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 +/-

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

Oldest tagged RFTs


September 2014[edit]

milk sibling and wet nurse[edit]

The old definition of milk sibling was:

A person who is not one's biological sibling but was nursed by the same woman as oneself.

I wanted to generalize it and changed it to:

A person who was nursed by the same wet nurse.

User:Cloudcuckoolander reverted this with the message:

The qualifications in the def are necessary. A pair of biological brothers nursed by the same wet nurse probably wouldn't be considered "milk brothers." The term "wet nurse" excludes women who volunteer to nurse, as it means a woman hired to nurse.

I think that two biological brothers nursed by the same wet nurse are milk brothers, but they would never be called that unless other milk brothers are involved. I also think that our definition of wet nurse is wrong in that the woman does not necessarily need to be "hired". Any woman who suckles a child is a wet nurse, although the child's mother would never be called that unless other people's children she is suckling are also involved. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Turkish alphabet[edit]

It's a noun, not a proper noun, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm... It's a proper noun. There is only one Turkish alphabet. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic alphabet[edit]

At the moment, Arabic alphabet is a redirect to Arabic script. I don't reckon it should be, but I don't touch Arabic so perhaps someone wants to make a new entry to Arabic alphabet? Also, Arabic script probably isn't a proper noun. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, they're now separate entries, and Arabic script is called a common noun rather than a proper noun. I've defined Arabic alphabet as a perfect synonym of Arabic script, though, which might not be the case. Arabic script and Arabic alphabet are separate WP articles, with the former discussing the script as applied to any language written in it, while the latter discusses the script as applied to the Arabic language. Also, b.g.c results suggest that while the plural Arabic scripts is fairly easily attestable, the plural Arabic alphabets appears not to be, so maybe WP is right there are many Arabic scripts but only one Arabic alphabet. More editors welcome! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

to be born[edit]

I think we should have a full entry for this, rather than a redirect, but I am unsure how to define it non-circularly. --WikiTiki89 15:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"To escape from one's mother's uterus, either via the vagina or by caesarean section", perhaps? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if you change "escape" to "exit", it still sounds weird. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"To emerge from the mother following pregnancy"? —CodeCat 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"To emerge from the mother's womb." would problem be better. And even still, there is the problem that this definition is very odd in a context such as "Where were you born?" --WikiTiki89 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, "Where were you born?" does mean "Where did you emerge from your mother's womb?" even if the former is rather less explicit than the latter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me we're being a bit viviparocentric here. A baby bird is born when it hatches from the egg, right? Which is some time after the egg has emerged from the mother's womb. (Do birds even have wombs?) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking something along the lines of "to come into existence" or "to come into this world". --WikiTiki89 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would want the literal meaning (said of animals) to be separate from the figurative meaning (said of other things, like ideas). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I was only referring to the "literal meaning (said of animals)" in my previous post. When someone asks "Where were you born?" they don't really mean "Where did you come out of the womb?", but something more like "Where did you come into existence?" --WikiTiki89 21:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No, they do mean where did you come out of the womb. "Existence" is much harder to define. —CodeCat 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, "Where did you come into existence?" could mean "Where were you conceived?" which is not what "Where were you born?" means. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean literally that, but something along those lines. I just meant that that's what is in their mind when they say it. They are not picturing a womb when they ask you that question. --WikiTiki89 22:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If you look at it in light of 'giving birth' (literally, figuratively, or what have you), then "Where is the place of your birth?"/"Where were you given birth?" Birth here refers to the 'unveiling' or 'presentation' of a person, thing, etc. This event occurs later than conception, so it doesnt begin with existence...rather 'birth' occurs at ones 'inception/establishment/debut' to the world, be it the natural, human, world of ideas, etc. Leasnam (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of existence, but I guess we should avoid the word existence in the definition since it is causing too much misunderstanding here. --WikiTiki89 12:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. What i meant above is that 'birth' doesn't necessarily bring to bear ones existence, so it's neutral in that respect. Some would even argue that existence begins prior to conception, so there is a wide swathe of opinions regarding that specific concept. Leasnam (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "to come into existence through birth" (not my invention, it's a web definition)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • If this is not SoP, we should have at least one definition to cover all the non-literal use as well, at least if we want to be a real dictionary. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Work of a diaconess[edit]

Is there a word for the charity work the deaconesses do? Like in French there is diaconie and in German there's Diakonie. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hekaheka, this looked really interesting & you provided good links, so I poked around WP in a few languages & also the web for a bit. The short answer is: I don't think so, at least not for Roman Catholics.
Very long answer: The closest word I found was Diaconia (English WP) via Diakonie, then Diakonie_(Rom) (which had a link to an English-language page at the bottom), and finally copying the parenthetical word "diaconia" from that last German page and searching both the web and then that linked English page (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm) for it, the latter of which includes the quote, "...an edifice (diaconia) for the reception of the poor, and close by a church." That matches the English WP description.
Since these words are derived from Greek, you might want to ask at http://orthodoxwiki.org/ or search there, since the Orthodox Church's terminology relies more on Greek than Latin. But even if they have one, it might very obscure word.
As for Wiktionary, someone might want to add the translations from WP & the Languages section of the sidebar to deaconess, which only has translations in a couple languages. Hope this helps! --Geekdiva (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Is the verb burgeon ever really used as such in contemporary English? I can only recall seeing the adjective (not participle) burgeoning, which is a separate, independent lexeme (just like in grip and gripping, fascinate and fascinating or fuck and fucking, where the senses are not identical and therefore the participle has become autonomous). I would like to suggest that the verb should be marked as dated as well.

Update: By all appearances, it is not. The verb forms burgeons and burgeoned at least do occur, so at best the verb belongs to a formal register, and specific contexts, which could help explain why I hadn't encountered it yet.

The same relationship appears to hold between the verb bud and the adjective budding, although this verb is apparently still be used in a concrete, literal sense. I note that the only example for the sense "to be young, show promise, begin to develop" (as in humans) is the adjective, so at least this sense might be dated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether a word of some uncertainty of meaning, such as the verbs bud and burgeon, will not be used in a focal position in an utterance, ie, as a verb in this case, but also as a subject or object in the case of a noun. But it could be used as an adjunct, where it could be ignored without significantly impairing communication.

un in Catalan[edit]


un is considered as an article in Catalan for the sense 2 (« some »), but some is not considered as an article. Maybe someone could fix this. Notif. CodeCat ([1]). — Automatik (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference between determiner and article may not be clear, especially not in the minds of Catalan speakers. Articles are a subset of determiners, to begin with. —CodeCat 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would this be unclear especially for Catalan speakers? --Hekaheka (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The English word some is not identical in usage to Catalan un. I think it is correct that they are different parts of speech. --WikiTiki89 17:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of the plural uns is not unlike the French des, except that it's not mandatory. It merely emphasises the indefiniteness somewhat, but its meaning is vague and hard to define. Section 3.2.4 of "Catalan: A Comprehensive Grammar" gives more details. —CodeCat 18:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wengerocracy and Civilocity[edit]

A form of government where the people watch and listen to the leader of the country the entire time that person is leading the country. As a definition has changed so has a word in this case. From civilocity wengerocracy emerged to glamorize the authorship of the person who coined and copyrighted civilocity. Wengerocracy is a form of government where the people watch the ruler entirely amongst their reign. Now there simply is a government that exists in which the people can watch and listen to the leader of their country the entire time that person is leading their country. A politically satire work was written in 2007 called 'Trunks and Asses - the world of elephants and donkeys, republicans and democrats' which has become a solution for all those who perished because of a leader of a country covering up unlawful behavior.

We're a descriptive dictionary, so we limit ourselves to terms that people have actually used (please see WT:CFI). Wiktionary is not for terms people make up, unless they catch on and are used independently of the person who made them up. Please don't create entries for these, as they'll only be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

とし for 紀[edit]

Is とし a nanori reading of ? I just came across it at the entry 一紀 (Kazutoshi), in case anyone wants to know where I found it. @TAKASUGI Shinji, Tsukuyone: --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

とし is listed as a nanori reading in Daijisen ([2]). Tsukuyone (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Tsukuyone; that website looks like a gold mine for nanori readings. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Plural form of "Stradivarius"[edit]

The entry depicts "Stradivariuses", but Merriam-Webster goes with the (Latin-influenced?) "Stradivarii" - any opinions? --Chester br (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Both are attested. I added it to the entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There are apparently about 25% more google books pages that have stradivarii than have stradivariuses. It might be possible to show that one is currently more popular than another, but it seems likely to be close. Whichever you use, few will misunderstand you. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
One usage example adds an additional complication:
  • 2009, Yehudi Menuhin, The Violin: An Illustrated History, page 96:
    Although I had spent my life thus far with two very great Stradivarii violins I had always wanted to own and play a Guarnerius as well.
At first I thought this was an error for "two very great Stradivarius violins". But it turns out that in addition to Antonio Stradivari(us), his son, Omobono Stradivari(us) was in the business and there were other workers in the business, which operated under the family name. Thus the great violinist also has good English diction, selecting the plural form of the noun for attributive use, which selection implies that the author believes that a "Stradivarius" is not necessarily produced solely by Antonio. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Klondike - English dialect use?[edit]

I recently heard someone described as a 'klondike'. When I queried this use of the word I was told it was another word for a 'clot', itself a shortening of 'clod-hopper' or someone who works the soil. Has anyone else heard this dialect use of 'klondike'?

<-ele> as a suffix also appears to be currently the suffix <-éle> in the French <clientéle>.[edit]

I am doing some work to locate memes in English and the languages from which they are derived. <-ele> as a suffix appears also to be the suffix <-éle> in the French <clientéle>. It appears to be absent as a suffix in Wiktionary.

