policy}}, which looked like this back then. I see no record of anyone objecting to these changes. I think the intent of early drafters (and not-so-early drafters) is clear: even though they acknowledged that WT:CFI might be an incomplete rough draft, they wanted it to eventually become a binding document. But of course why bother researching facts… Keφr 21:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir: Note I said "may". It's becoming increasingly clear that many editors, perhaps a majority, disagree with CFI at least in part. We seem to be having a vote right now on the bindingness of CFI. If that fails, some people believe that CFI will essentially be reduced to a guideline. Why not make it official? Purplebackpack89 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the content CFI and disagreeing with the concept of CFI. I think you are the only one who disagrees with the concept. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Only if "dropping SOP and demoting it to a guideline" can be defined as "the concept". Purplebackpack89 00:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • After e/c... @Purplebackpack89: It is worth noting (and I hope you do note) that your actions here are causing a tremendous amount of disruption. From where I sit, it looks a lot like you're trying to overturn any and all barriers to term inclusion. Most editors here (who participate in forum discussions, anyway) appear to disagree with your actions, myself as well to some extent.
This disruption, and your failure so far to present cogent and convincing arguments in favor of your positions, has earned you much displeasure from the rest of the Wiktionary community. I think it's important for your ongoing participation here that you be aware of this.
As you note, some other editors might take similar actions to your own, yet are not censured. I hope your question of "why" is rhetorical, and that you actually do understand that you make something of a spectacle yourself. One cannot be a lightning rod for controversy and then be justified in wondering at all the attention.
My own suggestion to you is to be clear and explicit in stating your case, and ground your argument in objective facts, not just your opinion about how things should be. As exemplified over at WT:Requests for deletion#fringe group, or indeed in this very thread, you sometimes fail to state your case in a way that others can understand very well. An argument that isn't understood by the other party is little more than squabbling. And it is difficult to respect someone else's argument, even if one doesn't agree with it, when that argument can't be understood. For my part, I would have an easier time respecting your views as an editor if you could explain them better. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Voting in RfDs isn't disruptive. If people don't like the way I vote, dammit, that's just too bad! I'm entitled to my opinions, and I'm entitled to express them from time to time. Half of the disruption is caused by people trying to shout me down anyways. If they just let me have my vote and not act like it's the end of the world that something's kept, there wouldn't be any disruption. By the way, the "other people" I'm referring to are on Wikipedia, not on Wiktionary. In the last 48 hours, I've laid out to you (all of you) my fundamental theorem of how I think Wiktionary should work (to review, it's the general idea that Wiktionary will fail as a project used by readers if it is not more expansionist and easier to edit). Once you understand that, it should be clear. Purplebackpack89 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"I've laid out to you (all of you) my fundamental theorem ..." — well, where is it? Would you mind showing me a proof in, say, ZFC? I am also fine with assuming V=L. Keφr 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I will ping it to in a thread, or tag you in a thread on Eirikr's page. Purplebackpack89 21:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have looked at it. This is not a theorem, nor even a sketch of a proof of one. It does not bother to lay out the axioms, nor even establish the most rudimentary formalism. Just a bunch of subjective assertions not backed by anything connected to the real world. It would not stand five seconds of peer review. In fact, I doubt arXiv would accept this, never mind a serious journal. Keφr 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

社会 and 社會[edit]

Calling Japanese editors: you may wish to make it clear in these entries what the difference is between these two. In Chinese they are just simplified and traditional forms, but in Japanese they may signify different things. Either way, it should be explained. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I've stubbified the 社會#Japanese entry. There's no real difference in meaning between the two, one is just the pre-reform spelling of the other.
The 社会#Japanese entry needs expansion (missing etym, pronunciation, etc), but it looks fine for now as a basic JA entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I'm surprised you didn't know about kyūjitai (旧字体) and shinjitai (新字体). The entries say so. Unlike Chinese, it's more common to use Japanese terminology in reference to Japanese. @Eirikr: thanks for the change but I think the template itself should make it clearer that kyūjitai is not a lemma anymore. There are too many pre-reform entries. I also suggest linking to kyūjitai and shinjitai in the header. User:Wyang suggests stubbifying simplified Chinese entries, see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/December#New_changes_to_Chinese_entries, perhaps Japanese kyūjitai should also be stubbified (although the suggested lemma is the opposite of Japanese)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely support linking the terms through and clarifying that kyūjitai spellings are not the lemmata anymore. I'm not sure of the best changes to the infrastructure to make this work, and I don't have the time right now to really dive in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You agree in principle, so that's OK. Not asking you to make changes immediately. Another thing, I think kyūjitai should be categorised to make it easier to address them, not sure about shinjitai. I sometimes hesitate making kyūjitai entries (even I think they are necessary) because I'm not happy with the current format either. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

lucunculus[edit]

