Wiktionary:Tea room

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

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

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

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

Tea room archives +/-

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

Oldest tagged RFTs


December 2014

spelling hepful/hepfull[edit]

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

Helpfull has been much less common than helpful at least since 1700. The one-'L' spelling of words compounded from full seems to apply to all such words that are in common use, careful. See Category:English words suffixed with -ful. Unfortunately nobody has created a comparable category for English words ending in full, but looking at a few cases should confirm that double-'L' spellings are archaic and would be considered non-standard, though they would be understood. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you're getting mixed up with verb forms like traveling (US) vs. travelling (UK). In the case of the -ful suffix, it's spelled the same in both regions. Equinox 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, travelling, traveller, cancelling, canceller etc. is used in New England as well. Encarta makes note of such too. If I could find anything aside from Encarta supporting what I already know about that, I would have it added to Wikitionary, but wellawoe, I cannot at the moment. Tharthan (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

higher than a kite[edit]

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

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

head covering[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



host country[edit]

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

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

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

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

社会 and 社會[edit]

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

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


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

It's a Classical Latin word [1], though it isn't clear to what extent it corresponds to the modern pancake. Apparently a glossary equates it with Ancient Greek τηγανίτης (tēganítēs), which is translated "pancake" because it's derived from τήγανον (tḗganon), a variant of τάγηνον (tágēnon, frying pan). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Lewis and Short define it as "a kind of pastry" and give it as a diminutive of lucuns (same definition). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

allotroph vz. allotrope[edit]

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

that usage note[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

medical cannabis and medical marijuana[edit]

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

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


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

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

Siver Grey, an entry of Wiktionary[edit]

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

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


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

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

sustainable development[edit]

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

positive sense[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

know someone in the biblical sense[edit]

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

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

works vs. the works[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

food for the soul[edit]

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

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

almuerzo, almoço[edit]

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

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


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

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

'Woah' not misspelling.[edit]

'Woah' should be listed as an alternative spelling of 'whoa', not a misspelling. It's commoner than 'chamaeleons' and 'moochin'---[2] two valid words---so it isn't unused.