That brings up the obvious question: is it really a suffix on its own, or is it only borrowed as part of whole words that were borrowed from other languages? clientele is a good example: we already had client via Old French from centuries before, but we didn't borrow the suffix and add it to client- instead we borrowed the whole word directly from modern French clientèle as a unit.
To show that it's an English word, you would have to show that it has some kind of meaning or function that it adds to English words. After all, most English speakers would have no clue how a word would be changed by adding -ele to it. If you made up a word like "blergele", you'd have a hard time getting people to figure out what it meant, but if you talked about someone being "blergish" they might figure it meant something like "resembling a blerg". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that it's -èle in French, not -éle. Lmaltier (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that clientèle derives from the Latin word clientela. The -èle suffix derives from clientèle. Lmaltier (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Need to learn greek language[edit]

I need to start off with the correct way of the alphabet

Check out Wikibooks. Their section on the alphabet is pretty good. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It would also help to know which kind of Greek you're trying to learn: Modern Greek (which we call Greek) isn't the same as Ancient Greek. Even though they share the same alphabet (give or take some diacritics), the pronunciation is quite different, and the grammar has differences as well.
Ancient Greek is what you would want if you're interested in the history, language and/or literature of Europe and parts of Asia before the fall of the Roman Empire, while Modern Greek would be best for communication with Greek people or if you're going to travel to Greece. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

back#Etymology 1[edit]

<back> etymology <The adverb represents an aphetic form of aback.> This is extremely difficult for a normal English user to interpret. Even if you follow the <aphetic> link. What is the <adverb> that it refers to in any case? —This unsigned comment was added by GHibbs (talkcontribs) at 8:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

The Adverb section follows the Adjective section of Etymology 1 and precedes the Noun section. The entry table of contents is supposed to help.
I have given up trying to prevent Wiktionary from becoming a linguists-only indulgence. DCDuring TALK 08:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I inserted that link in aphetic, which refers to aphesis but also gives an example ("pon from upon"). It's true that explanations could be sometimes cryptic, but remember that this is etymology, not common language: technical matters use technical words (as if you want to explain the difference between hacksaw and chainsaw). When you read the Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European words and etyms there is the same problem. Fortunately you can learn so much about this things even within the boundaries of Wiktionary. Sobreira (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian "г"[edit]

We romanise "г" as "g" for these languages and it matches Wikipedia but was "h" an alternative? Standard Russian "г" is "g" but not Ukrainian and Belarusian (/ɦ/). Russian European South uses "h" /ɣ/ or /ɦ/, also common among Russian speakers in Ukraine and Belarus and Russian ecclesiastical workers often also tend to use it quite often (the reason is unknown to me). Was /g/ borrowed from South Slavic languages or was it the original phonology? Educated Russians often frown upon /ɣ/ but it's still common and quite spread. Notably, Mikhail Gorbachov pronounced /ɣ/ (he is from the South Russian Stavropol krai). I found it also interesting that Russian and Polish (also Kashubian and Lower Sorbian) stand out from the rest of East and West Slavic languages, both use /g/ in Slavic cognates and the rest of East and West Slavic languages use a cognate of a voiced /h/. Only South Slavic languages all have "g". Appendix:Proto-Slavic/gora is one of good examples to show the split between "g" and "h". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Proto-Slavic itself had both [g] and [ɣ] as dialectal variations. As time went on, different groups of speakers stabilized around one or the other as a standard. Regardless, the actual pronunciation of OCS should not affect our Romanization of it. --WikiTiki89 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. i wasn't suggesting to change it. It would matter if the common or standard pronunciation was [ɣ] in Old Church Slavonic. Is it possible that it was more common or standard? Pronunciation of бог (box) makes me think so. What about Old Russian? I haven't found much on Old Russian (Old East Slavic) pronunciation. It seems /g/ appeared in 12-16 centuries only. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that both versions existed in Old Russian, with the [g] becoming more common in the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the [ɣ] in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Russian recension of Church Slavonic had and still has [ɣ], which influenced words like Бог (Bog) and Господь (Gospodʹ). There is no way to know which one was actually more common OCS, but the closest modern relatives of OCS all have [g]. --WikiTiki89 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Re: Muscovy and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Yes, perhaps. How did Polish /g/ come about? Lithuanian cognates also seem to have /g/, e.g. nagas (from *noga). Re: the closest modern relatives of OCS all have [g]. That's what I mentioned before, /g/ may have been borrowed from South Slavic via OCS. It's not my theory, just a thought. BTW, the original, common and standard spelling for "God" in Russian is lower case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In case you missed my point, I think that West Slavic also had both, with [g] becoming more common in parts of Poland and [ɣ] elsewhere. Sorbian is a good example of why I think both pronunciations were maintained in parallel in each Slavic sub-group. I don't think that the either the Russian or Polish [g] were "borrowed" from South Slavic. Re: Capitalization. Why is Господь (Gospodʹ) capitalized then? --WikiTiki89 12:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Re capitalization: the usage note at бог (bog) implies the capitalization in Russian is similar to that in English: capitalized when referring to the monotheistic God, lowercase when referring to a polytheistic god. My Russian Bible always capitalizes Бог (Bog) in reference to the God of Judaism and Christianity, e.g. Genesis 3:5: "Но знает Бог, что в день, в который вы вкусите их, откроются глаза ваши, и вы будете, как боги, знающие добро и зло." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, this must have changed rather recently and it seems to match English now. I don't read the Bible, so I haven't paid attention to the spellings but in literature and casual writing бог/боже господь/господи are usually in lower case. Capitalised Господь/Господи are not new but there was no rule to capitalisation before, as far as I know. Anyway, the capitalisation has now been standardised when referring to the monotheistic God but various sources have different views about other usages, e.g. "По усмотрению пишущего выбирается строчная или прописная буква в слове Б/бог в устойчивых выражениях Б/бог даст, не приведи Б/бог, слава Б/богу и т. п." (in set expressions it's up to the author). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

" --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, capitalization in the Bible does not always match capitalization elsewhere. For example, I would never capitalize "he" in my own writing even if it refers to a capitalized G-d. --WikiTiki89 13:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen "he" capitalized in reference to God in an English-language Bible (or the Book of Common Prayer) either. I've only seen it in nonliturgical and nonscriptural texts such as tracts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
After Googling around, it seems that you are right. Maybe it's just Jewish translations then. For example, see Deuteronomy 14:23 in the JPS: "And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, [] ". While the KJV, which the JPS is almost entirely based on, has "And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, [] ". The Chabad translation even capitalizes "His Name" in the same passage. I'm not really sure why they do all that though, since Hebrew does not have any notion of capital letters at all. Maybe it's just to clarify who the pronouns are referring to. --WikiTiki89 02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article specifically about the /ɡ/ > /ɣ/ > /ɦ/ change in Slavic, but /ɡ/ is definitely the oldest pronunciation, so the answer to a question like "How did Polish /ɡ/ come about?" is simply "It never changed." The change looks to me like a typical wave model kind of sound change that started somewhere in the middle of its current territory and then spread outward, regardless of the genetic affiliation of the languages it touched: it affects Eastern Slavic (uk, be, rue, dialects of ru), Southern Slavic (dialects of sl), and Western Slavic (sk, cs, hsb) languages but isn't complete in any Slavic branch. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That might be a better explanation. Although, it seems to be inconsistent with the fact that Russian Church Slavonic has [ɣ], even in [g] territory. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe at one point the /ɣ/ pronunciations were more prestigious than the /ɡ/ and so were used in liturgical language even though they weren't used in everyday speech. Or maybe Christianity spread from a ɣ-region to a ɡ-region, taking the ɣ-pronunciation with it for liturgical use but not everyday use. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the Kievan Rus' was centered around, well, Kiev, it would have had the fricative pronunciation as a prestige dialect originally. So that likely laid the foundation for the Eastern Church Slavonic pronunciation. —CodeCat 13:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

stammer vs stutter[edit]

Any evidence that stammer is more British and stutter more American, other than the naming of the w:Category:Stuttering associations? Sobreira (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Books Ngrams suggests that in American English stammer was more common than stutter until about 1940, then they were about equal for 40 years, and since 1980 stutter has been more common, while in British English stammer has always been more common, though in recent years stutter has started catching up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly complicating this analysis is the fact that (certainly in BrE) "stutter" has a much wider range of possible uses than "stammer", which is used almost exclusively for speech. For example, an engine can stutter, a running person can stutter, etc. The Wiktionary definition does not seem to cover those extended meanings. 23:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I included this other meaning with the very same examples. Sobreira (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanx so much. Sobreira (talk) 13:03, 18 September 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. But not in the meaning of the changeling (I changed/swapped/exchanged my son for another). Sobreira (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You can definitely say "I changed the baby" to means you changed its nappy, but "My son told me to change him" sounds to me like he was talking about his nappy, not his shoes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Changing a baby usually implies the "nappy", but can refer to the baby's clothes in general. It would be odd if it referred only to the shoes, in which case it would have said "change his shoes". --WikiTiki89 15:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Violence as involving physical force[edit]

I'm a bit surprised by the definitions provided for violence; I've typically heard the word used to imply *physical* force or action. Would that be an appropriate change to add to definition 2? The current "Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering." doesn't capture that, and the usage quotes don't make the distinction clear. -- Creidieki (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of German ⟨or⟩[edit]

I note that in entries for German words containing ⟨or⟩ within a syllable (e.g., morgen, Morgen, sorgen), this sequence is often rendered as /ɔʁ/ in our IPA transcription (or at least one of the IPA transcriptions presented). Is this really correct? I don't believe I've ever heard that particular realization—in my experience it's always /ɔɐ̯/ (or /ɔr/ for many southern varieties). I think that most native speakers would find /ɔʁ/ awkward to articulate, particularly when followed by a velar stop as in my examples. Is this a case where we're using the symbol "ʁ" to stand in for some underspecified realization, the way "r" is used for IPA transcriptions of English ⟨r⟩ on the English Wikipedia? If so, it wasn't clear to me from our pronunciation key (though maybe I'm overlooking something). —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll hear a truly consonantal [ʁ] in careful pronunciation, not so much in colloquial speech. I think it makes sense to include it in a broad phonemic transcription, but a narrow transcription should probably list both [ɔʁ] and [ɔɐ̯]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


One definition at sluice is "To elide the C` in a coordinated wh-question". Any ideas what that means ? It's something linguistic, so maybe the definition should have a tag or be made easier to understand? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a better explanation at sluicing. Might still be improvable. Equinox 12:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

czysta and trzysta in polish[edit]

In Wikipedia czysta and trzysta are given as examples in the article on affricatives and as an example in the IPA guide for Polish in Wiktionary. However, when I listen to the audio samples czysta sounds to me like the English word tryst. And, the trz in the word trzysta sounds like the tch in the English word witch. —This unsigned comment was added by Dogshed (talkcontribs) at 17:59, 11 September 2014‎.