The English Wikipedia article w:Pancake has this as its Latin counterpart. Is this a real word used in by the Romans or is it a modern neologism? More to the point, is it includable? —CodeCat 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a Classical Latin word [13], though it isn't clear to what extent it corresponds to the modern pancake. Apparently a glossary equates it with Ancient Greek τηγανίτης (tēganítēs), which is translated "pancake" because it's derived from τήγανον (tḗganon), a variant of τάγηνον (tágēnon, frying pan). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Lewis and Short define it as "a kind of pastry" and give it as a diminutive of lucuns (same definition). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many[edit]

I was going to create entries for the latter three terms based on the definitions given at the first one, but then I realized that those definitions suck. I'm not good at writing these kinds of definitions, so can someone fix them and possibly create the other terms? --WikiTiki89 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely flatter some dictionary that has a definition. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Such flattery can cause copyright problems. --WikiTiki89 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)--WikiTiki89 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Compare a few definitions. We stand on the shoulders of giants. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
OED explains one-to-many as being a synonym of one-many. The quotations in both entries (one-to-many and one-many) relate to relations or correspondences rather than to the more specialised multivalued functions. There are more quotations for one-many than for one-to-many. JoergenB (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe when those OED entries were written, one-many was more common, but look at this Ngram. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
See one-many at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89:. Please take a look at one-to-many. It is not a copyvio. Looking at other definitions I thought I couldn't do too much worse on my own. Please improve it, especially by shortening it. Also, what is the relationship to surjection/injection? DCDuring TALK 23:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Not bad, IMO. ("The second set" actually may or may not coincide with "the first set"; whence formally "the second elements" or "the right elements" (as contrasted to the "first" or "left" elements) might be better than "the elements in the second set"; but in this case probably such formalism would make the concept "one-to-many relation" harder to understand. I also doubt it could be made much shorter without making it harder to understand; and I like Wikitiki89's illustration.
However, I suspect that the increase in usage of one-to-many that Wikitiki89 documented is more related to one-to-many functions; and these may be defined by means of the concept "multivalued function". If I am right, the relation definition you two wrote and illustrated might be shifted to many-one. I'll write a suggestion for a function definition in the present item, but not move the other stuff without hearing your opinions.
Nota bene: Some (but not all) mathematicians prefer to define functions as special cases of relations. Even so, "one-to-many relations" should encompass more than "one-to-many functions", since for the function, each "first element" is demanded to relate to at least one "second element". I do not think that most authors would demand this of an arbitrary "one-many relation".
As for injectivity and surjectivity: Injective functions are often called one-one or one-to-one. This can be slightly confusing; some authors distingguish injections from bijections by calling the latter "one-one correspondences". On the other hand, if you like to define functions as a kind of relations, you may wish to note that these special relations are many-one or many-to-one. JoergenB (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I intentionally focused on the discrete-set case because I could see my way clear to definitions that might be both valid and intelligible. I could not see the point of explicitly including the case of the two sets being the same, though such cases are often encountered (the set of people; relations such as sibling-of, parent-of, legally-married-to). We could add a clause to make that possibility explicit, though every additional clause makes the definition harder for 'normal' users of the entry to grasp. I could imagine doing definitions for projective geometry cases (except for many-to-many). More general definitions are beyond my pay grade. I also doubt they will be missed.
We can have more than one mathematical/logical/database definition at the same entry. If the "to"-less synonyms are significantly more commonly used than the "to" versions with one definition rather than another, we could split the definitions between the entries.
I wonder whether the definitions are any clearer than the term itself. We need some usage examples and links to any WP articles (or sections thereof). Feel free to make new entries, new definitions, and whatever changes to existing content you think are appropriate, bearing in mind that some of the definitions should be comprehensible by normal users and all definitions should be in accord with WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

allotroph vz. allotrope[edit]

Both in en-wp and here, there has been some confusion about these (potential) two words. At the bottom lies a confusion of words with -troph- (ultimaterly referring to nourishment) and -trop- (ultimately referring to turning, and hence to (alternative) forms); probably due to a confusion of -ph- representing the Greek letter φ. and -p- representing π. I'll write a comment on this in talk:allotroph; but there may be more confusion of "the φ words" and "the π words" going around. JoergenB (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

that usage note[edit]

Can someone rewrite the usage note for that to make it easier to comprehend. Right now the second bullet reads:

Historically, "that" usually followed a comma: "He told me, that it is a good read." As for example, Joseph Robertson, among most Middle Modern English grammarians, in On Punctuation, recommended comma usage with a conjunction. However, if the subordinate, conjunctional ellipse, null complementization, or syntactic pleonasm of "that" is punctuated with a comma, then, in the English grammar, stylistically speaking, it is a comma splice, especially in formal writing. Instead, a semicolon ought to be used to avoid ungrammaticality: He told me; it is a good read.

