Wiktionary:Tea room

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFTs


Contents

March 2015

whole shebang[edit]

How is sense 2 used? Is it distinct from sense 1? - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's distinct. People often use it for houses, but they also use it for cars, etc. --WikiWinters (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

red book[edit]

Shouldn't it be capitalized? It had a proper noun header before I replaced it with a common one. --WikiWinters (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

see also - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought so, but all but one of the citations are lower case. The first sense, I suppose, could be lower case if one was talking about red books in general, but specific instances of a red book might be upper case. The second sense, the Devil's red book, I personally would certainly have written upper case, but three of the four citations are lower case even here. SpinningSpark 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Quaker terminology[edit]

As a member of the Society of Friends, I notice that there is a gaping hole in Quaker terminology. I have filled in some entries for terms that do not have a more generic use (such as using "elder" as a verb), but I am not sure where to draw the line. Should I be adding entries for terms like "monthly meeting", "quarterly meeting", and "yearly meeting", which are organizational groupings, or is the additional sense of "meeting" as a Quaker unit of administration sufficient? Similarly, the phrases "meeting for business" (a term for the Quaker form of consensual decision making that is seen as a special form of worship) and "meeting for worship" (the standard Quaker religious service) are used by Quakers as standard phrases, but can certainly be seen as simple extensions of their consituent parts. What about standard Quaker officers such as "recording clerk"?

Don't add entries for things whose names make their nature obvious (e.g. monthly meeting = a meeting that is monthly). Equinox 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well that right there tells me I should probably add monthly meeting, because that is not what monthly meeting means.
If a "monthly meeting" is not a meeting that is monthly then please add it. Quakers must be lunatics. Gold plate it up! Equinox 01:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I think I have a sense of what to do, and I am trying to be conservative about it - adding material to usage notes rather than entirely new entries. BTW - you do realise that you just insulted my religion. Good thing I am not touchy about it. Kiwima (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

evaluative diversity[edit]

Erm so what does it actually mean. The "usage notes" sound like a political manifesto. Equinox 03:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it means "diversity of evaluations". DCDuring TALK 13:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. The Wikipedia article seems to been created for promotional reasons (see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evaluative diversity), and the editing pattern of this user doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either. These entries seem to stem from an attempt to generalize all the different isms under a single umbrella (slightly ironic, given that one of the key concepts behind the actual philosophical concept of evaluativism is that differences between worldviews are fundamental and that there exists no objective underlying pattern to nature). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

inflow[edit]

Not too convinced by the "influence" sense. The citations are mostly using the words together, e.g. "inflow and influence", suggesting that they are not the same thing, just a collocation. I believe this sense is mistaken and is just the usual "flowing inward" sense. Equinox 04:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the citations unambiguously support the "influence" definition. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems like Anglish-cruft to me. The fact that a rare Germanic cognate of a common Latinate term has only 21st century citations is odd - I would expect this word to be more common pre-1750 or so, but I can't find much evidence of its use. I did find one "citation" (as a verb) - Hobbes' Leviathan quotes an English translation of a Latin text as "The first cause does not necessarily inflow any thing into the second, by force of the essential subordination of the second causes, by which it may help it to work" (Causam primam nihil necessario influere in secundam, ex vi subordinationis causae secundae ad primam, quo illam ad agendum juvet). However, this is a deliberately bad translation by Hobbes as a caricature of verbose theologians, and in the context of the mangled sentence conveys no meaning. There's a possible citation in wikisource:Summa Theologiae/Supplement to the Third Part/Question 27, but I don't understand enough theology to parse the sentences it occurs in. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The Summa Theologica noun usage appears to me to be an intentionally literal translation of influus, influxus, or influxio, probably being used in a Medieval/Ecclesiastical sense diverging from classical Latin. If the exact interpretation of the word was in doubt in 1917, at least in the view of the 'Fathers of the English Dominican Province', responsible for the translation, an intentionally awkward translation would have forced a reader who was concerned about the exact meaning to go to hermeneutical literature.
This tends to confirm my general preference to avoid religious literature, as also poetry, whenever possible as a source on unambiguous citations of words supposedly in general use. If this were the citation that made a difference between inclusion and exclusion of a definition, it might be worth the effort to investigate further, but even then .... DCDuring TALK 16:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect most citations will be literal translations of influus (or cognates like Einfluss). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What Means "Silverside"?[edit]

"Now, you've turned into an old silverside! Why, you even dress like an old silverside!" What does Mary Skinner mean by this in 19th century New York?

Do you mean the Mary Skinner played by Elizabeth Taylor in Life with Father?
Given that it is from a movie made in 1947, or the 1939 play, or the earlier popular autobiographical work by Clarence Day, or the TV sitcom, I'd look for a shallow meaning, easily read by a movie audience. I assume that it just means a late middle-aged male, of conservative habits. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The word probably isn't meant to carry intrinsic meaning, it's probably just intended to carry tone of voice or sentiment. If it does hold meaning it's probably 'silver' in reference to hair colour implying age & keeping to age related fashions. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverside for actual meanings independent of context. 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

stall[edit]

Is there any reason to believe that Etymology 2 (currently marked {{rfe}}) isn't just the same as Etymology 1? Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The usually reliable Online Etymology Dictionary splits them. I think one or two defs in Ety 1 belong in Ety 2. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately the two are the selfsame word, it's just that Etym 2 developed from the verb (esp. in a causative sense "to bring to a halt; cause to come to a halt or standstill"), and then developed deverbal noun senses of its own Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

sex goddess[edit]

How is meaning #2 different from #1?

Look again. Definition 2 was only there for 11 minutes until User:Equinox reverted the edits that added it. By the time you posted this, it was already gone. Timing can be funny, sometimes ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

been[edit]

Would it be correct to describe this as an alternative past participle of come/go? For example:

"Could you go to the shops?" "I've already been to the shops."

Currently, we have this in "be" as "(intransitive, without predicate) elliptical form of "be here", "go to and return from" or similar. ", but this doesn't sound right to me. As far as I can tell, it only applies to "been". For any other tense form in Standard English, it fails:

*"I will be to the shops."
*"I am to the shops."
*"I was to the shops."
*"Are you to the shops?"

The usage examples at be would then be:

"The postman has been today, but my tickets have still not yet come." > "The postman has come today"/"The postman came today"
"I have been to Spain many times." > "I have gone to Spain many times."

It seems to odd to have such a definition for the most irregular verb in the English language when only one of its many conjugations has such a meaning. Should we move or change this definition?

In terms of lemmings, Chambers says "in past tense to go", Collins says "(used in the perfect or past perfect tenses only) to pay a visit; go", American Heritage has "To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?", Merriam-Webster has "to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus>", and Oxford UK English has "Come; go; visit: ‘he’s from Missouri’ ‘I have just been to Thailand’ ‘the doctor’s been twice today’". The Oxford one is the only one to hint at any use of inflected forms other than "been", but that example doesn't imply movement the way the others do. To me it's just the standard is (has such a state) + from (having as a source). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think some folks do use it in other tenses. It would be a bit of research project to confirm this and determine the scope of usage.
I would make it "especially in the past and perfect". Even in my idiolect I could say "I will have been to the store and back by then." [future (tense) perfect (aspect)]). DCDuring TALK 15:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
de.Wikt, which has a remarkably good entry for be, has this as sense 12, "als been, mit Formen von have: besuchen" = "(as "been", with forms of "have") to visit". I do think it's appropriate to keep the sense at be, since it doesn't seem like a past tense of go per se but a (merely) somewhat specialized use of be: "I have already been to the shops." → "I have already been at the shops." → "I have already (existed, had presence, etc — the usual sense of be) at the shops." - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This came up before, and someone made the interesting point that "went" is actually a completely different verb, yet is accepted as the past tense of "go", so why cannot "been" be accepted as a past participle of "go"? I still wasn't convinced though. As far as the tenses with which it is used are concerned, rather than listing these, would it not be clearer to say "only as past participle 'been'"? 31.51.2.19 03:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I always understood the difference to involve the current condition of the subject of the verb. "He has gone to France" implies he is still in France. Whereas, "He has been to France" implies he is no longer in France. -- ALGRIF talk 10:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
went is the past tense of go: I go, I will go, I went. In Modern English it is the same verb with a different root. In the past (Middle English and earlier) they were two different verbs but over time merged to become one. It is the same case with to be: I am, I will be, I was, showing three different roots. Note in the original example you could say Could you go to the shops? I've already gone to the shops. Here been can replace gone with the same meaning but that doesn't make it the same verb. Danielklein (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Imperfect questions[edit]

Many thanks and well done for our clever Wiktionary. I've put in You makes something and takes a choice, and the dictionary has given me the right expression:: you pays your money and you takes your choice! Well done! 77.196.145.45 14:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a great example of what our new search engine is supposed to do. I'm happy but a bit surprised that it managed make the connection. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

sherbet[edit]

I think this entry needs a new definition for the West Asian fruit drink (also spelled sharbat). Or is it already covered by sense 1? Wikipedia doesn't have an atricle for the milk-containing juice (since it is the US version of sorbet), while the Asian beverage has a separate article under the name sharbat. The Persian, Arabic, Marathi etc. translations of sherbet/sharbat are now under sense 1. By the way a fourth definition is probably needed too: Sharbat#In Central Asia.

Einstein2 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Straightening out the entries for sorbet, sherbert, and sherbet and recording the etymology seems quite worthwhile. Minor regional difference in the recipes could be ignored. sharbat would benefit from attestation, but see sharbat in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a third definition to sherbet with quotations. Thanks for creating sharbat—after a quick search, it doesn't seem obsolete: [1], [2], [3] etc. Einstein2 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I had added a non-obsolete definition, too, limited to the Middle-Eastern confection/drink. The cites you give are in italics, which is an indication that the word had not fully become English in the opinion of the author. But there do seem to be enough unambiguous cites to support a definition such as the one I added. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it, but doesn't sharbat only mean the Middle Eastern drink? If so, the two senses don't differ so they should be merged. In The Century Dictionary, sharbat redirects to the entry sherbet which says "A favorite cooling drink of the East, made of fruit-juices diluted with water, and variously sweetened and flavored." — that's why I think that the obsolete sense and the one you added are the same. Einstein2 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Could be. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I merged the definitions, please have a look at it. Einstein2 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoever tackles this - here in New Zealand, Sorbet can refer to a non-frozen fruit desert made with gelatin and often egg whites - similar to the current definition of sorbet, but not requiring the frozen part.
Yes, it will require some work. You could add the definition you are sure about with a label limiting it NZ. Otherwise anything distinctive about NZ usage might be neglected. DCDuring TALK 05:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

showed as a past participle[edit]

Is it nonstandard, regional, colloquial or something? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I added usage examples and usage notes to showed and shown. We could probably use a similar note in an appendix on irregular English verbs, for many of which the same preferences apply. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Appendix:English irregular verbs lacks such a note, but it would not be easy to write a correct and helpful one. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

tetratheism[edit]

I added references and a more general definition. Since I'm new to editing on Wiktionary, I started an {{rft}} suggested discussion here. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

American and British cakes, cookies, crackers, biscuits and wafers[edit]

Based on our entries and Wikipedia's, this is my understanding of how cake, cookie, cracker, biscuit and wafer are used in North America and the UK:

  • cake: in both North America and the UK: A rich, sweet dessert food, typically made of flour, sugar and eggs and baked in an oven, and often covered in icing. This thing and the thing which this is a slice of.
  • cookie:
    • North America: A small, flat, baked cake which is either crisp or soft but firm (often with chocolate chips, candies or nuts mixed in). One of these.
    • UK: "A specifically American-style biscuit." (What does this mean? That Brits refer to the thing on the left (not the right) of this picture as a cookie? Or that they only refer to American-style things like this as cookies? If the latter, then (a) the use of the word "biscuit" in the definition is confusing and should be dropped in favour of something clearer, like an explicit reference to the preceding sense, and (b) what distinguishes an American-style cookie from a non-American-style cookie? Can someone provide some images to clarify what is and isn't included in this sense?)
    • UK: A sweet baked cake (as in the previous sense) which has chocolate chips, fruit, nuts etc. baked into it.
    • Wikipedia says these things can also be called cookies, but in which variety of English? What else could they be called?
  • cracker: in both North America and the UK: A dry, thin, crispy, and usually salty or savoury baked bread. This thing and also this thing.
  • biscuit:
    • North America: A small, usually soft and flaky bread, generally made with baking soda, which is similar in texture to a scone but which is usually not sweet. The thing on the left of this picture.
    • UK: A small, flat, baked cake which is either crisp or soft but firm. The thing on the right of this picture. (Is such a biscuit always sweet, or can it be not sweet? If it's always sweet, it would seem to correspond to what American English calls a cookie.)
    • UK, alternatively: A cracker. (The entry has the usex cheese and biscuits. Is this redundant to the previous sense? The things on the right of this picture, which are supposedly biscuits in the previous sense, looks like what American English would call crackers.)
  • wafer: in both North America and the UK: A light, thin, flat biscuit/cookie. This thing and also this thing.

Am I missing anything, or getting anything wrong? How are these terms used in Australia and New Zealand? I'd like to draft a (better) usage note explaining these terms. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In US graham crackers and animal crackers, at least, are sweet, not savory. Otherwise, the US looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The definition does say "usually salty or savoury". I'll move the words around a bit and add "(but sometimes sweet, as in the case of graham crackers and animal crackers)", since the rest of the definition ("dry, thin, crispy ... baked bread") seems to describe those things well enough that I don't think another sense is needed. - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Although in the US (and many other places) sugar finds its way into many foods, including savory crackers, a look at the "crackers" Amazon offers shows that, among top selling items, only graham crackers and animal crackers are basically sweet, cookie-like. I suppose that is a justification for having [[graham cracker]] (made from graham flour) and [[animal cracker]] (shaped like animal cartoons) as entries. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I can speak to New Zealand usage, and suspect from the above that UK is similar. Cake is fine. As for biscuits and cookies - the term "biscuit" is more general, and includes everything that is called a cookie in the US. The term "cookie" can also be used, but is more limited in scope, referring to something that is round and sweet. Thus, your picture of two biscuits does not include anything that would be called a cookie, but the chocolate chip cookie picture could be called either a biscuit or a cookie. I do not think your biscuit picture includes anything that would be called a cracker in either the US or New Zealand, because the things on the right are chocolate and presumably sweet. I think the "American style biscuit" means that it is round, very sweet, and chewier. If it is no sweeter than a graham cracker or animal cracker, then it is a biscuit even if it is round. Thus, your wafer pictures are biscuits, but not cookies (the nilla wafers are borderline). Kiwima (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kiwima: Does sense 1 of biscuit cover how the term is used in New Zealand, or is New Zealand usage even broader? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sense 1 of biscuit covers the term used in New Zealand.Kiwima (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In the UK a "biscuit" is usually a US cookie (i.e. a crunchy baked sweetish thing). Due to US influence, such as "cookies and cream" ice-cream, there are some kinds that we would probably call "cookies", esp the ones that aren't brown and plain and boring (so an Oreo might be a "cookie", but a digestive biscuit would not be. Equinox 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, -sche, you are correct about "cheese and biscuits", but that's something of a set phrase: I get the feeling that, shown a 'cheese biscuit' and asked to name it, most Brits would say "cracker". A biscuit is almost always the sweetish cookie snack thing. Equinox 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on the comments below, it seems there are a few other set phrases where biscuit means "cracker". Do you think the sense is OK as it is, or should it include a context tag like "now chiefly in set phrases"? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
One British friend told me that in order to be a cookie, it has to have chocolate chips in it, so these are cookies but nothing here is one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I've tried to clean up cookie a bit. As you say, it was very misleading - almost backwards, in fact. A British cookie is a flat biscuit with chocolate chips, fruit etc baked into it. An American cookie is anything small, flat, sweet and firm - an Oreo is a cookie to Americans, but not to Brits. I think a British biscuit is not necessarily sweet (water biscuits and ship biscuits are crackers, and digestive biscuits and Hovis biscuits contain sugar, but their salt and wholemeal grain content makes them taste fairly savoury), but if you just said "I'm going to get some biscuits", you'd always be referring to the sweeter half of the cookie-cracker spectrum. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
(By the way, the brown biscuits on the right-hand side of this image are certainly not crackers! They're Bourbon biscuits and are very sweet and chocolately (more-or-less the British version of Oreos, but crumblier and a bit less sickly sweet). They only look like crackers because there's so much sugar on them that it looks like crystalized salt.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, while American-ish usage of cookie has been spreading to Britain, it's possible there's also been a bit of influence in the other direction: judging from various stores' websites, it seems that Americans buy tins of fancy sweets which include things like this that are sometimes labelled (and therefore potentially sometimes referred to in speech as) biscuits. Flat, crisp-not-chewy, chocolate-covered rather than chip-containing things. - -sche (discuss) 10:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably a result of the common American perception of anything British as automatically sophisticated. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • It's the good side of Americans' perception of the British. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Poking around on Google Books for "biscuits" + various American English spellings, I find enough hits that I've changed the "UK" label to "chiefly UK, rare in the US". (I'll try to explain the matter in more detail in a usage note.) - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So, Brits: would you ever refer to Oreos as "cookies", or only as "biscuits"? Equinox says "an Oreo might be a 'cookie'", but Smurray edited [[cookie]] to say Oreos are only called cookies in the US. In general, could you refer to a creme-filled [cookie/biscuit] as a "cookie", or are biscuits only called "cookies" if they contain chocolate (or presumably other flavoured) chips or fruit? - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In Australia, which I imagine is similar, you'd generally call an Oreo a biscuit. You'd only call it a cookie if you were reading it off the packaging, which does say "cookie"[4]; contrast with one image of an Oreo pack (I think from Europe) referring to them as "sandwich biscuits"[5]. I feel like the word cookie in Australia is largely defined by cookie monster,[6] and so still sounds like an American word, and would mostly be used in set phrases like "choc chip cookie", "cookies and cream", "that's the way the cookie crumbles", "browser cookie", "tough cookie", "smart cookie". Pengo (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I am from England; I have never heard of "Oreos", but from the images I see in Google image search I would never call those "cookies". The only type of biscuit that I would call a cookie is something like this or this or this (the last illustrating that they do not always have to have bits of stuff in them). I do not agree with the present UK definition of cookie as "A specifically American-style sweet baked cake, with chocolate chips, fruit, nuts etc. baked into it". I have no perception that the type of biscuits that I would call cookies are "American-style". Also, in the UK they specifically are not "cakes". Cakes are different altogether. Finally, as illustrated earlier, they do not necessarily have things baked into them. Thus the definition is wrong on almost every point. 31.51.2.19 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I reworded the definition a bit and removed "American style", since it indeed makes no sense to say that in British English "cookie" refers only to American-style biscuits, as if those formed a subset of all possible biscuits/cookies, when in fact "cookie" refers to more things in American English than in British English.
What's an example of something a British person would call a "cookie" that doesn't have something baked into it? A peanut butter cookie? - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
An example would be the third picture linked above -- basically think of a chocolate-chip cookie without the chocolate chips. This would be a "plain cookie". I still do not agree with the use of the word "cake" in the definition. 31.51.2.19 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
From a British perspective, a cookie is defined as a particular type of biscuit. The UK definition at biscuit as "A cracker" is quite wrong from a British perspective, by the way. Over here a "cracker" is, again, a particular type of biscuit. 31.51.2.19 03:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that "cake" sounds odd in the definition - in the UK at least, cakes and biscuits are thought of as different things (see w:Jaffa Cakes#Categorisation as cake or biscuit for VAT). "small, flat, baked good" or "food made from small, flat pieces of baked dough" would probably be better. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the point about chocolate chips: one popular UK choc-chip brand, "Maryland" [7], is advertised and packaged as a "cookie". Of course the brand name is supposed to suggest USA. Equinox 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Australian usage:
  • cake - Sweet round or square dessert usually made of a baked batter of flour, eggs, sugar, often milk and other ingredients for flavouring (e.g. cocoa, chocolate chips, dried fruit, nuts, etc.) often iced or frosted. May be elaborately decorated. May be cut into any other shape desired before being decorated (cartoon character shape, fire engine, etc.). A cake usually has a height of 5 cm or more, a width of 20 cm or more and has many small air-holes from cooking which can give it a light, fluffy texture. Other heavier cakes are possible too, e.g. fruit cake. There are also cheesecakes and ice-cream cakes which are cake-shaped (high, round or square or shaped) and are used for celebrations (birthdays, etc.) in lieu of a traditional cake. Despite not being baked these are often just called cakes
  • cookie - American word for sweet biscuit. If you want to buy biscuits at McDonalds (a kid's dessert item) you order cookies since the restaurant chain decided not to use the locally preferred word. As mentioned above also seen in choc-chip cookie, etc. A computer cookie is always a cookie, however. You definitely can't call it a browser biscuit! Due to American influence cookie is gradually supplanting biscuit as the word of choice for a sweet biscuit
  • cracker - Usually called a dry biscuit. May be salted or plain or contain flavoured ingredients mixed into the dough such as cracked (black) pepper or poppy seeds. Usually eaten with savoury toppings such as cheese, although sweet toppings are possible. May be made of flours other than wheat such as rye, etc. Often has holes or indentations on the surface. Water cracker is a name for a specific small round variety (approx. 4-5 cm across) with small holes punched through them. A major manufacturer of biscuits in Australia - Arnott's - also calls some varieties crispbread. Something which a lot of Australians do is butter two slices of crispbread, add a thin layer of Vegemite and then squeeze the two biscuits together, producing "worms" through the holes in the surface of both sides (search for Vegemite worms for images!)
  • biscuit - A small (2 to 5 cm) sweet or dry/savoury flat bread (less than 1 cm in height). Some varieties of sweet biscuit are crème filled - actually two biscuits with a layer of crème pressed between them, e.g. Oreo (a recent addition to Aussie supermarket shelves). May also be chocolate coated e.g. Tim Tams. Savoury biscuits can include crackers or a biscuit baked with powdered toppings. Some plain dry biscuits have whole grains baked into them
  • wafer - The inside of a Kit Kat. Similar to a very flat, unsweetened waffle. Usually no more than 1 mm thick. Has a grid pattern on it. Wedge shaped wafers may be used to decorate fancy ice cream dishes
In fact, the Arnott's website is quite educational in terms of the language they use. They use the terms chocolate biscuit, sweet biscuit, savoury biscuit, as well as cookie and cracker. However, they seem to use cookie as a sub-type of sweet biscuit and cracker as a sub-type of savoury biscuit. Biscuits (including cookies, crackers and wafers) are usually crumbly/crunchy (either hard crunchy (Ginger Nut, Butternut Snap) or soft crunchy (Scotch Finger, Teddy Bear)) when fresh although the texture may change when stale to be soft or tough/chewy. Cakes are always soft, even when heavy. Danielklein (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling of page name, can't move due to me creating it already with the right spelling.[edit]

So, I accidentally made this page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kjälva which is a misspelling. Could anyone remove it?

Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

preferred meaning of "rout"[edit]

I had met only one meaning of "rout" until I came here -- this: noun 3.3 or this: verb 3.1 -- and I found it very strange for it to be so far down.
Is there any way of suggesting where these alternatives are used?
I live in and have travelled extensively in England & Wales and spent some time in Scotland yet have only obviously met the single meaning. The term is used in the Press in the same sense. 09:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Many of our multi-etymology entries are in more-or-less chronological order, as are many definitions within an Etymology. In this case it is particularly hard to believe that this is good for normal users. It might be good for some of those with specialized interests, but I'm not so sure that they couldn't live with another ordering. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Structure of existing theosoph and new theosophe[edit]

How do you structure therelationship between existing theosoph and new theosophe?

OED Online shows the word theosophe as the earliest attestation of the entry theosoph. Knowing that, do I create an Alternative forms section in theosoph entry with a link to theosophe entry and use {{obsolete spelling of|theosoph|lang=en}} in theosophe? Or since both are attested to 1820s (theosophe) and 1830s (theosoph) do they both just point to the same modern lemma? Is the etymology included in both,or since etymologies in dictionaries show that French théosophe is a cognate of theosoph does theosophe show French théosophe as the first part of its etymology? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

long[edit]

I did this, but then got a bit nervous about it. Is it in the right place? This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the right place to me. 73.23.156.236 17:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

morbidly obese[edit]

Surprised to see three senses here (though an anon just merged two of them, which made me notice it): "1. Possessing a state of obesity deemed to be life-threatening. 2. Having excessive body fat. 3. Having a body mass index greater than 39.99 kg/m2." Are these really not just different ways of saying the same thing? i.e. #3 means #1, and is just putting a (temporary, subject to future change) specific measurement on it. Equinox 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Go down to one. The third sense is I assume specific to some medical body. That could plausibly go in the usage notes if we find out which body it is. Perhaps even better than that would be 'see Wikipedia' which we've used for complicated sports rules, like a balk in baseball which is awfully complicated and a full definition could go on for several paragraphs. 95.144.169.113 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
'Having excessive body fat' is just plain wrong. That's being overweight. 95.144.169.113 16:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Done (q.v.). 95.144.169.113 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

ooze[edit]

Once again we have some noun-sense duplication between etymologies 1 and 2. (As a matter of usability, I've noticed that many users don't scroll down far enough to find a second ety, and assume some basic sense is missing, and re-add it under the earliest part-of-speech section that fits.) Equinox 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You should put a hidden comment in the entry itself, so that when the next person comes along, he can see your comment warning them of the two etymologies and so not to change, or add an entry incorrectly. -- ALGRIF talk 10:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

BODMAS, BEDMAS and BOMDAS[edit]

I know that are not supposed to use acronyms etc as parts of speech these days, but these three are defined as phrases. There are manifestly not (no words separated by spaces). How should we describe them? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in the Beer Parlour and 'phrase' was received favourably. I've searched for it but I can't find it. 95.144.169.113 11:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the caps matter, if you say BODMAS is a phrase you understand it means that the letters stand for words and the words make up a phrase. 'The phrase BODMAS' sounds right. 95.144.169.113 16:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kitsch - problem with text of definition.[edit]

Under the ETYMOLOGY section for "KITSCH", the following is written: " - the word and concept were popularized in the 1930s by several critics who opposed it to avant garde art". The sentence structure of this does not make sense, the part, "who opposed it to avant garde art", does not seem to be grammatically correct and seems to have the word that describes what the statement is talking about missing. I can't tell if "to avant garde" is supposed to be an infinitive verb form, or what it is supposed to be. I never heard of people going around "avant garding art". This needs to be corrected with a more complete description in terms that are easier to understand and less grammatically awkward. Linstrum (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The grammar is all right: to oppose is to set in contrast or balance, so "to oppose X to Y" means "to contrast X with Y", or to set up X and Y as opposites. Equinox 04:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this use of "oppose" is so unusual that the sentence would appear to be an error to many people. I think it would be advisable to reword the sentence so as to make it more reader-friendly. 81.132.192.120 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

selling short[edit]

Good evening.

My bad english is pretty good, but my english is pretty bad, so I need help.

Would you be kind explaining to me what does exactly mean the sentence

You might be selling the sign-maker short.

in last xkcd "what if" (link) ?