So what's your question? --WikiTiki89 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

fanny = sex?[edit]

The entry for fanny includes a vulgar UK usage defined as: "Sex; similar to North American pussy". But the example sentence is, "This club is full of fanny" where "fanny" doesn't seem to mean sex. I can imagine that perhaps people say, "I got me some fanny" like "pussy" in the US, but I don't think the example sentence is correct. --BB12 (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(UK native) I agree. The use in "This club is full of fanny" is an extension of sense 1, "the female genitalia", to mean (vulgarly) women, especially attractive young women. I am not convinced about the separate sense 3 at all. Perhaps a "by extension ..." entry could be inserted after sense 1, or perhaps all UK vulgar senses should be merged in one definition. 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As fanny ~ ass, it would not be much of a stretch to substitute it for ass in the various senses and collocations in which ass in the relevant set of senses fits. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's true only in the US (as far as I know- I don't know about Canada). Besides, in US usage it's so innocuous and innocent that the example sentence would be pretty silly if it were meant that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See here for a few Google Books examples of "[get] some fanny" in the relevant sense AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's almost exactly like pussy. Doesn't mean sex per se because it can't mean sex with a man. "This club is full of fanny" would mean 'full of female potential sexual partners, especially for one-night stand style sex'. What does pussy say, that would be a good starting point? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It says "Sexual intercourse with a woman." Renard Migrant (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The meaning of sexual intercourse under pussy has the example sentence: "I’m gonna get me some pussy tonight." A sentence like that seems more appropriate for the fanny meaning. For both terms, perhaps a definition along the lines of "a potential female sexual object" (as per RM above) should be added for things like "there is a lot of pussy/fanny in this club tonight." In a related issue, it seems odd that "fanny" cannot be used for men since the meaning is ass. Searching GB for "some fanny" "gay" yields no relevant hits, though, so perhaps this usage does not exist even in gay contexts. --BB12 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
In the U.S., the "ass" meaning of fanny is far too innocuous and even childish for gay men to want to use it to refer to sex. I'm an American gay man myself and I cannot imagine myself or any other gay man I know ever saying "I'm gonna get some fanny tonight". It would be as ridiculous as using tush, tushie or toches in the same context. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but we are talking about the vulgar British meaning of fanny :) --BB12 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought at first too, and then you wrote "it seems odd that 'fanny' cannot be used for men since the meaning is ass" so I thought we had widened the scope of the discussion. Anyway, gay men do sometimes use "pussy" and "cunt" (often compounded with boy-) to refer to other men and their anuses, so if British gay men never use fanny that way, maybe it is an anomaly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It has been changed, but it still isn't right. The definition is "Sexual intercourse with a woman". The example sentence is "This club is full of fanny". "This club is full of fanny" definitely does not mean "This club is full of sexual intercourse with a woman". 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

jabłko, Polish[edit]

The two pronunciations in IPA don't seem to be like the audio at all. Also, compare the recording on Forvo, http://www.forvo.com/word/jab%C5%82ko/#pl To me it sounds like ['ja.bu.kɔ], three syllables. Here's another recording. http://shtooka.net/listen/pol/jab%C5%82ko Maybe it's ['ja.bu.ko̞]

All of them are correct: jabłko may be pronounced [ˈjap.w̥kɔ] or [ˈjap.kɔ]. NB—if it were pronounced as you suggest, the word stress would be on bu, not ja. In Polish, the penultimate syllable is stressed. —Stephen (Talk) 09:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I listened to all of them a few times, I don't see any reason to believe that the [w] is devoiced. I hope no one would mind if I change [ˈjabw̥.kɔ] to [ˈjabw.kɔ]. --WikiTiki89 20:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

lowe quotation[edit]

Could someone check if this is okay? (Would it be better to add it to Lowe?) Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I added links to translator and author. It should not be at [[Lowe#English]]. I also note that the Burton translation is not one of those listed in the WP article on Luís de Camões. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in Russian word article [edit]

Hi. Excuse me if I'm in the wrong forum for this type of topic. I happened to notice that the nominative/accusative singular of the Russian noun "словарь" in the English wiktionary are erroneous. Please note that I am not an expert in the Russian language. I have merely been learning the language as a hobby for the last two and a half years, which is why I am reluctant to try to edit the article myself. Also I don't know how to edit, so if someone would be so kind as to correct it I'd be grateful. Thanks.

This has been fixed now, thank you for pointing out. --Vahag (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Vahagn beat me to it. Thanks! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(I didn't notice you have already replied, anyway, thanks both again) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Could someone please add the pronunciation (IPA, audio would be nice too of course). I mainly asked because a player called Falcão signed for Manchester United and I'd like to be able pronounce it right (not [fʌlkaʊ] which is what English speakers tend to say). I think it might be /fal.kã/ but I'm not sure. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ungoliant has added the Brazilian pronunciation (which can also be found in WP's article on Brazilian Paulo Roberto Falcão). This bizarre video for "fascist superhero Capitão Falcão" pronounces the word at the 11 second mark. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Dankeschön, danke schön, danke and thanks. TIA! [grin!][edit]

Due to real-life limitations, I can only post this here, so thank you in advance to anyone who can decide which of my points could be made into valid edits. I might make it back here to read any answers, but my health usually won't let me follow up anywhere, so I got to data-dump while I can.

On English WP, I wanted to say "thanks!" to a native German speaker, so I came here to verify spelling and copy the umlaut O. :) Poking around a bit, I found the four above entries here.

  1. I think all these entries should be cross-linked and linked from their English translations.
  2. The difference or lack thereof between dankeschön and danke schön should be mentioned in those two entries.
  3. In the danke entry, does the Related terms section fall under just the Verb section or also the rest of the German danke section? In other words, I couldn't add the two schön entries to that Related terms section because I didn't know if it was also a sub-section of the Interjection subheading. (Oh, I hope that makes sense!)
  4. Should a note be made about the song "Danke Schoen" and the reason why it's spelled that way, maybe with a link to WP?
  5. Should a link be made from the schön entry to these entries and vice versa?
  6. In the thanks entry, there's an image of that word with a caption that simply says, "Thanks" The image's info page says, "New Orleans: Thank you message in the grotto of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church; added by those for whom prayer or miracles were granted." If this were WP, I'd base a new caption on that description, maybe starting with, "The word 'Thanks' on a votive plaque..." It occurred to me that maybe Wiktionary has a rule that captions must that simple, so I didn't make the change.

Well, there you are, and I hope this helps somehow, so, thanks! And danke! --Geekdiva (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"avian ingestion" heteronym ?[edit]

As I am not a native speaker of English, I'm posting here for clarification/editing of the "avian ingestion" entry.

In the entry, "bird strike" is mentioned as heteronym. This is clearly wrong as an heteronym is "A word having the same spelling as another, but a different pronunciation and meaning.".

However, I was wondering if "bird strike" should be considered as synonym or merely a related term not to "avian ingestion" ? The entry should be corrected anyway. -- Dodecaplex (talk)

Perhaps the contributor is trying to get at the apparent use of bird strike outside of aviation. That would possibly make avian ingestion (and bird ingestion) a hyponym of its hypernym bird strike. We should get citations for the use outside of aviation as bird strike at OneLook Dictionary Search only shows aviation definitions, except for the WP article. In the meantime, with the definitions given they are all synonyms. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

testbed: definition is not general enough[edit]


Any platform (hardware or software) used as a basis for experimentation


a vehicle (as an airplane) used for testing new equipment (as engines or weapons systems); broadly : any device, facility, or means for testing something in development


I checked the TILF given as reference and none is said about Greek coming from Sanskrit. I guess they could be cognates, but not GR derived from HIN. Any further notice? Sobreira (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Some Scottish football fans have suggested they may refrain from singing Flower of Scotland at Scotland's next football match as a way of reacting to the Scottish vote to remain in the UK. One fan, quoted in several papers, said google:"The anthem is completely redundant now." Is this a common use of redundant? Is it one that [[redundant]] covers? It doesn't seem to mean "superfluous", "repetitive, needlessly wordy", or "providing back up in the event another component fails". I guess it could mean "dismissed from employment", though I thought that sense applied only to employees (i.e. people, and in fictional settings possibly animals, aliens, robots, etc). It seems to me to mean something like "meaningless" or "impossible to take seriously", given that the comment quoted immediately before it is "How can we possibly sing Flower of Scotland when it contains the ridiculous line of 'But we can still rise now and be the nation again'?" - -sche (discuss) 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it does mean "superfluous". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

German months[edit]

Months in German have a few synonyms, I recently noticed. Have a look at some of the entries for them, which are bundled together:

Some are tagged archaic, others obsolete, some nouns with others proper nouns, others poetic, others don't exist. Perhaps someone with more German knowledge than me could check them over, as I guess there should be some kind of uniformity to this set. Danke. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

These are basically never used anymore, except in historical or pagan contexts. I doubt many people in Germany even know what they are. —CodeCat 16:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Good catch! There are actually many more month names than even that list suggests, e.g. August is not just Ernting but Erntemonat and Erntemond, as well as Ährenmonat, and rarely also Sichelmonat. Some names have multiple senses: in some books, Wolfsmonat means December, in others it means January, and supposedly in some it means November. I'll see about making a table in the appendix namespace to list all the names, sorted by which modern month they correspond to. It's actually probably not the case that they all deserve the same {{label}}; some are probably purely (obsolete), others (like Ährenmonat, it seems) are (obsolete except historical), others may be (obsolete outside paganism), and Wolfsmond seems to not only be obsolete, but have only been used to refer to historical peoples' calendars, i.e. it seems to be (historical, obsolete) or more verbosely (formerly historical, now obsolete).
As for what part of speech these are ... well, the standard month names (Januar, Februar, usw) are treated as nouns by en.Wikt and by de.Wikt; OTOH, en.Wikt calls the English month names proper nouns. Many have attested plurals, e.g. Julmonate, Februaries. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it would be fully correct to define these as coinciding with modern months, as many of them were not defined strictly in the past and basically expressed a more abstract idea of a time period or part of a season, and not really a month as we know it today. To define Wolfsmonat as just "December, January, November" doesn't do justice to the more general meaning of a name for a certain period of winter. —CodeCat 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We should bring out the auld Germanic month names, IMHO. They go well with the Germanic weekdays. Tharthan (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

about time[edit]

This is shown as an adverb, but is it really? It doesn't seem to behave like other adverbs. It doesn't modify a verb for example. Can it be used anywhere except with be? —CodeCat 23:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to prepositional phrase, perhaps? Equinox 23:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a prepositional phrase because "about" here is an adverb. It a just noun phrase with the same function as just "time", as in "It is time for..." vs. "It is about time for...". Side note: not all adverbs modify verbs (e.g. "very"). --WikiTiki89 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
But "time" can be used on its own like a real noun. This phrase can't. So what do we call it? —CodeCat 21:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
When "time" is "used on its own like a real noun", it is not the same sense of "time" as in the phrase "it is time". --WikiTiki89 21:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


How can this relatively recent word have an "obsolete" sense? How do the two senses differ, anyhow? Equinox 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also interesting that a neologism (allistic) is used to define an obsolete term. The tag "obsolete" was added by an anon who seems to have an agenda of checking everything related to autism. The same person also added the second definition. I would assume that he wants to point out that being not autistic is not a sufficient condition for being neurotypical. I would be inclined towards deleting the first sense as redundant. And once we get going, why keep the noun section at all? Isn't it describing a rather normal way of using an adjective as a noun? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Shrilly" pronunciation[edit]

The entry for shrilly says it rhymes with ɪli. I geminate the L in pronunciation (which I think would be written -ɪl.li). Am I alone? "ʃɹɪli" sounds silly.