What the hell is "null complementization"? Also, is there such a thing as "Middle Modern English"? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think "null complementization" is something like "I wish ∅ he would leave". We could have "that" where ∅ appears, but if there's nothing there, it's null. Equinox 03:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
There must be a way to write this thing up so that it is easier to understand. The sentences are also excessively clause-y. bd2412 T 03:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Even after a perfect rewrite, how important is the historical point? Just bury it and the third usage note under {{rel-top|historical and technical notes}}. DCDuring TALK 03:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

pathos[edit]

Did Aristotle Make Pathos, or was it there before him?

Aristotle didn't make up words. --WikiTiki89 05:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Aristotle definitely didn't coin any words? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

medical cannabis and medical marijuana[edit]

There is a Wikipedia article on this; would it be considered idiomatic to warrant an entry on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. medical (pertaining to the practice of medicine) +‎ marijuana is quite straightforward. I have not considered making it a translation target, however. Keφr 08:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But surely "medical" in medical cannabis/marijuana means something more like "having a therapeutic effect"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
More like medicinal, then. I can see "medical alcohol" in Google Books but it's much less common than "medicinal alcohol". Equinox 16:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. Well, I've added the extra sense now anyway. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

attendre[edit]

Our entry lists no reflexive meanings, s'attendre is an orangelink, while conjugation table lists the auxilary verb as avoir. However, other dictionaries seem to contain a separate definition for s'attendre, for which the auxilary is apparently être. Could anyone look at this? Keφr 08:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The auxiliary verb in the perfect sense is always être for reflexive verbs, whether the object is direct or indirect. So je me suis frappé (I have hit myself) and je me suis donné (I have given to myself). The reason is that reflexive forms get listed under the non-reflexive page names. So the correct page name is attendre but the context label should say {{context|reflexive|s'attendre à|lang=fr}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
But of course Guernsiais doesn't have to follow the rules for French. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Siver Grey, an entry of Wiktionary[edit]

Why nothing is mentionned regarding the Siver Greys, a fraction of the US Whig party, aroiund 1850 ?

Do you mean silver-grey? Not even Wikipedia has an article on the group called Silver Grays (with an "a" since they were American), though they're mentioned briefly at w:United States Senate election in New York, 1851 and w:Francis Granger. It sounds like the sort of thing better discussed in an encyclopedia than a dictionary anyway. If you have sources about the Silver Grays from U.S. history, you can go to Wikipedia, register an account, and start an article about them. Alternatively, if you don't want to register an account, you can go to w:Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/History, and ask someone there to start the article for you (be sure to list your sources, though). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
And check your spelling (faction, not "fraction") as well as your typing and grammar ("Why is nothing mentioned... Silver...around). --Thnidu (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically, any faction of a political party will represent some fraction of that party. Obviously not what the poster intended, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. bd2412 T
Indeed, the German word for faction is Fraktion, which threw me off the first time I encountered it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

disenchant[edit]

"To nullify a spell or magic enchantment." I fail to see the distinction between this and "To free someone from illusion, false belief or enchantment; to undeceive or disillusion.", unless the distinction is transitive/intransitive, e.g. "I am disenchanting" (I am nullifying a spell). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage as in “Artifacts can be disenchanted, just like any other item” match the second definition, but not the first. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The first definition appears to be talking about enchantment in the physical sense, not the magical sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have edited the definitions to make clear the type of object, reworded them as for transitive verbs, and added a sense "To disappoint", which sometimes seems closer to the way the term is used. Is the sense is question used that way outside of fantasy, gaming, and magic, eg, in children's stories? DCDuring TALK 03:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

sustainable development[edit]

Anyone else think the definition given here could use some cleaning up? Especially the second sentence, which seems quite informal. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

positive sense[edit]

Doesn't look like an adjective. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an adjective (as in "positive-sense RNA"/"the RNA was positive-sense"), but it's more normally written with a hyphen. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

zetetics[edit]

I added a second meaning to zetetics, "A branch of algebra which relates to the direct search for unknown quantities", and put the source in the edit note:

I also added a cross-reference from zetetic to zetetics. --Thnidu (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

bedboard[edit]

Surprised we don't have an entry for this. In Chinese it is known as 床板 or 铺板. Or could it be that "bedboard" is Chinglish / not idiomatic English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never encountered the word. Are we talking about a board underneath the mattress, or a vertical board at one of the ends? The latter would be either the headboard or the footboard. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never encountered it either. Here it seems to be a board underneath the mattress, while here it appears to be the headboard. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm being bold and creating both definitions Angr found. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Styx[edit]