Thanks for your work. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. We didn't have the appropriate entry. See sell short or sell something short in a few minutes. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
sell oneself short. Equinox 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Equinox, even if belittle is not a word I understand as now, I think the Wiktionary is providing sufficient information for me to understand the meaning.
I will try to create all these words on French Wiktionary, as so French-speaking people can understand that. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And thanks to DCDuring, of course. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems like we're still missing the phenomenon Arséniure de Gallium asked most directly about, sell someone short. And isn't sell oneself short just a reflexive use of that, and don't both phrases in turn have the same basic meaning as sell something short? In other words, couldn't we centralize things on sell short? - -sche 17:01, 10 March 2015 (forgot to sign)
Whether the entry is at sell short or sell something short, the meaning is "to underestimate or undervalue something". The usual convention in English is that persons are included when "something" is used as a placeholder. We sometimes use a headword with a placeholder in cases where the object usually occurs between the other parts of the headword. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
sell short = mésestimer
but in finance, sell short = vendre à découvert (i.e., sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, but only on loan, with the goal of repurchasing it at an advantageous price, then returning the security to the owner and pocketing the profit) —Stephen (Talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Right. That's why there are two senses at [[sell something short]]. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

oral sex[edit]

The entry and the definition ignore anilingus, which is considered a form of oral sex, including by the project itself. So the definition could be more accurate. (Unless people seriously consider the anus a genital.) --Romanophile (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Chambers' definition is very similar to ours (i.e. stimulation of genitals), and personally I probably wouldn't consider anilingus to count as "oral sex", any more than French kissing (it's oral, but not sex). We should compare some more sources. Equinox 21:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that anal sex is a contradiction? --Romanophile (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Anal sex, when it involves at least one genital penis is. However the lines get blurred and it gets easy to think of the anus as a "genital" since it is used in lieu of one when actually it's the penis that makes it sex; not the anus. So, technically it is not oral sex, no more than licking your palm or sucking a finger would be considered "oral sex" Leasnam (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought that Wiktionary was concerned with how a word is attestably used. One's opinions about that is worth less than one citation. DCDuring TALK 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You had me on the first part of that...yet the second part sounds a little, well, opiniony Leasnam (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
So ‘lesbian sex’ is an oxymoron. Good to know. --Romanophile (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There are always two things to consider, the technical aspect and the usage aspect. Technically, by standard definitions, sex involves a genital (penis or vagina, so lesbian sex is sex, "technically"). If it becomes standard through attestable sources that the definition has changed, then let it be so, no sweat. Words, terms, and meanings always evolve over time we can't dispute that Leasnam (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The oxymoron claim reminds me of people complaining about "PIN number", because it expands to "personal identification number number" and is thus redundant. Maybe, but (i) people still say it, and (ii) everyone knows what it means. If you expect language to be totally logical you will always be disappointed. Equinox 22:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe you mean that PIN number is a tautology, not an oxymoron. Unless the meaning of oxymoron has changed from use... :-P Danielklein (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

punch list[edit]

Is this term used outside the US? If not, is there an equivalent? DCDuring TALK 22:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the UK/Irish name for it is a "snagging list". Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That sounds like it might work in Australia and NZ, but perhaps not Canada. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm Australian and I've never heard either punch list or snagging list before. Possibly industry specific terms not in general use? Danielklein (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Homeowners who hire contractors use it in the US. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

gib[edit]

Here in New Zealand, the term "gib" is used for gypsum plaster (also called drywall), and also used as a verb for installing the stuff. I am not sure of the etymology, although I suspect it is from a product name, since GIB is the most common brand. However, it is now used similarly to the way "xerox" and "hoover" have evolved into words (see, e.g. http://www.jaxhamilton.co.nz/part-2-birth-eve/). Should this be added to the topic? I can find lots and lots of examples of the usage, but in fairly transient sources such as real estate ads. Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

magnetical[edit]

I notice that all the example sentances for meanings other than the first use the word "magnetic" rather than "magnetical". What's up with that?

Well spotted. That will be because the entry is based on the old Webster dictionary from 1913, which merged similar words together (so the heading would have been Magnetic, Magnetical). We should fix it up. Equinox 23:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

prejudge, postjudge?[edit]

We have prejudge, can we attest postjudge as well? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems barely attestable. If someone can scrape together enough for an entry, it needs some "rare" or "nonstandard" gloss. Just not a word that people use. Equinox 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would it mean "to judge when it no longer made any difference"? All normal judging is after the fact, so it would be unlikely to have merely temporal meaning. It would be likely only used in contrast with prejudge. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I found attestation for the contrastive use, not the other. The attestation is for strict contrast with prejudge. It seems also to be used for implicit contrast without use of prejudge in the preceding text. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

prodrome, postdrome?[edit]

New Scientist (7th March 2015): a feature on migraines uses prodrome which Wiktionary states is probably by analogy with syndrome, and also postdrome which Wiktionary doesn't list. A visitor: 78.151.56.162 14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

developer[edit]

  • A software developer; a person or company who creates or modifies computer software

Having seen Wiktionary:Tea_room/2012/February#programmer_and_developer, I would say that somebody who plans/designs software without typesetting any code is a software developer, too. Does such a person create the software, or should planning/designing be added to the definition? --Uwe Lück (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of a software developer who didn't program. Try searching job-finder sites and look at the requirements for such posts. Equinox 16:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
What about systems analysts? Can they be called developers? DCDuring TALK 17:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. It's literally a synonym for "programmer", though some low-level programmers might get snobby about it and consider "developers" to be the higher-level enterprisey kind. Equinox 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
When looking at video games, anyone that works on the product can be called "game developer". For example, the content of the Game Developer Magazine doesn't cover code only, but has lots of content about design or art. Same goes for the IGDA (International Game Developer Association) which is about everyone in the industry, and not restricted to programmers. Based on this I'd say it's the same in Software Development, where terms could have been mixed up since >90% of developers are programmers.
Also, from Wikipedia: "In short, developers "make" software for the world to use. Their work includes researching, designing, implementing, and testing software."

should[edit]

I've split out some senses at should, but I'm not sure about the current sense 4. Should this be merged into another sense, moved to should have, or kept where it is? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, this does not need a separate entry. It is simply a modal past, similarly could have, must have, will have, etc etc. which do not have or need entries. ("must have" is actually a re-direct). IMO nº4 should be eliminated (should = advice / personal opinion). In the future I might state that IMO nº4 should have been eliminated (should still = advice / personal opinion, but now talking about a past time frame). -- Using the example in the entry -- When they press the button, the building should blow up (present time frame) When they pressed the button, the building should have blown up (past time frame). --
I would suggest that to better organize this entry, there are 4 modes --
  1. Subjunctive future -- If I should be late, go without me.
  2. Mild obligation / strong advice. Speaker has no authority to enforce. -- You should wear a seat belt, You shouldn't drink and drive
  3. Simple advice / personal opinion. Speaker believes that an action is correct, beneficial or desirable. -- You should brush your teeth every day.
  4. Possibility / probability. Speaker believes that an action is likely to happen, or become. -- When you press this button, the pilot flame should ignite., You should be warm enough with this coat.
    -- ALGRIF talk 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that "should have" has no place in this entry, and that there are no comments neither for nor against my proposed clean-up, I have gone ahead with some minor improvements. -- ALGRIF talk 13:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

boost and car batteries[edit]

I'm a brand-new Wiktionary editor, although I've contributed to Wikipedia & Wikivoyage. I was inspired to join today when I couldn't find any online dictionary which included a very common Canadian / North American usage of boost. However, I realize it won't stand without some examples, citations, etc. but I don't have enough experience to put them in without making a mess. Perhaps some kind soul could help? Here are some examples:

"Your battery is dead and you need a boost..." (followed by detailed instructions on how to jump start a car). From Wheels.ca http://www.wheels.ca/guides/heres-how-to-safely-jump-start-a-dead-battery/
"How to boost a car battery" (again, followed by detailed instructions) From the Globe & Mail newspaper's website http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/how-to-boost-a-car-battery/article1212493/
"We’ll help with any roadside emergency, whether you’ve run out of gas on the side of the road, locked your keys in the car, or you need a tow or boost." Alberta Motor Association website: https://ama.ab.ca/auto-and-driving/roadside-assistance/
Bisset, Alex (editor). Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary, ISBN 0-19-541453-5, copyright 2000. "Boost. vtr. 5. Boost: N Amer recharge (a car battery). n. 4. N Amer. the action of recharging a car battery." p. 104.
"Are you in need of an emergency jump start? Let the pros at Swift Towing help give your battery a boost to have you on your way in no time!" From towing company website: http://towing-calgary.ca/jump-start/
This Canadian Tire video showing how to jump start a car is titled "Battery Boosting - Car To Car". The description says "The video will show you how to jump start a car using a booster cable. It also provides some safety tips to consider when using jumper cables to boost your battery from car to car." http://video.canadiantire.ca/v/11032/battery-boosting-car-to-car-booster-cables-motomaster/
"Boosting a dead battery the safe and effective way". Again, followed by detailed instructions. The Weather Network: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/boosting-a-dead-battery-the-safe-and-effective-way/43137/
"Boosting a dead battery"- article in October 1980 Popular Mechanics magazine, found through Google Books: https://books.google.ca/books?id=RtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA152&dq=boost+car+battery&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s8MBVbehB8GryASczIHIDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=boost%20car%20battery&f=false

There are lots more examples using the search terms

boost car battery

in a Google Books search, but I think examples going from 1980 to 2000 to today should be sufficient. I'd be very grateful for help or even just a pointer to helpful Wiktionary pages so that I can get a quick handle on how to do this myself.--Cornata (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm relieved that we at least have the right definition for the verb, though it is not just Canadian, being used in the US as well. I don't know about UK, Australia, India, etc.
Of the citations above, the one from Popular Mechanics is the only one certain to be accepted, as it is "durably archived" and is a use, not a mention (See use-mention distinction.). The Canadian Oxford Dictionary citation confirms the meaning and may be useful as a reference, but does not count toward attestation, as it is a mention, not a use of boost. For now, add the appropriate definition and the Popular Mechanics citation. If someone challenges the definition in WT:RfV, we can find additional citations valid for attestation. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the feedback, very helpful. I see that Equinox has plunged in and added some other examples.Cornata (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
In Australia we seem to prefer terms using jump: jumper cable, jump-start, etc. We would certainly understand if someone said boost in relation to a car, however. Danielklein (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
In the US we use those same terms, probably more than boost terms. I've never heard of a booster cable, for example. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

elide 3rd definition ("merge or join")[edit]

This definition is spurious. The cited example of its usage is erroneous, probably involving the author's confusing 'elide' with similar sounding word 'align'. 98.82.55.52 02:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Though you are correct that "elide" tends to reference a removal, the result in language is often a merger, or at least a connection. In the phrase "Mark's shoe", for example, one of the sibilants is typically elided (few would enunciate both in speech) and the result is a slurring together of the words, effectively merging them. Though I would never personally use the word for a merger, the quote about the interests being elided makes sense if this sort of merger is meant and intervening obstacles were removed. Ur-Abraxas (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

crystallized ginger[edit]

Often refers to ginger that is candied, not crystallized. Is this idiomatic, or do we just need a new sense under crystallize? --Tropylium (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Existing definitions: crystallize = "to coat something with crystals, especially with sugar"; candy = "To cook in, or coat with, sugar syrup". What's missing? Equinox 13:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The current culinary sense of crystallize does not cover "to cook in sugar", only "to coat with sugar". "Crystallized ginger" is however always cooked, yet does not necessarily have an additional sugar coating. See e.g. [8], [9].
I get the impression that the term has been reanalyzed as "ginger that has been turned into crystalline-ish form" (i.e. pieced and then candied), rather than "ginger that has been covered in (sugar) crystals". The current definition #2 of crystallize fits loosely for this meaning — but since crystallized ginger is not actually a crystal, it might need some kind of adjustment. --Tropylium (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Something like "To make to resemble crystal"? Normal humans (and even engineers and laboratory scientists) often settle for much less than perfect conformity to idealized definitions in using a word for their purposes. Often our definitions focus on the idealized at the neglect of normal usage. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Crystallised/candied ginger is often slightly crunchy and has a texture as if made of coarse, soft crystals compressed together. It may or may not have an additional coating of sugar (either fine like icing sugar or coarse crystals) depending on the recipe. Candied ginger and crystallised ginger are generally used interchangeably. Danielklein (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Crystallized ginger is made from ginger root, something that will never form crystals, "soft" or otherwise. If the root seems crunchy, it is because sugar has been pressed into it. The sugar coating is usually on the outside. Though the term is somewhat inaccurate, it is in use and companies are free to call their products what they choose.Ur-Abraxas (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

expat and expatriate[edit]

This article might make one re-think the definition to reflect the reality of the way these words are actually used: White only expats -- ALGRIF talk 09:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How different from immigrant/emigrant? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian’s selling point is to make everyone look like a racist (except themselves). I wouldn’t use that article as evidence of anything. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a difference in usage (at least in the UK) between expatriate and immigrant, but I think it's incorrect to try to divide it along racial lines (no-one talks about Polish expats or Romanian expats, even those these are both white-majority countries, while "expat groups" that I've been to have included African-American and black and Asian British members). I think it's more correct to say that expatriate simply has a more positive valence than immigrant.
I'd imagine there are several reasons for this. The most obvious one is that in most English-speaking countries, people moving into the country is seen as a threat, while people moving out is not (currently), which has led to immigrants becoming tabloid hate figures, and the word immigrant becoming an easy political buzzword to make people angry (and has to some extent replaced migrant as a deixis-free term for anyone who moves across a border). The difficulties in distinguishing immigrant and emigrant (especially in speech) seem to be driving emigrant out of use as immigrant becomes more popular, which means that expatriate has had to fill the gap. Because immigrants tend to be stigmatized*, expatriate also seems to have been taken on by migrants as the chosen term for referencing themselves (as an immigrant/expatriate myself, I see a lot of internet adverts for "expat social events" and "expat tax advice", but I can't remember ever seeing ads for "immigrant social events" or "immigrant tax advice"), which naturally means that it will take on a more positive tinge. Because expats describe themselves that way even when talking in the context of their new country, the word seems to have undergone a shift in meaning from emigrant to simply migrant. I think we should have a usage note, but just one along the lines of:
"In many English-speaking areas, the terms immigrant and migrant can have negative connotations. The term expatriate is generally more positive, and is especially used by migrants to refer to themselves. The term emigrant is no longer widely used, due to confusion with immigrant."
Those are the facts of usage, as far as I see it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(*)and also to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from disliking immigration while being an immigrant oneself, as is fairly common among British retirees who've decided to live out their sunset years on the Mediterranean coast and the newspaper columnists who decry the state of Britain while writing from their Florida mansions
The Macquarie Dictionary defines an expat as someone who has given up their native country or has been evicted from it. An emigrant is some someone who is living in a country other than their native country, whether or not they still retain ties to their motherland. So someone who has been naturalised (but is not a dual citizen) is an expat while an emigrant or immigrant may or may not be depending on their relationship with their motherland. Yes, I know this is more prescriptive than descriptive, however, it does reflect the way I've always understood and used these words. The words may have different connotations outside of Australia. Danielklein (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

central business district[edit]

My London friend claims that this term is never used in the UK. In Australia though it's very common. Any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My (British) geography teacher used the term in secondary-school geography class. I've never heard it since. Equinox 15:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's in use in the US and the abbreviation CBD also. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

quell.[edit]

Quell - spelling? A topical, rather toxic, medical product meant to kill lice. (It is applied to the hair and scalp in a uniform manner to kill all the lice on the head and then washed out some time later. A certain number of applications may be needed.)

2601:7:9600:78E:C097:7C45:B4C4:D5B8 15:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Greg Alan z.

That's a brand name, and it's Kwell. Equinox 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

shopping mall[edit]

I know this is supposed to be an Americanism, but I hear it in Australia all the time. What about in the UK? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the UK, but it is common here in New Zealand as well. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs).
It may be creeping in amongst the "yoof", but normal people say "shopping centre" in the UK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean yutes? DCDuring TALK 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
In the U.S. we have both shopping malls and shopping centers. They are not the same. Malls have everything under one roof (and surrounded by a vast parking lot). Shopping centers are multiple separate stores that share a single large parking lot. —Stephen (Talk) 16:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
They seem to be the same in the UK - see, as an example, the "Shopping Centre" section of Brent Cross. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hm, what Stephen's calling a shopping center is what I would call a shopping plaza or a strip mall. I'm not sure I would use the term shopping center in en-US at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
shopping center is old-fashioned and not used so much anymore. It was very popular in the 1940s–70s, but in the 1970s the malls came into their own. As the malls became so popular, businesses did not want to be associated with old-fashioned "shopping centers" anymore. Today we even have the term strip mall, which is hardly a mall at all, but a shopping center with the stores arranged in a row along a block or more of a street or highway. —Stephen (Talk) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't offer these as definitions, but there are some characteristics that differentiate various (mostly) post-WWII retail venues:
shopping center, anchored by a grocery store or, possibly, a drug store, with complementary everyday retail, with relatively abundant parking.
shopping mall, usually (mostly, less so in warm and dry climates) under one roof, anchored by one or more department stores, with complementary specialty retail, surrounded by abundant parking.
strip mall, row or stores, no obvious anchor, sufficient off-street parking.
outlet mall, large aggregation of stores, not indoors, offering brand name goods, often seconds, overstocks, out-of-fashion items, at relatively low prices.
big-box stores, many type of stores, sometimes category-killers , but stand-alone.
We should have something for these. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd call it a "shopping centre" but I might think "mall". I literally don't know how to pronounce that word though, so I never say it. I don't think many people in the UK say it. Equinox 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Homophonic with maul in the US. DCDuring TALK 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

accept[edit]

What sense of accept are fabric labels like these using? "Wash in the warmest water the fabric will accept", "if a fabric will accept a low-heat iron,...", etc. All of the senses in our entry which have usexes show usage with humans or human organizations as subjects; the same can be said of all of Dictionary.com's senses except 12 "to receive or contain" (which has a usex about a socket accepting a certain kind of plug). Merriam-Webster has "1b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) a surface that will not accept ink". - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The fabric uses seem like "to tolerate/accommodate without (noticeable?) damage/impairment". Because of the qualification it doesn't seem quite the same as either the Dictionary.com or MW definitions. Perhaps it could be a subsense of a definition like MW's. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

simple[edit]

Should we add a grammatical sense to this adjective (as opposed to continuous)? --Fsojic (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Simple" isn't always contrasted with "continuous", though. It generally means "formed by inflection" and is opposed to periphrastic. The simple present in English (which is contrasted with the continuous or progressive present) is one example, but there are others, e.g. the simple past in French in German (il alla/er ging), which is contrasted with the perfect (il est allé/er ist gegangen). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations:esquivalience[edit]

Are these citations sufficient to recreate the entry, or does anyone think that there is a problem with any of them? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The top one is not a genuine use, but an invented example for a dictionary. The middle example is a bit iffy - it's from a section of a book about how the word was coined. The bottom seems fine. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm aware of the context, but I'm not sure how whether it's "genuine" factors into the CFI. A usage example in a dictionary is still a use, not a mention. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't. As I commented on the 2011 RFV of crocklet, WT:CFI says "[the requirement that words be shown to be] Conveying meaning [...] filters out [...] made-up examples of how a word might be used". - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

it never rains but it pours[edit]

Are there any phrases similar to this but with neutral or positive valence? For example, if a person has had nothing to do for a long time, and suddenly has a great many things that need to be done (some of them positive and enjoyable, some stressful and burdensome). - -sche (discuss) 08:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

British English has a snowclone "You wait ages for a [X] and then three come along at one". The standard form is the lament "You wait ages for a bus, and then three come along at once", but the phrase is very versatile (eg 1, 2, 3, 4). Maybe not Wiktionary material though, since its meaning is always transparent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it never rains but it pours necessarily has a negative valence. It can be said of good things that happen in rapid succession after a long period of nothing good happening, can't it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought, too, but our definition suggests otherwise. Can we find citations of positive use? The first hit for google books:"never rains but it" joy clearly thinks it's negative: "We have a proverb about trouble: 'It never rains, but it pours.' But that is the philosophy of pessimism." On the other hand, the next hit is "But, he added, 'it never rains but it pours,' and at the present meeting they had had brought before them not only Mr. Joy's valve gear but also two other excellent substitutes for the link motion." - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This quote from Anne of Green Gables is about never getting a marriage proposal until one is past forty, and then getting three at once. (The woman in question picked the wrong suitor to say yes to, which was negative, but the saying itself was referring to the presumably positive experience of being proposed to.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Skip (noun)[edit]

In the United Kingdom "skip" is used to designate a large rubbish bin. Reference: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressreleasepage.aspx?id=6635

I did not want to edit the existing entries, because I was not sure how to append the documentation.

This is already in there: "(Australia, New Zealand, UK) A large open-topped rubbish bin, designed to be lifted onto the back of a truck to take away both bin and contents; called a dumpster in North America (where "skip" is completely unknown and incomprehensible). " Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

dit#English[edit]

It looks to me as if Etymology 1 and Etymology 4 should be merged:

Etymology 1[edit]

From Middle English ditten, dütten, from Old English dyttan (to stop up, close)...

Verb[edit]

  1. (UK dialectal, Northern England) To stop up; block (an opening); close.

Etymology 4[edit]

Old English dyttan...

Verb[edit]

  1. (obsolete) To close up.

Would an expert please review this entry? Danielklein (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

filmic[edit]

Why would this term be considered non-standard? My Oxford doesn't claim as such. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's non-standard but it is only used in certain situations, e.g. academic papers. If I were talking conversationally about the effects in a film I'd just watched, I might say "cinematic" but not "filmic". Equinox 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's non-standard either. I just heard someone use it in a conversation, so I don't think it's restricted to academic papers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

as far as one is concerned[edit]

Why don't we have this? We have in one's opinion. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

as far as one is concerned at OneLook Dictionary Search DCDuring TALK 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not? I think as far as someone is concerned is better, but not without adding redirects for at least present and past tenses and seven different personal pronouns + something for a total of 16 hard redirects. That omits perfect aspect, future tense, modals, but I think they are very unlikely to be used in the search box. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
We could do with a target for AFAIC and AFAIAC -- ALGRIF talk 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

potlatch: meaning "similar to" potluck?[edit]

I have a comment /slash question. I was almost going to add it ) to the "Talk:" page for the word "potlatch", -- [as the first section of a new Talk: page!] -- but a little birdie there recommended to post it here instead.

In the entry for the word "potlatch", I noticed that definition no. 2 said: << "A communal meal to which guests bring dishes to share." >>

Isn't that similar to (or, the same as) the meaning of "potluck"? Could there be some (perhaps misguided) 'folk etymology' taking place, here? Perhaps "by way of" some inadvertent malapropism?

Maybe not. Maybe "potlatch" can mean << "A communal meal to which guests bring dishes to share." >>, without any hint of contamination from (and maybe even without any shared etymology with) the word "potluck".

I do not know the answer. I am just asking the question.

Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the Etymology section of potluck? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

breaking of the waters[edit]

We don't seem to have either a noun or a verb entry for the rupturing of the membranes at the end of pregnancy. I can't decide on the best combination of words. Feel free to add them. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The dictionary lemma for the verb would be presumably be "one's waters break", but that's borderline gibberish even if grammatically it's equivalent to "her waters broke". Do we have any similar entries for this sort of verb phrase? waters is also horribly deficient, and there's nothing at break either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
In US English we would say "her water broke", I think (confirmed by Cambridge Adv. Learners Dict).
Wouldn't entry and links at bag of waters, appropriate definitions and usage examples at water, waters, and break address the concern by putting the appropriate enrties at the top of a failed-search listing. It could be supplemented by hard redirects to {{senseid}}ed definitions. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

cataloging of german colloquial first singular present dropping -e[edit]

In german, colloquially, the first person singular present final schwa is often dropped, but these versions are not cataloged in wiktionary (as far as I can tell). I think one is meant to use an apostrophe to mark this in poetry or song lyrics or whatever, but this is often not respected and wiktionary should be cataloging it regardless.

We do have some e-less first-person singular forms marked as such, e.g. komm, trink, and sag. The prescriptive rules of German call for an apostrophe on apocopated verb forms only if the form would be difficult to read or understand, otherwise not: examples from Duden are daran zweifl’ ich nicht (where zweifl without an apostrophe would look funny) vs. Das hör ich gern and Ich lass das nicht zu, where hör and lass are easy to read and understand without an apostrophe. The same rules apply to the second-person singular imperative, by the way. In spite of the official rules, though, the apostrophe is widespread in actual use, and if someone wanted to created pages like komm', trink', sag', hör', and lass', they would probably be verifiable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In that case, what is the policy? Should I start adding them by hand now as I feel it's appropriate?Telmac (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you like, but keep verifiability in mind. Verbs commonly used in the spoken language are much more likely to have e-less forms than verbs like pharyngalisieren. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but that "The prescriptive rules of German call for an apostrophe on apocopated verb forms only if the form would be difficult to read or understand" could be (kind of) wrong. The currect prescriptive rules (Rechtschreibreform 1996, 2004, 2006, 2010/11) might be like that, but traditionally (local rules in different German states, rules from ca. 1900) it might be different. So forms like "hör" could be wrong, at least in case of traditional rules, and then there should at least be usage note. -15:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Otaku[edit]

There seem to be many problems with this entry. First, the usage of the term has changed greatly over a couple decades. A Japanese prime minister has even identified himself as one, as have over 42% of surveyed Japanese persons (in one form or another). The usage used to be negative but now is more mainstream and somewhat comically self-deprecatory. It's usage as "geek" is far from the mark and generally has come to mean anyone who is deeply involved in any topic, and more specifically, anime, manga, idol-worship, comics, movies, pop music, or another subcultural element.

It's meaning as "home" is also somewhat inaccurate as it formerly referred to another person's home rather than one's own.

In any case, its present usage is almost never as "home" of any type, and the assumed meaning that was ascribed as "geek" has now become its chief meaning, no longer "rare". Ur-Abraxas (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • What entry are you talking about? Neither the English entry at otaku nor the Japanese entry at おたく has any "rare" label. If you're referring to the Japanese entry at お宅, the "rare" label is intended to convey that the geek sense is rare for that spelling. A usage note would help clarify that ambiguity. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It is the "geek" sense that is incorrect (there never was a "geek" usage, though someone arguing a very broad definition of "geek" may debate that - a person obsessed with or focused on some aspect of subculture would hardly be called a "geek"), as well as the main definition now that the "geek" sense has become mainstream.Ur-Abraxas (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: geek, where are you from? I ask out of curiosity. The sense of "someone obsessed with a particular subject" is commonly expressed as "[SUBJECT] geek" in the idiolects I'm familiar with, as someone who grew up on the US east coast.
About the Japanese entries, おたく or オタク is the more common spelling for this sense. As far as I've seen, the rare tag is still appropriate for the お宅 spelling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

four-year college[edit]

Does this has a specific meaning in American English? If so, it seems idiomatic. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The name comes from the assumed minimum time it takes to get a degree: we have two-year colleges, such as community colleges, and four-year colleges, which are universities. I'm not so sure the whole phrase is idiomatic: you can talk about two/four-year schools, two/four-year institutions of higher learning, etc. There are also two-year and four-year degrees. My personal case demonstrates why these terms aren't strictly SOP: being a bit of a professional student, I took a number of years to get a two-year degree at a two-year college, but also took university-transferrable classes, so that when I finally transferred to a four-year college, I was able to graduate with a four-year degree in two years. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a contrast to a two-year college, aka junior college (usually private) or community college (publicly funded). Two-year college is a convenient term to include both junior college and community colleges. Junior colleges leading to an a associate degree in two years (of full-time study) were an innovation of the second half of the nineteenth century. I think of four-year as a polite equivalent to real. DCDuring TALK 02:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Not all four-year colleges are universities, though. A college that offers a Bachelor's degree is a four-year college; a university has to offer some graduate degree such as a Master's. I think four-year college is idiomatic for the reason Chuck mentioned; also, a student who earns a lot of credit through placement tests could get a Bachelor's in only three years. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

feel-good factor[edit]

Can this term be used outside the context of an election? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. About the morale of a workforce, about an audience for a speech or a TV show, or an ad, about self-congratulation generally. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

reengage[edit]

Re-engage to me is to repeat some activity with the thought of an advanced achievement. Reengage to me would be like trying to put your transmission back in gear again. Would this be correct?

I don't think the hyphen would affect the meaning. Either one can mean "engage again" in any sense of engage, as far as I know. Equinox 14:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

false marriage[edit]

Should we have an entry for false marriage, i.e. a marriage into which the parties enter for some other reson than for sharing their lives? Such reason could e.g. be assistance in obtaining a residence permit. It seems to be at least a semi-legal term as the UK and Canadian immigrations, and perhaps others too, have guidelines for such conduct. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I just realised that we have sham marriage. The entry lists fake marriage, false marriage, fictitious marriage and mock marriage as synonyms, but the question remains - should we have them? We also have marriage of convenience. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
marriage of convenience seems entryworthy as a euphemism. Some of others don't seem to belong in the same synset, based on the differences in meaning of the adjectives. We could also have marriage for show, fraudulent marriage and others, but these, sham marriage, and the ones listed there as synonyms don't seem to have any real meaning beyond that of their components. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Roman[edit]

On the page for the word Roman, there is no definition of the adjective meaning to do with the verb 'Romans', meaning the civilization.

Is this not good enough: "Of or from the Roman Empire"? Equinox 14:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

bangs[edit]

The example sentance under the verb form does not strike me as very useful, and I suspect it was added as an act of vandalism. However, it has been there since it was added by an anonymous user in 2012, so perhaps I am missing something here.