I agree, it's not a misspelling. Changed the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No objections but see Talk:woah for prior discussion. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, guys! Something doesn't cease being a misspelling just because it's more common than some other arbitrary valid words that you care to conjure up. There are lots of common misspellings. My feeling is that "woah" is, indeed, just a misspelling, and the entry should be put back to how it was. 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Woah is a misspelling of whoa. People that don't realise that whoa is /ʍoʊ/ misspell it as "woah". Case closed. Tharthan (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it /ʍoʊ/? I don't have the whine/wine merger; for me, /ʍ/ is a fully functional morpheme, but I still pronounce whoa as a homophone of woe. I've always viewed it as an exception where wh represents /w/, much as who and whole are exceptions where wh represents /h/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, for instance, whole and that vulgar word that begins with wh (not that I use the latter because I don't use vulgarities) are examples of words where wh is not /ʍ/, but I'm pretty sure that whoa is /ʍoʊ/. Most other people that I have heard that lack the wine-whine merger also pronounce it /ʍoʊ/. Now it's possible that, due to it being an interjection, whoa might often be pronounced as /woʊ/ in dialects that lack the wine-whine merger, but I can't vouch for that. Tharthan (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no case made for "woah" being a misspelling. As for relative frequencies, see (woah*50),whoa at Google Ngram Viewer; that suggests alternative spelling rather than a misspelling to me, but is a borderline case (recall that Google Ngram Viewer shows spellings from copyedited works). Above, anon only tells us his "feeling", making no case. Among OneLook dicts (woah at OneLook Dictionary Search), Collins[3] considers "woah" to be a "variant spelling". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Its appearance in copyedited works is probably due to the same reason "wile away" appears for "while away" in some works: the wine-whine merger. Tharthan (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
(wile away*50),while away at Google Ngram Viewer suggests "wile away" to be rather common indeed; but it also seems to find many uses of wile-verb-sense2 "Archaic form of while, to pass the time". These do not seem to be misspellings. One particular phrase is google books:"wile away their time". This sense of "wile" is not only in Wiktionary but also in Merriam-Webster[4]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that "while" is the intended verb, yet due to its uncommon verbal use outside of "while away", speakers are basing their spellings on ear. Can you find any other citations outside of Merriam-Webster, by the way? Tharthan (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
As for other dictionary entries (not attesting quotations) having this sense of "wile", you can check wile at OneLook Dictionary Search. By checking that dictionary search, I further find Webster 1913[5], AHD[6], and oxforddictionaries.com[7]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, then (for "wile" anyways). Nevertheless, it's still defined in that 1913 Webster's with "while away", indicated that it's merely an alternate spelling and pronunciation. Tharthan (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is very easy via Google search to find numerous people who agree that "woah" is a misspelling. The "most official" I found is this. At minimum, the entry should say "considered a spelling error by some", or some similar caution. 02:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tharthan (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Gloss as "sometimes proscribed"? Equinox 08:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. Tharthan (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/whoa-or-woah linked to above is from that sort of site from which you expect a prescriptivist advice (Wiktionary is descriptivist). Their article on which vs. that (http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that-0) does not mention any facts of usage, merely the usual prescriptivist simplification; check, by contrast, Which vs that? I have numbers! by Geoffrey K. Pullum, from Language Log. Nonetheless, "sometimes proscribed" seems accurate to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Tharthan (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Irrespective of the merits of this particular case, a purely descriptivist dictionary is a misguided concept, and not one that, in my opinion, anyone truly believes in. 00:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is somewhat misguided, but the problem with prescriptivism is that there is never any agreement as to what should be prescribed and what should be proscribed. See, for instance, I am an Anglo-Saxon linguistic purist (though I don't really write in such a way outside of poetry and the like) and, as such, I might prefer certain things that jibe with that and not like certain things that don't. In addition, I have my own personal pet peeves separate from my linguistic purism. For instance, I don't recognise "y'all", "vacay", "he**a", "Murica", and some others, as legitimate terms to ever be used in the English language. Other people feel similarly about some other words. But the point is, no one really ever agrees on those kinds of things.
So, yes, descriptivism doesn't work, and prescriptivism doesn't work either. So what does one do? Well, one sticks with descriptivism because there are less issues doing that than the opposite. Such is life. Tharthan (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary presently isn't purely descriptivist though, and neither should it be. There are numerous labels and usage notes that express an opinion about correct versus incorrect usage. The fact that these may be couched in weasly words like "many commentators consider", or "sometimes proscribed", or whatever it might be, does not fundamentally alter this. A purely descriptivist dictionary would list common blatant misuses and misspellings on equal footing with correct usage. I do not believe that anyone wants that. Sure there are grey areas, but so there are with virtually every aspect of human endeavour. It doesn't mean that a sensible course cannot be taken in most actual cases. 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Latin 3rd declension[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

crowd disease or crowd disease?[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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


Rule by ignorance.

Does not appear to meet WT:CFI. Equinox 18:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Etymology of aril[edit]

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


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

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

get on to / get onto[edit]

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

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

gloves come off[edit]

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

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

Etymology of Bad Citation[edit]

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

frentero, frentera[edit]

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

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

'campaignee' the word[edit]

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

Does it exist? Where? Wouldn't it hypothetically mean one who is campaigned upon? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

electric multiple unit, elektryczny zespół trakcyjny[edit]

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

think outside the box[edit]

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

Is there such a term?