"the Styx" seems to be an alternative to "the sticks" (see e.g. google books:"out in the Styx"). What should we have this as? Alternative spelling? Misspelling? Separate entry? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We could consider this covered by homophone entries under Pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's an eggcorn. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we include attested eggcorns? The one-word ones should be homophones, at least in some dialects. Multi-word mondegreens seem different to me as there typically no lexical entry for the collocation that is misinterpreted. They are less likely to be attestable, I think, but may be more entry-worthy when they are. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

know someone in the biblical sense[edit]

Is the entire phrase necessary here? I see results for "lay with" someone "in the biblical sense" "meet" someone "in the biblical sense", etc. I also see phrases using "a biblical sense" rather than "the biblical sense". I think "biblical sense", as an adverb basically meaning "sexually", is the productive portion of the phrase. bd2412 T 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This was all discussed at its RFD a while ago (see Talk:know someone in the biblical sense). "know someone in the biblical sense" is the original phrase, from which in the biblical sense/biblically was derived - it's the origin of the phrase in the WT:JIFFY sense. It's also unique in that "know" actually does mean something different in the Bible, whereas "meet" doesn't (AFAIK), and "meet in the biblical sense" just highlights the innuendo in a nudge nudge wink wink/as the actress said to the bishop way. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I had forgotten the earlier discussion! I guess the issue stuck in my head. bd2412 T 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

works vs. the works[edit]

I was editing an entry and discovered that the works was a redlink. works, however, has two definitions (4 & 5) that always take the form "the works". At present, I've redirected "the works" to works, but is this the solution we want long-term? Do we eventually want to move definitions 4 & 5 of "works" to "the works"? Do we want definitions 4 & 5 at both "works" and "the works"? Purplebackpack89 06:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any consistency about things like this. I can't currently think of any examples, but I've seen it both ways. Theoretically, the works would be the correct place for it, but people seeing this are likely to just look up works or even work. A comparable issue is how we handle reflexives in French: compare se souvenir (which has its own page) and se rappeler (which is a redirect). --WikiTiki89 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
We certainly want the definition to appear at works, possibly also at work with a definition line link to works. IMO hard redirects from the term with the should be applied in virtually all such cases. They could even direct the user to first of the specific senses involved using {{senseid}}.
I think that covers the needs of normal users better than alternative that split the definitions among the three entries, whatever the possible theoretical deficiencies. If we wanted to have a style guide, I'd think we could agree on documenting that approach, though perhaps not. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually with you that we should avoid splitting definitions among multiple entries, but (I guess to play devil's advocate a bit) what about the man? --WikiTiki89 14:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. It's worth testing the adequacy of such a presentation.
First, our determining whether every sense at [[the man]] is in fact more than the + man is made harder by splitting the senses. (Are the second and third definitions in fact anything other than the + man?) If there are multiple definitions "(with the)", that common beginning-of-the-line label should help users compare the possibilities, even if they are not listed consecutively. Second, a hard redirect using {{senseid}} would address the problem of searching for the sense at [[man]] for the normal user who types in "the man" in the search box. Third, however a normal user gets to [[man]], the ability to scan and compare the various senses on one page is advantageous. (The option of comparing senses that do not appear on the same screen because of the length of the entry is available by opening another window to the same page.) DCDuring TALK 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the third definition is inadequately defined, since it is frequently just used as a complement ("You're the man!" = "You're awesome!"). But my question is really that even if there are senses of the man that are not simply the + man, why should we (or shouldn't we) split the definition onto a separate page from man? --WikiTiki89 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
That is my belief as well. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Another interesting case is that of new#Noun/news. I have added to [[new#Noun]] a new definition line that simply refers user to [[news]]. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

sown[edit]

I'm currently reading The Silk Road: A Very Short Introduction by James A. Millward and I came across the following sentence: "...the line between steppe and sown was not as firmly drawn as Gibbon, Sima Qian or Ammianus imply, but was in fact politically and culturally fluid." Is this usage of "sown" common? It seems like it means something like "farmland" (in contrast to the grasslands/the steppe). ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an example of what CGEL (2002) would call a fused-head construction. It is as if the noun were understood, in this case by reference to steppe, perhaps lands. In many contexts the omitted, "understood" noun is obvious from an anaphora: "We have both hot and cold dishes today. The hot [ones/dishes] include [] " Very many adjectives can be used this way. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

quell[edit]

In the Hunger Games, they talk about "Quarter Quells". I was surprised to see that quell isn't a noun (apart from one meaning a spring - BTW, is that attestable?). Could it be used outside the Hunger Games universe? --Type56op9 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

food for the soul[edit]