Ha, I think that will be an in-jokey reference to our own User:Dick Laurent (formerly known as Ric). Equinox 19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
By Wonderfool in one of his IP phases. Do we really need an example sentence in a form-of entry? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I try to keep them at the lemma form, unless the inflected form is so weird that it might otherwise be challenged. Equinox 20:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Do we really need an example sentence in a form-of entry?" Maybe not for English. Lithuanian? Definitely. But either way: who cares? Is there not enough room for them? Are they hurting anyone or anything?
The way people get offended by harmless little example sentences that demonstrate perfectly the nature of the off-color words they're being used to illustrate... is amazing. Come let us not wallow in the reality of human existence, but let us elevate ourselves to such unspeakable idiocy as this -- "The noble king went in, saw his wife the young queen basking in the soft light of her ornate lamps, and spoke softly to her saying, my dear, I wish to bang you immediately." Fucking seriously. — [Ric Laurent] — 08:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it was from WF in fact. I must say it was quite funny at the time. It's pleasant to see that such humour has not become stale after 4 years. "I wish to bang you immediately", indeed --Type56op9 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

elisi as a Finnish word[edit]

A claim is made that elisi is a Kotus class 53 word (like muistaa), and it is

   Third-person singular conditional present form of elää.
   Conditional present connegative form of elää.

When looking at a conjugation table, the corresponding form is /eläisi/ in both accounts. Now my own linguistic head says elisi is incorrect. But it is less apparently incorrect verb inflection than e.g. helkkisi or muistisi (which'd be a correct noun inflection). 84.250.122.35 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right. The correct form is eläisi. I have erased the Finnish section of "elisi". --Hekaheka (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I checked the page history, and the erroneous form has been there since Oct. 2007. Good work, Anon. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I found some usage after all, rolled back my deletion and added tag "rare, nonstandard". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

so help me God[edit]

What does this phrase actually mean? I don't think our definition is right. For some reason, we've defined it as a noun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Converted to a non-gloss definition. The pre-existing definition might have tempted a particularly naive learner to substitute the word oath for the phrase. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

residence[edit]

I noticed this sense, which I thought a bit strange: a place where a corporation is established. Is this an Americanism? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a Britishism too? DCDuring TALK 11:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In England how does one refer to corporations residing in other countries, such as Scotland or Jersey. In the US corporations (which are "persons") reside in states. It may be that the terms extends to sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

on-campus, off-campus[edit]

Are these really only used in American English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Nope. I've removed the US tag --Type56op9 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

suppa[edit]

The page "suppa" claims that the word suppa can be an adjective meaning "Narrow" in Finnish. I haven't been able to verify such a sense. Kielitoimiston sanakirja gives only a noun meaning (http://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/netmot.exe?ListWord=suppa&SearchWord=suppa&dic=1&page=results&UI=fi80&Opt=1), Urbaani sanakirja does not have such an entry (http://urbaanisanakirja.com/search/?q=suppa) and I as a native Finnish speaker don't recognize such a meaning for the word "suppa". Timo Nurmi's dictionary "Uusi suomen kielen sanakirja" (1998) doesn't have such an entry at all. Perhaps suppa means narrow in another language and the person who added that meaning forgot to tell what language it was? Someone who knows please fix this. 91.154.122.198 13:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an error; suppea means "narrow" --fixed. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

intransitive build in computer science[edit]

There exists another sense of build, which means 'to compile successfully'. For example: "the docs built yesterday without any trouble". This sense is somewhat informal, though technical. Telmac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried to improve the definition. 174.47.29.50 09:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't it need the word compile, at least in a usage example, to be intelligible? DCDuring TALK 13:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It's usually transitive (now added); and yes, I think "compile" is necessary (also now added): even though you can build things other than executables (e.g. Windows Help files) it's still a process of compilation. Equinox 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutchman[edit]

Sense 3 is "a German". Dated, or even obsolete? 174.47.29.50 09:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dated seems appropriate, or archaic. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Archaic, I'd say. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
google books:"stubborn Dutchman" shows some use referring to German descent in relatively current fiction, but, though my (Germanic) parents used it that way, I haven't heard people of even my generation use it. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Except for "Pennsylvania Dutch", of course ;) Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

company[edit]

Isn't a sense like "circle of friends, companions; group of people meeting socially" missing here? Einstein2 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that different from sense 4, "social visitors or companions"? - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Which Inflection-table?[edit]

Which Ancient Greek noun inflection-table do I add for νόσημα, ατος, τό? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

{{grc-decl-3rd-N-dn-prx}}. See ὄνομα#Inflection for an illustration of how it works. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
TVM, could someone verify I did it right (i.e. someone skilled in Greek)? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks right to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerned about Donnanz's misguided crusade against non-British spellings[edit]

I am concerned about Donnanz's misguided crusade against non-British spellings. He is now tackling e.g. sulf/sulph for sulfur compounds, e.g. [10]: this is not a simple BrE/AmE issue since the official scientific rules prefer sulf (Blotto can back me up, I expect) regardless of country. And in the other areas Donnanz has been tackling, he seems to show a blindness to language change and evolution, and a pigheaded insistence on separate US and UK forms, whereas there is actually a wide continuum even within a single country, let alone in Hong Kong, Trinidad, and countless other English-speaking areas. Can we stop him?! Equinox 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Before he has a go at me, I'm British, and pretty damn literate. Equinox 02:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I share your concern. If you think it's bad enough, he could be blocked. I think it is rather important for someone intending to be a constructive participant here to be essentially descriptive and fact-oriented. The worst thing of all is to be chauvinistic or focused on one's own idiolect, believing that one's own subset of the language is more than one of many clouds of data points.
If he doesn't outgrow his pathology, we should block him. DCDuring TALK 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I can back up Equinox on sulfur/sulphur. Chemical terms (and, I assume drugs containing the term) are spelled with an "f" throughout the scientific community, just as aluminium is spelled with an "i". They should not be labelled as American or British (etc). The general populace spells these words with an f/ph, and with or without an "i", depending on their country of origin. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop Donnanz. Thank you very much for this post in Beer parlour. Oops, it's Tea room; oh well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's put politely, I can stop quite readily, and there is no need for a block. Is it just sulf- / sulph- you're mainly concerned about? I was using Oxford for guidance, but I know it's not as cut and dried as all that with those. There shouldn't be any question about the -ph- spellings, but I won't argue about the -f- spellings. I wasn't planning to do any more of those anyway. With other non-sulphur-related words I realise that it can vary, but that can be catered for. There are categories for American, British and Canadian spellings, but I don't know of any others. Commonwealth countries usually follow British practice, but there can be variations of course. A crusade, huh? Donnanz (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    By "Oxford for guidance", you mean http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been using my hard copy, which is virtually the same, though the online version may be more up to date than my 2005 edition. Donnanz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Luckily enough, we go by evidence whenever we can, not by reference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the rule was not to include etymologies in alternative forms. --Romanophile (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that etymology should be included in both forms, but I have been concentrating on the British etymologies. In a lot of cases nobody has got round to putting them in under either spelling. Donnanz (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
In addition to that, the "alternative form" is not consistently British. I guess it depends on which spelling was entered first. Well before my time. Donnanz (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Equinox: what do you think e.g. of sulfide? The frequency picture in GNV shows that while sulfide ‎is on par with sulphide in the British corpus after 2000, in 20th century sulphide was predominant. Here, removing American label is not so unequivocal action as in some other cases, such as sulfamethoxazole (GNV, British corpus). --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

college[edit]

It looks to me as if the many definitions of college could use a bit of a cleanup. Unfortunately, I don't feel I am up to the task, because I am only familiar with American and New Zealand usage, and this is a term where each country seems to define it differently.

Here in New Zealand, it refers to a secondary school, not a tertiary institution (with the exception of a specialized division - definition 10 - such as College of Engineering or College of Law). At the very least, that makes definition 5 (an institution of higher education) wrong.Kiwima (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Education has some tricky differences between countries; I've mainly only encountered the UK/US/Canada ones, where "school", "college", and "public/private school" can vary quite widely. I just glanced at College#New_Zealand and it does mention secondary school (among other things). Please add the sense! Our editors represent a pretty biased cross-section of world Englishes, as I was complaining earlier (hah), and I think that one area where we need work is in Aussie vs. NZ English. Equinox 04:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You could start by labeling as "NZ" the usages you know are New Zealand uses and similarly for "US". I wonder whether any of the definitions are shared among all Anglophone areas. DCDuring TALK 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
They were secondary schools in the 1960s; schools were in three stages - primary, intermediate and secondary. I never went to intermediate school as I lived outside the nearest city which had one {Invercargill), going straight from primary school to secondary in Invercargill. But of course a lot has changed since the 1960s. Donnanz (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have done what I could to clean it up. Kiwima (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"shaded it"[edit]

This BBC News article uses the phrase "shaded it" a couple of times. What does this mean? Does it fall under any of the senses at shade#Verb? This, that and the other (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It is an unusual meaning of the verb shade that we are missing, and corresponds to the sense #6 of the noun (that also had no definition!). It means to be ahead by a small amount. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian nagas[edit]

@Viskonsas, エリック・キィ: I think that term has been neglected for a long, long time. Who wants to give it some attention? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notification. I have added basic information there. Maybe its stress pattern is 4, though I should confirm it precisely. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response. It is absolutely correct now. Thank you. --Viskonsas (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

predominantly/predominately[edit]

What, exactly, is the difference in meaning between predominantly and predominately? Are they synonyms? Is one more "correct" than the other? Is there some subtle difference in usage that should be noted (like the often-confused size and mass)? bd2412 T 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • IMHO predominantly is "correct" and predominately is just a misspelling that may have become an alternative spelling over time. The same goes for the two underlying adjectives. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    The usually sound World Wide Words has something to say on this. DCDuring TALK 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    This Google N-gram shows that predominantly is much more common, but that predominately is gaining ground. Other dictionaries define predominately as meaning "predominantly". DCDuring TALK 09:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I have adapted the usage note from predominately to also note this relationship in predominantly. bd2412 T 17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

carajo[edit]

The carajo is the basket high up in the mast of old sailing ships, where sailors were put on the outlook for land or pirate ships. This basket is called 'crow nest' in English and 'kraaienest' in Dutch. This was the most uncomfortable place on these ships, where there was much movement and usually a cold wind. There is an old saying in Castilian "Cuando el grajo vuele abajo hace frio de carajo" When the crow flies low it is cold like (in the) crow nest. Nothing rude about that. To be put on guard in the crow nest was often a punishment dealt out by the captain. If you were sent to the crow nest it was like being sent to hell. 'Vete al carajo' became to mean something like 'Go to hell'. This curse also came to be used in the hinterland, where the meaning of the word 'carajo' was not understood and where it obtained its vulgar connotation. A black espresso with cognac is widely known as a 'carajillo' (little crow nest). Probably because such drink would give you warmth and strength to go on guard in the crow nest.

Meaning of Affix[edit]

Affix is simply "translated" as affix. But which meanings does it actually have?
E.g. Meyers (1905) and Brockhaus (1911) only have it as "prefix or suffix". duden.de has a similar meaning, though it could maybe be understand to include other -fixes as well. "Affixum" has the general meaning of "That which is affixed" and suffix, but that's another word.
So, does Affix also mean "That which is affixed" and "suffix"? -22:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC), comment added by IP.

This is a general problem with many definitions but it also arises from the way Wiktionary is built up over time. Perhaps, when the entry Affix was first created, affix only had one sense. Then someone added more senses to affix, which now made not just Affix, but any other entry using that term as a definition, ambiguous. I don't really know what way this could be solved, because there will always be cases where an English entry is edited, but all the non-English entries that refer to it are not. And it's not likely that that will change, as it would be a pain. —CodeCat 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

peruse?[edit]

Question: Please let me know if using the word pruse in the following sentence is acceptable. My husband and I were prusing through you cookbook last night enjoying your recipe titles. —This comment was unsigned.

You must mean peruse. I would say "My husband and I were perusing your cookbook....". The through is not wrong, but is not necessary and could be considered redundant. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

guild[edit]

I have two questions regarding guild. First: What about the MMORPG usage of this word? Although named for the "group of tradespeople" sense, I feel like the usage is distinct enough to warrant its own entry. The word clan does have an entry for its video game sense. In games, and especially MMORPGs, the sense is that of a group of players who regularly play together, similar to a (video game) clan. The key difference is that while clans are usually not formalised within the game mechanics, guilds always are. Second: Where did the 'u' in the spelling come from? Did a particular author or dictionary popularise it? Is there any known or hypothesised reason for it, such as perceived etymology, influence from other words, or avoiding confusion with gild? 73.23.156.236 03:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Added the gaming sense. Not sure about the spelling but it doesn't seem unique (guilt, guide, guise...); anyone? Equinox 04:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In general, words with "gui" are mostly from some historical stage of French, and they tend to be from a Germanic source, with the "gui" replacing an original "wi". That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. One reason for the "u" is shared with (maybe borrowed from?) French: it ensures that the "g" is pronounced hard, as in guilt, rather than soft, as in gist. It may be that the "u" was added by analogy of "gu" words of French origin. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I also think it's a French influence. It was used alongside gui-words for quite a while without a 'u', and there were also numerous spellings that suggested a pronunciation with a non-hard g (with y or yogh). Perhaps as the hard-g pronunciation spread, so did the relatively unambiguous "gui" spelling borrowed from French. In the absence of resources that chronicle the spellings of that particular word through time and space, I'll have to be content with guesses. Thank you! 73.23.156.236 15:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

forthwith[edit]

According to “forthwith” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001). forthwith was a preposition before it was an adverb. That helps explain the curious etymology, but we lack a preposition section (or a link in the entry to any differently spelled Middle English version) and we lack Old English forð mid, the precursor. It would be nice to see an example of the preposition in use in Modern English, Middle English, and Old English. DCDuring TALK 10:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"forth-with, adv.", MED Online. University of Michigan: 2007. URL accessed on 2015-04-02. lists fō̆rth-with (adv.) Also fourth-, furþ-. There are three definitions there with quotes dating to a. 1395. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thanks. I'd bookmarked the MED, but forgot all about it. I'm going to check the OED to see if I can find some support for this preposition claim. I don't really trust my ability to read the quotations findable with full-text search at MED. DCDuring TALK 21:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

rudern: auxiliary "haben" or "sein"[edit]

rudern currently says the auxiliary is "haben". It could be "haben" or "sein". I looked at Template:de-verb-weak/documentation but could not figure out how to make it say "haben or sein"? Should documentation be improved? Or what should I be reading to more easily know how to contribute? --Hugovdm (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The documentation should definitely be improved. This is how to fix it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FWIW I've gone ahead and mentioned this on de-conj-weak and de-verb-weak... though it should clearly be mentioned on many more templates. --Hugovdm (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

private school[edit]

The definition of private school is specific to US, Canada, and Australia. I know the term is used in the UK as well - does it have a different meaning there? If it is the same, perhaps we should remove the contextualisation. Otherwise, can someone who knows add a definition for the UK?

  • A private school in the UK is a school not run by a local authority (borough or district within a county), and fees are paid for education. A public school such as Eton, despite the name, is in the same category. Public schools are a cut above private schools, and the parents have to be quite wealthy to send their children to a public school. Donnanz (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

conform[edit]

I would love it if a smarty pants could add a usage note explaining the difference between "conform to" and "conform with". Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the uses out there in the literature, they appear to be interchangable. In my own personal usage, I tend to use "to" with a plural (conform to the rules) and "with" with a singular (conform with the standard), but I find plenty of examples that go the other way. Kiwima (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In my idiolect conform to implies that the target of the conformity is more rigid, geometric, etc than would be the target of conform with. It would be interesting to compare conform to at OneLook Dictionary Search, conform with at OneLook Dictionary Search, and conform at OneLook Dictionary Search to see how real lexicographers treat this. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
At least one dictionary has usage examples of "conform with a plan" contrasted with "conform to a rule", which conforms with my idiolect. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Fowler objected to conform with, but few others seem to, not even the picky Garner's Modern American Usage. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
And, lastly, conform to is about 11 times more common at COCA and 7-8 times more common at BNC than conform with. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am reasonably sure that the usage qualifications (thing vs person) on the two transitive definitions are less important than those that lead to a different choice of following preposition. Probably the definitions should be changed as well, but I don't want to force the translations to conform to definitions that don't conform with the idiolects of our native speakers. DCDuring TALK 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

body electric[edit]

Does this term have a meaning of its own? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This may help: [11] Equinox 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

-ible/-able redundancy[edit]

Some adjectives are well attested in both -ible and -able forms; an example would be reflectible and reflectable. This extends to attested derivations like reflectibility and reflectability. Do we have any kind of order of precedence by which to determine that one is the alternative spelling of the other? Does it matter which one is more widely used, or which one was the first to be used? Do we just present them as two distinct words? bd2412 T 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about previous practice, but I support going by frequency, especially if there are huge differences. In the above mentioned case, neither of the two forms is a clear frequency winner, as per reflectible, reflectable at Google Ngram Viewer and reflectibility, reflectability at Google Ngram Viewer, so I would leave them alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to see what legitimate basis there is other than frequency for preferring one suffix over the other. Generally, the "ible" forms are derived from Latin adjectives ending in "ibilis" and the "able" forms are modern constructs from a verb + "able". It is possible that the public-school-class of Great Britain prefers the "ible" forms because the use of such forms is a marker, however imperfect, of frivolous education and therefore social class. DCDuring TALK 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

PIE *leǵ-/*les-[edit]

PIE *leǵ- means "to gather". On Proto-Germanic *lesaną it says that the PG word comes from PIE *les- "to gather". Would an expert in proto-languages please review these entries as it seems to me that they should be linked. These roots have led to words meaning "to read" in most Romance and Germanic languages (except English). Danielklein (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Linked how, exactly? There is no etymological connection between *leǵ- and *les-. —CodeCat 02:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, how likely is it that there would be two PIE roots that differ by one sound, and that have the same meaning? How would they not overlap, and how would such a situation even arise? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not know if it works out this way in this instance, but it could if these roots represented *le-ǵ- and *le-s- respectively, yet when I researched it didn't appear that this was the case. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't be possible; you have to have a well-formed root before you can start adding interchangeable consonant suffixes to it, and *le- isn't a well-formed root. As for synonyms that differ by only one sound, consider chop and lop, run and rush, or the relevant senses of dull and dumb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Granted, phonetically close synonyms exist. But the examples here are also semantically different enough that the existence of different words is not surprising.
Perhaps someone could help elucidate how PIE *leǵ- and *les- differ in their meanings? Or if they might be related? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

face[edit]

Wikipedia has the following anecdote about the show Mystery Science Theater 3000:

"Murphy then invited Vonnegut to dine with his group, which Vonnegut declined, claiming that he had other plans. When Murphy and friends ate later that night, he saw Vonnegut dining alone in the same restaurant, and remarked that he had been "faced... but nicely faced" by one of his literary heroes."

The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide, as visible on Google Books, gives the full quote as:

"That was it. Faced by my literary hero. Nicely faced though, he was charming throughout."

What does this mean? I've never come across "faced" like this before, and it doesn't match any definitions in our entry or in the OneLook dictionaries. Context suggests something like stood up or blown off, or perhaps something related to lose face. MST3K's cast were from the Midwest US and the writing tended to be filled with Twin Cities references, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was Minnesota/Wisconsin slang. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like short for get faced=in your face/dissed/insulted... Leasnam (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

winded[edit]

The entry is missing a definition. "Winded" can describe the method that a windmill is turned to face into the wind to allow it to work. A mill may be winded by a tailpole, wheel and chain, or a fantail. I'm unsure of the referencing requirements here, so am raising the question here instead of boldly adding the entry. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We probably want a sense at wind (verb), then. Does our existing sense "To expose to the wind; to winnow; to ventilate" cover it, or not? Equinox 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Not quite - "to turn to face the wind" is nearer the mark. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

outwear[edit]

There is a rfdef on outwear with a quote about "outworn its welcome". Isn't this just another example of definition 1, to wear out? Am I missing something? Kiwima (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. In fact, "wear out one's welcome" exists, which shows that it's the same thing. Equinox 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

nastoyka[edit]

How is nastoyka used in English? It's derived from the Russian насто́йка (nastójka). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I have added a definition (based on Googling), but it is still pretty rare outside of Russia. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll see what else can be done to the entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally use that word in the same situations where I would use настойка. I limit it to contexts involving Slavic culture; I call it an infusion otherwise, since that word is more widely known, and describes the preparation process accurately. I don't feel confident enough in my experience with the (English) word to edit the entry, but I think it should be made clear that they're not necessarily liqueurs, though they can be. Nastoykas can be made without additional sugar, and with ingredients that are not sweet, without being any less of a nastoyka. Perhaps simply replacing "liqueur" in the definition with "liquor" or "an alcoholic drink" would work. Eishiya (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames of individuals[edit]

I'm not sure what people think about these, so I wanted to check before adding them. I'm talking about adding a definition for Eva Perón at Evita and a definition for Steve Wozniak at Woz — do we agree that these are lexicographical material? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • If they are "words" in a "language" then they would be welcome because of our commitment to include "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

influencable[edit]

This is not an alternative form, it is obviously a misspelling. Pronouncing c softly before a contradicts English phonological rules. No Anglophone would ever recommend this over the correct form. --Romanophile (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Presumably they would pronounce it somewhat like comprehensible. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

bronzeware[edit]

I'm surprised we don't have this word. Am I missing something? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternate[edit]

This entry gives me pain just thinking about it, I've tried to ignore it, but its a worm that eats away at me, forcing me to bring it up here.

Originaly the use of alternate as a synonym of alternative was marked as a common misuse, but after a series of editing skirmishes in the summer and autumn of 2009 (with US users, I presume, taking umbrage that anyone could consider their use as being wrong), and the battle to keep this marked as a misuse was lost. Since then unless you read the talkpage or check the diffs, someone consulting Wiktionary would not know that outside of the United States and to even to some in the US this is considered a wrong usage. I'm having to concede that this word has now been Humpty-dumptied, but at the least shouldn't it be marked that it was a previously common misuse which because of the prevalence of the misuse has become an accepted use; and to add a usage note that while generally accepted, in some areas e.g. in technical and science writing the distinctions remain even in the United States. (see Commonly Misused Words).--KTo288 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

triftong & трифтонг[edit]

On the pronunciation of the Serbo-Croatian section, is it true that the word is pronounced as /trǐftonɡ/ not /trǐftoŋ/? Just not sure of it… --Malaysiaboy (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

True. Most Slavic languages lack sound /ŋ/. If I'm not mistaken, only Polish has it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

一個[edit]

"Pinyin: yīgè [Phonetic: yígè] → yīge (toneless final syllable variant)"

Assuming this is correct, when should we use yīgè, yígè, and yīge, respectively, in speech (outside of Wiktionary; "IRL") and in writing (when giving the pinyin for example sentences on Wiktionary)? The phonetic brackets are what confuse me, along with the added arrow pointing to yīge. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

When writing pinyin most people write it out strictly according to each syllable's original reading (without considering tone sandhi), i.e. yīgè. In real life we follow the sandhi of course and pronounce it as yígè. The reading yīge is a variant you will hear from time to time, like 知道 as zhīdao, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

down[edit]

Down in the crossword sense seems to be omitted as an adverb, but shown as a noun instead. I wanted to put a translation in, but there's nowhere to put it, unlike across. Donnanz (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I dealt with it myself after a night's sleep. Donnanz (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

-ism[edit]

I edited the entry for ism and Mr. Granger rejected it. I suggested two alternative suggestions to make the definition of atheism more accurate in the -ism entry. He has rejected that suggestion and rejected the notion that there is reason to make this clarification. My assertion is that associating the term atheism with "a doctrine, ideology or principle", which the -ism entry does, is both inaccurate and damaging to the perception of atheists. Mr. Granger's main assertion is atheism " is associated with an ideology: the belief that there is no god". The lack of belief in a god is neither an ideology , in which the entry references "a body of beliefs" and not a single belief, nor a belief. It is a lack of belief. It is passive and descriptive. An ideology is assertive and prescriptive. My other assertions are in the discussion posted below, including how keeping the atheism reference in the ism entry without clarification is seriously damaging to the perception atheists. I look forward all input on this matter. —This unsigned comment was added by JohnAndrewMorrison (talkcontribs).

Edit of -ism[edit]

Discussion moved from User talk:Mr. Granger.

"there's no need to go into so much detail about which parts of the definition apply to which derived words"

How about a short note indicating there is no doctrine, ideology, or principle associated with atheism?

Maybe remove the term?

The definition perpetuates false beliefs and reinforces the stigma plaguing atheists. JohnAndrewMorrison (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it—atheism is a good example of the usage of the suffix -ism. Moreover, atheism (at least sense 1) is associated with an ideology: the belief that there is no god. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your identification of atheism being an ideology is exactly why the notation needs to be made. From Wiktionary: ideology - Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group. Not a single belief, or nonbelief as the case is, but a body of beliefs or a codified belief system. Saying atheism is an ideology implies things can be done in the name of atheism, but they can't. It allows blame for past acts of people (Hitler, Marx, Pol Pot) to be assigned to atheism when the fact is these people just happened to be atheist; they were driven to acts of violence by other ideologies (e.g. communism, socialism, naziism) or personal shortcomings, not because they were atheist. This is the negative stigma I refer to. —This unsigned comment was added by JohnAndrewMorrison (talkcontribs).

I disagree with several of the statements you've just made, and in particular with the idea that stating that the word atheism is sometimes used to refer to an ideology implies that Hitler was evil because he was an atheist. To reiterate my point, atheism (in the narrowest sense) refers to "a doctrine, ideology or principle" (per the relevant definition of -ism). If you disagree with this, I encourage you to bring it up in the WT:Tea room, where we can get the opinions of other editors. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the definition of atheism here on Wiktionary? The only mention of doctrine is in the "loose" definition and says a lack of belief in a doctrine. "To reiterate my point, atheism (in the narrowest sense) refers to "a doctrine, ideology or principle" (per the relevant definition of -ism). " Is a circular argument, it is fallacious. You are saying the definition of atheism given in -ism is accurate because that is the way it is defined in -ism. You have completely made my point. If you compare the Wiktionary definition of atheism with the definition it is given in the -ism entry you have to conclude the -ism definition is wrong. I never said it was asserted that Hitler was evil because he was atheist. What is asserted is the claims are made that the atrocities he committed were in the name of atheism. You can disagree with my claim that atheism is used to assert the atrocities of Hitler, Pol Pot, Marx, etc., were done in the name of atheism, it is just an opinion. I have personal experience, more than a dozen people arguing this point with me, and demonstrable truth it is. Here is Aslan Reza, a recognized expert in religion wordwide, saying exactly this. It at 14:30 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGBsmvRbpck. —This unsigned comment was added by JohnAndrewMorrison (talkcontribs).

I'm sorry, you seem to have mistaken this for a prescriptive, authoritative arbiter of what people are supposed to think. I hate to disillusion you, but this is a descriptive dictionary: we do our best to describe what people actually mean when they use a term, not what it's supposed to mean. We have terms used by everyone from Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, racists, thugs, etc. and words for more kinds of vile, disgusting and seriously wrong things and concepts than anyone would want to know. That's because we're not censored, either. You've come to Wiktionary to edit out concepts that you disagree with, and make them conform to your point of view. That's censorship, and it won't be tolerated. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking to edit out anything. My original edit was simply the addition of a clarification. If anything it was my input that was being censored. Am I to understand I can add that sort of content? If so I have two questions: How does one avoid a circular loop of edit delete? And what is the proper way to add a clarification to a specific item on an entry? And just to be clear I do not have the intention of including everything included here supporting my position. Just a note that clarifies atheism is not a doctrine, ideology or principle. Thanks.