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

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

Think inside the box. Not common but it exists. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"Selective thinking" does seem to be a set phrase, and there's also "selective perception". "Compartmentalized thinking" is related to some extent. Also, Wikipedia has an article on "filter bubbles", although it's worded as if only other people (not you yourself) can put you into a filter bubble. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a strong relationship between this phrase and connect the dots but I can't think of it yet. How do you ping someone you think would be useful to a discussion... like Purple? --Riverstogo (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That worked. @USER: works. FWIW, I believe "think inside the box" to be verifiable, because of this. Purplebackpack89 21:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Purple, if I can call you that? But I need to verify if "it is better to think ...inside the box?" --Riverstogo (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it's probably better to think selectively/think inside of the box if one has recently dealt with something traumatic. Otherwise, allowing oneself to think outside of the box is the better option. Tharthan (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: Conventionally the box was the metaphorical perimeter formed by the outermost dots of the puzzle. You were not instructed to stay inside this box, the convention of connecting the dots one at a time with straight lines meant that you simply could not see any reason to do so, given that there were no dots visible to you outside of this conventional boundry. The act of drawing your pen through this imaginary limitation was wrong in the strong sense many children learn to understand, similar to knowing when colouring in to stay within the lines, or having recently dealt with something traumatic not to read between the lines.
@Chuck Entz: Likewise you expect a paragraph to follow on from the previous one, this is just another arbitrary rule. If a child dares often enough to complete puzzles bypassing the restriction of convention they may eventually no longer see in the same way, as it is unreasonable to simulateously choose to think freely and think to choose unfreely. Either you liberate yourself; pinging the truth to see the point of a picture as you try and test a solution which conforms to a constantly evolving story or you just puzzle at the dots... which conventionally completes the tried and tested rubbish […] --Riverstogo (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, shoulda no-wiki-ed that: {{ping|Purplebackpack89}} generates @Purplebackpack89: (FWIW, the purple font coloring isn't necessary in this case). Anywho, since think outside the box redirects to outside the box, I have created inside the box and redirected think inside the box to it. Purplebackpack89 22:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It was my reply to <nowiki>{{ping|Tharthan}}</nowiki> which I have not yet saved to the tea room that I dealt with something traumatic... the truth is a synecdoche! More is revealed with every ping [...] --Riverstogo (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Think inside the box... I use this quite often for situations where a tried-and-tested solution seems like the best one. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

lexical peacemaking[edit]

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

You mean quotations that contradict each other? Add 'em all! Terms often have more than one meaning which is why one definition won't fit all the attestations. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

aboriculturist, aboricultural[edit]

At first I thought they were misspellings of arboriculturist and arboricultural, but there are a lot of hits in serious-looking books. Does anyone know if these are valid spellings? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't valid spellings. The morpheme "arbor" has a rather unusual shape for English, so it's easy to lose the repeated letter "r" in longer combinations. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I’ve converted them to misspelling-of entries. I think they are common enough to warrant inclusion, but if anyone doesn’t, feel free to RFD them. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin flexio = inflection (grammar)?[edit]

Does Latin flexio also mean inflection (inflexion, flection, flexion) in grammar, i.e. the changing of a word (noun, verb)?

  • [books.google.de/books?id=efqnfeKd4QgC&pg=PT502] & [books.google.de/books?id=E29cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA28] & [books.google.de/books?id=6W0GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA466] include "Flexio"/"flexio" in a grammatical context.
  • [books.google.de/books?id=gWn9680oH8QC&pg=RA1-PA314]: "flexio, -onis f. script. flectio: [...] 3 translate: a gramm. i. q. [greek word], declinatio - Flexion, Deklination [= flexion (inflection), declination (declension)]: Erchanb. gramm. p. 17,13 casus est -o (-ctio var. l.) vocis per varias qualitates nominandi corporis sive rei.". That sounds like flexio (per book title: in Medieval Latin) (also) meant inflection.
  • [books.google.de/books?id=fNEdn7WM7jsC&pg=PA339]: "Flectio, onis. f. The declining of a word ap. Gramm. [...] Flexio, onis. f. A bowing, or bending"
  • [books.google.de/books?id=d5IPLLh3-wAC&pg=PA19] "Flexio Nominis dicitur Declinatio [...]". That should mean "The flection (inflection) of a noun is called declination (declension) [...]" and should proof that Latin flexio (also written Flexio) means inflection.
  • [books.google.de/books?id=e6xFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124]: "Declinatio s. Flexio Nominum.". That should mean "Declension or inflection of nouns.", where s. stands for seu or sive (or).
  • [books.google.de/books?id=Bdbu0EE_iU0C&pg=PA181]: "Flexio Verborum Arabicorum." That should mean "Inflection of Arab verbs [or: words]."
  • [books.google.de/books?id=rGs0AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA59]: "Abwandeln, v. a. [= verbum activum] bei neuern Sprachlehrern statt conjugiren, flectere verbum, Varr. L. L., auch declinare, Quint. Abwandeln, das, -ung, die, eines Wortes, flexio verbi, auch mit Verbis." That seems to mix grammatical terms, but should verify that flexio was used in grammatical context and had to do with the changing of words or verbs.
  • [books.google.de/books?id=0dM7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA209]: "Wir sagen Biegung, Flexio, Declinatio, Umendung, Krümmung des Geraden; [...]". "We say inflection, Flexio (inflection), Declinatio (declension), declension, bending of the straight; [...]". "bending of the straight/upright" could refer to casus rectus. Anyway, "Flexio" should be Latin like "Declinatio" is Latin and it should mean "Biegung" (German) or "[in]flection".