Is food for the soul, used to mean things like fine arts, music, and philosophy, sufficiently transparent that we don't need an entry for it? I thought of making one, but landed squarely on the fence. bd2412 T 22:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

that's gotta hurt. food for the soul at OneLook Dictionary Search draws a blank. I think we have the figurative sense of food ("Anything that nourishes or sustains"). I added "food for the soul" in a usex. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

almuerzo, almoço[edit]

Is anybody else doubtful that the ‐l‐ is from Arabic? Is it reasonably possible that the consonant mutation was native? --Romanophile (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you are saying. almuerzo began as admorsus (ad- + morsus). Arabic speakers in Spain, finding the word useful and convenient, adopted it, and, since Arabic does not have prefixes such as ad-, con-, pro-, pre-, dis-, and so on, but does have prefixes that are definite articles, conjunctions, and prepositions, the Arabic-speakers arabicized the word by changing ad- to al- (Arabic definite article), and "al-morsus" was created. Since most people were bilingual in Arabic and Old Spanish, the arabicized word re-entered Spanish as almorso. So the Latin prefix ad- became al- under influence from the Arabic definite article ال (al-). —Stephen (Talk) 11:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I just remembered something today: A Spaniard made an interesting case against Arabic influence here. I think that it’s worth taking into consideration. --Romanophile (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • After reading that thread, I have to ask, is there any chance that the Asturian phonetic shift towards "L" was at all influenced by Arabic? I'm not familiar enough with Arabic to tell if there are other potential influences that would prompt shifts towards "L" beyond just the definite article. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Asturias was the the region with the least contact with Arabic speakers, but Asturian many more cases of ad- → al- than Spanish or Portuguese. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I’m also doubtful, but that’s what the sources say. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

cōtempt[edit]

There is an entry for "cōtempt" but all it says is Obsolete form of contempt. It implies that it was used in Modern English. There are no citations and I know it was common for scribes to indicate an "n" with a bar over the immediately preceding vowel. Is this merely a scribal variant or did people pronounce the word as indicated here with a long "o"? In the category page "English terms spelled with Ō" all the other words I recognise seem to come from Oriental languages. "cōtempt" looks like a misunderstanding to me. Danielklein (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the See also to cõtempt, it looks like someone was adding scribal variations. I'm almost surprised they missed ꝯtempt and ↄtempt. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it should be deleted then. Danielklein (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As much as I dislike wasting time on such variations, I suppose that this is a term that should be included because "it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". (See WT:CFI.) Nowadays one can readily find scanned manuscripts on-line that might having scribal variations. Whether having all these that are attested will really be of much help to readers of such manuscripts is unlikely. But do we have an appendix on the Middle English and Modern English "scribal notations" (or common ways of reducing the ink required to write a diary or an entry in a book of accounts) that make up these variations? DCDuring TALK 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

'Woah' not misspelling.[edit]

'Woah' should be listed as an alternative spelling of 'whoa', not a misspelling. It's commoner than 'chamaeleons' and 'moochin'---[14] two valid words---so it isn't unused.

I agree, it's not a misspelling. Changed the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No objections but see Talk:woah for prior discussion. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, guys! Something doesn't cease being a misspelling just because it's more common than some other arbitrary valid words that you care to conjure up. There are lots of common misspellings. My feeling is that "woah" is, indeed, just a misspelling, and the entry should be put back to how it was. 109.157.10.232 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin 3rd declension[edit]

In Appendix:Latin third declension it was stated that nox, noctis, f. belongs to the Latin 3rd declension with i-stem, and in entries like nox such things are still said (via declension template, template:la-decl-3rd-I in contrary to template:la-decl-3rd-N-I-pure).
Pons dictionary lists 3 types of the 3rd declension (consonantic, i and mixed), each with a distinction between genders (m./f. and n.). Examples are:

  • consonantic, m./f.: honor, honoris, m.; regio, -onis, f.; vox, vocis, f.
  • consonantic, n.: nomen, -minis, n.; tempus, -poris, n.
  • i, f.: turris, turris, f.
  • i, n.: mare, maris, n.
  • mixed, m./f.: civis, civis, m.; urbs, urbis, f. -- that's how nox is declined.
  • mixed, n.: os, ossis, n.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Third_declension_.28i.29] labels the i-declensions as "pure" or "mixed".
So it should be "i-stem declension & mixed declension" (the mixed one between consonantic and i-stem, thus not part of the i-stem declension), or "pure & mixed i-stem declension". Something like simply "Third declension i-stem." as in nox shoudn't be used (as it's irritating/confusing as "pure" i-stem declension is by the name part of i-stem declension too, so questions arise). So:

  • Should it be changed?
  • To what should it be changed?
  • How should it be changed technically? (Bot replacing templates?)