No, you're not alone. I say /ˈʃɹɪl.li/ too, at least in careful speech. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears it may have both pronunciations. Forvo has two recordings, one from the UK with /l.l/ and one from the US with /l/, but I doubt /l.l/ vs /l/ is a UK-US difference; I think it's just chance that their US informant uses the one variant and their UK informant uses the other. - -sche (discuss) 15:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Is there a word in other languages for this too? Wyang (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Appletard, Mactard (derogatory). Equinox 01:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, are there any non-derogatory terms? Wyang (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Applehead (see -head) might be attestable. Equinox 01:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Page Creation Request[edit]

Hi! I would like to request for a "Tom Gates" page to be made, he is a author that writes books! Many kids love him and his amazing funny books!

This is something you should do at Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary, provided he is notable enough for Wikipedia's notability requirements. --WikiTiki89 17:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In our use, is a gender-neutral pronoun. Is it a wrong?[edit]

Further comments here: User_talk:Atitarev#.E4.BB.96_is_a_gender-neutral_pronoun.

I'm a Chinese native speaker. OK, I'm a Trad. Chinese speaker. In our common use, is a gender-neutral pronoun for all gender. Not only in talk, but also in dictionary. It is defined for a pronoun other than you and me, not defined gender.

I have discussed it with someone, someone make me discuss it at here with others. Zero00072 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added usage notes from dictionaries you have provided. The standard modern usage in standard Chinese for 他 is "he", though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this is considered traditional Chinese or Taiwanese usage only? Pleco, Wenlin and several other mainland dictionaries don't show it as gender-neutral. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
is coined by 劉半農 since 1930s. In traditional, we do not use . Zero00072 (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Also see this [[3]]. Zero00072 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Your last link is not right. I've linked my talk page since there were a lot of comments there. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The second link is broken because of the web site design. I have appended new links. Zero00072 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You can not find any in wikipedia:Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber which book is well known for most of Chinese native speakers, can you? In originally and traditionary, is for all gender. Chinese native speaker do not identify a third person's gender in general use. Zero00072 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's also worth noting the distinction between speakers and readers and writers. The difference between traditional and simplified Chinese is a difference in spelling -- this has nothing to do with speech (so far as I know). The characters and are both pronounced the same in Mandarin, as with a high tone. So in speech, there is no difference -- there is only the one third-person singular pronoun . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Eirikr, yes, it's all about the written form. The characters are pronounced identically. @Zero00072: Thanks for making your user page, now I can guess that you're from Taiwan. Is that right? Character doesn't seem as popular on Taiwanese sites as it is in mainland China. I found another confirmation of your claim - gender-neutrality (Wenlin - ABC dictionary, correcting my previous post). Of course, 她 won't appear in old texts or in classical Chinese. Perhaps, we should change the usage notes? I can add she/her to the definition line but I'd like to get some confirmation from mainlanders, if 他 is really used for both sexes in modern standard Chinese (Mandarin) (all dialects/topolects and classical Chinese seem gender-neutral) and if it (modern) gender-neutrality is specific to Taiwan and some overseas Chinese communities. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I'm from Taiwan. I am happily that you can listen to our recommends. My idea is also adding she/her to the definition line, and explain some why or usage. I just want all Chinese learner who references to this dictionary not to ignore this definition and limit for only he. I also should to ask some of our friends from China to confirm it is a different between our educations. Zero00072 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

baptism by fire vs. baptism of fire[edit]

Is there really this suggested difference that "baptism of fire" is used in the military context and "baptism by fire" is reserved for non-military ordeals, or are we just confusing? According to Google Ngram "of" is more popular. Is there some reason for not combining the content of the two entries under "baptism of fire" and making "baptism by fire" an alternative-form-of entry? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The "of" form sounds a bit strange to me. Checking Google News for the last month for both shows that ALL of the "by" usage was North American and almost all of the "of" usage was not, but there is more than half again as much usage of the "of" version. For both the News usage was mostly sports. It would seem the concept is more used outside of North America and that the "of" form dominates there.
In the Authorized KJV Matthew 3:11 has "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire", with clearly conveying agency. But other NT references seem to use fire in the genitive in Greek.
Many books on baptism refer both to "baptism by fire" and "baptism of fire" as if they were interchangeable. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"clue-by-four" origin[edit]

I am curious where the term "clue-by-four" originally came from. The Wiktionary entry for it shows it in use as far back as 1993 (under citations), but I can't quite figure out what that means. Someone used the term on a message board in 1993?

I'm trying to find the first known use of this phrase - in a movie, or a TV show, etc. -- -- 12:58, 24 September 2014 User:KannD86

It's an allusion to desiring to hit an annoying person with a 2-by-4 piece of wood. Conceptually, one hits a clueless person with a "clue-by-four" to give them a clue. I would guess that it originated in the BBS or Usenet world, and is not a media reference... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

been to[edit]

Lately I've noticed that this construction cannot be used with any other form of the verb "to be". When it needs to be used in the present or future tense, it is replaced with "go to" ("I've never been to an island, but I am going to one this weekend."). I'm curious about the origin of this construction, whether anyone else finds it odd, and whether/how we can/should lemmatize it (perhaps simply been to?). Maybe it would even be appropriate to say that "been to" is an alternative past participle of "go to" used only for certain senses. --WikiTiki89 21:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, "been" can substitute for the past participle of "go" in certain contexts, but there is no way you can say it actually is a past participle of "go". By the way there is an article on the subject here, which you may have already seen. He gives other examples, such as "gone/been into", "gone/been over", etc., which show that this substitution is not confined to "gone/been to". 03:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
So, to complete that thought, my suggestion would be to put an entry under "been" reading "substitutes for 'gone' in certain phrases such as [examples]". 03:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we can't say it is a past participle of "go". After all, we do say that "went" is the past tense of "go" even though it's really just a substitute. But thanks for the article, I had not already seen it. --WikiTiki89 11:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The article's argument clearly suggests that been can be used in the same sense with other locative expressions such as home, away, on the road, so an entry for been to would not come close to doing justice to the usage. Perhaps it could host a redirect to a usage note at [[go#Verb]].
A usage note at [[go]] could refer to the specific senses for which been is a permissible or preferred substitute for gone. Failing to specify the senses seems inadequate. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't find an applicable sense of go. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I spoke earlier about "substituting", actually, in the case of "been to", it is more than that since the meaning is of course different. "I've been to Paris" =/= "I've gone to Paris". In some other cases, though, the meaning seems the same, e.g. "I've gone/been over the figures". So it seems that these can't all be lumped together. 20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The absence of forms other than past participle together with a significant difference in meaning between the expression with gone and been seems to me to be limited among prepositional phrase modifiers to those with for and to (including compounds like into, over to). All of the other locational prepositions, like at, in, and on can be used with be in the present (and other) tenses. In these cases, the been version seems to indicate that the state described no longer obtains, whereas the gone form implies that the state still obtains.
He had gone for a run. | He had been for a run. - clear difference
She has gone to Sheffield. | She has been to Sheffield. - clear difference
They will have gone around to the house. | They will have been around to the house. - difference
The dog has gone onto the bed. | The dog has been onto the bed. - some difference?
In each case except possibly the last the present tense of be is not possible, IMO.
It think both for and to have elements of some kind of accomplishment that may or may not be complete, but apparently some kind of change to an "away" location is needed. This kind of distinction doesn't happen with come.
It seems to me that it is not that go has two past participle but rather that be can't be used except in the perfect tenses with prepositional phrases headed by to and for. DCDuring TALK 05:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
But "be" can be used with other prepositions too, as noted above, e.g. "been over/through the figures". 12:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I was having trouble finding other prepositions where there was both:
  1. a difference in meaning between the expression "been + PREP + OBJ" and "gone + PREP + OBJ" and
  2. no use of "other forms of be + PREP + OBJ.
I concentrated on prepositions because there are relatively few of them and they seem to me to span the range of locative and metaphorically locative possibilities. I'd be happy to find that I'd missed something. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Re "I've been to Paris" =/= "I've gone to Paris": My point was that the word "go" in other tenses has both meanings, but in the past participle there is a distinction between "gone" and "been". Thus the choice of "been" or "gone" depends on the intended sense of "go". --WikiTiki89 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
In case it's of any relevance, the Dutch copula zijn (cognate with be in part) also has this sense. But it's not limited to only the past participle; the present and past finite forms can also be used this way. So it may be a more universal thing and not limited to English alone. What about other Germanic languages? —CodeCat 18:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's probably of relevance, but I'd need some historical grammarian to help me with the interpretation. I have only Curme and a short Jespersen grammar to help with that. I don't know where I could get convenient library access to the complete long Jespersen. DCDuring TALK 21:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Does compendial merit an article? The word is used in relation to pharmacopoeia. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We didn't, but now do, have the specific pharmaceutical industry subsense of compendium, from which compendial seems to be derived. I haven't yet found any use of the term outside of the pharmaceutical industry. It is certainly attestable.
I think pharmacopeial (from pharmacopeia) is nearly synonymous, though it may be a hyponym referring principally to the US Pharmacopeia and the US Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., its publisher. Also, pharmacopoeia and its derived term pharmacopoeial seem to be used with respect to all other comparable national and international standards. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, DCDuring! Ours seems to be the first dicitionary to include "compendial". --CopperKettle (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

kuff, kuffs[edit]

Some treat this a singular, even though the Arabic root of the English borrowing 'kuffar' is plural (so they write 'a kuff', 'these kuffs', 'the kuffs'). Others (I supppose with a better knowledge of Arabic) treat it as plural ('the kuff', 'those kuff'). I don't know how to treat this using 'en-noun'. At the moment I have left it with the plural 'kuffs' displayed for want of a better option, especially as I don't usually make English entries. Thanks for any help. Kaixinguo (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have been on all kinds of dodgy websites looking for citations. In the end I gave up as I don't want to be put on some kind of list. Kaixinguo (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Twitter considered durably archived? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It won't be on 'Usenet' as the people using the word were probably not yet born when that was fashionable. Kaixinguo (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

dúr Irish, in the entry for dour.[edit]

dúr Irish, in the entry for dour.