Mr. Granger removed a note specific to atheism. I agree with you that atheism is not an "ideology". Rather than adding a note, the definition needs a fix IMHO. A bit of digging in the revision history shows that this revision had "the result of a doctrine, ideology, principle, or lack thereof" in the definition. In diff, I have restored that state of affairs; see also my edit summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue of whether atheism is an ideology or not is an opinion, rather than a verifiable fact, and to some extent depends on what kind of atheism is being discussed (see Negative and positive atheism and Implicit and explicit atheism). Some atheists don't believe in God themselves but do not actively deny the existence of God, and don't particularly care what other people think. That kind of atheism is probably not an ideology. But other atheists (what I consider the Richard Dawkins-style atheists) actively deny the existence of God, and some of them work to persuade others to share their point of view, often with positively evangelical fervor. That kind of atheism is definitely an ideology; some would even call it a religion. And lots of other kinds of atheism exist along the spectrum between these two extremes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Active denial of the existence of God is not an ideology; it is a stance. Richard Dawkin's kind of atheism is not an ideology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
We define ideology as "Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group". That's a perfect definition of Dawkins's kind of atheism. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
This definition is wrong. It follows from it that the body of beliefs belonging to an individual is an ideology, which is obviously wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification above and for the reversion of the entry.

exhaust fan[edit]

Would this term meet Wiktionary's CFI? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It it's just an electrical device for moving air that is located in a system consisting of the parts of an engine through which burned gases or steam are discharged, then I'd say it's sum-of-parts and probably doesn't meet CFI. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Err, I thought it was just the name of the fan thingy in my bathroom... have I got the wrong word? (Chinese-speakers: I'm translating 排風扇.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's called an extractor fan usually. Donnanz (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if the thing in your bathroom is called an exhaust fan, it's still a fan for letting foul air out of a room through a register or pipe provided for the purpose. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
What is an exhaust fan? Where is it used? Like, is it some part of an exhaust system of a car? Do you have a picture? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
See Google image search. (It's also the fan in a cooker hood) SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • See exhaust fan at OneLook Dictionary Search for the several dictionaries and glossaries that include exhaust fan.
MWOnline, which does not include exhaust fan, has five definitions for exhaust (noun), including "an arrangement for removing fumes, dusts, or odors from an enclosure". That is more or less the definition in my idiolect, in which, as in MWOline, exhaust fan is SoP. DCDuring TALK 12:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Even so, if this device has different names it may be worth an entry; exhaust fan, extractor fan and extraction fan can all be found on Google, and all mean the same thing. The SoP policy can be taken to extremes. Donnanz (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that fan seems to generically imply a ventilator for "blow" ventilation, I think that all these terms seem to generically imply a fan working to "suck". This can often (usually?) mean a very different type of construction - centrifugal fans, vortex fans, venturi fans, helical fans, etc. -- ALGRIF talk 08:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It not a unique construction that defines it. Its function is removing air instead of circulating air, i.e. a fan used to remove air from an enclosed space such as a bathroom or a stable. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
OK -Function it is. In my bathroom I have 2 fans. One is an extractor fan. (Function defines which fan I'm talikng about). Similarly, in my kitchen I have 2 fans. One is an extractor fan. (Function defines which fan I'm talikng about). In my new house I have several fans. One of them is an exhaust fan. (Function (whole-house air renovation) defines which fan I'm talking about.) -- ALGRIF talk 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The worst joke I ever heard, BTW, had the punchline "he's an ex-tractor fan". I'd include all three in my dictionary. --Recónditos (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What part of speech is callsigned?[edit]

It means "having (a specified name) as its call sign", e.g.

  • 2010, Ben Evans, Escaping the Bonds of Earth: The Fifties and the Sixties (page 43)
    As announced, the purpose of the missions by Nikolayev and Popovich, callsigned 'Falcon' and 'Golden Eagle', respectively, was to check "contact" between two spacecraft flying in similar orbits.

So not really an adjective, more like a passive verb form; however, there is no infinitive "to callsign". Equinox 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what English grammarians would categorise it as. To me, it feels like a participle doesn't necessarily need to have a verb, but that might not be a tenable idea. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me to be functionally equivalent to named. We have that as an adjective (as well as a verb form). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks like an adjective derived from a noun + -ed (sense 1 of etymology 3 of -ed). Is there a reason to think that it shouldn't be classified as an adjective? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not really different from any of the other English words formed by adding -ed to a noun (bearded, finned, eared). But many of the basic nouns that do this also have homophones that are verbs, which obscures the point. We just had a discussion about haired. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's different in having an object- do adjectives have objects? The examples you give simply refer to the presence of the referent of the noun. In this case, the callsign isn't merely present, it's included in the sentence. This really looks like a passive construction with an indirect object. The absence of the infinitive doesn't mean much when you consider how scarce this is in Google Books and Google Groups- even Google Search. There doesn't seem to me to be any inherent reason to not have an infinitive, and there are indeed a couple of cases in Google Search where it appears as an active verb with a direct object. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The term callsigning seems to exist, so maybe there actually is a verb. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Pecha Kucha[edit]

Could somebody who knows Japanese fill out the etymology on this one? Kiwima (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • As far as the English term goes, it's pretty well filled out already. I expanded the Japanese entry at ぺちゃくちゃ (pechakucha), and I'll add a quick gloss to the term as referenced in the EN entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

leafy[edit]

Hi. Anyone want to try for a good definition of leafy in this common type of phrasing? We are in a leafy rural area and still have children whose families depend on food banks. Something about relative wealth? Middle class? Economically comfortable? -- ALGRIF talk 08:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It's already included, I think - containing much foliage - a leafy avenue. This can also apply to the sense you mention. It shouldn't really imply wealth. Donnanz (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Poking around to see how it is used, I think a meaning of "suburban" or even "residential" might be more what you are after. The implication seems to be less about the wealth and more about the lack of industrial development. The relative wealth is probably just a correlate. Kiwima (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think a suburban or residential area would be called "leafy" unless it did in fact have plenty of foliage. Equinox 01:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And another example today in the Guardian. [12] But Tory England is not all booming, leafy suburbia. I can't believe I'm the only one who sees a connotation here? "Leafy" referring to an idea that is something other than actual leaves. The journalist who wrote this was clearly not thinking about leaves. The piece is contrasting people who struggle to make ends meet, and others in the same area who are comfortable. -- ALGRIF talk 12:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    Suburban and rural places have grass and trees. Cities don't. End of. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm sitting in the middle of a city (Bristol) looking out at a row of trees, a muddy river with grassy banks, and another line of trees on the other side. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    We don't deal in reality; we deal in the idealized typical of the past fifty or so years. If I were as rich as Croesus and had an apartment on Fifth Avenue or Central Park West, I would also see plenty of trees, albeit in a setting phony as a three-dollar bill: Central Park.
Seriously, any look at a metropolis on Google Earth makes it fairly clear that cities, even those with large parks, are hardly "leafy". DCDuring TALK 23:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Usage rules. I would say "leafy suburbia" refers to places that are typically not big built-up cities (London) but rather smaller towns with grassy parks, avenues, etc. If you disagree that "leafy" means trees then bring the convincing proof. Equinox 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Just look at the photo in the article. It is in Chingford, London suburbia, and it is a very built-up residential area. A few trees along the street, but tree-lined streets are found everywhere in cities. Whatever. Ignore the word "as it is used". I'm done here. -- ALGRIF talk 08:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"instantaneously"[edit]

What's the difference with "instantly"? And why are there no mentions of (links to) the other? --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The links aren't there now because you didn't put them there. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, my question hid that i intend to, but i haven't decided how: "synonyms", or just "related terms" or similar? --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

copemate[edit]

Is this a real word in English? I came across it in a Chinese-English dictionary, a translation of 同志 apparently. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently (though it looks obsolete): [13]. Equinox 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

bitstock[edit]

Is this an American term? I have never heard of it in British English, being used to the word brace and its derivative brace and bit. Donnanz (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

alligator[edit]

(Ctrl-X-V'd from RFV, because it was misplaced. Hillcrest98 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC))

I don't understand the etymology. The page about the genus says that the genus name is derived straight from Latin alligator (one who ties or binds). The generic term's page is said to be derived from Spanish el lagarto, ultimately from Latin lacertus.

Is this a discrepancy, or perhaps a pair of false cognates? Hillcrest98 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. I'm fairly sure that Classical Latin "influenced" the spelling, but that the origin is via Spanish. I just hope I wasn't the guilty party for the Alligator etymology! I was. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Should I correct the etymology then? Hillcrest98 (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at how I cleaned up my own mess. Make whatever changes you think are appropriate. The references in alligator are my sources, especially alligator in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That error sat there for more than two years. I hope it didn't make its way to Wikipedia itself. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't there when I just looked, anyway. Those online dictionaries that copy us may have the error, but one hopes they refresh their content from time to time.
This definitive French dictionary's entry for French alligator says the origin of the French word is English. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Etymology added for French word, but I accidentally put the wrong word in the edit summary, lol. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I've struck the heading as there's no RFV proposition being made. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're only interested in attestation, why don't you create a page Wiktionary:Requests for attestation where people interested in that subtopic could gather. Of course, I could create a page Wiktionary:Requests for verification (except attestation requests), but that would be w:WP:POINTy, I think. --80.114.178.7 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You have to ask DCDuring and other editors who opposed in Wiktionary:Votes/2012-01/Renaming requests for verification. I supported the renaming. A little bit of reasonableness, and more votes could actualy work, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, it got voted down (albeit with a majority in favor). Don't blame me for that, I voted for it, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The right venue would have been WT:ES (Etymology Scriptorium). Even WT:TR (Tea Room) would have been better. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    I think the original matter is settled. Is it? DCDuring TALK 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the main problem (the etymology errors) have been corrected. Other errors can have another Tea discussion. Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What errors would those be? DCDuring TALK 13:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Whenever they show up in the future. Hillcrest98 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

thread of life[edit]

At Clotho is a red link for thread of life. It is abundantly attestable in a sense close to that of the corresponding Ancient Greek term. I would argue that it is just a metaphor, not entryworthy. As thread of life at OneLook Dictionary Search suggests reference works don't find this entryworthy either.

Is this inclusion-worthy? Why or why not? DCDuring TALK 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I've added a first attempt at a definition. Feel free to improve or whatever. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    I guess that means you think it inclusion-worthy. Why? (Let me guess: "Because someone might want to know what it means.") DCDuring TALK 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    Because of our slogan, of course: all turds and all baggages! Equinox 21:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    Can we ban the word word from all discussions? DTLHS (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    We've deemed similes inclusion-worthy, apparently all metaphors. Alliteration, rhyming, and other elements of prosody have been claimed to make MWEs into set phrases. Is there any rhetorical device that we might consider excluding? Allusion? Hendiadys? DCDuring TALK 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

traffic island[edit]

Definition says "...to control traffic". That strikes me as rather vague. Can we clarify this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It marks a division between opposing flows of traffic, and often acts as a pedestrian refuge, when a pedestrian has to wait for a gap in the traffic. Donnanz (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    When an entry is essentially encyclopedic, as this one is, a link to WP should be mandatory. I understand, too, that a picture (50Kb-5Mb) is worth only a thousand words (~16Kb), but we have trouble producing even 20 intelligible words (for a definition) that users are likely to read, so images have some value. At the very least it would make it easier to copy definitions, images, references, translations, etc. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

façade versus facade[edit]

Why is façade treated as the main spelling? Even the spellcheck automatically changes facade to façade for some weird reason. It's spelt as facade in my Oxford hard copy, and the other spelling is ignored. Donnanz (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Because of the perfect-typography lobby here. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, maybe they should be called the over-perfect typography lobby. Does the spellcheck belong to the same lobby? Donnanz (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Depends on the spellcheck. Of the ones I use, the UK one prefers façade over facade, and the US one prefers facade. In my own experience, people in the US understand façade, but don't use the ç because it's extra work to type. I've never seen any confusion regarding that spelling, except "why is façade spelled with a hooky thingie?" On the other hand, I've seen many instances of US people encountering "facade" and thinking it's an unfamiliar word pronounced fuh-KAYD and being surprised that it is in fact a word they know with a different pronunciation. Eishiya (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The etymology gives the clue to why façade is preferred. It also rather depends on how you would normally pronounce --ca--. An educated person does not normally say that they are eduçated. Nor would anyone in fact ever pronounce a soft "c" before an "a", unless guided in some way to this very unusual pronunciation. Unless, of course, one is using US spelling setting on their spell checker. There's an easy fix to that though. -- ALGRIF talk 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because it comes from French doesn't mean we have to spell it the same way in English, character for character. Then there's the problem of finding the character on a qwerty keyboard (unless you switch your keyboard over to French). Donnanz (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Have to no. But it is historically and currently conventional. Just check through some other words and phrases that come from French, Spanish and others, that have been imported wholesale, including accents, into the English language. The fact that US have the habit of generally removing the accents later does not stop the original with-accent form from being the main spelling. Not unless it has become out-dated. -- ALGRIF talk 11:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's usually spelt facade in British English too. That's what I'm griping about. Donnanz (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Algrif: How does priority of a spelling make it the main spelling if frequency favors the later spelling? The original spelling may have a determined minority of users who favorite it, especially if they believe it signals their superiority to users of the newer spelling. BTW, having lower frequency may even enhance its value as a superiority marker. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: So, .. er .. by greater frequency ... er ... you mean ... become out-dated? - I think that is what I was saying. -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"Outdated" does not necessarily have overall relative frequency implications and thus is hard to confirm. When we use "dated" here, we usually refer to the age cohort of the speakers who use a term. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It is because of diff from 4 July 2014, which has no edit summary. I disagree with that edit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in this revision, which has "Dictionary notes" showing which variant is in which dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Even the Wikipedia article is redirected from façade. Very interesting. Donnanz (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I have restored facade to what is was before 4 July 2014. By the way, facade massively outperforms façade in Google Ngram Viewer but I do not know how reliable that is with these sorts of diacritics (façade, facade at Google Ngram Viewer). --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks very much, I'm much happier now. Donnanz (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

edel[edit]

In my attempts to translate a cheese label I have discovered that 1) the inflections given in the Wiktionary table may be wrong, and 2) we have no cheese-context meaning for the word. According to canoo.net the positive inflections should be spelled edl~ whereas Wiktionary gives it as edel~. Both sites agree on the comparative (edler~) and superlative (edelst~) forms.

Right on both counts (although "edel" is a pretty vague term when applied to food. It's just a peacocky way of saying "high quality, pure"). Made the changes. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I also asked about this at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. Apparently the edel~ form can be encountered but is obsolete/dated. Perhaps that could be noted in a usage note? SpinningSpark 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Am not a linguist of any kind, just some German. When encountering "edel" with cheese and some other food involving mould, the "edel" usually ist not referring to the cheese itself, but to the mould, and unvariably (?) in the form of "Edelschimmel" (literally : noble mould). It is a word of its own, meaning any of a list of accepted species of mould, that not only not render food worthless or even venomenous, but instead even enhance the food in question - namely this and that cheese, wine, ham, salami and maybe other foods. It does not necessarily denote highest qualities, even the cheapest industrial Camembert is still covered in some sort of "Edelschimmel". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelschimmel - a bit stumpy, that article. :( For wine compare : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_rot. So I think there should not really be a special cheese-/food- context at wiktionary: edel since Edelschimmel is an independent word in its own right, with a very specific meaning.
About the inflection table, it seems fine as it is now (was corrected?), any occurence of edel~ is most likely obsolete, or grotesquely bad poetry. well 46.142.74.247 18:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The exact phrase that led to this (which I should probably have cited in the first place) was mit edlem Weiß – und Blauschimmel. The edlem declension was not in the entry at the time, hence the difficulty. As you say, the adjective refers to the mould, not the cheese, but in this case is not quite in the form of Edelschimmel. SpinningSpark 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

expression of surprise, contempt, outrage...[edit]

Some time ago, a user created a lot of English interjection entries, all identically defined as "expression of surprise, contempt, outrage, disgust, boredom, frustration". See [14]. In most or all cases, the definition is over-broad and could be usefully narrowed down. So anyone who's bored (disgusted, contemptuous, etc.) might like to take a look. Equinox 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

used to Verb isn't it?[edit]

I'm sure this is not the first time this entry has been discussed. It is marked with a "clean-up" request, but I'm blowed if I can find it. That aside, my beef is with the POS Adverb. The Etymology-2 indicates that it started as a verb form. The grammar is like a verb form also, -- followed by a verb in the infinitive - He used to be famous -- Negative - I didn't use to run. -- Interog - Did you use to run?. So, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck. So it's a DUCK VERB isn't it? -- ALGRIF talk 14:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think so (but I'm often wrong about grammar). I notice we are missing the literal usage "Words are used to convey meaning," SemperBlotto (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be the past participle of the verb use in a passive voice, wouldn't it? -- ALGRIF talk 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be like having "eaten to" as an entry: "food is eaten to stop us being hungry": the "to" is an infinitive on the verb that follows, not an adverbial particle on the main one. Equinox 14:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The "literal" usage is sum of parts and is not a fixed construction like "He used to V", which is why it's missing. The "literal" usage even gets the same stress/intonation pattern that other similar constructions get (e.g. "I walked to work"), while the "adverb" has a different pattern. Tthe fact that it's a fixed phrase is probably why it's listed as an adverb. It's being analysed as "used to" + VERB (a verb modified by an adverbial phrase "used to"), rather than as "used" + to VERB (a verb "used" taking another verb as its argument). It's a participle modifying a verb in this case, which makes it an adverb. I think both analyses are valid. The verb analysis makes more sense with the past tense version "did not use to X", the adverb analysis makes more sense with "did not used to", both of which are found among native speakers, some even use both past tense constructions. Eishiya (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am drawn by analysis of the modal-like similarities between used to, have to, got to, want to, ought to, supposed to, where the "to" is likened to a suffix - almost as a phrasal verb particle - which in turn leads to the common speech patterns usta, hafta, gotta, wanna, oughta, sposta. Under this analysis also, they are all considered to be verbs, not adverbs. -- ALGRIF talk 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Could someone find academic support for such a presentation? Lexicography is a conservative field in the grammatical aspects of presentation, so I would argue that we should take a vote.
I could be convinced that, say, the modal verb treatment of all or some of the words ending in ta and na (wanna, gunna/gonna) is appropriate. What are the tests for something being a modal verb? DCDuring TALK 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we can possibly see a quasi-modal pattern here:-
have to and hafta, got to and gotta, ought to and oughta, supposed to and sposta all seem to refer to obligation, which is a typical modality of modal verbs. While used to and usta (habit in the past) is similar to would (habit in the past), and finally want to and wanna can be likened to the modal verb need. -- ALGRIF talk 12:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Defective verb; doesn't conjugate at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don’t understand why it is classified as an adverb now. You say she used to be a singer and she was once a singer. Used to clearly receives a tense and a person, just like any other auxiliary verb. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Plus, of course, it forms a fully grammatical sentence with just a pronoun: "Do you sing?" "I used to." It shares this feature with other modals - "I have.", "I must.", "I did.", "I have to." - but not with adverbs. You can't say *"I formerly" or *"I once", you have to stick an extra verb in there ("I formerly sang.", "I sang once."). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(supposed to on the other hand doesn't seem like a verb. *"I supposed to." is unidiomatic - it's "I am supposed to." got to acts like a verb in colloquial speech (to my ears, it sounds slightly American) - "I gotta get to the shops before they close" - but in more standard registers I think you'd always say "I have got to...") Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
While it's a tad bit harder to find academic material describing used to as a quasi-modal without going to a library, there are some good journeyman explanations of the topic. —JohnC5 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have changed it to a verb. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

putrefier[edit]

The current definition looks odd but I think it's right:

  1. (medicine) to rot

Here's an example:

le sang, s’il habunde trop, il engendre fievre continue qu’est semblable a effimere, causée de sang non putrifié
the blood, if it's too abundant, it causes a steady fever, similar to an ephemeral one, caused by un-putrefied blood.

I do believe when he wrote this in 1303 he actually meant 'to rot' though of course, we know that blood while still in the body cannot rot! That of course isn't a linguistic matter, it's an evidence matter.

Should there be a usage note, or else, what? Remove the medicine tag, leave it as is? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

chouse[edit]

We now have three senses of this verb, of which the second and third look like they're referring to the same thing, but neither of which fits the passages cited for them. I would guess that the correct definition would be something like chase or harass. Does anyone have sources that might shed some light on this? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think #2 and #3 are referring to the same, but novelists in the last half century seem to use it slightly different like #2 (those quotes are not yet added). I think chase or harass imply intention. I could see cannon noise chousing cattle and horses. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I could see it going either way: either it started out as "chasing", with a subsense developing for the disturbance that would cause, or it could be that it started out as "disturbing", with a sense developing that uses the original meaning as a sort of playfully hyperbolic overtone to a more prosaic one, somewhat like one speaks of manhandling something into place. By the way, although you have a tendency to overdo things in a lot of cases, this one is just the sort of situation where having lots of examples on the citations page is very helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It is amusing that the noun can refer to the perpetrator, the victim, and the process or result of the process. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not really discussing the first sense. I wonder if they're even the same etymology?. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I think, for the animal sense, something like the English Etymology of shoo from the German is more likely. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Though that doesn't actually say that shoo is from German. Whenever an etymology says "compare", you should read that as "here's a similar term in another language- maybe it's related somehow". I would guess it's from some dialectal variant of chase, or there's some other term in some other language- I don't see how German "sch" could end up as English "ch" Chuck Entz (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the Western US locus for the early citations of the "harass" sense (perhaps "agitate, unsettle"), one might suspect a Mexican origin, which might mean a sufficiently different spelling to require someone with good Mexican Spanish to help. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty to split the verbs by etymology, one being shared by the noun. I don't see any good possibility for the etymologies being the same, though facts good prove me wrong. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 1998, Charlene Strickland, The Basics of Western Riding, page 127:
    Chouse. To chase cattle, also to exhaust them.
  • 2008, Win Blevins, Dictionary of the American West:
    CHOUSE To handle cattle roughly and stir them up.
    (also spelled chowse) DCDuring TALK 22:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The definition can be confirmed in the Dictionary of American Regional English, which may also provide information useful for an etymology. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    DARE has "to persecute, annoy, especially to handle cattle roughly". They offer touse as a possible source. All other print slang dictionaries that I consulted had a similar definition, though usually limited to cattle. No other dictionary offered any etymological suggestions, except to reject chaus and to make it as distinct from the Turkish-derived words. Several referred to the alternative spelling chowse. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

let's does not function as a contraction of let us[edit]

I'm sure the meaning of let's (1st person plural imperative marker) is not similar to the meaning of let us. I don't think the definition of let's is to be a contraction of let us anymore.

Compare

Let's go! (to command others in your "us" group to go); Let us go! (to ask a person outside the "us" group to allow the group to go, or to release the group)

and

I can't hurt him. (being unable to hurt him); I cannot hurt him. (same meaning.)

And other contractions. The difference in meaning between let's and let us is too stark to call the former a contraction of the latter. Even the article mentions such a usage contrast.

Let's being a contraction of let us should go in the etymology section instead. Hillcrest98 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you're overlooking the fact that "let us go" has multiple possible structures: the one that's contracted is "let us" + "go", but the one you're referring to is "let go" with the object, "us", inserted within- in other words, "let go of us", rearranged. Only the first one has "let" and "us" closely associated enough to merge into a contraction. It's quite acceptable to say "let us go to the theater", but it sounds a bit dated- you may not be familiar with it. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a usage note about let us being rather dated. Sadly, the entry let us is a lazy redirect. --Recónditos (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I have classified it as a verb. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Let us go to the pub is a correct but archaic form of let's go to the pub. They're not strict synonyms because in this sense, let us is archaic and almost never used. I have heard it though. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not completely gone. I hear it once in a long while, and not only from old people. --WikiTiki89 19:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've created it as archaic. If anyone wants to change to rare or dated, well, this is a wiki, go for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

bleed[edit]

"(transitive) To let or draw blood from an animal."

Can it not be used for people then? I was looking for the English translation of Old French saignier in the sense of 'to remove blood from someone (as a medical procedure)'. I thought 'bleed' was perfectly adequate, but according to our definition, only if it refers to an animal. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloodlet actually says 'to bleed' which unless I'm missing something, implies that 'bloodlet' only applies to animals. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
bleed at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
google books:"bleed the patient" and google books:"bled the patient" give plenty of hits that don't look veterinary to me. On the other hand, humans are animals, so the current definition could still be considered accurate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The definition is actually worded for an intransitive verb as the definition specifies the object. Simply omitting the wrongly included nominal "an animal" would solve the problem. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

numberful[edit]

Very concerned about the citations here. All three are pretty much gibberish. The top one seems to be full of invented Anglo-Saxonisms; the second one is written, I think, by a schizophrenic -- I have encountered this person's vanity-published "works" previously on Google Books (he may be the same author as "Hymie Hitler") and they consist of disjointed rants with made-up words and long strings of synonyms -- and I'm not sure about the third citation, but it seems to have lots of words erroneously blended together. I am also concerned about the citing user who continues to create such bizarre words without thinking twice or at least flagging them as nonstandard. Imagine the confusing impression we are giving to learners of English, with such entries. Equinox 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gibberish yes, but literary gibberish. One of the authors has a WP article. The subject of another has a WP article. It's not easy to find other citations. There may be a children's book citation to be had. The writing has that "poetic" quality that disqualifies much poetry as not good for determining meaning. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is straight out of Century dictionary. No one is creating anything, except an entry for this word. Leasnam (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It strikes me as the kind of word for which our best service to both users and translators would be to direct them to synonyms. DCDuring TALK 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
More Leasnam cause for concern: [15]. Has everything got to be Middle English?! Otherkin are a very modern phenomenon. Equinox 00:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaus[edit]

The entry shows:

(archaic) A taxonomic genus within the family Felidae — Felis chaus chaus, the type subspecies of jungle cat.

This is incorrect; Chous is not a current genus. The {{taxon}} template does not have a toggle to show that the classification is a deprecated and currently invalid classification. Something similar was brought up by @DCDuring: in 2012 (Template talk:taxon#What about obsolete taxa, less-used synonyms?) but I do not find the resolution by searching the site. There should be a separate template, something like:

(archaic) A deprecated taxonomic classification, formerly a AAAA within the BBBB CCCC — its reclassification is XXXX.

BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the context from "archaic" to "obsolete": nobody uses the generic name in order to sound old-fashioned, and no one uses it at all unless they're reading from or referring to an old taxonomic work. This is more like phlogiston than thee or thou. As for your version: way too wordy. I would be satisfied if the template just put "former" in front of the obsolete taxon and in front of any obsolete parent taxon. It wouldn't be too hard to have parameters named something like "obstax" and "obspar" to make that word appear in the proper places.Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Obsolete is probably better for the definition we have. Any reuse of the name is likely to be with a different definition.
I don't think we are likely to be keeping up to date on deprecation of taxonomic names: Neither Wikispecies nor WP do very well at it.
Before we do a change in the template, let's give a little thought to how we can avoid conveying the idea that we are a reliable source of information. Careful wording in the template might help, but losing flexibility may hurt.
It is very hard to find any source of taxonomic information that claims to be a definitive source of current taxonomic names. They usually have disclaimers explicitly warning against relying on them. That's one reason I try to make sure we have a lot of external links for taxonomic names that seem to be current. Obsolete names can use links to old dictionaries (eg, Century 1911), the Plant List, and to articles for any corresponding current taxa, which should have links to sources with synonyms. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
When I first read (archaic) {{taxon}}, while already knowing that (archaic) is {{context}}, I was confused by the definition since I followed a link from Chaus. I later saw that jungle cat was the common element but not taxonomic genus within the family Felidae. @Chuck Entz, DCDuring: former would be the broadest term and I think that template description should suggest to preferably link the newer entry. Maybe including the longer version of newer names (with the scientist name and date, see Author citation (zoology)), {{l|mul|Felis chaus|Felis chaus Schreber, 1777}}: now more commonly classified as Felis chaus Schreber, 1777. The template description can provide instructions about how to find the information, for example, at Encyclopedia of Life and Integrated Taxonomic Information System. I was also confused by the lack of a link to the current Felis chaus species but one to the trinomial name of the type subspecies, while I understand the reasoning. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC), modified 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It was confusing because I had given up on making it better. I have attempted to improve it based on Century 1911 and a cursory examination of some entries using the term in the Global Biodiversity Heritage Library. AFAICT, the genus name is attributable to Gray, well after the coinage asserted in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem with linking to "the" newer entry is that old and new taxa often don't correspond in neat one-to-one fashion. What Linnaeus may have described as a genus might be equivalent to parts of several families (even phyla!), with the species he described having been shuttled around numerous times before ending up in a multitude of different places. There are also plenty of cases where a name is misapplied to a different taxon and becomes widely used both in floras and in popular works, but is still used for the original one as well. There are even cases where it's really hard to tell what the old name actually referred to- if it referred to anything even slightly based in reality at all. Yes, there are many cut-and-dried cases where there's only one unambiguous successor (usually with preoccupied names), but having the option creates pressure to oversimplify things so the template can be used. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, DCDuring: I agree with both you. There were about 20 classification schemas since Linnaeus, while that is historical, a set of living things (old entry) had a classification that is different now (new entry or entries). If I am looking for the term that represents that set I certainly would want to know that.
From anther direction, a definition of Pluto should include its previous classification of planet, prior to 2006, and current classification of a plutoid, a type of dwarf planet, and include dwarf planet, trans-Neptunian object, plutoid, Kuiper belt object, Plutino as hypernyms.
Stating that something is in a set is descriptive and not prescriptive – the authoritative source prescribes and wiktionary describes what was prescribed.
I would also want to know if the that set of living things is now an empty set. Linking to the newer convention is just a matter of finding the newer attestations of usage – three if I remember... so the vertical difference in level does not matter; what matters is what term represents that set of living things.
I also think there should be a standard usage note boilerplate template to clarify that an entry title is a former/obsolete classification that is now an invalid classification. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I know what you mean about the pressure having a template, especially with numbered parameters, creates to make one's view of reality conform to the template. The more work the template does, the more the pressure.
@BoBoMisiu: Even simple terms like iron are problematic in an analogous way. A definition in accordance with contemporary science is not the same as one used by scientists of the 18th century, let alone earlier centuries, let alone folks working in iron-using industries either now or earlier, let alone ordinary humans now or earlier.
@Chuck Entz, BoBoMisiu: I think we need to be realistically modest, especially in our near-term ambitions. We already provide alternative definitions in some cases and Usage notes or alternative hyponyms and hypernyms lists for alternative circumscriptions and placements, usually reflecting recent changes or controversies. Perhaps our definitions of older taxonomic terms (pre-Codes?) need a template with only named, not numbered, parameters that facilitate applicable categorization and otherwise ease entry, but allow for more flexibility. Or perhaps we need to add some categories and associated parameters 1 and 2 for template A taxonomic [[{{{1}}}]] within the [[{{{2}}}]] [[{{{3}}}]]. that generate looser category membership and less specific wording to cover the range of definitions that may have been in use, especially in pre-Codes usage. If we insist on having an idealized vision of having all possible taxonomic definitions ever used, we can view such definitions as placeholders, creating lists of taxonomic entries that require historical research to generate multiple subsenses of the definitions that we can produce now, as corrected over time. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, DCDuring: Structured data and ontology is the reality on the internet (see schema.org), using a controlled vocabulary to write definitions that have metadata (data about the content) is a good thing to do. Schema.org has replacee and replacer properties of things which describes an old object and a new object. It is true that iron are problematic in an analogous way. A definition in accordance with contemporary science is not the same as one used by scientists of the 18th century, let alone earlier centuries, let alone folks working in iron-using industries either now or earlier, let alone ordinary humans now or earlier. They are only different senses with different definitions and attestations, that is nothing outside the domain of a dictionary. The controlled vocabulary of templates help contributors, especially new contributors, to write standardized definitions about things that are standardized in the real world (which prescribes many taxonomies and categories of things). These are different than either phlogiston or thee or thou since, for example, animals are both substantive and not pronouns. They are physical things. There is no need to write a chain of classification changes in the template.
Maybe a solution would be to have a version of Wikipedia's Template:Authority control but that points to external name authority files in Integrated Taxonomic Information System for example. Users will see that the entry is about something that has an authoritative name and is not a colloquial or obsolete name. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Too bad there is no single authoritative control over old names or names in current controversy. There is also very little authority in suprageneric names. In any event our presumed potential strength relative to the other entities that cover taxonomic names is not in being systematic, but in establishing correspondences between taxonomic names and ordinary languages, whether in etymologies, vernacular names, or derived terms (as those in chemistry that are taxon-based). I would venture that if there ever is a single definitive source covering all taxonomic names, it will not be us, WP, WikiSpecies, or WikiData. Further I would venture that definitive data will not exist neither for terms in current controversies (obviously no basis for authoritative decision) nor for older terms (more like normal language than contemporary taxa). DCDuring TALK 23:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
@DCDuring: that's the benefit of a version of Wikipedia's Template:Authority control, it lists multiple authorities, it may have one authority or several. The entry isn't restricted to one external name authority file.

What about:

  1. On the sense line of "sense that is being replaced" add a wrapper of {{deftempboiler}} that includes boilerplate "former classification superseded by", if {{deftempboiler}} had |id=string added
  2. On the sense line of "sense that replaces" add a {{senseid|lang|string}}

This:

  • {{cx|obsolete|lang=mul}} {{taxon|genus|family|Felidae|aquatic cats resembling {{taxlink|Felis chaus chaus|species|noshow=1}}, the type subspecies of jungle cat}}

informs the reader that the sense is no longer in use, but doesn't inform that the definition itself is deprecated. Also {{taxlink|Felis chaus chaus|species|noshow=1}} points to a subspecies and not the species Felis chaus (known as synonymously as "Felis chaus Guldenstaedt, 1776" and "Felis chaus Schreber, 1777"). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @BoBoMisiu: Why don't we start by making the text for [[Chaus]] read as you would propose to do it, without new templates, even deleting existing templates if they interfere.
Almost anything can be implemented in templates, especially with Lua, but we need the talent willing and able to do it. We also need for the result to be acceptable, preferably agreed to by all interested parties, if not necessarily requiring a vote. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: see my suggestion at Talk:Chaus. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: re:"Structured data and ontology is the reality on the internet". I'm more concerned with the reality in the real world. re:"...animals are both substantive and not pronouns. They are physical things. There is no need to write a chain of classification changes in the template." Animals are real things, but their classifications- by definition- are abstractions. The literature is full of cases where characteristics were used to distinguish between taxa that turned out to be meaningless for taxonomic purposes. Look at the Edentata, for instance. Taxonomists have a bunch of standard terms that capture some of what might be termed "the fog of taxonomy": nomen nudum, nomen ambiguum, pro parte, misapplied, sensu, auctorum, etc.. The last one is particularly deadly to your proposals: someone (we often don't know who, exactly) decides that a particular published name applies to specimens they've seen, so they cite that name in their work. Everybody else assumes that's the name for the the thing and uses it in their work- until someone takes a look at the type specimen for that name and realizes it doesn't match the taxon the name is being used for. You see such cases cited in synonomies as "Foo bar auct., not Foo bar L.". What's the authority control for "everybody knows that ..."?
Another point of yours I'd like to address. re: "There were about 20 classification schemas since Linnaeus". That's not the way taxonomy works. Yes, there are grand, all-encompassing systems of everything, but they're merely syntheses of the real work, which consists of species descriptions and monographs on genera, families, and other smaller taxonomic groups. More often than not, no two monographs on a group agree in all the details as to the makeup of the group. You also have to realize that the life sciences have grown to the point that no one person can master everything, with some families such as the w:Ichneumonidae being so complex that it takes decades to get to the level to do any serious taxonomic work. Taxonomists spend a lot of their time reading through the literature and trying to sort out what previous workers meant when they used various taxonomic names. If you think it can all be neatly summarized to fit into the parameters of a template, you're very much mistaken. Sometimes, yes, but often not- and it's not always obvious which is which. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: You are arguing for the same thing that I am. A dictionary doesn't capture  'the fog of taxonomy' , it describes in several words what others prescribe.
  • there are various taxonomies online
  • a wiktionary sense line about a taxon has a subject (the taxon) which it represents in several words
  • a taxon is given a formal name within various taxonomies
  • a taxon formal name may change
  • a taxon is given an ID number within various taxonomies
  • those IDs are cross-referenced (unique name assumption)
  • a wiktionary sense line should reference those arrangements (which is that ID)
  • a wiktionary sense line should inform the reader that it (the sense line) references those arrangements and is the same as the cross-reference (which is that ID bound to both).

The last one is particularly deadly to your proposals: someone (we often don't know who, exactly) decides that a particular published name applies to specimens they've seen, so they cite that name in their work. Everybody else assumes that's the name for the the thing and uses it in their work- until someone takes a look at the type specimen for that name and realizes it doesn't match the taxon the name is being used for. You see such cases cited in synonomies as "Foo bar auct., not Foo bar L.". What's the authority control for "everybody knows that ..."?

Yet people continue to refine and regroup sets of living things – and continue to clarify for their readers that what was previously attested to as Foo bar L. is more recently attested to as Foo bar auct. That is what a wiktionary sense line should also do.
In wiktionary, the authority control for 'everybody knows that ...'  is three attestations of usage — which is neither here nor there, unless those attestations attest to a relationship within those external name authority files. The point is that the IDs can be cross-referenced, and even the taxon that  'everybody knows that ...'  eventually, if valid, is assigned an ID that can be cross-referenced.

they're merely syntheses of the real work, which consists of species descriptions and monographs on genera, families, and other smaller taxonomic groups. More often than not, no two monographs on a group agree in all the details as to the makeup of the group. You also have to realize that the life sciences have grown to the point that no one person can master everything, with some families such as the w:Ichneumonidae being so complex that it takes decades to get to the level to do any serious taxonomic work. Taxonomists spend a lot of their time reading through the literature and trying to sort out what previous workers meant when they used various taxonomic names. If you think it can all be neatly summarized to fit into the parameters of a template, you're very much mistaken.

I agree, Life is complex. I believe a wiktionary reader would want to know what is a factual sense line. Yes, a taxon is merely syntheses of the real work, only describing information, and not the monographs of the real work. Only a simpleton would not admit that knowledge of the world is incomplete. A definition, of a sense of a term, is conveying meaning in just several words – it is a synthesis. That synthesis should state that the sense of a term is a deprecated taxonomic classification (to answer "what was it?"), and should state what it is (to answer "what is it?").
A cross-reference is an open-world assumption in these cases. Stating that something was once valid and but is no longer valid is not an innovation and happens often.
You say, If you think it can all be neatly summarized to fit into the parameters of a template, you're very much mistaken.
I say, a wiktionary sense line about a taxon should represent it in several words and a template standardizes what those several words are, so even a new contributor can add the information by following the template instructions. And, the references, for that sense, should point to reliable information elsewhere. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand me: There are some things that simply can't be summarized that way. It may take a very general verbal description, it may take a usage note, or it may take a link to encyclopedic sources that explain it more fully. Let's take a really extreme example: Linnaeus' taxon w:Vermes. Arthropods were classified as Insecta (Insecta Aptera contained things like lice, spiders, and lobsters), and every other invertebrate was classified as Vermes. That means everything in the animal kingdom without a backbone or a segmented exoskeleton, from single-celled organisms to hagfish, as well as other motile organisms now classified in other kingdoms. Just listing the phyla included in the concept would be too much for a definition line, and I suspect it included larval forms, etc. whose association with taxa not classified in Vermes was unknown at the time. This is a good example of a w:Wastebasket taxon, which is used to include things that don't fit anywhere else in the classification. Eventually taxonomists refine the classification to the point that the members of these taxa get distributed hither and yon, resulting in long lists of current containing taxa. Then there are cases where many species have variation in a particular characteristic, and someone erroneously decides to use that characteristic in classification. That means that the obsolete taxa can't be matched with current taxa: there might be individuals with, (hypothetically) big mandibles in several species, and individuals with small mandibles in those same species, and someone describes a big-mandible species and a small-mandible species. The big-mandible species corresponds to all the species that have this variation, but so does the small-mandible species. Using your template would obscure the reality of the situation with long, identical lists for both obsolete species. There are also species based on larval forms of existing species, and even on detached appendages of existing species (see w:Hectocotylus). Besides, figuring out the equivalence between an obsolete taxon and current ones is often very difficult, and often requires considerable research in various taxonomic databases. There are, indeed, cases where the current equivalents to an obsolete taxon are a subject of dispute among taxonomists, with no real established consensus. A dedicated template for this implies a level of expertise that's not always there, and increases the temptation to use the first answer found, whether it's reliable or not. I'd rather not have us create one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Even {{taxon}} creates pressures to fill the first three numbered slots, when the facts are more complex. There are many cases where alternative placements differ principally, sometimes only, in rank (and suffix). Labels such as archaic, obsolete, and dated are a start, but more may be required. Usage notes allow for more flexibility, but reference to a good WP article is much better. For a time there was a generic warning about circumscription (and placement, AFAICR). Perhaps we need more labels, some of which link to an appendix on taxonomic names that explains complications such as those Chuck mentions. It would not be an easy appendix to write, but perhaps we can cover some common cases, however imperfectly. Labels could also serve to draw attention to entries that would benefit from a particular type of improvement. For example, there may be current controversy likely to be resolved in, say five years. Or there may be broad consensus that a given high-level taxon is not monophyletic or has woefully erroneous taxonomy or that the fossil members are particularly uncertain in placement. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

┌──────┘
@Chuck Entz:I sat on this for several days and did some searches. While it is true that There are some things that simply can't be summarized that way, it is also true that such a single use of template would not need to solve every case. The template could be used multiple times to show what a deprecated taxon is reclassified now.

It may take a very general verbal description, it may take a usage note, or it may take a link to encyclopedic sources that explain it more fully.

Yes, a supplement to such a template could add clarification and references.

Linnaeus' taxon w:Vermes. [] and every other invertebrate was classified as Vermes.

Using a single instance of such a template may not be adequate in every case. A template can used more than once in an definition. That is true of every specialized template.

That means everything in the animal kingdom without a backbone or a segmented exoskeleton, from single-celled organisms to hagfish, as well as other motile organisms now classified in other kingdoms.

So what. That is the point of the discussion about how to to describe that a set of living things (old entry) is classified different now (new entry or entries).

Just listing the phyla included in the concept would be too much for a definition line, and I suspect it included larval forms, etc. whose association with taxa not classified in Vermes was unknown at the time.

Unfortunately Vermes is not to be found in wiktionary so we can't improve it together. Do you have an example found in wiktionary?

This is a good example of a w:Wastebasket taxon,

Yes, and those cases the definition should describe that others prescribe it as a wastebasket taxon – with reliable references.

Eventually taxonomists refine the classification to the point that the members of these taxa get distributed hither and yon, resulting in long lists of current containing taxa.

In other words, lists of terms with definitions...

That there are cases where many species have variation in a particular characteristic, and someone erroneously decides to use that characteristic in classification.

That is the point of a definition to describe that a set of living things (old entry) is classified different now (new entry or entries).

That means that the obsolete taxa can't be matched with current taxa: there might be individuals with, (hypothetically) big mandibles in several species, and individuals with small mandibles in those same species, and someone describes a big-mandible species and a small-mandible species.

Again, that is the point of a definition to describe that a set of living things (old entry) is classified different now (new entry or entries).

The big-mandible species corresponds to all the species that have this variation, but so does the small-mandible species.

Wiktionary does not prescribe. If both are classified the same now (same new entry) then both deprecated definitions point to the same new entry. That is nothing unusual.

Using your template would obscure the reality of the situation with long, identical lists for both obsolete species.

Dictionaries provide definitions about different senses, sometimes they are long lists. With such a template they would be lists with each sense wrapped in the template. The long is there with and without a template.

There are also species based on larval forms of existing species, and even on detached appendages of existing species (see w:Hectocotylus).

Even in those cases, I would want to read a definition that describes what others prescribe, i.e. that it is
(archaic) A deprecated taxonomic classification, formerly a AAAA within the BBBB CCCC — its reclassification is XXXX.

Besides, figuring out the equivalence between an obsolete taxon and current ones is often very difficult, and often requires considerable research in various taxonomic databases.

Yes! Providing a reader with good reliable information takes effort. I would rather read a dictionary entry about a taxon that is reliable and fact based, and not just a list of attested usages.

There are, indeed, cases where the current equivalents to an obsolete taxon are a subject of dispute among taxonomists, with no real established consensus.

There is, nevertheless, in those cases a pattern that a template can structure. In those cases, a template describes that a set of living things (old entry) is no longer valid and has a classification that is different now (new entry or entries) – fully referenced to the prescribing authority. The lack of consensus is content for a usage note that links to content about the dispute among taxonomists.

A dedicated template for this implies a level of expertise that's not always there, and increases the temptation to use the first answer found, whether it's reliable or not.

I agree, all content added to wiktionary, that is not usage, should be fully referenced to reliable sources. That is what is currently missing in the culture, and an issue with aesthetic opponents of those brutish reference numbers. A template does not change poor quality content masquerading with a level of expertise that's not always there. A template promotes structure and not the temptation to use the first answer found.

@DCDuring: an appendix would be good to have. Since there may be current controversy likely to be resolved in, say five years, a template that wraps the particulars would be pretty good future proofing. Like I wrote above, "a template standardizes what those several words are, so even a new contributor can add the information by following the template instructions." —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

help[edit]

Do the noun and verb really have different etymologies? Under which one should we add the interjection (useful for translations)? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a problem for a lot of terms from Old English - see also claw, heat, cool, drink, etc. I'm personally in favour of merging the etymologies, as is done at drop and dream. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
(Although if we don't merge, presumably the verb would make more sense. The interjection is basically the imperative, right? "Help (me)!", rather than "(Give) help!" Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC))
I too think the interjection is actually the verb help. In general, I wonder whether terms with two etymologies where the second one is 'from the noun {{PAGENAME}}', whether than should just be merged into the first etymology and appended with 'the verb is derived from the noun', which is what I would do. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the etymologies are identical.... it's just inflection. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jaffa cake[edit]

Just because something is commonly eaten in the UK, does it make the term itself British English? Wouldn't that be like calling bear claw or creamed corn American English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Possibly (but my local Waitrose supermarket (in the UK) sells both bear claws (nice) and tins of creamed corn (yuk)). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect the tag was added due to confusion over what context labels indicate: they indicate that usage of a term is restricted to a certain context ("only Brits use this word"), whereas some people think they just indicate that the term pertains to a certain topic ("these cakes are British"). Off-topic: "LGBT" is so frequently misused in this way that a while ago I gave up on fixing it and have even occasionally misused it that way myself. As you note, even non-Brits may refer to British-produced things... but do non-Brits speak of Jaffa cakes? I guess: I can find several US-based, Australian-based and NZ-based stores whose websites say they sell Jaffa cakes. I suppose the thing to do is to remove the "chiefly UK" context tag and indicate the Britishness of the cakes inside the definition, by adding "...which originated in Britain" or the like. - -sche (discuss) 16:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You can expect most people in the UK to at least have an idea of what Jaffa cakes are. In the US, that is not the case; it's very rare to find someone who knows of them, even though technically they can be found there. I suspect it's similar for other English-speaking nations. The term is not restricted to UK English, but it is much more widely understood there than elsewhere - I think "chiefly UK" describes that situation pretty well. Eishiya (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In case it hits RFV: this is a popular branded thing, perhaps similar to "Twinkie" in the US. It was famously the subject of a legal case (over import taxes) regarding whether it was technically a cake or a biscuit. Equinox 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

tip[edit]

What does tip mean in phrases like "beef tips over rice", "chicken tips", etc? "Small piece"? Does our entry cover this? - -sche (discuss) 16:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Beef tips are made from the trimmings of other cuts. Chicken tips I'm not so sure about, but I suspect it's similar. I think they both, more-or-less fit with the first definition (the extreme end).Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I can also find "pork tips" and "turkey tips" and "marinated alligator tips". At least some references say "beef tips" are cut from the "tri-tip" of a cow, which is not the extreme end of the cow (the round is further back). I do think a culinary sense is needed to clarify matters. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proficient[edit]

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proficient#English

Is it just me or does the U.S. pronunciation sample sound like it's actually the U.K. one?

You're right. I'm fixing the U.S. pronunciation information now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

chill, chilling[edit]

I think we are missing a sense here - "censorship chills public discourse" or "censorship has a chilling effect on public discourse". Can anyone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it, what does it mean? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
chilling effect at OneLook Dictionary Search (chilling effect) shows the phrase that is the etymological source of the sense. It was originally used in a metaphorical sense in the context of the effect of the threat of libel suits on press coverage of public figures in the US, but now had probably become lexicalized in the metaphorical sense topically in the areas of journalism and law in the US but is recognizable for at least the college-educated and readers of high-brow newspapers.
Most modern real dictionaries have "depress" and/or "discourage" as senses or subsenses of the transitive verb chill. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Even Webster 1913 had "To check enthusiasm or warmth of feeling of; to depress; to discourage." and MWOnline has "dispirit". DCDuring TALK 17:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

lượng từ[edit]

@Fumiko Take, Wyang: User:Hippietrail has flagged for attention my entry with a comment. Please comment and/or fix if it's incorrect. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was told it's incorrect by a native Vietnamese speaker on Quora. I'll dig it up and put the link in here. I realize native speaker intuitions are not always accurate, especially for grammar and linguistics terms if they haven't studied those fields. Thanks for taking a look! — hippietrail (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. I found the word by digging it up on the web and from not so reliable dictionaries, so it may as well be incorrect. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Di they advice about the correct term, in their opinion? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
They did but it seemed more like a SOP phrase and wasn't in the (admittedly mostly crap) dictionaries I checked. Let me find it ... — hippietrail (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
They recommended "danh từ chỉ đơn vị", and you can see the relevant part of the thread on Quora here.hippietrail (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, thats' broken up as (just made entry for "đơn vị"): danh từ + chỉ + đơn vị (Hán tự: 名詞單位) - "noun pointing unit" or "unit pointing to noun" (or something like that). I think there should be a more standard term. I won't be surprised if Sino-Vietnamese term danh từ (名詞) is used. From the discussion it seems the person doesn't know or doesn't understand you. Classifiers/counters/measure words are way too common in Vietnamese, they are often mistakenly considered part of the lemma (I fell into this trap too before). Online dictionaries often list translations of nouns with classifiers. So, a "frog" is not listed as ếch or ngoé but "con ếch" and "con ngoé" but they are not lemmas. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
danh từ chỉ đơn vị is what they have used on vi:w:Ngữ_pháp_tiếng_Việt#Danh từ chỉ đơn vị. —Stephen (Talk) 07:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm given that should we consider it as a set technical term therefore warranting an entry here, or as one of a number of possible circumlocutions for a concept without a set term and thus not warranting an entry? — hippietrail (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way my take on the nouns with classifiers is that if they're listed together in foreign to vi dictionaries we give it no credence but if it's listed in a monolingual vi dictionary then it warrants an entry here and if it's in vi to foreign dictionaries that it at least warrants consideration for an entry here. I'm always in favour of following the lead of traditional dictionaries for our languages modulated by a desire to keep our entry formats consistent across languages as much as possible. I also think there's no harm in having soft redirects for classifier+nouns that we find in any kind of dictionary, or we do similar to the Japanese -suru noun->verb entries. I'm always against hard redirects except for long phrases in the main namespace. Same goes for nominalizers.
It seems Vietnamese presents unique challenges even compared to our other "monosyllabic" languages simply due to opting for spaces between all syllables rather than no spaces even between words, which I wouldn't have expected. — hippietrail (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I have learned Vietnamese grammar and orthography since third grade, and I am still not sure what truly is "standard". It appears that whatever is "standard" is merely proclaimed by Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo, and it is, de facto, not always followed by everyone else, even some authors who write books for them and other governmental organizations (I'm living in such a funny country). The term "lượng từ" is usually accompanied with "số từ", both of which are used to express the idea of the plural. Examples of "lượng từ" include các, những, muôn, mấy, vài etc. (similar to the French les, des), and examples of "số từ" include một, hai, etc. For all I know, a "lượng từ" is definitely not a counter word, which covers con, cái, chiếc, etc., nor is it a measure word, which covers lít (liter), mét (meter), cân (kilogram), etc. If it were, such expression as "những con chó" would make no sense. A counter following another counter would just be ungrammatical, wouldn't it?
I can tell you that you don't need to study linguistics to know what "lượng từ" is. Terms like that are considered part of basic grammar. All students must study them.
Yeah, Vietnamese modern orthography is pretty much of a mess compared to older forms. It's sometimes difficult even for a native speaker to recognize a word in a sentence, since the orthography itself is purely "monosyllabic". In the past some scholars did use hyphens to join syllables of a single word, for example Hà-nội, cách-mạng. ばかFumikotalk 11:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take: Thank you very much. So, "lượng từ" doesn't mean "counter", "classifier" or "measure word", what does it mean? Or should it be deleted? Also, is "danh từ chỉ đơn vị" a correct translation of any of these English terms? And should it be considered a single word (compound) or is it a pure SoP? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, "lượng từ"s are pluralizing words, in much the same way as the French les/des, the Japanese tachi are. một con gà means "a chicken", while những con gà (with "những" being a "lượng từ") means "(the) chickens". I'm not sure about the English translation for it, though. ばかFumikotalk 14:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
P/S: According to the English wikipedia, "lượng từ"s are called "articles", just like the English a/an/the. ばかFumikotalk 01:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I've come across stuff on the net before talking about quantifiers in Vietnamese. That's a term that is sometimes used synonymously to classifier/counter/measure word, but not so by linguists since I think they have a more particular meaning of "quantifier" they use. Maybe this is such a quantifier? Otherwise "pluralizing particle" might be best as it wouldn't normally be accepted that Vietnamese has "articles" at all though people trying to relate Vietnamese to English grammar often call various things articles in my experience. — hippietrail (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I just got some new clarification from a Quora user:
oh I made a mistake again, "những" is indeed "lượng từ" (measure word) Classifiers like con, cái, cây... are called "danh từ chỉ loại" My head spinned because you used the wrong word ("lượng từ") and because the confusing Quora revert feature :-(
https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%E1%BB%AF_ph%C3%A1p_ti%E1%BA%BFng_Vi%E1%BB%87t#L.C6.B0.E1.BB.A3ng_t.E1.BB.AB
"Trong tiếng Việt có một lớp danh từ khá đặc biệt so với nhiều ngôn ngữ khác, như tiếng Hàn, Nhật, Nga,... Đó là các danh từ chỉ đơn vị tự nhiên (DTĐVTN), ví dụ: con, cái, chiếc, miếng, tấm,... Nó có nhiều tên gọi như loại từ, danh từ loại thể, danh từ chỉ loại,..."
http://www.vjol.info/index.php/sphcm/article/viewFile/15170/13623
hippietrail (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Myanmarese[edit]

Does this, and any other related words, need updating? Donnanz (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? Does it seem out of date? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it has dropped out of favour (more or less officialese anyway), and whether Burmese is officially back in fashion. Donnanz (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Burmese has ever gone out of fashion. It's always been the more common term. Google Ngrams says it's only been since 2007 that Burmese has been less than a hundred times more common than Myanmarese. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, the stats bear out what I thought. I have made a couple of mods to the definitions, which should be acceptable. Donnanz (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About 加[edit]

I would like to suggest to add the nanori reading of the kanji 「加」. The wikipedia site is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A0#Japanese

Please check the nanori reading here: http://myoujijiten.web.fc2.com/ka1.html

The goon, kan'on, and kun readings are already in the Wikipedia page, but probably it would be a nice idea to add some of the names in the URL I gave you. Actually, it'd be enough just to say that the nanori reading is 「ka」.  —This unsigned comment was added by Ikemen maru (talkcontribs) at 09:05, 2015 April 18‎.

  • The nanori set of readings is reserved for readings that are used for names, and that are not already found in the on and kun sections. Since ka is the regular on'yomi for , there is no need for any nanori section in the readings.
Also, please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ikemen maru: I just reverted your addition of nanori to the entry. The current practice is as described above -- we do not add nanori sections to the ====Readings==== headings of Japanese single-kanji entries for readings that are already listed under the on'yomi or kun'yomi sections. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


  • I understand, and agree with your reverts. But perhaps it would be a good idea to keep the examples I wrote?

One of them was 加井妻 [かいづま], which is a surname. ( 加井野 [かいの], was the other?) Sorry, I forgot which the other addition was.

Since ka is also the nanori reading, perhaps it'd be okay to keep at least the examples?