-IP, 23:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

well-established[edit]

Would this be considered an includible word for Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a well-established rule yet, but you could probably guess why I don't think it is as my tendency is well-known. DCDuring TALK 06:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion no, it is two word, not one. A hyphen often functions like a space, so well established is not a word it is two words, and well-established the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

crowd disease or crowd disease?[edit]

The sentence I just read: "That millions of people in the Americas with no prior immunities died from exposure to old-world crowd diseases is just one of the profound effects of the Columbian Exchange." Is "crowd disease" here crowd disease or crowd disease? I can't work out what sense of "crowd" is being evoked here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd never heard that combination before, but that would be diseases spread by contagion within crowds of people, usually with human hosts, contrasting with diseases that have animal hosts and those endemic in the New World. DCDuring TALK 09:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it transparent enough. A disease that effects crowds. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

epsilontics[edit]

Could someone look at this entry? I am not sure I interpreted these citations very well. Keφr 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have considered this "informal" but I suppose this is hard to pick up from the citations, aside from the use of scare quotes in a couple of them. I certainly wouldn't ever expect to find this in formal mathematical textbooks or papers. This, that and the other (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well… in one book I found a mention, which makes it invalid for the purposes of attestation, but it shows there might be some truth in your gut feeling:
  • 2013, Michael Beaney, The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford University Press (ISBN 9780199238842), page 331
    This has generated the argot 'epsilontics' for rigour in this style (sometimes used perjoratively for a perceived excess of rigour obscuring central ideas).
However my main concern is with grammar. Some authors use the word as plural, some as singular — how should I label it? I am not sure if it actually warrants two senses for the "calculus done the Weierstrass way" sense, or if it needs an additional metonymous sense of "overly rigorous presentation of mathematics" (which arguably is already cited). Also, why is it not "epsilonic" and "epsilonics" instead? The "-tic" suffix suggests a derivation from, say, French (compare erratic, symptomatic), but for some reason I doubt it even though I can find citations of epsilontique from 1954 and 1937 (which is earlier than most citations I can find in English). I would rather believe a direct derivation from Greek. Keφr 11:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I had always assumed it was a fanciful, pseudo-mathematical portmanteau of "epsilon" with "antics" or "pedantics" or something like that. That's just another gut feeling, though... This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

teyna[edit]

This is weird - a "Zazaki misspelling", but all the entries indicate that it is a misspelling of itself. Huh? bd2412 T 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a mess, the head word in bold says tenya each time (n first then y) but the page name is teyna (y first then n). Could an admin speedily delete this as no usable content? I have no objection to such an entry with correct content, just this is not it. Inform creator to see if we can fix it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Marmase is known for sloppy copypasting. I have deleted the entry. --Vahag (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

agnotocracy[edit]

Rule by ignorance.

Kindle[edit]

I think we should have an entry for Kindle (the Amazon device). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it can be cited per WT:BRAND, then it's fine. bd2412 T 14:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
For example:
    • 2012, A. C. Stratford, When You're Cold, page 121:
      As the train pulled into the station in DC, he put his Kindle away and grabbed his bag of clothes for the week.
    • 2014, CB McKenzie, Bad Country: A Novel, page 101:
      An old Hispanic man was reading the Bible on his Kindle, cursing in Spanish as he tried to manipulate electronic pages that, he complained loudly, kept flipping inexplicably from Genesis right to Revelations, from creation to destruction.
Find another cite spanning an additional year and you're golden. bd2412 T 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

polynucleosis[edit]

I noticed that this word doesn't seem to have been used much since the early 20th century. Does anyone know if there is a more modern term? DTLHS (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Some dictionaries have multinucleosis. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

English has a mahoosive 1,025,109 words[edit]