If you click dúr the only entry is Icelandic.

If you search dur you find neither the Irish nor the Icelandic. GHibbs (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you look at dur, you will see a "see also dúr" at the very top. The dúr page just needs to have the Irish added. Irish dúr means stupid. Also, dour needs the Scottish Gaelic added. —Stephen (Talk) 09:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm adding it now. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, the Scottish Gaelic is dùr, dour would be Scots. I'm not exactly au fait with Scots, so someone might want to check that bit. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Scots is not a separate language, just a dialect or variety of English. Some words from regional dialects remain confined to their regions, while others make their way into the "universal" language. "dour" is in the latter category, so there is no meaningful distinction between the ordinary English-language word and a supposed "Scots" word. 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Here at Wiktionary, Scots is definitely a separate language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If Wiktionary truly considered Scots a separate language then about 20,000 ordinary English words in common use by "Scots" speakers would have to be given separate "Scots" entries. In fact, Wiktionary simply lists special dialect words and spellings. 14:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's true that the majority of our Scots entries are for words or spellings that are different from standard English, but we do have some exceptions, such as Aristotle, electrical, electromagnetic, mine and technological. At any rate we certainly have no rules excluding Scots words whose spellings and meanings are identical to their English equivalents. If people want to add them, they're more than welcome. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative pronunciations of /-ʌl, -oʊl, -ʊl/ in English[edit]

As suggested by -sche (talkcontribs), I am opening this topic here. I've never used the Tea Room before, so I don't necessarily know what to expect, or how this is all supposed to work. This topic extends existing discussing already started User talk:Angr#bold in North American English here. The topic is the gradual and pervasive merger of /-l̩, -ʌl, -oʊl, -ʊl/ in General American and North American English in general, especially among the Millennial Generation. And through -sche's edits, this topic seems to have been expanded to cover the treatment of /-əʊl/ in U.K. English and how it becomes more like [-ɔʊɫ] (the wholly-holy split). The latter situation seems to be better studied and documented than the former situation, and yet anyone who watches American television knows it's commonplace for Millennials to merge /-l̩, -ʌl, -oʊl, -ʊl/ into a common /-l̩/ sound. Many of us who speak so-affected forms of North American English know there is more often than not no difference in the pronunciation of pairs like bold-bulled, bowl-bull, coal-cull, cold-culled, colt-cult, dole-dull, foal-full, goal-gull, hold-hulled, hole-hull, knoll-null, mold-mulled, mole-mull, pole-pull, scold-skulled, seminal-Seminole, and such. Differences that do exist in speech either sound very dated, elderly-accented, or only distinct sometimes when enunciated, and even in enunciation the exact pronunciation often requires consulting a dictionary to see which vowel a word used to have. Since dictionaries are descriptive as well as prescriptive, there seems no harm in providing additional alternative pronunciations with a broad transcription of /-l̩/ where these mergers occur.

"Mono-" means "one", and "-cle" is a kind of slaw. - Steve Smith, American Dad

- Gilgamesh (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As a native speaker of GAE, I do not pronounce any of those pairs alike, although I do suppose they could possibly sound similar, especially in mumbled speech. And I do not doubt there may be individuals out there who may pronounce them the same, but it's not so widespread that it has even caught my attention enough. Also I think we'd be jumping the gun to describe differentiation in the above pairs as "dated"...it's not. Leasnam (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I will have to ask all of my over-34 elderly acquaintances whether they have noticed this. I am too old to have any non-elderly acquaintances. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Lol, then I am glad I do not qualify as either. Ask Avril Lavigne, she might know :p —This unsigned comment was added by Leasnam (talkcontribs).
The Atlas of North American English by William Labov and his coworkers reports on the results of a telephone survey of 762 native English speakers from the U.S. and Canada. Of all these people, they found exactly one (a male from Pittsburgh born in the 1930s) for whom full, fool, and cold all have the same vowel (culture had a different vowel, though). A few other people may merge two of these three sequences (especially full/fool) but not all three. Before we add pronunciations like "/kl̩d/" to cold I would like to see some scholarly recognition that (1) such a merger exists more than sporadically and (2) that the merged vowel is really /l̩/, which seems highly implausible (/kʊld/ I could believe, but /kl̩d/ with no vowel at all beggars belief). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Like Angr, I'd like to see scholarly recognition / evidence of this supposed phenomenon. Anecdotally, since it came up on Angr's talk page that he's 46 and Gilgamesh is 34, I should point out that when I say I've never heard this supposed millennial pronunciation, I'm 26, and most of my American friends (from such varied places as Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, and Illinois) are in their 20s, too, and I don't recall hearing them merge "bull" and "bowl", "(mono)cle" and "cole", etc. One of my American friends teaches at a ?high? school now (or middle school? I'm not sure); I'll ask her if her pupils merge these sounds. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on vowel changes before /l/ does mention, with frustratingly little detail, that "Labov, Ash, and Boberg (2006: 73) mention four mergers before /l/ that may be under way in some accents of North American English, and which require more study: /ʊl/ and /ol/ (bull vs bowl), /ʌl/ and /ɔl/ (hull vs hall), /ʊl/ and /ʌl/ (bull vs hull), [and] /ʌl/ and /ol/ (hull vs hole)". The work in question seems to be the same one Angr refers to, but perhaps a different edition. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, this article has some info on people in late-1990s Waldorf, Maryland, who merge some or all of pole/pull/pool; this paper by the same author provides more information. This paper by John Riebold (given in 2014) lists "the 'bull'-'bowl' merger (/ʊ, o, ʌ/ before /l/) (Squizzero, 2009)" as one of the features of Northwestern American English.
This is the 2006 Atlas of North American English by Labov et al. which WP cites; at the very end of chapter 9, it says "In the course of the study, Telsur found evidence for a number of other mergers of back vowels before /l/ codas. Figure 9.4 shows a merger of /owl/ with /uwl/ and /ul/. Minimal pairs for these contrasts were introduced in the course of the study but not consistently over the whole Telsur sample. In order of frequency of ʻsameʼ responses, these items were:
– the merger of /ul/ and /owl/ as in bull and bowl;
– the merger of /ʌl/ and /ohl/ as in hull and hall;
– the merger of /ul/ and /ʌl/ as in the rhyming pair bull and hull;
– the merger of /ʌl/ and /owl/ as in hull and hole.
The first three of these at least deserve further study."
These resources are all sadly silent on what vowel it is, exactly, which results from the merger. (I found these by googling "bull-bowl merger" and "pull-pole merger".) - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I belong to this so-called "Millennial Generation" and I make all of these distinctions, as does everyone whose speech I've every paid attention to. The only merger before /l/ that I have is bowl-poll. --WikiTiki89 22:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Its funny Waldorf MD is mentioned above bc earlier this discussion reminded me of Good Charlotte's music and they are from Waldorf i believe. What we're hearing in these mergers, i think, is a fad pronunciation (?, that kids will grow out of?). My nephew went thru this about 2 years ago and it lasted about a week. Leasnam (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh, I did not at all expect all this.
Speaking strictly of my own experiences, I hear this merger constantly, both in media and among my siblings (of whom I am the youngest). And our family has lived in California, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Washington state, and in an overseas American expatriate community where I spent most of my childhood. The people there came from all over the United States, and some from Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries. It's been suggested the merger we're discussing is common in the Pacific Northwest, but I've never lived there (I wasn't born yet when my family lived there). Knowing what I know about phonetics, I'd estimate the merged vowel is [ɤˡ] (L-colored unrounded mid back vowel). All my vowels unround before /ɫ/, and front vowels diphthong into back vowels or L-break before /ɫ/. Trying to round the consonant as [ɫʷ] makes it sound too much like /w/. So this is how my vowels contour before /ɫ/:
/ɫ̩, ʌɫ, oʊɫ, ʊɫ/ → [ɤˡ]
/æɫ, aʊɫ/ → [æɤˡ]
/ɑɫ, ɔɫ/ → [ɑˡ]
/aɪɫ/ → [ɑi.ɤˡ ~ aɛɤˡ]
/ɛɫ/ → [ɛɤˡ]
/eɪɫ/ → [ɛi.ɤˡ ~ eɤˡ]
/ɪɫ/ → [ɪɤˡ]
/iɫ/ → [i.ɤˡ ~ iɯˡ]
/ɔɪɫ/ → [ɔi.ɤˡ ~ ɔɛɤˡ]
/uɫ/ → [ɯˡ]
So let's say this merger is indeed some kind of regional or marginal feature. But I still hear it all over the place. I don't know how to explain it when other people of my similar age group with a similar-sounding accent do perceive the difference where I don't. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of the reason why it's important to find scholarly information about this is that people often hear what they expect to hear and don't notice when other people make phonemic contrasts or phonemic mergers that the listeners don't make. I bet most Americans who have the Mary/merry/marry merger or the cot/caught merger do not notice that other people have distinctions there, unless they're interested in language and have a good ear. That's why I've been avoiding the "I've never heard this merger" argument the whole time: I don't think I've ever heard this merger (and I do notice some mergers not my own, like when Michael Jackson sings "fill" for feel in "Speechless"), but maybe I have heard it and just didn't notice. Likewise I strongly suspect Gilgamesh has heard people his age and younger make the distinction, but just didn't notice. So rather than relying on our own intuitions and anecdotal evidence, we need to see what published sociolinguists and phoneticians have to say. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I suppose I'll have to yield on this topic for now as far as article pronunciation guides are concerned, barring better evidence. Still though, it's a bit irritating to be told that the lifelong deeply-ingrained speech patterns I have, seem to be so poorly researched. I mean, I do perceive it (or at least I taught myself to perceive it) when someone enunciates o as /oʊ/ in words like bold, but it certainly sounds old-fashioned, stilted or foreign—it sounds "accented". - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have set up a false dilemma. I certainly (and clearly) distinguish bold from bulled and hold from hulled, but I don't think the vowel I have in bold/hold is really [oʊ]; or at least, to me it sounds quite different from the vowel I have in bone. So I think you might well notice and perceive those few speakers who pronounce bold with a full [oʊ], and yet be completely unaware of the vast majority of speakers who distinguish all of these vowels. —RuakhTALK 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Very strange indeed. Still, I speak and perceive the ways I do. If these characteristics are indeed less pervasive than I perceived, I wonder where mine came from. I've lived all over. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gilgamesh -- In my particular variety of American English, there is a partial merger of [ɨ] and [ʊ], so that a word like "bull" can end up being pronounced with a stressed syllabic [l]. However, this causes the merger in pronunciation of rather few words, if any at all (it could theoretically cause the merger of historical [ɜːr] words with historical [uːr]/[ʊər] words, but I can't find any actual case)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall copy here what I have already said on this subject:

First of all, the Millennial Generation did not unanimously begin around 1980. There are differing views on that. Personally, I consider myself born around the end of Generation Y. Twoth, I merge pole and poll (except in perhaps über-sounding out speech) but not pull, I do not pronounce -cle to rhyme with "cole", nor do I pronounce "howl" as /hæl/ (I pronounce "howl" as /haʊl/), I pronounce "twenty' as /twɛnti/, not /ˈtwʊni/ or /ˈtʍɤɾ̃i/, my /æŋ/s and /eɪŋ/s fluctuate based on the swiftness of my speech (as do, to a far lesser extent, my /æn/s and /ɛən/s). Finally, Gilgamesh, I was born in the '90s. So... I doubt the mergers that you describe are as widespread as you believe them to be.