Ikemen maru (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Ikemen maru

As explained above, it is just an on-reading. And proper names are not good examples. 加藤 is worth mentioning, perhaps. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

JEsus, GOtt, HErꝛ, etc[edit]

At Jesus, an IP has twice added JEsus as an alternative form, noting that this form does in fact occur. For example:

  • 1763, Geistliche und liebliche Lieder, welche der Geist des Glaubens [], section Von der Begierde zu GOtt, page 482, song 565:
    O JEſu, JEſu! Du mein Hirr, o JEſu!
  • 1717, Johann Dietrich Herrichen, Glaubiger Kinder Gottes englische Sing-Schule, page 808:
    O JEſu, JEſu, GOttes Sohn, meine Mittler
    []
    O König aller ehren, HErꝛ JEſu, Davids Sohn

This is possibly derived from the practice of old blackletter books having the first letter of the first word of a page, title, etc be a very large and ornate majuscule, the next letter be a proportionally-sized majuscule, and the letters after than be minuscule, but in the works above, the capitalization occurs in the middle of lines and all the letters are proportionally sized (the first is not any more ornate than the rest). Should we have entries like JEsu, GOtt, etc? (Is this comparable to CamelCase? COmparable to Usenet posts that capitalize the first couple letters of words, presumably accidentally?) - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more similar to the practice of many English bibles writing Lord in all caps or small caps when it translates יהוה; I wouldn't favor including LORD and/or Lᴏʀᴅ for that, though. (Upon hitting Preview, I see that the first of those is already a blue link; oh, well.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If LORD's usage notes are to be believed, some works (some Bibles and derived works) make a distinction between LORD and Lord, which is I suppose the argument for having both of those. As far as I know, there's no distinction between Jesus and JEsus. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
w:Capitalization#Nouns attributes it to adding further capitaliztion to distinguish divine names from ordinary capitalized nouns. Of course, this was added by the same IP at about the time they were reverted here, so some skepticism may be in order. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Words that do not refer to God are not spelled like "GOtt", even though there was this ornate majuscule thing (which shouldn't even be limited to substantives). So the ornate majuscules should not be the reason for the existence of forms like "GOtt".
As civilised languages capitalise all nouns (e.g. (a) god = (ein) Gott in German), one can not distingush "(a) god = (ein) Gott" and "(the) God = (der) Gott" by capitalising the first letter (god <-> God; Gott <-> Gott). So it makes sense to write "GOtt" where in English one would write "God". Though, besides the distinction of appellative and proper nouns, forms like "GOtt" might also be used because religious people thought/think that important things (like God or GOtt in German) have to be "bigger" than normal things (like table or Tisch in German). But the reasons for writing "GOtt" etc. don't matter, as forms like "GOtt" exist and can be verified anyway. Though it might be good to research the reasons and put it into the etymology. || Forms like "HERR" do or should exists in German too, e.g. in Luther's Bible from ca. 1550. Though I've seen it in a digitalised version which changed the style (e.g. from Fraktur to Roman letters), so it could also be written in another way, and it might be older. || PS: There's not only one Jesus, maybe cf. [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(Name)]. So there's a difference between JEsus and Jesus like there's between god and God, or lord and Lord or LORD. || PPS: What's with alternative spellings like JEſus and Jeſus with long s (ſ)? Such forms did and sometimes still do occur too. On the one hand one might claim that they're just graphical variants or something (well, that's like trolling - wink @sche and/or co. here) - but on the other hand there's no bijection between "spellings with long s and round s" and "spellings just with round s", but just an surjection and no injection. For example both "Wachstube" [Wachs-tube] and "Wachſtube" [Wach-stube] are mapped to "Wachstube" [Wachs-tube, Wach-stube]. Though, of course, being descriptive and not prescriptive means that forms with long s have be mentioned as well (if attestable, 3 quotes &c.). || Also as an alternative: Instead of having entries like JEsus and Jeſus one could (in case of being prescriptive and prohibiting such alternative forms: should) at least mention those forms as alternative forms at Jesus but without a link. -14:14, 14:17, 15:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's simply an alternative capitalisation, and not too rare either. It's intentional and independent from formatting and ornamentation of the text, common in bibles. We have those entries for Low German, so we'd have to allow it for German too. _Korn (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As Angr pointed out, "we" even have those entries for English: God, Lord, LORD. (Yeah, there's a difference between God and god, but so there is (at least for some or sometimes) between GOtt and Gott &c.). Also there's CamelCase - besides camelcase - and its derivates. -18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You might find it more polite to have a signature that leads to your user page. _Korn (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

fanny[edit]

How did this acquire the meaning of ‘butt’ in North America? --Romanophile (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read that it comes ultimately from Fanny Hill ("Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", John Cleland, 1748). First, the Brits started using her name to refer to the vulva, and after it crossed the Atlantic, Americans used it for the buttocks. Since the British speakers did not explain explicitly to the Americans that by Fanny they meant vulva, but merely indicated "down there" with some vague hand gestures, the Americans assumed they meant the butt, since that is the part of the anatomy "down there" that really catches the eye. —Stephen (Talk) 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

flyspeck[edit]

Someone added the POS "verb" along with an rfd tag. A bit dumb isn't it? Adding a POS with no defn.? Can I just delete this? -- ALGRIF talk 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Some uses of it as a verb: [16], [17], [18]. Perhaps they meant to put an {{rfdef}} tag on it instead of {{rfd}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree it was probably intended as an rfdef. I have added two clearly attestable meanings. Kiwima (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pithecanthropus[edit]

I'm not sure that any of our three definitions are correct. According to the OED Pithecanthropus is the genus to which Java man was originally assigned. It is not a synonym for Java Man. Nor can it be the former name of Homo erectus; a genus is not equal to a species. The former name of H. erectus would have been P. erectus. Nor is it the former name of the genus Homo. The species H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens have always been members of Homo, even when Pithecanthropus was current. SpinningSpark 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a real definition as the first sense, which may need some tweaking. I agree with all your comments, though Pithecanthropus is a former name for part of Homo, which is one less likely reading of "Former name of Homo". I should also mention that Pithecanthropus isn't the first genus: the original description used "Anthropopithecus erectus", but the original describer changed it to Pithecanthropus erectus when it became obvious that it was more human than ape. That would be against the current rules for zoological nomenclature, and probably the rules in effect back then, too- but since both names are synonyms for Homo, it doesn't really matter. At any rate, the original three senses should be deleted, since no zoologist or anthropologist would use them that way, and non-scientists would most likely use a common name such as Java man. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked your definition and removed the incorrect ones. SpinningSpark 09:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

substrate[edit]

Some works discussing animal behaviour (see google books:"crows" "tools" "substrate"), e.g. crows' recognition that putting rocks into a tube of water raises the water level enough that they can retrieve food floating on the surface of the water in the deep tube, seem to use substrate to refer to the base "environmental objects" of an experiment or situation in which tool use is possible (even one not set up by humans), as distinct from the tools. In some cases, there is sand in the bottom of the crows' tubes of water, and that's substrate in sense 7. But often, the term seems to be used for the tube itself as well (regardless of whether or not there's sand in it), or the animal itself(?), which our entry doesn't quite cover.

  • 2006, Edward A. Wasserman, Thomas R. Zentall, Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence (ISBN 0195167651), page 520:
    Detach/subtract [tasks involve] Severing a fixed attachment between environmental objects (or the substrate) or removing object(s) from another unattached object, so the latter is a more useful tool.
  • 2000, Mike Hansell, Bird Nests and Construction Behaviour (ISBN 1139429086), page 90:
    This definition [of "tool"] is not simple, but contains several elements. The tool must not be part of the animal's body (a beak is not a tool); the user must manipulate the tool in some way for it to realise its function; and, finally, a tool cannot be attached to the substrate. This is a fairly clear definition, but does seem to produce some rather arbitrary distinctions (Hansell 1987b). The spider Dinopis, for example, makes a small web which it holds in its legs, thrusting it down on passing ants. This is a tool, but all other webs, however complex, are not since they are anchored to the substrate. The woodpecker finch [...] that uses a fine stick held in the beak to extract insect prey from wood, is a tool user, but a shrike [...] that impales an insect on a thorn still attached to the bush is not.

The spider citation could be using sense 2 iff we expanded it from "...an organism..." to "...an organism or other thing...". Alternatively, one could argue that it's sense 6, but the "construction" tag seems dubious, and "adheres" would need to be improved because a thorn doesn't really "adhere" to a vine so much as it is part of it. - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made this change. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All, or at least most, of the definitions seem like domain-specific applications of the basic metaphor. There is no end, except lack of attestation, to the specialization possible. For example: "The physical material upon which a photovoltaic cell is applied."
We should only have those subsenses that are less than fully transparent to a beginning student of the domain of application. It is certainly possible that some {sub)sense(s) not fit under a well-written sense, requiring another sense, but I rather doubt it. DCDuring TALK 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

blaze[edit]

Does the sense "mark on a horse's face" really have the same etymology as "intense fire"? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary has a view. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiaux[edit]

This seems to be a obsolete plural form of [?], any ideas about the singular? The English seems to be singular. There is a Middle French sense which is beyond my abilities. See Citations:chiaux and Citations:Chiaux for attestations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

remit[edit]

Could someone native pay attention to the definitions of this multifaceted verb, please? Im particularly puzzled with this definition: "to give up, stop succumbing to" as "to succumb" is defined as "to give up". Another problematic one is this: "to send back; to give up; to surrender; to resign". Is this one or four definitions? If it is one, a usex or two would certainly help. These are the most obscure definitions, but also the others would benefit of thoughtful attention. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have clarified it some, please take a look now to see if it any clearer. Leasnam (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thx, Leasnam. It's a way clearer now. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

need a quote translated to Korean from English[edit]

I would like the quote " I'd die to win, cause I'm born to lose" translated to Korean—This unsigned comment was added by Paji17 (talkcontribs) at 10:21, 23 April 2015‎ (UTC).

   I began an answer on the assumption that you are fluent in Korean, but stymied by weak colloquial English; now i see that it is literally a quote from an English-language song or something. I thot you had the worthy intention of improving your own grasp of something in English that had gotten you fascinated -- which my native insight could have assisted. (But i can't imagine why you would want to evangelize with our local brand of trivia, let alone expect someone at wikt to want to help you do so.)
--Jerzyt 10:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The request is most likely for a tattoo and has nothing whatsoever to do with evangelizing. Many people who want a tattoo select a favorite saying, aphorism, maxim, or adage, and they sometimes want to translate it into a language that uses an interesting script, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, or Sanskrit. People make such requests quite often at wikt, and we help them if we can. If you dislike such notions, it would be wise to simply ignore the request and not pass judgment or rake the requester over the coals with a preachy lecture. —Stephen (Talk) 10:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

go[edit]

"Go Wiktionary!"

What part of speech is go here? Imperative verb, or interjection? Is this covered by any of the senses we have at the moment (and we do have a lot!) Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Imperative verb, similar to the usage in "you go, girl!". Can't really tell from our coverage. Equinox 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the plain imperative for go (proceed, function). _Korn (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

German nouns[edit]

See e.g. Sänger and Polizist, and User talk:Angr#Sänger and User_talk:80.133.98.13.
German nouns like "Sänger" (masculine gender; singer), "Polizist" (masculine gender; police officer), "Katze" (feminine gender; cat), "Rabe" (masculine gender; raven), "Person" (feminine gender; person) are of one grammatical gender, but can refer to both biological genders or sexes. [In traditional grammar the gender of such words is known as "genus epicoenum" (Latin), "[genus] promiscuum" (Latin), "Genus epicoenum" (Latin; Latin-German) and "vermischtes Geschlecht" (German).]
Masculine personal nouns like "Sänger" and "Polizist" can refer to both males and females. The reference to females is especially common when the word is used in plural or indefinite/unspecific (e.g. with the indefinite article "ein" (a/an)), and less common when refering to a specific individual female as there are words with -in/[-inn]], like "Sängerin" (female singer). For example: Senteces like "Soldaten sind Mörder." (soldiers are killers/murderers) and "Jeder Dieb ist ein Verbrecher." (every theft→thief is a criminal) usually (though sometimes depending on the context) refer to soldiers/thefts of both genders and not just to male soldiers/thefts. While it is more common to say something like "Die Diebin Hillary beginn ein Verbechen." (the female theft Hillary committed crime) than to use something like *"Der [weibliche] Dieb Hillary beginn ein Verbrechen".
Anyway, words such as "Sänger" can refer to persons of both genders and so information like "male singer" are wrong. Simply "singer" isn't wrong, though one might also phrase it as "singer, especially a male one".
Someone's argument (Angr, cf. the linked talk page) for only using something like "male singer" was: "That's true of any masculine personal noun, though, not just Sänger. Knowing that is part of knowing German, it's not lexical information about this word, so it doesn't belong in the entry."
I disagree with that and thus I'm using the tea room - though I don't like tea -:
Counter-argument: "Entries are also read by persons who don't speak said language or don't speak it very well. Thus the limited information 'male person' is misleading. And as there's no note on German grammar here -- or is there something like Help:German grammar with a note like 'masculine personal nouns can also refer to females, though this is omitted in the entries'? --, it's also wrong."
Other opinions, please. -17:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Let me give you a summary of the argument again: Some German nouns can refer to both a being with a specific sex and one with an undefined sex. The argument to be solved is whether both definitions should be present in the entries or whether the gender-specific one should be omitted. E.g.: Sänger either has the definitions "singer, male singer" or only "singer"; Katze either has the definitions "cat, female cat" or only "cat". There are words which refer to a female singer and a male cat, but cannot be used for a sexually unspecified singer or cat respectively. _Korn (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
ps.: I'm not sure whether as a random user I'm allowed to move this to the beer parlour, but I'm pretty sure that's where it belongs. _Korn (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There are 3 possibilities: e.g. "Sänger" as simply "singer" (i.e. male or female singer), "male singer" (i.e. male singer, so excluding female singers) or "singer, especially male singer" (i.e. a female or male singer, though it is especially a male one). One could also differ between "# singer, especially a male one" (one meaning) and "# singer [line break] # male singer" (two meanings). Same for "Katze": "cat", "female cat", "cat, especially a female cat".
Also regarding an argument of Chuck Entz (in an older discussion linked above): The different meanings were not created recently through feminism and political correctness (which should have been noted somehow). Instead, German nouns already had the gender-neutral meaning in "older times" (still talking about Modern High German, not about Germanic, Old High German, Gothic etc.). -17:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I can propose a solution to this issue, actually. Compare Frisian. The respective sexual form can be subsumed under the generic one. _Korn (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

/* regards */[edit]

regards[edit]

   Over on WP, i found "the high regards given to Angleton by his colleagues in the intelligence business" and pontificated "highly idiomatic", on the WP article's talk page, re the lexicographic problem.
   I see regards#Noun as exemplary, but doubt that regard#Noun suffices to overcome the effect of the PEBCAK, namely the expectation that if it walks like the plural of a real singular noun, it must quack like one (so that looking for an entry for the plural feels foolish). Is there something more constructive than asking this question, here, that i should have considered doing?
--Jerzyt 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your problem here. Under regard, Etymology 1, meaning 2, I see One's concern for another; esteem. [from 16th c.], which seems to cover your case - making your usage, indeed, one that contains a plural. Kiwima (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
   To be candid, in light of the idiom, it didn't occur to me to construe it as a countable plural, referring to the respective regards in which each of his individual colleagues respectively held him (rather than their collective and mutually reinforcing consensus of regard for him). In fact, i'd not have credited the notion of a native speaker construing the specimen text that way, since i suppose that few who are unaware of the idiom would be likely to treat "regard" as anything but a verb whose existence might be hypothesized from the appearance of "-ing" in the quasi-prepositional usage of "regarding".
--Jerzyt 08:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The WP example strikes me as written by someone for whom English is not the first language. Determiners and uncountable nouns, of which regard is one in some of its senses, often give trouble. I would certainly say "the high regard in which Angleton was held [] ". Someone seems to have confused "high regard" with "give him my regards", which are different senses of regard. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
   Exactly my diagnosis. And the core of my concern is that even for this native speaker, it was only after observing that my dicts fail to treat the uncountable sense of "regards" that i even thot of checking whether there is a wikt "regards" entry. IMO, a ESL user would be at least as likely as i to give up after trying "regard" (and i'm doubtful that many non-en wikts will provide "give my regards" adequate coverage)... whence i wonder if singular nouns with plural forms whose meanings (as in this case) can't be inferred from their singular definitions may deserve see-also links to the plural definitions.
--Jerzyt 08:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

conservative[edit]

I'd looked for a sense "cautious" or "restrained", which I think exists, and I asked for this sense to be added to the lemma (on the discussion page). The lemma already has the sense "based on pessimistic assumptions" in the context of statistics. But now I'm wondering: isn't this really the sense I mean? And hence, is it even correct to define it as "pessimistic"? Because say a biologist has found a mutated virus in a poor country, and now estimates the impact based on three different models, which lead to estimates that (a) 0.1 % of the population will die, (b) 1.0 %, and (c) up to 5.0 %. In such a case, what would be the conservative estimate? I might be wrong, but wouldn't 0.1 % be the conservative estimate? That is the one that is restrained, low-key, trying to avoid overstatement? Please clarify :)—This unsigned comment was added by ‎ 77.169.49.216 (talkcontribs) at 09:58, 25 April 2015.

   Sounds like "pessimistic" is used in a more technical sense than you are recognizing: the conservative estimate reflects pessimism, not about the outcomes that humans intrinsically value, but about the quality, i.e. statistical significance, of the measured numbers you have going in. And it is generally not the models that would be considered conservative, but within each given model, whether the statistical data that the model is applied to had sampled a large enough fraction of the population and/or of the disease agent that the probability of the death rate (or for that matter, the survival rate) exceeding the model's estimate was 75%, 90%, or 99%: small samples make it likely that by chance you evaluated the susceptibility of a non-representative collection of people, while large samples increase the likelihood that your population as a whole is very similar to your sample, corresponding to a conservative estimate of death or survival rate.
   (I would describe a model as conservative in this sense only if it had parameters built in that were based on extensive collection of data rather smaller samples; it's likely IMO that the .1, 1, and 5 %-mortality models you pictured would, on the contrary, result from different hypotheses about what the mechanism of exposure was, or what the efficacy of newly instituted supportive therapies would turn out to be.)
--Jerzyt 11:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a very common sense and we don't have it! Also the 'Relating to the Conservative Party' is usually Conservative and even in spoken English they are referred to as 'small C conservative' and 'big C conservative' because of course, capital letters aren't pronounced differently! Renard Migrant (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone fancies having a go at Conservative, tory and Tory, they're pretty much a mess. As far as I know Conservative doesn't mean Conservative Party even, though Conservatives does. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Done and done. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I'm not an expert on statistics at all. If one defines "pessimistic" the way Jerzy does above, it all makes a lot of sense. But obviously people (and wiktionary is made for just "people", I hope) are likely to understand the word "pessimistic" the way I did. So maybe some change on this part on this particular definition could still be done. But anyway.. thanks a lot!

Katze[edit]

I'm having an edit war with an IP over the usage note. Specifically about the part that 'Kätzin' is not considered a normal form. I'd appreciate if someone could propose a solution. It's not really a case for RFV because even if a word is either formally alright or only used jokingly, you probably won't find three people deeming it necessary to point that out. Korn (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How can the feminine be Kätzin? It's a feminine noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the female noun with an additional female suffix that is normally reserved for nouns ending in -er. The term is in the Duden (official dictionary of Germany). As a further hint: Google Books gives 3292 results for "Kater und Katze" and its inversion and 111 results for "Kater und Kätzin" and its inversion, if you remove all editions of Faust, Germany's most famous theatre play, which uses the latter phrase once. Korn (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, Kätzin is something of a technical term, used by breeders to refer unambiguously to a female cat, sort of like queen in English. The usage note, however, belongs at Kätzin once it's created, not at Katze. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
But when Kätzin is part of the declension template of the entry Katze, it's considered a part of the lemma, isn't it? The usage note also points out that the lemma Katze does not only refer to the species but also a female member of it. I'm not sure if that information belongs into a usage note or an extra definition. If it is a technical term, the note is inappropriate, of course. (By which I don't mean to imply that it isn't true.) Korn (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not in the declension template, it's in the headword template. Being there doesn't preclude its being a lemma of its own, which it certainly is. I'd say Katze should have two senses: "1. cat" and "2. female cat". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is, it's not an inflected form so much as a derived term, in the same way tailoress is derived from tailor rather than being an inflected form of it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I am entirely unfamiliar with the details of Wiktionary templates. It is a female noun with a productive suffix used to derive female forms from male nouns. If you think it doesn't belong into that header but into the L4, you know how to edit. Korn (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the weird thing about this word is adding the feminine suffix (yes, derivational not inflectional) to a feminine noun. I don't know of any other word where this is done: I've never heard *Entin for a specifically female duck or *Gänsin for a specifically female goose or *Schlängin for a specifically female snake or *Bienin for a specifically female bee or anything like that. That may be why people feel the need to point out the oddity of Kätzin. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Late reply: I've never heard Kätzin either. It doesn't sound impossible to me, but neither does Gänsin or maybe Entin. -- The suffix -in marks beings who are sexually feminine. If the root word is grammatically feminine or neuter, instead of the normal masculine, that makes its use a bit special, but not so special actually. It's a layout question; grammatically there's no problem. Kolmiel (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way: I think feminine forms are somewhere in the twilight zone between inflection and derivation. The same goes for diminutives. We have those in the headword templates as well. But all right, they're not inflection templates, so that seems all right. Kolmiel (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Found a copyvio[edit]

Hi there,

FYI i found a copyvio here, which i undid here. Not sure if additional steps are needed. Hopefully i'm at the right forum for this. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

aio[edit]

I'm trying to create the pronunciation for Pohnpeian words based on the Ponapean Reference Grammar, but I'm unable to find anything about stress in Pohnpeian. Does anyone know how stress works? DerekWinters (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

smallest room[edit]

We have two senses: (i) "the toilet, lavatory or loo"; (ii) "the bathroom (US)". I think these refer to the same thing, and someone has erroneously included two definitions in order to cover the two (UK and US) words that usually refer to the room with the toilet in it. I don't think the "smallest room" can actually be the toilet (thing you sit on), can it? Equinox 00:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I gather that in the UK, "toilet" is sometimes used to refer to the room, rather than the device. On a completely unrelated note, when I visited the UK, I saw a lot of signs that said "to let", and couldn't help thinking how easy it would be to paint an "i" in the gap. bd2412 T 01:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, the senses should be merged as they refer to the same thing. Yes, in the UK "toilet" is sometimes used to refer to the room. There are numerous stories of Brits visiting America who go to a restaurant and at some point ask the waiter where the toilet is, only to be told, "In the bathroom, of course, where else would it be?". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's merge it as proposed. In case of doubt, send a putative sense "device for depositing human waste and then flushing it away with water" to RFV, but it seems an overkill. Other dicts include Collins[19]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

fall in love[edit]

The 1st and 3rd need to be merged, don't they? or all three altogether. Also, is the redirect from fall in love with acceptable?--Dixtosa (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. To fall in love with your wife doesnt mean the same as fall in love with skiing. Sense 1 is romantic love. Sense 3 is intense liking. Leasnam (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

=[edit]

Someone reverted my removal of obscure tech info from =: [20] on the grounds that it might benefit editors writing wiki markup. I don't think that's a reason for us to include such things within entries; they should be on a FAQ or editors' help page, not in an entry. It's certainly not a "usage note". Others' opinions? Equinox 12:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would remove it as not usage notes. Also, I don't see how it's useful to us. Furthermore even if it were, surely that's not the right place for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's remove the putative usage note. It is based only on 61 being the dec of U+003D code point, which we show in the box to the right. If we want to provide HTML entities, these should be in the box at the right, but I don't think we want to do that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Re-rv'd per this consensus. Hillcrest98 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: it is not a putative usage note. If these should be in the box at the right, then you write but I don't think we want to do that. Why not provide mapping? That usage note:
The HTML entity for = is &#61;.
provides the reader with something that {{character info/new}} fails to provide. Writing that 61 being the dec of U+003D code point is just dropping the ball. The internet uses HTML. There is a relationship between the "document character set" in a HTML document and the "external character encoding" representation.
@Equinox, Renard Migrant, Dan Polansky, Hillcrest98: This is a mapping from one standard to another, and not just an aid for an editor (see W3 recomendation), the template should include, for example,
Name or ENTITY
i.e. alphanumeric reference
Character
i.e. Unicode value
CDATA
i.e. decimal conversion
Glyph
i.e. literal
Equal; U+02A75
equals; U+0003D &#61; =
EqualTilde; U+02242
equest; U+0225F
that way mapping is not confused with usage. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with Dan Polansky's idea of consigning this sort of information to the character-info box. Is that doable? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
IMO, Module:character info should autogenerate the decimal equivalent of whatever hexadecimal codepoint it displays. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's acceptable in the character-info box. I hope nobody is going to demand any further easy translations (octal?): hex and dec really are the main two, though. Equinox 23:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this where that character template should be edited? Template:character info Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it calls a module, which uses other modules. Please don't edit anything there without asking here first. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've asked at Module talk:character info#Autogeneratation of hexadecimal codepoints’ decimal equivalents for this feature to be added. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
All thanks be to Dixtosa for making the addition. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

as per[edit]

As far as I know, "as per" is redundancy. The correct usage is just "per". One should say "Per your note ...", not "As per your note ..."

How are you defining correct? Just because something's redundant doesn't make it incorrect. For example, 'of mine' as in 'a friend of mine', the 'of' and 'mine' are mutually redundant, but it's correct English, while 'a friend mine' and 'a friend of me' aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

rhech[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Could I get someone more experienced with Welsh to tell me if the gender of this word being masculine checks out? I have three dictionaries that say its feminine... I want to be sure before I edit it. Anglom (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to check, you're not challenging the validity of this word? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. I wasn't really sure whether to ask in the discussion page or here, so I thought I'd try here. I just didn't want to change the gender if it actually is a masculine word in spoken Welsh. Anglom (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The Tea Room actually might have been the place to ask, now that I think about it. Anglom (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion to the Tea Room. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru says it's feminine, and it gives several examples of adjectives undergoing soft mutation after it, which pretty much proves it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Anglom (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

pedophilia[edit]

[21] So are we defining things in terms of what they mean in practice, or in terms of what PaulBustion88 says they mean according to the medical establishment? jus checkin. Equinox 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • We should be defining terms with the meaning that they have in the real world. If a term has a more strict meaning in a the legal system of a particular country then we might tell people in the talk page but not make it part of a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Equinox, if you had bothered reading the entry, you would have seen that the broader definition, of any adult sexual attraction towards/interaction with any minor, is also included. I'm only limiting the MEDICAL definition to a primary or exclusive attraction to children. That's what Renard Migrant and I agreed on as a compromise. The broader, "real word" usage is already included, and its the first definition, so what is the problem?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the link you yourself provided Equinox, the first definition is the one you seem to be arguing in favor of,"Sexual feelings or desires by adults towards minors."We have that first, then the more specific, medical definition. So its not only being defined according to what the medical establishment says or what I say. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Also, the second definition, the one Equinox is criticizing, specifies that it refers to "in medicine, more strictly". So its not claiming that this is the only definition.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Also, Renard Migrant agreed with allowing the narrower medical definition as well as long as the popular definition of any sexual attraction to/interaction with a minor under 18 by an adult 18 or older was also included. "PaulBustion88 has raised on my talk page (and not here, much to my chagrin) the possibility of having two definitions. A general-use definition, an instance of an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor, no matter what the ages are apart from those two restrictions, and a medical definition where we specify pre-pubescent. I would be in favor of it; I think these definitions are distinct in terms of usage and meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)" Since we still have the general use definition, what's wrong with also including the medical definition?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia states, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia, "Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger." The source is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition. It states that pedophilia means a "primary or exclusive attraction." So this is what it means according to the medical establishment, I'm not just saying it.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Anyway, Equinox, if you want to take out the medical definition and only use the popular definition, I would not edit war over it. So if you do it I'm not going to fight you, I'm only giving my arguments for why it should remain the way it is. But its not important enough to war over, I'll defer to consensus. Now I've said all I have to on the matter.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason the medical community considers "primary or exclusive" to be important to the definition of pedophilia, is that not all people who have sex with prepubescent children are pedophiles. Some of them have only a small amount of attraction to prepubescent children, and actually prefer adults,adolescents, pubescents, or something else other than prepubescent children, but choose them as an object when they lack a more appropriate object, for example an adult who cannot form a sexual relationship with an adult partner. Pedophilia is about what happens in the mind, in the medical definition, not about behavior. Its sort of like the fact that a person reads a book does not mean that is what he prefers to do, their might just have been nothing good on television.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Attested senses belong on a sense line not buried on a talk page. I think, if there are different senses being warred over, then start adding more attested usage to demonstrate each of those senses. Let the usage explain the sense itself. Describe through attested usage what each of those authorities prescribe and also fully reference it. If there is a legal definition, then that should be attested to. If there is a medical definition, then that should be attested to. If there is a journalist definition, then that should be attested to. If it varies by jurisdiction or culture, then that should be attested to also. If some groups have perverted usages, then those should be attested to also. Three attestations of usage of each sense is just a minimum. If there are a dozen senses, then those should be attested to also.
The usage notes should come after those senses are well attested.
The first sense has no attestation – that is a problem. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
BoBoMisiu is obviously right here. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

    • 2004, Ronald J. Comer, Fundamentals of abnormal psychology, page 341:
    • Some people with pedophilia are attracted only to children; others are attracted to adults as well (APA, 2000, 1994).
    • 2007, Margaret Mary Wright, Judicial decision making in child sexual abuse cases, page 122:
      As noted earlier, pedophilia was cited as both an aggravating and a mitigating circumstance by trial judges, as was the absence of pedophilia.
    • 2009, Ann Kring, Sheri Johnson, Gerald C. Davison, Abnormal Psychology:
      Sometimes a man with pedophilia is content to stroke the child's hair, but he may also manipulate the child's genitalia, [...]