In case you had not read the OED believes the English language has 1,025,109 known words. I notice that Wiktionary has 3,880,149 entries. Can someone explain the significant variance between the two numbers 2,855,040 (3,880,149 - 1,025,109). Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Because Wiktionary is not just English, and even if it were, not all entries are lemmas English Lemmas: 375,718
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. Does anyone feel we should have another statistical list for English words, so we can track our progress against other dictionaries, i.e. comparing apples with apples. In addition, so we know how many actual English words are in Wiktionary? I think this would be a positive thing for Wiktionary. thank you WritersCramp (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I always feel that word counts need to be accompanied by an explanation of how words are counted. 86.152.161.61 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The first column in WT:STATS is useful. --Vahag (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Vahagn Petrosyan: Is the number in the first column at WT:STATS only for definitions in lemmas (within its approximate accuracy)?
Number of English entries (A) > Number of English lemma PoS sections of distinct etymology (B) > Number of English lemma etymology sections (C) > Number of English lemma entries (D).
I would think that we would want B as our main concept for 'words' so that we counted separately any lemmas written the same that were etymologically distinct or distinguishable and/or of different PoS. Any effort to do this also requires that entries be consistently formatted with only well-known and documented variation. Do we have that assurance with our existing suite of maintenance bots?
I don't think that such counts can be done in real time or near real time, even asymptotically, as our categorization system, even if faithfully implemented, is naturally page oriented. I suspect that a lot of effort would be required to develop and maintain supplemental categories for pages that had multiple lemmas on a page.
I also suspect that it would be tedious to debug and verify a program that did this correctly on the XML dump. But once done and verified, it could be rerun against each dump. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Each definition is analysed individually in order to be classified as lemma or non-lemma. My first attempt tried to identify HWL templates, but that proved impracticable. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: So it would seem like a good base to work from.
At WT:STATS, it says "This information is inexact." What is the source of the inexactitude?
How hard would it be to work from the count at WT:STATS to a count of lemma-etymology-PoSes (B above)? DCDuring TALK 22:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The source of uncertainty are the non-lemma forms with manual formatting instead of templates. The program does try to identify them, but it’s impossible to make the identification foolproof. This is why Italian has been “losing” gloss definitions lately; it’s the language with most manually-formatted inflections and people have been fixing them faster than new definitions are added. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The first column at WT:STATS, "Gloss definitions", is said to be "the number of senses the words in that language have", which I understand to mean the total of all separately numbered definitions over all words. However, "entries", which I understand to be the number of separate pages that include at least one definition in the relevant language, i.e. the number of headwords, is a larger number. Does that mean that there are more headwords than definitions? Is that really correct? Is it because there are many contentless redirects or something? 86.152.161.61 12:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not exactly contentless, but of lesser content. dogs is an entry. "plural of dog" is, in a sense, a definition. dogs is NOT a lemma. The lemma entry dog has multiple definitions, which are what Ungoliant intends for that count to definitions to include and be limited to, excluding "definitions" like "plural of dog". DCDuring TALK 15:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still confused. The entry dogs has five numbered English definitions. The entry dog has 18 numbered English definitions. What amounts do "dog" and "dogs", respectively, contribute to the figures in the two columns at WT:STATS that I mentioned? 86.152.161.61 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have picked a simpler example or actually looked at the entry for dogs before selecting it, as dogs#Noun is a lemma entry. But the example actually illustrates an issue. The entry for dogs probably (I didn't write the code.) contributes three to the count, the plural of dog#Noun and the third-person present indicative of dog#Verb being excluded. The entry for dog contributes 17 or 18, depending on whether the code counts what could be considered a duplicate: "(slang, almost always in the plural) feet", which is the same as "(slang, US) Feet, from rhyming slang dog's meat. [from early 20th c.]".
The count of definitions is perhaps more arbitrary than the count of lemma-etymology-PoSes, as one can split definitions to a greater or lesser degree. What counts as a distinct etymology can also be a bit arbitrary, eg, homographs coming into English from Latin via French for one set of meanings and directly from Latin for another. Even the number of PoSes is arbitrary. For example, some English prepositional phrases are presented as both adjective and adverb (counting as two PoSes), whereas others are presented as only as prepositional phrases (counting as one). Some entries for nouns include a separate section for use of the word as an interjection, some do not. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, it is certainly arguable that the definition of dogs as "Feet" ought to appear as a separate etymology ("From rhyming slang dog's meat"), at least if the etymology is authentic. Thus, we have another example of arbitrariness in the count, this time at the etymology level. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In an ideal world, I think WT:STATS needs proper explanations of what the statistics mean. At the moment, to be honest, the numbers are virtually useless given the lack of clear information on that page about how they are obtained. 86.152.161.61 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you find a clear and complete explanation for any count of 'definitions' or 'words' provided by any actual dictionary, please let us know, so we have an example to emulate. This problem of determining what numbers mean bedevils almost any effort to count real-world phenomena of any but the simplest kind. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a different issue from the one of explaining what the numbers that we have at present at WT:STATS actually mean. The WT:STATS numbers are (presumably) created by a predictable automated process, and their derivation can therefore (presumably) be precisely explained. 86.152.161.61 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of aril[edit]

I've started a discussion about this if anyone's interested. --Person12 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

inside[edit]