Ruakh, you say that bold has a different vowel than bone for you. What vowel does it have for you, then? For me, bold and bone have the same vowel. Tharthan (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about Ruakh, but for me they have the same vowel phoneme, but different allophones: the vowel in bone is a real diphthong [boʊn], while the vowel in bold is monophthongal [boːɫd], or if it is diphthongal, then diphthongal in a different direction [boəɫd]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I know a girl, early 20's, from around west of Denver, and she pronounces the 'o' in bold very short, like in for. To me, her pronunciation is the one that sounds affected and fremd like a foreign accent, as though she were from Germany or the Upper Midwest, yet further "west". Perhaps that is what you are hearing. That is a very non-standard American pronunciation. She is originally from Utah, I believe. Leasnam (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is of any help, I pronounce bold as [bo̞ːɫd] and bone as something more like [bəʊn] (I'm not sure about the exact nature of the [ə], but it is certainly more central and less rounded than the [o̞]). In case it makes a difference, I was born in the early 1990s. --WikiTiki89 12:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh. I was born in the late '90s, and pronounce bold with the same vowel as bone. I will yield that I may pronounce bold with /o/ or /o̞/, and bone with /oʊ/, however. Tharthan (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten complicated enough that I think we can generally agree that these topics need a lot more study than they've been getting. Until then, it appears that accent drift makes us hear only our own distinctions and perceive them as being perhaps more common than they actually are. I will admit that there are other members of my immediate family who have speech patterns I don't share. My older sister (a Generation X-er) says both as /ˈbl̩θ/ and coma as /ˈkl̩mə/, though I settled into using normal /oʊ/ with them, and she uses normal /oʊ/ for most other words in that lexical set as well. As a child, learning new words and how to read and write, I thought coma had an L in it because of my sister. My mom was from Texas and my dad is from Michigan and they also have certain pronunciation patterns I never shared. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well of course that's how it is. If it wasn't, the merry-Mary-marry merger likely wouldn't be so prevalent. People would have stopped the offender and said "Um, no. You're doing it wrong. Please stop doing that, for it is making my ears bleed." and that would have been that (of course, this also applies to mergers that have happened centuries upon centuries ago as well, but I'm just noting this one for sake of example). People wouldn't think that words rhymed that didn't if they were learnt enough (or simply never grew up mispronouncing them) to know that they didn't rhyme, but wellawoe, that is not the case. We are, as has has happened since pre-history, doomed to become simpler and simpler as time goes on, until we are so pathetically simple and base that we are destroyed by some other creature. Such is life; "If you're too smart to go along with shenanigans, you get the boot", or (in less biased terms) "Those that choose not to adapt will most likely not survive". Tharthan (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A purely prescriptivist approach is unsustainable because the standard it prescribes soon becomes obsolete even to the well-spoken. And apparently a purely descriptivist approach seems to have problems of its own if Urban Dictionary cannot be cited as a source. I was well-educated and I've been reading dictionaries for years. But even someone like that, can look at a dictionary entry, and intuit, "wait...that's not how it's pronounced," and make good faith edits adding additional pronunciations to supplement what is already there. I lean towards descriptivism over prescriptivism—language has rules and structure, but it's also a creature that evolves in everyday life, and a dictionary needs to frequently revise its content to maintain its relevance to everyday life, which is part of why we're all here as editors. For now, I think we're in general agreement that we could use some better documentary evidence for some of these pronunciations if we cannot seem to reach a consensus of how common or rare they actually are. Still, it's rather unpleasant when another editor reverts my good faith pronunciation edit and flat-out tells me I'm wrong, leaving me to wonder what opposite corner of the planet they must be from to have never heard it before. Aggressive prescriptivism can be antagonizing that way, as it superficially appears to create an up-front assumption of either stupidity or bad faith. While I understand that the nature of divergent personal phonotactics can help explain such disagreements, it's still often a blindside to experience them in the first place. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually a purely prescriptivist approach is sustainable for quite long periods of time (many centuries). What you eventually end up with is a diglossia. The whole descriptivism vs. prescriptivism "debate" is quite meaningless anyway. It is fairly obvious that a more prescriptive approach is better for communication purposes, while a descriptive approach is better for scientific purposes. Since Wiktionary tries to be everything, the only viable solution is to be descriptive of the prescription. But describing everything is an attainable goal, thus there must be things that we choose not to describe and you should not immediately conclude when we choose not to describe something that we are being prescriptive. --WikiTiki89 11:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a happy medium that we can strive for. By no means do I want to include only pronunciations that are sanctioned as prescriptively correct, but I do want to include only pronunciations that can be independently verified. There are plenty of scholarly sources that discuss nonstandard pronunciations of American English, so those can be listed (I'd have no objection at all to including /fɪl/ as a pronunciation of feel, since that's discussed in the literature). But I do have to draw the line at pronunciations that are based solely on a single user's intuition. I have nonstandard pronunciations in my own speech (/ˈtwʌn(t)i/ for twenty, /sɛns/ for since, /kɛtʃ/ for catch, etc.), but I wouldn't think of adding those to the entries unless I could confirm their existence in a published source. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Gilgamesh, if we do not "prescribe" and "proscribe" things, and have those prescriptions and proscriptions enforced and taken seriously, language will just change for the worst (read: change towards further extreme simplification). That said, some prescriptions and proscriptions are erroneous, but I'd rather have people have a few erroneous forms in their speech than be merging things left and right until they sound like a dufus (like that one guy I ran into when I was in Virginia one time who pronounced the word "scythe" as if the unetymological "c" was actually pronounced, because he clearly seems to think that each and every spelling pronunciation is accurate). Nevertheless, we are wont to be lazy, so we will probably just be saying /ɑ.i.o.ɑ/ for "What is your name?" in one thousand years (if not earlier). "English" (if it still exists as "English") will probably be called simply /i:/. My point is, I will not stand for the flouting of people who speak correctly (read: having relatively minimal mergers in comparison to other dialects and retaining more conservative aspects of a language [though, of course, not all historical forms of something are accurate forms]) by way of argumenta ad numerum, as oft happens (and is happening) to many who are actually doing things correctly. I'd rather be (hyperbolically) bemartyred than concede to stark falsehoods in this particular situation. Yet, you are correct, full on prescriptivist ideology wouldn't work either, because it would introduce numerous fallacies. There needs to be a balance, and (today) unfortunately, there is not. Things are particularly descriptivist (or erroneously prescriptivist) nowadays anent this, and that needs to change because it is evident that it is messing with the language far too much. In the olden days, this is where languages would often break apart, so each side somewhat got what they wished for. But today, people aren't allowed to speak differently. Whomever has the guns and weapons and population controls everybody else. It's nonsensical, and I won't stand for it (and will actively try to combat it). Tharthan (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tharthan, by your apparent argument, Cervantes was merely a "dufus" who couldn't speak proper Latin. But then, Cicero was merely a "dufus" who couldn't speak proper PIE.
You come across as very concerned about "correct" speech. Who is the arbiter of "correct"? One person's minimal mergers in comparison to other dialects might be another's excessive divergences in comparison to other dialects, or another's ridiculously pedantic, or yet another's not entirely intelligible.
Languages change. This is inevitable, and natural, and the cumulative result of these changes does not produce anything better or worse than the ancestor tongues -- simply different. My own understanding of the Wiktionary mission is that Wiktionary is in the business of describing the current state of all languages. Describing includes noting, where appropriate, when certain terms or pronunciations or spellings might be regarded as "preferred" or "proscribed", and noting in what contexts they might be so. But describing does not go so far as to lay any absolute value judgment: Wiktionary (ideally) describes what is, not what should be by someone's arbitrary metric.
In a related, and hopefully more mirthful, mien, I ran across a list years ago that purported to predict how each language would change over the next few centuries. English would go on to absorb the vocabulary of all languages. Japanese would absorb the writing systems of all languages. And French would become one long string of vowels.
So I suppose your suggested /ɑ.i.o.ɑ/ for "What is your name?" implies that English will give way to French?  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said that languages shouldn't change. I simply said that, oftentimes, in the past, languages would break apart in this sort of situation and develop their own ways. In today's world, that's not being allowed. People are being forced to essentially accept any and every change into their language till, indeed, we will simply be speaking the /i:/ language instead of the English language. This is demented. Now imagine if this happened in the past like it is now (in terms of a language not being allowed to break apart and instead forced to accept every terrible mutation to the language).
Latin's (or, more accurately, late Proto-Italic's) stupid th-fronting (the most despicable sound change, in my humble opinion, and the only one I actually would do everything in my power to completely prevent spreading at all costs) probably would have spread to every single other Indo-European language that had developed /θ/ and /ð/.
Furthermore, one instance in which I strongly approve of sound change is if it does away with historical th-fronting. Spanish, for the most part, has done a splendid job in this aspect, replacing those "false f"s with a written h that is not pronounced. Beautiful. I'd rather have anything else happen to /θ/ and /ð/ than them be fronted. Hence why the Germanic language that I like the least is Faroese, even though it is relatively conservative. It fronts "th"s in many instances, which is a shame, as it is otherwise a fairly alright language. Tharthan (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I pronounce "twenty" (when not attempting to emphasize the word) as [twʌ̃ɾiː] with heavily nasalized (and possibly somewhat glottalized or semi-creaky) [ʌ] vowel followed by a flap. It does not at all rhyme with "funny", which is ordinary plain [fʌniː]... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading that John Riebold paper linked above, and it indeed documents a lexical merger that matches the merger I originally discussed. Since it is documented, we can discuss it as a Northwestern pronunciation norm. It's bizarre considering I've never lived there, but since speech influences are ultimately more complex than where we were born and who our parents were, I'm willing to accept it for now.
But Tharthan, I cannot really agree that we can make value judgments about whether language change is "better" or "worse", and we cannot necessarily presume that all changes are toward the simpler. While it is true that many languages seem to gradually simplify towards analytic languages, actual analytic languages tend to gradually develop agglutinative features. Isolated words become clitics and then affixes, and some even lose their independent syllables, as seen in languages like French. And then languages can lose the resulting consonant clusters altogether, compensating through the phonemicization of tones and/or word compounding, as seen in languages like Mandarin. Similar features we see in English are not necessarily simpler, nor are they "better" or "worse", such as pen-pin merger accents that coin compound words like "ink-pen" and "stick-pin" to disambiguate merged homophones. The only objective thing we can generally say about language change, is that they make the language different from what it used to be. United languages are communicative, and standards are helpful, but standards that cannot adapt to change and diversity will calcify and lose their living social relevance. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
One slightly-tongue-in-cheek hypothesis made by a linguist (I believe at the Language Log) was that languages have a constant amount of complexity; that when one area gets simplified, another gets more complex. (The problem for testability as he pointed out was quantifying complexity.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A few comments (more later, maybe):
The point that there's a difference between production and perception of sounds is important. The papers I linked to about Waldorf discuss how the merger there has been one of perception more than of production.
I strongly suggest that if we do include merged pronunciations of bull, bowl, etc, we label them with an accent template that is named something like Template:accent:bull-bowl or Template:accent:pull-pool-pole (à la Template:accent:father-bother), even if we make the template's display text something different. That way, we can always refine the display text later without having to update all the entries. As for what the display text should be: "Northwestern" has been suggested as an ersatz label, but simply "bull-bowl merger" or "pull-pool-pole merger", linked the way Template:accent:father-bother is to information about the merger (either on Wikt or on WP), would probably be more sensible/accurate.
To what extent do the full-fool, hull-hole and doll-dole mergers WP mentions cover (account for the pieces of) the pull-pool-pole merger? Is the pull-pool-pole merger a combination of those mergers, diachronically speaking? Should we list the pronunciations that result from those mergers, too?
General question: Should we create a master-template (vaguely like the one Chinese uses, but hopefully less tabular) which would accept all these pronunciations as input, and by default only show some of them (e.g. GenAm, RP, Aus), with the others (New York, Southern US, Estuary English, full-fool merger, etc) collapsed to avoid taking up too much space? - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I think that's a good idea. Conditional split/merger qualifiers rather than regional qualifiers. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I strongly oppose that. That would be biased favouritism. I don't think we should be choosing which dialects are the "important" ones. That's none of our business, honestly. The only time I could see that being useful is if there ends up being dozens of pronunciations on a single page. I think it's absolutely abhorrent for it to be used otherwise. Tharthan (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We aren't choosing which dialects are important ones. We're recognizing which dialects are important ones, or, rather, the ones that will come across as unaccented and normal to large groups of people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"We're recognizing which dialects are important ones, or, rather, the ones that will come across as unaccented and normal to large groups of people."