There are three attested uses right there already in the entry for the medical use of the term, the use I favor. There are no attested uses, as you yourself pointed out, for the use of the term Equinox favors, the popular definition of sexual attraction to/sexual interaction with anyone under 18 by anyone over. So if the standard of proof is how much attestation each use has, the use I favor I already has more attestation for it than the use Equinox favors. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I added many attestations, especially 21st c., to Citations:pedophilia. Someone else could sort them into senses. I think there is enough there to show a criminal sense and a child molester sense. @PaulBustion88: I tagged two passages in pedophilia with {{rfv-quote}}s. I could not verify those two quotes using Google Book search. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I just want to add that its kind of sloppy thinking that a child molestor must be a pedophile. That would be like assuming a person who reads books must be a bibliophile, maybe there just was not anything else to do. Some people are voracious readers in jail/prison who never pick up a book after that. A lot of child sexual molestors are more sexually attracted to adults and/or adolescents than to children, but choose to have sex with children because they lack the social skills to make sexual advances successfully on a mature person, for example. Neither the criminal sense nor the child sexual molestor sense are accurate. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No, a book is never the victim of a bibliophile. That Neither the criminal sense nor the child sexual molestor sense are accurate. is contrary to the attested usage for over century. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
{edit conflict) We're not here to "correct sloppy thinking", we're here to document actual usage. The fact that you're going to such lengths to explain the distinction tells me that it's not one that anyone makes in real life, except for a few experts trained in technicalities. As far as most people are concerned, all people who have sex with children are pedophiles. Period. Full stop. Also remember that etymology doesn't determine meaning: the fact that a word contains -phile doesn't guarantee that it's about attraction rather than behavior. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"No, a book is never the victim of a bibliophile." You're deliberately trying to make what I said sound more absurd than it is. I'm not saying books are people and I'm not talking about people having sex with books, I'm saying people who read books would not always necessarily do that as their first choice of activity, so people who have sex with children are not necessarily greatly attracted to children, they might be more attracted to adults and/or adolescents, but lack the social skills to make sexual advances successfully on more mature people, or for whatever other reason lack access to more appropriate objects. Also, what I said is not a point original to me, someone else observed it on the pedophilia entry's talk page. It was Leucosite. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@PaulBustion88: it is a crime in many (i think most) places because there is a victim – a child. Perpetrators of other crimes who lack of social skill are still committing those crimes. They are doing something. There is an act and a victim. You do compare an inanimate object, a book, to a person, a child: [] people who have sex with children are not necessarily greatly attracted to children, they might be more attracted to adults and/or adolescents, but lack the social skills to make sexual advances successfully on more mature people, or for whatever other reason lack access to more appropriate objects. Your comparison is too far away from what I think ― to paraphrase the great sage Kyle of Southpark: Dude. They have sex with children!
Please add some attributed usages of positive associations with the term pedophilia. I think it is a category of actions – like rape. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying sexually molesting children is justified, you're trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, and I'm not saying pedophilia is a healthy attraction to have. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between having a sexual attraction to someone and acting on it. Not all pedophiles sexually molest children. That was my point. An analogy is that some heterosexual and homosexual men, for example Roman Catholic priests, are celibate and do not act on their attractions, that does not make them asexual. I'm not saying books are alive, or that children are no more valuable than books, you are deliberately putting words in my mouth I never said. Having said that. I realize nobody else here agrees with making the definition focus on the medical definition so I've given up. But I resent you implying that I approve of sex with children, I never said that. Another point I was making was not all people who have sex with children are attracted to them as much as they are to adults. Some are actually more attracted to adults than children but lack adult partners. This obviously does NOT in any way excuse what they did, but its a different motivation from that of a person fixated on children. Another example to correlate to that is some heterosexuals have sex with other men in prison because no women are there, that does not make them homosexual. And as to the crime aspect, that would be violating age of consent for sex laws, also known as the crime of statutory rape, although those terms are never used by governments or states, that's how the government's laws against sex with children are informally described, and that has nothing to do with pedophilia. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article about pedophilia, which is sourced, gives the definition I gave and says the sexual attraction and the sexual crime are two different things, "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a mental disorder|psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia It also states, "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.[4This use conflates the sexual attraction (pedophilia) with the act of abuse (child molestation)" and it says "Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and not all pedophiles molest children." Maybe the book analogy wasn't a good one. A better one would be rape, that often is not about sex but about power, in child sexual molesting, it sometimes isn't really about primary or exclusive sexual attraction but other things. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
@PaulBustion88: What I write is not about you but about the obviously differing senses and definitions. I know I write abrasively, nevertheless, I do not write about you.

I'm saying is that there's a difference between having a sexual attraction to someone and acting on it.

I agree.

Not all pedophiles sexually molest children.

That is just the no true Scotsman fallacy, it does not affect what pedophilia is.

An analogy is that some heterosexual and homosexual men, for example Roman Catholic priests, are celibate and do not act on their attractions, that does not make them asexual.

That is a red herring fallacy, pedophilia is not defined by unknowable characteristics (what it is not) but by knowable characteristics (what it is).

focus on the medical definition

I agree with you, there should be a sense line about the psychiatric definition. I think there should be two as there seems to be a shift in what is used to diagnose those pedophiles.

not all people who have sex with children are attracted to them as much as they are to adults. Some are actually more attracted to adults than children but lack adult partners.

That is a false dilemma, pedophilia is not about a spectrum of possibilities or a correlative but what pedophiles do to children.

but its a different motivation from that of a person fixated on children.

The action is not the same thing as the motivation.

some heterosexuals have sex with other men in prison because no women are there, that does not make them homosexual.

You don't mention if those men are the victims of rape.

that would be violating age of consent for sex laws, also known as the crime of statutory rape,

No, the definition of pedophilia does not parse who is a child. It defines the various senses of what is pedophilia.

Wiktionary is about usage. I have added attestations that show that for a century it is a crime with a child victim. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


But another problem with that is the definition of a child. Different countries have different legal definitions of what age is old enough for a young person to consent to sex with an older person. For example, in France the age of consent for sex is 15, but in Indiana its 16, and in Wisconsin its 18. In Germany and Austria its 14, in Russia its nominally 16 but the law is not enforced if the victim is past puberty(or at least so I've heard), its also puberty in the Mexican of Nayarit. If we define it as a sex crime against a child, what do we mean by child, someone younger than 15, 16, or 18 or what age? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, people have hair split with me in other discussions when I used the words adult and child in relation to sex crimes laws, I know that legally the definition of adulthood is age of majority, not age of consent for sex, but age of consent for sex presumably is more relevant to the discussion here than age of majority, since age of majority does not directly relate to these crimes against children, that's why I used the age of consent examples, even though that is not what defines legal adulthood. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu, PaulBustion88: Why are you guys arguing as if pedophilia were monosemous? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I supppose it does not have to be monosemous, and I have already stated that I accept the popular definition being included first, even though I disagree with it. The only thing about defining it as an adult sexual attraction to a minor is that it seems like it could be potentially pov pushing, because like I stated above, different states both in the United States of America and elsewhere have different laws about who is an adult in this respect (i.e. old enough to consent to sex) and who is not. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity how is this the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, ""Not all pedophiles sexually molest children."

That is just the no true Scotsman fallacy, it does not affect what pedophilia is. " I'm not saying that no true pedophile would sexually molest a child, that would be a ridiculous statement, I never even said that most child sexual molestors were not pedophiles, obviously in all probability most of them are, I said that they were not the exact same thing, the attraction and the act, obviously having the attraction makes the act more likely to happen. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"not all people who have sex with children are attracted to them as much as they are to adults. Some are actually more attracted to adults than children but lack adult partners.

That is a false dilemma, pedophilia is not about a spectrum of possibilities or a correlative but what pedophiles do to children." It depends on which sense of the term we are using. If we are using the popular definition it is a false dilemma. If we are using the medical definition it is not. Pedophilia in the medical sense is about a primary or exclusive attraction, so if a person is 50% attracted to adults, 50% to children , then he is not a pedophile in the medical sense of the term, so actually in the medical it does have to be within a certain spectrum for it to qualify as pedophilia. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I don't think it is monosemous. I think there are about four, or maybe five, senses, including historical ones.
@PaulBustion88: I disagree, that another problem with that is the definition of a child. Age is an attribute of a child. Age is not an attribute of pedophilia. These various senses and definitions are not about particular law. You are shifting away from what pedophilia is; you are shifting to who a child is. Are you challenging some of the attested usages that I added? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I see what you are saying now. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the way the article is in this respect now. I don't want to change this aspect of it anymore. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I know its not monosemous, I just wanted to focus more on the medical definition. But I defer to the consensus that we focus on actual usage in a dictionary, not necessarily correct or literal use. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Searching google books:"paedophilias" and google books:"pedophilias" brings up usages that may help to distinguish this word's senses. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

knock oneself out two senses different from each other?[edit]

Are the current two senses ("To go ahead; to do as one pleases", and granting permission) different from each other? Is it ever used in the first or third person? ("I'll knock myself out then" sounds weird to me) Also, is there another sense meaning "exhaust oneself"? Siuenti (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In reverse order:
The "exhaust" sense is at knock out, as it can be transitive without being reflexive.
In reported speech, for example, all persons and numbers are possible, if not elegant: "I told him to knock himself out if that's what he wanted."
I don't know whether I was right in splitting the senses. I think I was just trying to clean up the entry rather than perfect it. It is the kind of expression that seems to 'feel' different to speakers, probably just because of the discourse function, when used in the imperative, even though the semantics are arguably the same. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
They do seem different. Sadly I have nothing better to offer than what it says now. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

be[edit]

This entry has reached a number of definitions that is problematic, as it seriously hampers overview/navigation. I don't dare to play topiary gardener myself, but I think it would be helpful if all the copular senses and all the auxiliary definitions would somehow be summarised with a dropdown or at least be put under a common ## or something. _Korn (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is even harder to clean up than the entries for prepositions and other grammaticized words. Probably, treating some definitions as subsenses of others would be useful. Perhaps deployment of {{defdate}} among the senses would be a good preliminary. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

prick[edit]

Etyms 1 & 2 need be merged, as they are the same. Anyone good at that? Etyms are not my strong point. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

But they aren't, exactly. The verb is from an OE verb and the noun from an OE noun. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Just like other dictionaries, we should reserve separate etymologies for things that are really unrelated, not for things like denominal verbs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? I spend a lot of time separating etymologies which lead back to different PGmc forms which happened to have coalesced in Modern English as a noun form and a verb form...in the case of prick, the PGmc forms are not positively reconstructed (i.e. *prik-), and so appear identical. But they should probably be made out to be *prikô (noun) and *prikjaną/*prikōną (verb) Leasnam (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I also disagree with Jerome Potts and Aɴɢʀ on this one. As DCDuring wrote, prick (noun) derives from the Old English noun prica, whereas prick (verb) derives from the Old English verb prician; and as Leasnam wrote, that noun probably goes back to the Proto-Germanic *prikô, whilst the verb probably goes back to the Proto-Germanic *prikjaną, *prikōną. Of course the noun and the verb derive from the same root ultimately, but the different parts of speech became distinct long ago, and should be kept distinct in the way we present these words. Moreover, the OED keeps the noun and verb distinct; like that dictionary, we should do the same. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Undone, pending completion of the discussion. @Angr: re: "Just like other dictionaries". The dictionaries that keep such etymologies separate include the OED, Century, MW Online, MW 1913. The "better" dictionaries that don'tcombine them include AHD, RHU, Oxford (online), WNW. I suppose one could say that "modern" dictionaries tend not make the distinction, just as they downgrade the presentation of etymology by placing it at the bottom of the entry. I would say that "better", "historical" dictionaries make the distinction. DCDuring TALK 13:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think ones where just 'the verb is derived from the noun' (i.e. in modern English) we should keep them as a single etymology. But when they go back to different Middle English (or older than that) forms we should separate them. Having said that, I think there are usability issues when you do that, many users won't understand the distinct and will complain on WT:FEED that prick doesn't have any noun definitions or doesn't have any verb definitions. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your qualification.
I don't think it hurts to stimulate use of WT:FEED, but for every instance someone voices an objection or question there are probably multiple users who are confused and disheartened and don't bother coming back. Of course this isn't a problem if we are just creating a dictionary for our own enjoyment, which seems to be the case. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Renard Migrant that noun → verb or verb → noun developments that occurred in Modern English without change of spelling or pronunciation ought not to be given separate etymology sections. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course that makes most sense. I too agree. Leasnam (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that noun → verb or verb → noun developments that occurred even as far back as PIE should be given separate etymology sections. I think it makes us look amateurish, as if we didn't understand how etymologies work, if we do. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The same amateur category as OED, MW, Century, and Online Etymology Dictionary? DCDuring TALK 16:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, it looks less unprofessional when they do it than when we do. Maybe because their lemmas just modestly say things like ¹prick and ²prick, where the superscripts could be numbering POSes rather than etymologies, whereas we have big-ass headings saying "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2" (which imply, you know, different etymologies), and you scroll down to etymology 2 only to find it's just a denominal verb from etymology 1 and not really a separate etymology at all. And then you think, "WTF? Who the hell thinks that yellow the verb has a different etymology from yellow the adjective?" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Taxonomy and other categorizing fields have lumpers and splitters. Apparently so does etymology.
I have a similar problem with those who seem to imply that yellow#Verb split from yellow#Noun/yellow#Adjective in Modern English. That it is more trivial than a split of earlier origin is immaterial. At the very least separate presentation indicates that the two have had time to accrete additional meanings on distinct tracks — as they have, though you would not know it from the definitions of yellow#Verb we offer our users, which seem to imply that yellow#Verb could possibly mean "become a coward" or "become a ball marked with the number two in pocket billiards". A little too much lumping and economy it seems to me. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"während" (dativ?)[edit]

Hi, I am rather new to this so I do hope not to get too many things wrong.

I stumbled upon "während". In its "usage notes" under 2) it mentiones usage of the Dativ. Quite frankly, without external qualified reference I think that sentence such as the example given there "Ich wurde während einem Gespräch angerufen." are just plain wrong. This has nothing to do with beeing pretentious. Even if a sentence like this can be found among the germon speaking populous, the reason is more likly to be found in a lack of command of the language rather than qualified "coloquial usage"

Maybe somone can come up with a proper reference to the claim that using the Dativ is acceptable. In any case I hope this can be of use to someone and thank everyone involved for their great contributions.

kind regards.

The Duden accepts dative usage. Since German government offices are accepting the Duden as binding, that means it's part of official German. As such I don't see any modification necessary. (Except maybe to the Duden.) _Korn (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's "acceptable". It matters if it's done. And it is done. Apart from that: I don't know about "während", but Goethe himself used wegen with dative in his private letters. It's such a common thing and, as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with lacking command of language. To the contrary: it's the native way of speaking German. But again: What matters is not how we like something or not, but the reality of language (a loan translation there of Sprachwirklichkeit). Kolmiel (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
But the reality of the language is also that there are common and codified standards and anyone aspiring to speak a standard is making errors when he uses forms which are not part of that standard. If one is not making these errors on purpose (e.g. by consciously speaking colloquially), it is a lack of command, native or not. As a dictionary we have to include annotations on what is what, of course. Korn (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

bằng[edit]

Moved from Wiktionary:Requested entries (Vietnamese), added by User:Hippietrail:

@Hippietrail: I've checked a dictionary and I can confirm the missing senses (e.g. "bằng ô tô" - "by car", "bằng đường bộ" - "by land") but, as I said on my talk page, not sure about which etymology it belongs to - it may be a third etymology.
@Fumiko Take:, could you help here, please, just for this sense? There's a big list of Sino-Vietnamese readings and maybe native words as well, I know it's very hard for monosyllabic Vietnamese words.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: According to Mark J. Alves, bằng is a grammatical word of possible Chinese origin (from (bình)), which has two meanings: "equal to" and "made of". I think it's possible that the "by means of" sense has been developed from those two senses. It may also derive from (bằng, to depend on). ばかFumikotalk 03:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take, Hippietrail: Thanks. I've fitted a new sense into the "adjective" section in diff. Should this be a new PoS instead? Anyway, the missing sense is covered. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: What's a PoS? Should "by means of" be considered an adjective? I feel like that sense should be covered in an adverb entry or something. "làm bằng tay" can be roughly translated to "do/make manually" after all. ばかFumikotalk 03:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take: "PoS" is "part of speech", sorry :). The usage is like a preposition. I've made a preposition section, is it better? In your example - "làm bằng tay", "bằng" is also a preposition. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Yeah, that will do. ばかFumikotalk 03:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey I was reading that Vietnamese doesn't really have prepositions but rather relational nouns. But I think it's a bit like English where "part of speech" isn't used in linguistics any more, being replace by "word class", but dictionaries do stay with the tradition. But having it as an adjective seems very wrong. In Vietnamese adjectives are pretty much verbs, which are in opposition syntactically to nouns, of which prepositions are a type. Anyway I looked it up in vi.wiktionary and indeed their entry has a "Giới từ" sense, which I believe is "preposition", so that would make more sense. Well just my 2 cents. — hippietrail (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there are several languages like that in the area. Khmer "adjectives" are actually verbs; most Thai words that are translated as adjetives are really verbs; Hawaiian adjectives are stative verbs. It rattles my nerves every time I make an entry for them and have to decide whether to label it a verb or an adjective. Navajo and Apache are likewise, but for these cases there is a very strong precedent to calling them verbs and not adjectives. —Stephen (Talk) 12:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Burmese is another one. I'd love to empty Category:Burmese adjectives and call them all verbs (since they are), but as every Burmese dictionary I've ever seen calls certain verbs "adjectives" based on the English translation, I feel it would be presumptuous of me (since I don't even speak the language) to break with tradition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Pronunciation of Latin words using "SC" such as "scisco"[edit]

SC = [ʃ] pronounced “sh” before ae, oe, e, i or y, and [sk] elsewhere

Many of the "SC" words mistakingly show "SK" in the pronunciation.

Interestingly, a word such as "scisco" uses both pronunciations because "SC" occurs at the beginning before an [i] and then "SC" occurs before an [o]

So, when you say "scisco" it is pronounced "SHE-SKO" —This unsigned comment was added by 71.11.179.165 (talk) at 08:34, 1 May 2015‎ (UTC).

This is an Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Classically <sc> was always pronounced /sk/. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Latin pronunciation is that pronunciation changes over time, and Latin has been spoken for at least a couple thousand years. As ObsequiousNewt says, during the Classical period, when Latin was a major living language with lots of native first-language speakers, the c in sc was always a k sound. I'm sure there was variation even then, but that seems to have been the standard. Since then, the pronunciation has changed differently in different regions. Wikipedia has several entire articles on this issue, but see w:Latin regional pronunciation for a nice table showing many of the differences. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Γελλώ[edit]

Is there anyone here who's good at Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform and who can add the missing Akkadian terms to Γελλώ#Etymology? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

potted[edit]

"the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries recruited cadres of hacks to write potted histories of their nations' timeless values and glorious pasts". p. 641 "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker —This unsigned comment was added by Paulcbry (talkcontribs) at 10:58, 2 May 2015‎.

@Paulcbry: The Oxford English Dictionary entry “potted, adj.¹” (third edition, December 2006), under sense 3.a., has “Of a piece of information, work of literature, historical or descriptive account, etc.: put into a short and easily assimilable form; condensed, summarized, abridged.”, which seems to fit Pinker’s use here. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Some dictionaries have a similar, but pejorative sense: "superficial"
AHD has seven senses vs our one:
  1. a. Placed in a pot: potted candles.
    b. Grown in a pot: potted plants.
  2. Preserved in a pot, can, or jar: potted meat.
  3. (informal) Presenting information in a simplified or abridged form: a potted history of Britain.
  4. Recorded or taped for repeated use: potted music.
  5. Unoriginal or hackneyed: potted prose.
  6. {slang) Drunk or intoxicated.
I suppose senses 1a, 1b, and 2 are really in out verb PoS, defined at pot#Verb. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Yes, I suppose the AHD's sense 5 is the most likely, on re-examination, especially given the "cadres of hacks" bit. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"tjod" in Norwegian, Is it dated, archaic or obsolete or is the current entry correct?[edit]

I looked for the word "tjod" on major Norweigan websites but I did not find anything, the Norwegian Wikipedia has no article on it (could redirect to folkeslag or something).

I might be wrong but does the word belong to any of the qualifiers above (dated, archaic or obsolete)? —This unsigned comment was added by Dreysman (talkcontribs) at 14:13, 2 May 2015.

I don't speak Norwegian, but I notice that this dictionary seems to mark it as Nynorsk. If so, it could be current in Nynorsk but obsolete (or something else) in Bokmål. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

שַׁבָּת Talmudic Hebrew[edit]

Can we find an example of שַׁבָּת meaning "week" in the Talmud? —This unsigned comment was added by 129.93.5.131 (talk) at 14:21, 2 May 2015.

lizenzieren[edit]

The pronunciation given is the one provided by Duden and hence official for Germany. But for the reality of the language, my gut feeling is that every German would consider it wrong. I just wanted to ask if anyone has ever heard it said like that at all (by native speakers). _Korn (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's wrong because there is no unique German pronounciation, although the second z is commonly pronounced like a voiced s in colloquial speech. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't know. I don't often say this word. But yeah [litsɛnˈziːʁən] is more common. (I might even have written it out as lizensieren, maybe.) We should add that as an alternative pronunciation. Kolmiel (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be willing to go as far as inserting it as the sole pronunciation and putting the official one into a usage note. I was absolutely baffled to find out that it's not spelled 'lizensieren'. _Korn (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

computer programme[edit]

This is described as a British alternative spelling. Can I say (as a British (ex-) computer programmer) that I think it is a misspelling. Is there any evidence one way or another? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's got about the frequency ratio of 10 in Google Ngram Viewer, British corpus, (computer programme*10),computer program. That does not suggest misspelling but rather rare alternative spelling to me. I think {{rare form of}} could be used. The current markup is positively misleading since it suggests that the form is the British mainstream form. I encourage you to place {{rare form of}} to the entry; I would do it myself, but I actually hate revert wars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My instincts are in accord with SemperBlotto's here. I think I read somewhere that, in British English, standard usage is "computer program", but "television programme", "academic programme", etc. (basically, the computing sense is spelt program and every other sense is spelt programme). The most recent ratio of computer program:computer programme is 0.0000823434%:0.0000042311% or about 19½:1; however, Dan Polansky's Ngram shows use of computer programme peaking in 1971 and then declining sharply after 1978, whereas use of computer program peaked in 1986 and thereafter similarly declined. My thinking is that use of program in the computing sense continued to predominate over such use of programme thereafter, too, but that it became less and less necessary over time to include the computer qualifier, owing to increasing public familiarity with computers in general. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget my search multipled "programme" by factor 10. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: No confusion on my part. You had the overall ratio at 10:1; I just had the most recent ratio a ~19½:1. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use the context label "dated" here. I certainly agree with the above statements that we Brits use programme in non-computing contexts, and that the two-word form is dying out. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a search in which I removed the 10 multiplier and narrowed it down to 1950-2000, still in British corpus. In this report, we can see the only period through which "computer programme" outperformed "computer program": shortly around 1960. To me, "rare" seems to be the best qualifier, better than "dated". I might have confused you by using the 10 multiplier in the previous GNV report. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The Computer Programme was actually the punning title of a 1980s British TV show about home computing. AFAIK, it is a perfectly acceptable, though less common and dated, form. Chambers Dictionary agrees. Equinox 19:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But as you said, it was a pun; spelling "programme" was probably used to ambiguously mean the show itself, hence TV programme, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Then why does Chambers say it's valid? Anyway, puns can use the same spelling: "Mary Rose sat on a pin; Mary rose". Equinox 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The spelling is valid, for sure, and plentifully attested, but rather rare per the above corpus evidence. It's not a misspelling by my lights. The current markup is "(British) Alternative form of computer program", and that looks like it is the British variant of a U.S. spelling, which is positively misleading, IMHO, since the overwhelmingly used British variant is identical to the U.S. variant. I have now placed "rare form of" to the entry; how does that look? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The OED (3rd ed., June 2007) entry “programme | program, n.” has, directly underneath the etymology section, “The more common earlier (and predominantly Scottish) form program was retained by Scott, Carlyle, Hamilton, and others, even after the borrowing of senses directly from French in the late 18th cent. and early 19th cent.; it conforms to the usual English representation of Greek -γραμμα, in e.g. [anagram, cryptogram, diagram, telegram,] etc. The influence of French programme led to the predominance of this spelling in the 19th cent. The forms programme and program have since become established as the standard British and U.S. spellings respectively, with the exception that program is usual everywhere in senses relating to computing.” — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{form of|rare form or misspelling|computer program|lang=en}}. There's simply no line you can draw in this case (any many other cases) between a common misspelling and a less common alternative form. I quite like misspelling for this one though. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I agree with your solution. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thai readings of พิพิธภัณฑ์ and พิพิธภัณฑสถาน[edit]

How are Thai words for "museum" -พิพิธภัณฑ์ and พิพิธภัณฑสถาน pronounced? Various dictionaries either transliterate the "ภั" portion or skip it. Using Thai2English transliteration scheme, is it "pí-pít-pan" or "pí-pít--pan" or both readings are possible? Will the rule be also applicable to พิพิธภัณฑสถาน as well "pí-pít-(tá-)pan-tót-sà-tăan"? Calling @Stephen G. Brown: for assistance, please. There seems to be no consistency in dictionaries and textbooks about this word (and others) and textbooks don't mention this irregularity - possibly silent ภั (tá). (I am getting much more comfortable with the Thai script but there are some cases that baffle me and I have no fluency as for the tones but it's available in dictionaries and textbooks, so I rely on them). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