The example sentence I added for the adjective sense - They wanted to know the inside story behind the celebrity's fall from grace. - does not seem to be supported by the definition given - Originating from or arranged by someone inside an organisation. - but I'm not sure how to refine it, any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For that usex I think we need we need a different definition, something like "behind the scenes/behind-the-scenes".
Or maybe just "of, relating to, or coming from, or being on the inside#Noun" and let inside#Noun do some of the work. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

get on to / get onto[edit]

I just created get on to as it was a red link in the list of derived terms at get. I added the "contact someone about something" meaning, but now I have noticed that the same meaning is already at get onto. Now I feel a bit uncertain. When you "get on to the company to complain", for example, is that "get onto" or "get on to"? I thought it was "get on to". 86.152.161.61 04:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We should have get on to "(UK) make contact with (about something)". An Oxford dictionary has it with that spelling. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure the second definition you gave is both in actual use and idiomatic, rather than being get on + to? DCDuring TALK 14:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The second sense, which is now the third, illustrated by "I'll get on to it tomorrow" is in natural everyday use where I come from (England). Perhaps my definition can be improved though. Although these things can be a fine judgement, my feeling is that it is idiomatic in this meaning. It does not feel right to me as "get on + to" for any natural separate usage of "get on". On the other matter, do you think that definition #2 at get onto, "To contact a person or organisation about a particular matter", is also correct? Are you saying that you think both "get onto" and "get on to" are correct in this sense? It seemed kind of illogical to me that both could be correct, but having looked at it several times now, I no longer feel able to form any sensible judgement about it. 86.152.161.61 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
When I say it is not idiomatic, I mean that, in the now-third sense, it may not 'really' be a single term, ie, it may be get on + prepositional phrase headed by to or get + on + PP headed by to. I'd bet that get on to is much more common that get onto. The Oxford dictionary I looked at had get on to. The way we would determine whether get onto was a good entry was by finding usage. (See WT:ATTEST.) Determining which is the more common form might be done by consensus of those who might have seen it in print or by looking at relative frequency at BNC. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you meant by "not idiomatic". My belief is that the questioned sense is separately idiomatic and is not naturally explainable as "get on + to" or "get" + "on" + "to". 86.152.161.61 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
An initial look at BNC shows me that the "contact" sense is spelled both ways with the get on to form being more common. So we would have get onto as an alternative form of get on to unless there is more to it than what I saw. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
However, comparing get onto at OneLook Dictionary Search with get on to at OneLook Dictionary Search, more dictionaries have get onto than have get on to. DCDuring TALK 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

gloves come off[edit]

Did I do this phrase soft-direct correctly? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't use "See" very much, but I think it is necessary in many cases and should be used more. The case at hand seems like a good use to me. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case I prefer "Alternative form of ...". I think it is more precise. 86.152.161.61 00:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It may be more precise, but it is not an accurate characterization of the connection between the two terms. Is come an alternative form of be? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"Alternative form" is the characterisation given at gloves are off, which is where I took it from. Perhaps "Variant form" would be better. 86.152.161.61 12:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
{{synonym of}} has its uses too. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of Bad Citation[edit]

Discussion moved to Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

frentero, frentera[edit]

What is the lemma of this adjective? Is "frentera" the masculine form as well, or is there a frentero? —CodeCat 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There’s frentero. Moved. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

'campaignee' the word[edit]

'Campaignee' is an entity for whom a campaign is undertaken. Did we get that wrong? A Campaigner undertakes a Campaign for a Campaignee. Right? We undertake or carry out promotional campaigns for our promotees or campaignees via Social Media. One of them is at (SPAM LINK REMOVED BY User:Equinox). We would like to call our clients (for whom we undertake a campaign) as campaignee/s apart from simply 'client'. We are the campaigner/s. 'Campaignee' has not been found in many dictionaries. So we seek light! Thank you.

electric multiple unit, elektryczny zespół trakcyjny[edit]

I created these two when I found red links at multiple unit, but now I think they are completely SoP. The main added value in the entries are the abbreviations EMU and EZT, and possibly images, but this looks like a better fit for Wikipedia. What is your opinion? --Tweenk (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

think outside the box[edit]

What is the opposite of this? As in, if one were to mentally shut off certain facets of the mind so as to force oneself to think in a specific manner.

Is there such a term?

If not, what would be the best way to describe such a thing?

The only thing that comes to mind for me is "selective thinking". Tharthan (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Think inside the box. Not common but it exists. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

lexical peacemaking[edit]

I'm not sure if this shouldn't be discussed in the beer parlour, I guess I'm not good at being bold, sorry. I need to know how to avoid escalating a lexical war of quotations? We are already up to two exclaimation marks!! I am not sure if I should bother adding a special case as Equinox seems to imply in the history, or if and how I can convey that this type warfare is moving online rapidly, concisely? I don't even know where to begin with a citation that isn't suitable...?Riverstogo (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)