So, in other words, you are choosing which dialects are important and which are unimportant. Go ahead and try to skirt that fact if you so choose, but supporting such a proposal in this way only makes it painfully obvious that one is biased towards certain dialects and biased against others. There is, for the most part, nothing wrong with how pronunciation transcription of English is handled here. I will concede that words with many, many listed pronunciations could probably use a system like the one -sche mentioned (i.e. "pwn") but other than that I'd reckon such a system would do more harm than good. Tharthan (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What a transcription of English here should be[edit]

The practical necessity for English transcription conventions here is that a speaker of quasi-standard English can identify what each set of symbols corresponds to in his or her own dialect. We don't transcribe "tort" and "taught" identically (even though some pronounce the two words the same) because a significant number of speakers of quasi-standard English make a distinction between the two. If our transcriptions reflect all the distinctions made in all the major varieties of quasi-standard English, then the result could turn out to be slightly more conservative than any one of them -- but this does not mean that it is "prescriptive", only that it contains enough information so that speakers of all major varieties of quasi-standard English can easily figure out what the symbols used mean in their own pronunciations, without being distracted by issues such as would face speakers of rhotic dialects if we were to transcribe "tort" and "taught" identically.
These principles would indicate that mergers occurring in relatively few dialects should not generally affect Wiktionary transcriptions... AnonMoos (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I might pronounce "tort" and "taught" identically very often because I speak a non-rhotic dialect, but that doesn't make non-rhotic dialects "quasi-standard". Keep in mind that the loss of rhoticity was a shift in English dialects. Before that shift, all English dialects were rhotic. Furthermore, modern rhotic dialects today are no less "standard" than any other (at least in terms of their rhoticity/non-rhoticity). Tharthan (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to get into any extended discussion of the definition of standard English. A generation ago, it was pretty much defined as Daniel Jones' Received Pronunciation in the U.K. and so-called "General American" in its broadcast network standard form in the U.S. Today things are a little bit more complex and diverse, but the principles of my message of "11:49, 3 October 2014" above still apply... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What you're advocating is essentially an IPA transcription of enPR, or what linguists call a diaphonemic transcription. I'm not opposed to that; I've mostly done the same for Dutch as well (although User:Morgengave seems to disagree). —CodeCat 15:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic transcription. I was at first opposed to it there, but finally relented because the alternative was having several lines of text taken up with alternative pronunciations, which is annoying in an encyclopedia article. But in a dictionary entry, there's room to list RP and GenAm (and multiple other accents) separately and a whole ===Pronunciation=== section to do it in. And for English, we already have enPR to be diaphonemic, so we don't need to do it all over again in IPA. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see why we can't have something like I suggested in a previous BP discussion that includes both diaphonemic and phonemic transcriptions. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat, Angr, Wikitiki89 -- it seems to me that any practical pronunciation transcription convention (which is not closely tied to one single prestige dialect only) must contain some kind of diaphonemic component, or else alternative transcriptions for many words would be multiplied beyond reasonable limits... AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
AnonMoos, you do realise that General American did not create the dialects of English spoken in North America. My dialect, for instance, is not at all derived from it, and is quite significantly different from it. Furthermore, your claims would be like saying that Scots-influenced Scottish English is derived from Received Pronunciation. Clearly not!
Furthermore, "General American" (allegedly a form of American English, though its birth certificate lists its name as "durpspeek", and that it is the less bright relative of the more well-known [and many scores better] "leetspeek". At its christening, it had its name given as "Gibberish", a name it retained until relatively recently, when it filed a court order to be renamed "General American") is a loathful abomination based on the fallacious idea that the "true" "American" dialects were those spoken in the centre of the country, as if all other dialects spun out from the Midwestern dialects. The fact that we even include it here is an honest-to-goodness rue-bargain. But whatever, I'm not here to discuss the inclusion of gibberish on Wiktionary. In fact, your argument that was essentially "Last time I checked, it was just RP and General American" is nonsense. It is quite easy for a nearly mandated method of speaking in the media to convince people that everybody actually speaks in such a way. FOR INSTANCE, as I brought up earlier, Mid-Atlantic English, the predecessor to durpsp-err, I mean "General American", was SO common from the 1930s to the early 1960s that, some who lack familiarity with what Mid-Atlantic English actually was that live nowadays actually believe that EVERYONE spoke like that back in those times.
In any case, whether or not any modern Benedict Arnolds of sorts wish to sound like fools and speak this pseudo-dialectal levelling durpspeek language, it doesn't change the fact that the real English dialects of North America do not derive from it. Tharthan (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Tharthan -- unfortunately, you do not seem to have a solid grasp on the main issues involved. It has nothing to do with which dialects are "derived" from each other, but with which dialects are most prestigious currently, and Wikipedia/Wiktionary does not decree this, but rather merely recognizes the external realities. In any case, a dictionary transcription system which contains enough information to include the contrasts of both traditional RP and traditional network standard GenAm would appear to contain enough information to also represent the contrasts of 1930s "Mid-Atlantic" (also known as Margaret Dumont speak, and which was widely prestigious at least two generations ago, not one, anyway)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear Tharthan has very strong subjective opinions about accents he likes and those he doesn't like, and that he isn't going to allow anything like facts to get in the way of those opinions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
GenAm is so designated because it's perceived by a lot of Americans as "neutral" or "unaccented", not because it's better or because it's the source of all the others (though some might erroneously believe that). Someone who uses GenAm pronunciation won't be perceived as a regional speaker in the same way as someone using a Northeastern or Southern pronunciation. It may all be a matter of perception, but it's accepted by a lot of US speakers. You're welcome to feel otherwise, but your comments elsewhere about the evils of Proto-Italic th-fronting demonstrate that you're so far from the mainstream as to border on goofiness. While it's nice to be passionate about language, too much passion over minor things tends to make you look silly. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@AnonMoos How so? (Regarding your claim that a transcription system that contains enough information to include both traditional RP & GA contrasts would also appear to do the same for Mid-Atlantic English)
@Angr It really depends on which facts are being brought up in the discussion, honestly.
@Chuck Entz Yeah, you'd be surprised at how many people one can run into that seem to think that GA is the source of all other dialects. This is especially true in the mid to lower part of the east coast, I've found, in comparison to more northern parts. But that's just gathered from my own personal experience.
Well, much of the population tends to believe that they don't possess an accent (even though that is quite impossible). So I don't think that a common perception of GA being unaccented is that extraordinary (especially when a lot of those people live in areas where their local dialects are/are related to the dialects from which General American was derived). In fact, most people I've run into from where I live call GA "TV Speech" or the like (and I know that I'm not the only one who has run into people who describe it as such), which seems to be a counter-view to what you described.
Indeed, I'll admit that there is no particular reason based in common logic for me to hate th-fronting any more than any other sound change. It's but a very stark pet peeve, in reality. Tharthan (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Chosing for one transcription can easily be interpreted as a choice for a certain pronounciation over others, and can even been seen as prescribing a certain pronounciation, which compromises our perception of neutrality. Chosing for multiple transcriptions on the other hand clutters the pronounciation section, at least it would do so in the current lay-out. In my view, the choice is then easily made: let us adapt the lay-out of the pronounciation section. This worked well for amongst others the translations section, and enables us to remain neutral. In addition, it also helps people who are interested in studying, comparing or learning more about different accents, adding another layer of useful information to this dictionary. Morgengave (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think that the pronunciation section works fine as it is (minus the fact that we constantly draw attention to "RP" and "GA). Nevertheless, if we were to add more dialects to the pronunciation key, I would have no objections. However, I think attempting a grand change to the system right now might not be the best idea. It most likely would be better to simply deal with problematic words as they come. But that's just my tuppence worth. Tharthan (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm thinking about creating this entry, with the definition "from the start of a trial to the finish", but I can't decide if it's a noun or an adjective. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 04:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In this instance it would be an adjective Leasnam (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In citations like the following one, it's an adjective:
  • 2010, David Brian Robertson, Loss of Confidence: Politics and Policy in The 1970s (ISBN 0271044861), page 32:
    After the experiment was widely deemed a success, the House voted 342-44 to make gavel-to-gavel broadcast permanent.
It's also slightly broader than just "from the start of a trial to the finish"; it seems more like "from the start of an official proceeding to the finish".
Is usage like "the steroid hearing ran gavel-to-gavel" adverbial? - -sche (discuss) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably not, because there really should be a "from" in there. I'm gonna create it as an adjective with the citation you found. Purplebackpack89 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The "from" is irrelevant: if you were to add "from", the "from" would modify the first "gavel" in the same way that "to" modifies the second one, not "gavel-to-gavel" as a whole. If I say "We traveled from shore to shore", "from shore to shore" is clearly modifying "traveled", which means it's functioning adverbially. In a way, you could also analyze "gavel-to-gavel" as "lasting from gavel to gavel", with the verb and "from" omitted due to the constraints of English syntax (in some languages, such as Chinese, having a complete clause or even a sentence as a modifier is quite normal). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