พิพิธภัณฑ์ is pronounced pí’píttápan. ภั is not the problem...it is pronounced pa. The problem is whether has a vowel. In fact, it does. Apparently some dictionaries use a transliteration program such as Lua to guess at transliterations, and the guesses are often incorrect. If you write the word in phonetic Thai, it is พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน (pí’-pít-tá-pan).
พิพิธภัณฑสถาน is พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน-ทะ-สะ-ถาน (pí’-pít-tá-pan-tá-sà-tăan, or pípíttápantásàtăan). Note: the vowel ◌ั is an a. If the ◌ั were not written over the , it would be pronounced po. You don’t need the hyphens. The hyphens only show the end/beginning of individual letters. The hyphens do not mean anything in regard to pronunciation or meaning. —Stephen (Talk) 09:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Stephen! Oops, sorry for the confusion, I have incorrectly broken up the syllables and consonants. So, this is a case when an unwritten vowel is in the middle of a word - I've seen cases when two such syllables occur in a row but it's kind of predictable because there is a limited set of syllable onsets. There is also a word พิพิธ (pí-pít) "various" where is the final and is pronounced as clipped "t" and พิพิธภัณฑ์ can be misread as พิพิธ + ภัณฑ์ (pí-pít pan) - "various products/items". It seems, one just need to know how to read this word, because ธ can be a final, not a syllable with an unwritten vowel. Here it's unpredictable, isn't it?
I prefer hyphens because they help breaking up (usually meaningful) syllables and is quite common - thai2english.com uses hyphens, thai-language.com uses spaces. Thai script being so complicated, any simplification just makes it easier to read and understand. Don't you think? BTW, our Burmese transliteration uses solid forms, Lao - uses spaces between syllables. I find the latter easier, besides, Lao is close to Thai.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is unpredictable. It’s probable that some transliteration programs use a Thai spellchecker to determine the words, and since พิพิธ (pípít) can be a separate word, it makes this mistake.
And yes, it is common to see hyphens used, because of the Thai tradition of using hyphens to mark syllables in phonemic/phonetic Thai. It’s like the English habit of using the period for the same purpose: pro.nun.ci.a.tion. English uses the period instead of the hyphen because there are a lot of words that are spelled with a hyphen (quick-thinking). But the separation of Thai syllables with hyphens is not meaningful, it is merely a Thai habit that indicates phonetic spelling. Breaking Thai up with a lot of hyphens is the same as breaking up Japanese, Arabic, or Russian transliterations with hyphens. Arabic: mu-nā-ẓa-rat al-ḥu-rūf al-ʻa-ra-bī-yah. Japanese: ju-n-i-chi-ro-u. Russian: So-yuz So-vet-skikh So-tsi-a-li-sti-che-skikh Res-pu-blik. It is actually much easier to read transliterated Arabic, Japanese, Russian, and Thai without the hyphens. Arabic: munāẓarat al-ḥurūf al-ʻarabīyah. Japanese: Jun’ichirō. Russian: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik. Thai: pípíttápan.
The problem with using spaces between syllables, as Lao transliteration does, is that you cannot know which syllables go together to make a word. It is not helpful. Spaces should be used in transliteration to delimit words, and hyphens should be used to show a connection between tightly bound words, as in Arabic al-ḥurūf, or English ping-pong. But regular words should not be broken up by hyphens (I’m only talking about Romanizations for English speakers. Using hyphens for phonetic Thai (พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน) is helpful to Thai speakers because it marks the text as a phonetic spelling...without the hyphens, Thai speakers would be confused by พิพิดทะพัน, which appears to be a regular word). —Stephen (Talk) 10:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a pity you don't like hyphens in Thai. Now I got used to them. While I see your point I consider Thai a mostly monosyllabic language (while Chinese lects are more so but standard pinyin doesn't use hyphens extensively). Perhaps, it's just because I'm less confident with Thai and there are so many romanisations, I chose the one I feel more comfortable with. My pocket dictionary - Benjawan Poomsan Becker uses hyphens too. Only one book I have uses solid spellings as you suggested - "Colloquial Thai" but it's mostly in romanised Thai - good for learning pronunciation but not enough exposure to the script. I might switch to your recommended method of romanisation (no hyphens), we have a mess with the romanisation of Thai, anyway and I am not sure how much Thai content I'm going to add yet. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can see how the use of hyphens might make someone feel that Thai is monosyllabic. To me, Thai is polysyllabic. —Stephen (Talk) 12:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I meant the core native Thai vocabulary with distinct meanings. Of course modern Thai has lots of compound words and layers of borrowings from Sanskrit, English, etc. Even Chinese and Vietnamese are no longer monosyllabic but it still makes sense to break up the majority of native words into meaningful syllables. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: I forgot to mention that there could be problems with the transliteration of words like มะพร้าว (má-práao) without the hyphen. "mápráao" would make it unclear if "p" (also is the final or a part of the consonant cluster - two different pronunciations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course. In words such as that, a hyphen is useful. —Stephen (Talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: Another question, please. Is it just a traditional spelling letter in อยู่ (yòo) or a rule I have missed? Letter is always silent at the beginning of a syllable but there should be a vowel after it but here, it makes no difference. Just "ยู่" would have the same pronunciation and would be a correct spelling(?). The phonetic respelling, however, uses "หฺยู่" (on www.thai2english.com). So, low class letter is turned into a high class letter by adding in front of it and with a live syllable we get a low tone as a result. Is used in the same way as in some cases - to turn low class consonants into a high class? Also, what's the purpose of the small diacritic phinthu (like a small cross under ห (หฺ)? It seems rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it’s considered a rule, but it only affects four words. The four words where silent mid-class leads low-class into mid-class tone rules are: อย่า (yàa, don’t), อยาก (yàak, desire), อย่าง (yàang, sort, type), and อยู่ (yòo, stay).
Since is mid-class, it cannot be used to make high-class, as far as I know. You can force the high-class consonant function with a silent leading , as in the following words: หมา (măa, dog), หนู (nŏo, rat, mouse).
พินทุ (phinthu, ◌ฺ) is used like virama in Pali words. It can also be used to mark syllables. Phinthu means dot, from Sanskrit बिन्दु (bindu). —Stephen (Talk) 04:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Stephen. So, ย in อยู่ is turned into a mid-class, not high class consonant? Both mid- and high consonants have a low tone with the low tone marker ◌่ in the live syllable, so it's not obvious to me, which class it belongs to. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, mid-class. The rules for tones and the way they are written makes them seem complicated. —Stephen (Talk) 06:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

etymology yiddish רביצין[edit]

the current page רביצין claims that it's a normal feminized (-in) form of reb, but the explanation for the affrication is dubious. I don't know the policy on wiktionary wrt giving citations for etymologies but one should be found here, I will contact the original editor of this page toward that end. —This unsigned comment was added by Telmac (talkcontribs) at 16:23, 3 May 2015.

duskarma[edit]

I really wanted to RFV this, but as it currently only exists as a derived term in karma I thought it best to raise it here first. If there is a way to RFV this could someone please move it there for me? All the citations I looked at either had it in italics, or are otherwise mentiony so I would challenge whether this exists in English. Also, the proper spelling seems to have a diacritic on the s. SpinningSpark 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding a small amount of use of the alternative spelling dushkarma. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

C cedilla, Phi[edit]

Two questions here;

1. The c-cedilla is said by Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia to derive from Z itself. Everyone else says that it came from C itself being subscripted with Z and then evolving from there. Which origin is correct?

2. Wikipedia and one published source says that Phi probably came from obsolete Greek letter Qoppa, and thus related to our letter Q. This can be explained by observing PIE -> Greek sound changes (i.e. /kw/ -> /p/). Every other source I've seen ignores such a claim and says that the Greeks pulled it out of their own minds. Is Wikipedia's statement an overextrapolation of the Proto-Indo-European sound shifts or is it valid?

Hillcrest98 (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ç derives from a ligature between C and Z (). — Ungoliant (falai) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I had guessed so. What may have caused the error on WP? Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps WP is edited by human beings. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

𐑞[edit]

I was looking in Category:English articles* and found 𐑞. Do we have a rule on Shavian in mainspace? Should this be changed from article to just letter--there's more of an argument for keeping Shavian letters in mainspace then words spelled in Shavian, given as there's about two publications in Shavian.

  • Certainly shows the limitations of a category, given that it lumps standard English articles in with Anglicized foreign words, foreignized English words and dialectal variants.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Circular definition of marines[edit]

We define the noun marine as "a member of a marine corps"; we define marine corps as "a military organization of marines who are trained and equipped to fight on or from ships". A user who didn't already know what a marine was still wouldn't know after reading these definitions, and would probably get the impression that there are some marines who are not "trained and equipped to fight on or from ships", but that those marines do not form a marine corps. I know virtually nothing about the military, but I suspect that isn't the case. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I have expanded the definition of marine to the best of my understanding. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Corinthian[edit]

'seems to me that many of the defs should be moved to the uncap'd corinthian. 'was about to do it meself, but then i get confused about the capitalisation of an adjective and such, English not being my native language. Is anyone up to it ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tag for idiomatic sarcasm[edit]

I want to add a sarcastic usage for dürfen (may), but I don't want it tagged RFD instantly. The word is used with a meaning 'to have to do something because of things oneself is not responsible for' (in all the possible ways this phrase can be read). This usage is highly idiomatic and not subject to the usual rules of sarcasm. It is acceptable in higher levels of formality than normal sarcasm and does not simply imply that the opposite of the word is meant but the opposite because of a specific reason. It is also used with a plainer tone of voice than average sarcasm, which can be applied to dürfen as well, giving a meaning of 'being ordered to', expressing anger. Furthermore it contrasts with müssen (must), which does not specify why one must do something, but is more often used for responsibilities one chose or is given justly. Any proposals how to implement that? Korn (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Jetzt darf ich das hier alles wieder einsortieren!" Of course, that's a normal sense and you should just add it. There's no reason to question a thing like this that is so normal. Why not simply:
(said with a sarcastic undertone) to have to, must, implying that the obligation is due to a fault by someone else
Or if you think the tone is not really sarcastic (of which I'm not so sure) then just (said with a certain tone). We won't be able to sufficiently define that tone anyway. Kolmiel (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I now see why you're asking this question. You need to make sure that this "idiomatic" sarcasm, because not every word can be added with a sarcastic sense that it may have. But I agree that this is a thing worth adding: first, because it's so common; and second, because as you say it conveys a very special meaning that is not just sarcastic but defined... So definitely add it, whether you find a really good tag or not. Kolmiel (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

hectogram[edit]

This entry is defined as an SI unit of 100g. Strictly speaking that is incorrect. A 'metric unit of 100g' would be correct. The SI system did away with all the decimal subdivisions other than factors of 1000. So kg, g and mg are SI, but hg, dg are not. The definition uses an SI template and I do not know how to change that other than avoiding using the template

Gunmhoine (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did the SI system include hectograms before it did away with the subdivisions? If so, it might be considered historical or obsolete, but still be valid- we're not limited to the present meanings. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

capital[edit]

I just expanded the etymology of capital#English using information from the Macquarie Dictionary. According to the dictionary it entered Middle English directly from Latin. Is this enough to remove the stub category? Danielklein (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

rigging[edit]

Found a 10-year-old copyvio here which i undid here. Random House 1987 has it such: "The ropes, chains, etc., employed to support and work the masts, yards, sails, etc., on a ship." --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"odour of Cronus"[edit]

I'm watching Roman Polanski's Carnage and I just heard Jodie Foster's character say "the odour of Cronus is killing me", what does this mean, and how can we include this sense on Wiktionary (if it is attestable)? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but, according to a screenplay online, it's "That smell of Kronos is killing me!" Equinox 11:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head, the Greek god/titan w:Cronus is sometimes associated with time, and then there's the whole thing about devouring his children. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be a brand of cologne. This blog post discusses it: [22]. Equinox 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

iron(II) sulfate[edit]

How is the (II) to be pronounced in this English term? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Like two. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't II merit a link in such entries and a definition at II? DCDuring TALK 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) (p.s. It is vanishingly rare to hear such terms pronounced.)
I suppose I, III, IV, V, and VI at least need similar definitions. I don't know how high this pattern goes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
VIII is the highest generally accepted, but higher states are theoretically possible, and there are scientific papers suggesting the discovery of IX states. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Peking[edit]

Why do we use the pronunciation beɪˈdʒɪŋ in the IP and audio file? Shouldn't it be pronounced piːˈkɪŋ? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I fixed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it was due to an editor assuming that Peking is exactly a different spelling of what we now say Beijing instead of a spelling based on some other basis (that is, in this case, a different "dialect" of Chinese), and thus inserted the "Beijing" pronunciation. Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ყოფნა - content problem[edit]

First of all, how do you translate "be" into Georgian? Translate.ge and Wikipedia say that this word is the answer. So does ka-WT.

This page has been troublesome to comprehend. There was a conjugation table at the beginning, but Mglovesfun removed it to use a template instead. But then Dixtosa removed every reference to this word ever being a verb and changed it into a plain noun.

And look at ka-WT's version.

I am very confused. Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think you can just translate be into Georgian? It's a small function word; those frequently don't have a trivial translation. You need to pick up a grammar of Georgian instead of a dictionary if you need to know something like that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hillcrest98: If you haven't checked, User:Dixtosa is a native Georgian speaker, so he must know what is right with this term, in any case, he knows better than us and there is very little info available on the Georgian grammar on the web. The lemma for Georgian verbs seems a verbal noun, anyway. You might also want to look at არის (aris, to be) and "is" (third person singular) - ეს რა არის? (es ra aris?, what is that?), usually replaced with final particle (copula?) " (a)". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

I would be very surprised if this is never intransitive. Does anybody have a resource to confirm its pure transitivity? --Romanophile (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is only intransitive. —Stephen (Talk) 13:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The entry was originally created with an "intransitive" label. It was changed with this edit, which may have been a simple mistake. @Lo Ximiendo:, did you accidentally change the label from intransitive to transitive, or do you know something about Friulian that we don't? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed it back to intransitive. —Stephen (Talk) 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

chacun à son goût[edit]

Since 2004 this has been displayed as English, but italicized.

If it is English, why is it italicized? Why isn't it, for example, non-standard French? DCDuring TALK 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It’s French, although somewhat mangled. Compare qué será, será. —Stephen (Talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

chacun à son goût may be used in a French sentence (ils ont décoré leur chambre, chacun à son goût), but is not a set phrase. The set phrase is chacun son goût (à chacun son goût is less common). Lmaltier (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Simplified characters in usage example for 呢[edit]

Just today, I loaded the page for , and its usage notes section had a couple mistakes. I fixed that 著 was said to be the same in simplified and traditional when in the usage of the sentence the simplified character is 着, then I tried to fix the pinyin for it, which is zhe and not zhù. The bold parts in the pinyin are no loger bold, and the simplified characters I gave in the code were simply ignored. How do I get that bold in place and how do I put that 着 in place of that 著 in the simplified characters? For now, the code is:

{ {zh-usex|我們 ' ' '正在' ' ' 上 ' ' '著' ' ' 漢語 課 ' ' '呢' ' '。|simpl=我们 ' ' '正在' ' ' 上 ' ' '着' ' ' 汉语 课 ' ' '呢' ' '。|tr=Wǒmen ' ' 'zhèngzài' ' ' shàng' ' 'zhe' ' ' Hànyǔ kè ' ' 'ne' ' '.|We ' ' 'are' ' ' attend' ' 'ing' ' ' a Chinese lesson}}

and renders as follows:

我們正在漢語 [MSC, trad.]
我们正在汉语 [MSC, simp.]
Wǒmen zhèngzài shàngzhe Hànyǔ kè ne. [Pinyin]
We are attending a Chinese lesson

As you can see, lots of quote marks (') are being ignored, and the "simpl=" part too. Now, I only guessed "simpl", so that part being ignored is probably my error, because I am a complete newbie in Wiki templates, but why are the 's ignored? And how do I fix these problems and get the parts in triple 's to be bold and the simplified characters to be correct? MGorrone (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@MGorrone: The problem is fixed. To address this, you need to see the documentation for {{zh-usex}}. In a complex case like this one, when both the simplified form and the pinyin need to be supplied (hard-coded) [着]{zhe} notation is used, which fixes the conversion of to have as its simplified form and "zhe" as its pinyin reading in this particular case. |simpl= is ignored because this parameter simply doesn't exist. :)
This kind of errors happen but are not frequent, thanks for spotting! :)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
At we are missing data for character - pinyin "zhú" and its simplified form . I have fixed it temporarily with this - [烛]{zhú}:
閃爍燭光讀書 [MSC, trad.]
闪烁烛光读书 [MSC, simp.]
Tā jiè zhe shǎnshuò de zhúguāng dúshū. [Pinyin]
She was reading by the flickering light of the candle.
I will fix the module later (for character 燭), when I have time (I'm not very skilled with Lua but I know this far, I think). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


I suspected the simpl= parameter didn't exist in fact: chances of guessing a parameter right are epsilon :). Is there a parameter for giving simplified characters explicitly in that module, besides the […]{…} notation? MGorrone (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Just use the documentation. That notation is for fixing two things in one -trad./simp conversion and hanzi/pinyin conversion. If you need just one, use CHAR{PINYIN} for pinyin and TCHAR[SCHAR] for trad. to simp. It has to follow immediately the character in question. Template {{zh-l}} converts trad. to simp. automatically but you need to use / + simp. character to hard code simplified characters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. As I was on the Wiktionary to see the above messages and see the code edits, I stumbled upon the page for , which was lacking definitions. I went on to the MDBG dictionary ([www.mdbg.com]) and added definitions to the page taking from there. Could someone verify those definitions and maybe add usage examples? Thanks. MGorrone (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

first-degree murder[edit]

Is this term US-specific? Here in New Zealand, the legal definition of murder is slightly different - premeditation does not play as big a role. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs) at 20:45, 9 May 2015.

  • Yes. I'm pretty sure this is a US term. In the UK we have murder and manslaughter. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

jag#Danish[edit]

Is the pronunciation given correct? Is the j of this word really pronounced /l/? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Danish J is uniformly [j]. I was checking whether it's a copy error from lag, but it doesn't seem so. It's not Sampa either, it's unlikely a slip on the keyboard. Very odd. _Korn (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It was added (February 28, 2009) by Leolarsen, a native speaker, and his next edit was a tweak to the pronunciation of jage- no l there. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the Persian قاپیدن (qapidan) a cognate of the Latin capiō?[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium#Is the Persian قاپیدن (qapidan) a cognate of the Latin capiō?.

molt and moult[edit]

A user has added the pronunciation /mɒlt/ to these, tagging it "UK". Quite apart from the fact that "UK" is meaningless in a pronunciation section (there being dozens of different accents spoken across the UK), I can't find /mɒlt/ listed in any British dictionary. The closest I can find is [mɒʊlt] in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, where it indicates a realization of /əʊ/ as [ɒʊ] before [l] in a syllable coda. But I can't find any evidence for /mɒlt/ with the short monophthong of doll anywhere. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's how I pronounce it (Melbourne, Australia), if that helps. (At least, doll and molt have a vowel in common for me.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, is that what the Macquarie Dictionary says for Australian English? Over the years I've grown to be very skeptical of people's own intuitions about how they say things (including my own). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yay for university subscriptions. Macquarie says:
  • doll /dɒl/
  • molt /moʊlt/.
And yet the proscribed spelling doesn't match mine. My pronunciation is a monophthong as near as I can make it. I haven't run my own pronunciation past a phonological analysis, though, to be fair. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I think in Northern England [mɒlt]] is the usual pronunciation. It rhymes with fault. The UK audio file on fault is fine but Southern. From the accent I'd say Bristol. But it's not how we pronounce it in the North. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If it rhymes with fault, then it's [mɔːlt], not [mɒlt], right? Homophonous with malt? Same vowel as thought, different vowel from lot? Is it a complete merger, or just for this word? In other words, do bolt, colt, dolt, jolt also rhyme with fault? And is it verifiable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For me, bolt, colt, dolt, jolt and fault are all rhymes. Thought has a different vowel. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't pronounce it [fɔːlt], no. Moult and lot for me have different vowel sounds, but I don't know what to call them. Catsidhe where are you from? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, Melbourne, Australia. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This is how I pronounce it, correctly or otherwise. Chambers does not have this pronounciation, but only the diphthong. Equinox 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
How does it differ from malt for you, if at all? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
They're about the same: /mɒlt/. "Malt" might be slightly closer to "mɔlt"... hard to say. Equinox 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you're not even sure whether or not they're homophones illustrates beautifully why I prefer to rely on published dictionaries for pronunciation information rather than users' introspection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
For me they are exact homophones. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Angr by your own admission there are lots of accents in the UK. Dictionaries generally cover upperclass southern accents. [mɒlt] definitely exists if that helps. And I do pronounce it with the same vowel as lot, it just took me ages to work out what the vowel of moult is because it sort of runs into the l. So I tried just saying mo (the bit before the l) and found that it has the same vowel as lot. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There are other sources than dictionaries, though. Linguistic descriptions of middle- and working-class accents and of Northern England accents that explain what phonemic mergers have taken place compared to the upper-class Southern accents would be fine too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that [əʊl] + unvoiced stop is very rare in English – the long vowel makes you expect a voiced consonant. Compare bowled / bolt, cold / colt, fold / fault, hold / holt, old / alt-, sold / salt. I can't think of any other examples of [-əʊlt]. Although I'd say [məʊlt] if I was speaking slowly and carefully, it feels much more natural to shorten it to [ɒ]. Ƿidsiþ 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

integrating resource[edit]

Do we have a context label for terms (such as this) that are used by librarians and the like? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

nicky-nacky-noo[edit]

According to the Aviva multicar insurance TV ad: "Apparently, there are better things to spend your money on than chest waders. Not when you are up to your nicky-nacky-noos trout fishing there ain't." Where exactly are one's nicky-nacky-noos, anatomically speaking? The word appears repeatedly in the well known school playground Nicky-nacky-noo song of course, along with many other body parts. But the meaning, if any, is never explained in the song. SpinningSpark 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In the song it seems to be deliberately vague, so it probably was in the ad as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've created it at nicky nacky noo (both hyphenated and unhyphenated seem to occur) with the best citations I can find on the citations page. SpinningSpark 18:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I recall a similar usage in a song by Ken Dodd, most of 50 years old. JzG (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Interjections[edit]

We are inconsistent on vulgar/impolite verbs meaning go away. Some have interjection sections, some don't.

  1. go away
  2. piss off
  3. bugger off

All have interjection sections

  1. sod off
  2. clear off
  3. naff off

All just have verb sections. There are of course a lot I haven't checked yet. For me fuck off and get lost definitely have interjection senses, expressing disbelief ("he won an Oscar? Get lost!") Renard Migrant (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Deverbatives by language, Category:Denominatives by language[edit]

How come we don't have that? --Fsojic (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We use deverbal and denominal more than deverbative and denominative. I think the best thing would be to create {{deverbal of}} and {{denominal of}} for etymologies. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it really all that significant what part of speech a term is derived from? —CodeCat 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, overcategorization is a thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I want these categories, and I want them now. Proceed. --Fsojic (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In most languages, the work is done by addition of morphemes, for which we do have categories. In many others, it's done by particles or even by context, so such a category would just confuse things. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

About hypothesizing about coincidences[edit]

Hi, guys. Please let me make a little proposition.

In the article about Korean and Japanese postpositional particles, I think it'd be a good idea to change a few things. It is stated, in the article about the postposition e (へ), that "Japanese and Korean e may be cognates". In my humble opinion, that part should be removed. First, because there is no conclusive evidence. And second, because coincidences like that offen occur:

- Russian and Turkish dative cases are also e. Despite this, this fact doesn't mean that the four languages share cognates.

- Another variant of the Turkish dative case is a, which is exactly the dative in languages as Spanish and French. Again, nothing more than simple coincidences.

I think it is necessary to be as objective as possible, and not hypothesize too much. That is the scientific point of view, and therefore, the only to be trusted. I hope you understand. Thank you for reading up to the end.

--Hatobureika (talk)

I suspect the reason it was mentioned is because there are quite a few similar particles between Japanese and Korean and there's quite a bit of debate about Japanese etymology and possible links to Korean. To people looking it up, that information can be quite useful, even though it is speculative (as long as it's clear that it's only speculative). With the other languages you mentioned, it's fairly certain that the similarities are coincidences, and including that information would not be useful to anyone. Eishiya (talk)
  • Yes, ditto what Eishiya said. In some cases for KO and JA particles, there is even historical evidence to suggest particle borrowing, such as JA nominative / subject particle (ga) possibly being adopted as KO nominative / subject particle (ga).
Aside from borrowing, there is a lot of potential overlap between the two languages, much more so than in the other pairs that Hatobureika mentions. Take, for instance, the now-obsolete Old Japanese nominative emphatic particle (i) and the modern Korean nominative / subject particle (i), counterpart to (ga). I see no harm in mentioning the similarities and possible cognates between KO and JA, so long as such mentions are clear about what is linguistic consensus and what is speculation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To have/throw a paddy[edit]

This is a phrase that is used in the UK, meaning "to throw a tantrum for a minor reason". It's usually used to refer to children, and when used for adults, it implies they're being childish. I don't know how regional it is, or whether it's related to paddy or Paddy, though I suspect it's the latter. There are quite a few results on Google for both versions, but nothing on the ngram viewer, as it's so colloquial. Is this something we could add? What kind of reference would be appropriate? Eishiya (talk)

Yes, we should add it. You can "have", "throw", or "get into" a paddy (any other verbs?), so it almost seems worth including as an extra sense at paddy. Equinox 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Etymology 2 of paddy says from English paddy. That's good to know. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I've added a noun section for the temper sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

romance[edit]

Rfv of the pronunciation. Tagged but not listed. (RP) [rəʊmɑːns]

The tagger's spot on, it's [æns] even in RP. [ɑːns] doesn't exist in any dialect I can think of. Not for the suffix -ance, but for words ending in -ance like chance it's totally fine. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do this tomorrow if there are no reasonable objections. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

casual sex (or casual + sex?)[edit]

Do we currently include the relevant sense of "casual" as in "casual sex"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think senses 2 (without regularity, occasional) and 6 (informal, relaxed) cover it. If anything, perhaps sense 6 could be expanded/clarified to "informal, relaxed, without obligations or commitments" since casual is used in this sense for many things other than sex (a casual lunch with one's boss, for example). Eishiya (talk)
Really? You can have casual sex regularly; you can also have casual sex in a non-relaxed manner. I think it deserves a whole new sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Eishiya's "without obligations or commitments" seems to capture the meaning (whether that's a new sense or not). Equinox 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • casual sex at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that a few other dictionaries find this worth including. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange Loop of patata/batata etymology (Spanish)[edit]

The etymology of patata in Spanish states "Blend of papa and batata." I take a look at batata and see "From patata." What?? It simply can't be that they evolved from each other. Scimonster (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

So I looked them up in DRAE and... it says exactly the same thing! I've found an alternative source saying that Spanish patata is from Taíno batata and the same site says that Spanish batata is also from Taíno batata. Which also sounds right. Why batata would come from patata rather than Taíno batata is beyond me. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I forgot the link, it's http://etimologias.dechile.net/?patata. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the DRAE is wrong in both instances. The TLFi says that French patate is from Spanish patata, itself from Taíno batata via Spanish batata. Batata is attested in Spanish before patata so the older form can't be derived from a more recent form. Also no mention of a blend between papa and batata. I'm gonna check the SOED entry for potato now. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
SOED says from Spanish patata, variant of batata. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"bound up with"[edit]

Sth is bound up with sth else (=sth is relevant to sth else). Do we currently have this sense, e.g. at bind? Or should it go at bound up with? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think including the preposition at the lemma is a mistake, i.e. if anything it should be at bind up or bound up. After all, we don't have entries for annoyed with or aspire to. Equinox 07:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. I've included the sense (plus another one) at bound up because I don't think bind up can be used that way. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • bound up with at OneLook Dictionary Search and bound up in at OneLook Dictionary Search show that a few dictionaries have these. Also, I don't think the wording at bound up captures this yet. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

hang out or fall in with the wrong crowd[edit]

He starting hanging out with the wrong crowd. / He's fallen in with the wrong crowd. How would we include this common idiom on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We have hang out and fall in in the right senses. Wrong crowd seems to me to be a common collocation, albeit an SoP one. Why not just add usage examples at the phrasal verbs at least? DCDuring TALK 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is Wrong crowdreally SoP? A naive reading would imply a crowd that is the wrong one, not necessarily a socially undesirable subculture. Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In this usage I've always thought of it as "unsuitable", or "not in accordance with a behavioral standard" of the speaker or possibly speaker and audience, possibly as "leading a person in a direction (on life's journey) unsuitable etc.". Frankly I think there are several sense of wrong that could be used in interpreting the collocation. "Socially undesirable" seems like a restrictive meaning that, because it selects one definition, wrongly narrows the meaning. DCDuring TALK 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say create wrong crowd, but not create anything longer. Purplebackpack89 04:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And bad company could be added as a synonym. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added entries at wrong crowd and bad company. It's a start, I guess. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

μὴ γένοιτο[edit]

Is this a genuine Ancient Greek idiom? It literally translates as "may it not happen", so it seems SoP. I did a Perseus collections search and came up with 120 references (eleven from Demosthenes, and then sixteen in the New Testament and thirty-two in Epictetus, who really liked the phrase.) ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wunch[edit]

The collective noun for bankers is, colloquially, wunch (a Spoonerism). This word has been nuked a few times but there's some evidence of mainstream coinage now. [23] mentions it, so does [24], it appears in a Mike Harding song from 1979 [25]. I think this is actually not a transient neologism. Obviously it hasn't made the OED yet but neither is it restricted to Urban Dictionary. JzG (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is probably citeable!
Apparently, I also removed my shirt as if performing a malcoordinated strip routine and then introduced bemused spectators to a dance move that was out of place when first revealed at university and was certainly not appropriate at a reasonably formal party surrounded by a wunch of bankers.
That particular wunch of bankers may be mortified to know that Hamm had no connection with [...]
Today, we learn that Douglas Hurd, in a couple of months' time, is set to join those providers of financial services, collectively known as a "wunch of bankers", NatWest, from a bunch of MPs.
I'd have no objection to a page being created. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Does it ever appear on its own, without the "of bankers"? Keith the Koala (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Genghis Khan[edit]

@Atitarev: I think someone used the wrong language code here. It sounds extremely peculiar that the title of a Mongolian emperor derives from an Austroasiatic language. ばかFumikotalk 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

residential treatment center[edit]

I've currently run into a problem while creating the term residential treatment center: it keeps getting deleted. I believe this being deleted was incorrect because this is a specific type of treatment center, just like race car is a specific type of car, but no one has deleted race car, so why can residential treatment center not be created? Residential treatment center is a common licensing term: http://dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch18/sec4ch18sub6.htm Regargia (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it not true that a residential treatment center is a treatment center that is residential? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it not true that a race car is a car that races? Cheryl.kristine.johnson (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Perhaps you should challenge the entry for race car. See WT:RFD. But we include race car because it is the more common form of racecar. Can you find attestation for residentialtreatmentcenter?
But we are now talking about the subject User:Regargia proposed: residential treatment center, not race car. So how is a residential treatment center different from a center ("A place where some function or activity occurs.") for treatment ("Medical care for an illness or injury") that is residential ("Used as a residence or by residents.")? DCDuring TALK 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
And please don't use sockpuppets to support your case. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)