U And Non-U Coverage[edit]

I am not sure if this belongs here or at the Beer Parlour, but since I don't believe in alcohol I will just go with my gut and put this here.

Should we increase our coverage of U and Non-U English? Even if such things are relatively dated at best, is it not agreeable that covering such things might be a boon to Wiktionary?

See here if unaware of what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English

This is one of the biggest primary sources for this subject: http://www.helsinki.fi/jarj/ufy/24991_s113_150Ross.pdf

Tharthan (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt such an effort would be sufficiently sustainable to avoid ultimate removal, but whatever floats your boat. The article has the look of one group of people, possibly academics aspiring to backdoor or junior membership in the upper classes, sneering at another. It doesn't seem that same as register and might be quite hard to support with either authority or citations. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, however some of the points raised make sense logically, do they not? An aspiring middle-class wished to appear more elegant, so they borrowed foreign terms and/or verbally noted particular things that the upper class did (e.g. "excuse my glove" being Non-U, in reference to the removal of one's gloves by a U-speaker [the U-speaker actually said nothing when this was done]) to try and appear to be of the same class as those people, when (in reality) they didn't fool the actual people of that class.
The only issue is that, if we were to include information on this, we would need to apply a metaphorical sile to it to weed out that which is just hogswallop opinion (i.e. Words marked with "this is surely Non-U?" and the like). Tharthan (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tharthan (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I found myself very skeptical of many members of the WP list of such terms. So I :::wonder how agreement can be won, except possibly by taking this out of the realm of the currently relevant and making any labels strictly historical. That also takes it out of the realm of our supposed advantage as a wiki. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I too am sceptical of some of the terms. I have some doubt that "ice" was U, that "spectacles" was U, that "pudding" was used to refer to sweets in general in U speech, and I also have issues with several other terms that are listed in Ross' original article.
How would adding labels such as (historically U) and (historically non-U) take this subject out of the realm of our "supposed advantage as a wiki"? Tharthan (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt this means much for us, but the U/non-U thing has quite often been used in British (newspaper) cryptic crosswords: this may well have served to perpetuate awareness of it. I probably wouldn't know about it otherwise! Equinox 00:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So perhaps, then, this isn't something purely historical. Mayhap it still has some lasting influence to this day. Tharthan (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Could someone check if it's correct to add this quotation under #Adjective ("Unrefined, crude")? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no issues with it. Most people, especially today, use uncouth in the sense of "unfamiliar with good morals, good manners, good taste, asf." Leasnam (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess you could say that that was uncouth to DanielTom, Leasnam. Tharthan (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

buffer, and whether "data" is plural[edit]

Not going to get into some dumb edit war over this, so can people please take a look at [4] and decide who is right? Ta very much, old chap. Equinox 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Per COCA and BNC: In speech data is usually singular. Based on a quick look at Google Books: in IT writing data is also usually singular; in academic articles and newspapers, usually plural. For the definition at hand I would make it singular. We should investigate this a bit further and say something about it at [[data]]. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Searching for "data in the buffer is|are" confirms the singular being more common. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't data the plural of datum? o_O Like "one bit of datum, multiple bits of data"? Tharthan (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
See Data (word). Equinox 23:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In computing, data is more often used as a collective noun that is grammatically singular. --WikiTiki89 08:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to use it as the plural of datum, then it's "one datum, multiple data", not "one bit of datum" and "multiple bits of data", which would be treating both "datum" and "data" as mass nouns. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to imply that it was uncountable, though. Tharthan (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In the usages where data has singular agreement, it is a mass noun. Or is that too much data for this discussion? DCDuring TALK 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
*rimshot* Tharthan (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

photo album[edit]

Just realised we don't have an entry for this. Do you think it is worth creating one? In Chinese it is one word (相册), not that it matters much. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Photoalbum is just barely citable, so this one is includible per COALMINE. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And a lemming rule would also lead us to the same conclusion: photo album at OneLook Dictionary Search DCDuring TALK 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

body corporate[edit]

I have added two additional meanings in accordance to what I've heard in Australia in my translation work. Anyone have anything to add? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, a translation table with glosses would be good :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The plural "body corporates" seems dubious to me: I would expect "bodies corporate" (noun + adj, like Secretary General), which appears in the titles of old laws in Ireland, the UK, and has higher frequency on Google ngrams (and as you mention Australia, it seems to be used there too) -- Jimregan (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In Australian use, "body corporates" is an unremarkable plural for the real estate corporation sense. viz:
  • 8 Oct 2006 The Age (Melbourne)
    "All body corporates require owners to contribute to an administration fund to cover day-to-day expenses such as electricity bills and a sinking fund to pay for regular maintenance such as the painting of common areas."
  • 8 August 2011 The Age
    "Body corporates are not eligible for federal renewable energy certificates, and then they have to deal with the fact the Tax Office regards any income to the body corporate from solar schemes as mutual income that is taxable in the hands of individual owners," Mr Lever said."
  • 2012 ABC Radio National, PM
    "The Queensland Association of Body Corporates wants to take it a step further."
    "But he admits there's a limit to what body corporates can achieve."
  • 2014 ABC Radio National, Breakfast
    "Many homeowners in the disaster-prone north are paying roughly 2.5 times more for cover than those in southern Queensland, while body corporates are struggling with increases of up to 800 per cent in recent years."
  • 2014 ABC News
    "A James Cook University report released yesterday says independent assessments showing a building's resilience would help body corporates bargain for lower insurance premiums."
"bodies corporate" is also found. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Body corporates does not appear in any of the BYU corpora except Global Web-based English where bodies corporate outnumbers body corporates 308 to 40. I don't know of an Australian corpus to check, as I don't know how to use Google News for that purpose since they changed the UI. DCDuring TALK 12:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are flowers animate in Polish?[edit]

Are masculine flower names (e.g. bratek, hiacynt, tulipan) masculine animate or masculine inanimate?

Obviously kwiat is masculine inaminate (accusative "kwiat" and not "kwiata"), but in the case of the above I really have no idea. For example, both "bratek" and "bratka" sound natural to me as an accusative of "bratek". I am fairly sure tulipan is animate though. --Tweenk (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me guess. Is it because "bratek" means "little brother", "bro" (animate) and it may get animated colloquially, even if it's referring to a flower? Compare to Russian мураве́й (muravéj) "ant". It's animate but refers to a type of a motor scooter, technically, it's inanimate but Russian may use it as animate still, like "я купи́л муравья́" (animate usage) instead of "я купи́л мураве́й" (inanimate usage) (kupiłem "mrówkę" - I bought an "ant"). Slavic animacy is tricky :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
"Bratek" doesn't actually mean "little brother" - I've never heard it used in that sense, though maybe it's archaic. The diminutive of "brother" is "braciszek" or colloquially / in slang "braciak". "Bratek" refers only to the flower.
It's true that animacy is really strange, e.g. in Polish currencies are animate :) --Tweenk (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Dobra dobra, bratku. Keφr 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
pl.wiktionary's entry lists two declensions, one inanimate (the flower), the other animate (archaic diminutive of 'brat'). NKJP has:
"Dziś prezentujemy bratka, drugie (po dziurawcu) z 12 ziół..." (Dziennik Bałtycki, "Na kłopoty ze skórą - bratek", 1999-12-11)
"Za bratka zapłacić trzeba było 1,50 zł " (Dziennik Powiatu Bytowskiego, "Nasiona drzewka i krzewy", 2000-04-28)
"dziewczyna w ostatniej chwili rzuciła mu bratka przez parkan." (Dziennik Polski, "Dwa światy", Andrzej Kozioł, 2008-02-16)
which are all accusative contexts which show an animate usage, and:
"Na przeszło 50 hektarach uprawiają bratek, melisę, miętę, arcydzięgiel i kozłek." (Życie Podkarpackie, "Bratkowe żniwa", 2008-11-06)
"Dobre wyniki otrzymuje się przy leczeniu dolegliwości skórnych, mieszając bratek z innymi roślinami rutynowymi, np. bzem i rutą." (Trybuna Śląska, "Najpiękniejsze są kobiety naturalne", Mirosław Łukaszuk, 2003-06-27)
which are accusative contexts which show an inanimate usage, so... both.
(FWIW, I think the best example that animacy is strange is that trup is animate :) -- Jimregan (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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)


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:

   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)


Hello, in this recording, there is a "boom" at the end, can you remove it please ? Thank you. 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 ? 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)


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 (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]



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)


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)


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. [5] [6] [7]. --Tweenk (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


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)


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)


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) [8]? 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. 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. [9], [10]), 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)


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


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": [11], [12], [13].
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.


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)


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)


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)


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.


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)


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)


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)


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. -- 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. -- 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.
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? -- 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? -- 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. -- 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)


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 !


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 [14][15] (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.-- 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"-- 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)


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)


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 (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)


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)


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: [16]. 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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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


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)


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)


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)


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


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)


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)

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)


"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)


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


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)


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)


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)



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)


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)