Thus: Latin flexio -- related to German Flexion and Spanish flexión -- should indeed mean inflection.
Can anyone verify that? Or: Can it be added to wiktionary entries or is there any objection? - 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese sashimi[edit]

Regarding the entry over at sashimi, does anyone know what the relation between 刺身, 生魚片 and 魚生 is in modern Chinese? Chinese Wikipedia keeps separate articles for 刺身 and 生魚片. The latter appears to defined as a general term for various forms of "raw slices of fish or meat"-type dishes. The English definition for "sashimi", however, refers only to the Japanese dish, which makes me skeptical to keeping 生魚片 and 魚生 as Chinese translations alternatives at sashimi. Especially since 生魚片 is also defined as the similar ancient Chinese dish called / (kuài).

So is 生魚片 a term for several specific dishes, or is it a general term for "raw slices of meat or fish"-type dishes? My thought here is that it's more akin to "omelette" which an refer to numerous different specific omlette-type dishes like Italian frittata or Japanese tamagoyaki?

Peter Isotalo 10:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin translation of English attribute?[edit]

1. In attribute it is "Latin: attributum m". Is it really masculine and not neuter?
2. Is there a Latin translation of the grammatical term attribute?

  • [8] & [9] & [10] & [11]. That shows: attributum was used in grammatical contexts.
    • [12]: attributum in grammatical context, but with a general and not with a grammatical meaning.
  • German dictionaries:
    • [13]
    • [14]+469: "attributus (adt.), a, um, Pa. eigentl. was einem Gegenstande beigegeben ist, daher substantivisch attributum, i, n. 1) (nach no. 1) das aus dem Staatsschatze angewiesene Geld, Varro L. L. 5, 36, 49 -- 2) in der grammatischen Sprache: das Prädicat, Attribut, Cic. Invent. 1, 24 u. 26; Gell. 4, 1 fin." & "attributio (adt.), onis, f. 1) [...] 2) in der Grammatik: das Prädicat, Attribut = attributum, Cic. Invent. 1, 26.". The second quote means: "in grammar: predicate, attribute = attributum". "adt." could mean that attributio comes from "ad + t~ [word starting with t]" becoming "att~", or that it was also written adtributum sometimes.
    • [15]: "attributum, i, Eigenschaft"
    • [16]: "Prädicat [= predicate], attributum, i, n."
    • predicate is praedicatum in Latin, at least in grammar. Thus the translation "Prädicat (, Attribut) = attributum" seems strange. Possibilities: a) Maybe it's not refering to attribute in generel or to grammar, but to philosophy. b) Maybe the terms were once used differently (like declinatio meant something different in ancient times than it does nowadays) or were sometimes used incorrectly.
    • [17]: "Praedicatum das Praedicat in der Logik und Grammatik neulateinisch für attributum (Cic. Inv. [Cicero: De Inventione] I, 24, 34) oder attributio (Ebend. I, 26, 38).". That is: "Praedicatum, praedicate in logics and grammar, New Latin for attributum ([..]) or attributio ([..]).". But as far as I understand Cicero's text, he isn't refering to preadicate/attribute as it's used nowadays in grammar.
  • Spanish:
    • [18]: attributum = atributo (Spanish), but seems like it's refering to something other than grammar.
    • [19]: attributum = atributo. No context is mentioned, so might include but also might exclude grammar.
    • [20]: attributum = atributo in grammar. Also "atributivo: attributivus, a, um.", which should be "attributive". But: The book refers to modern Latin -- very likely to very modern Latin from 20th & 21th century, which is something different than older Latin prior to the 20th century.
  • [21] (french): "ATTRIBUT n. m. [...] latin attributum [...] 2 Emblème caractéristique qui accompagne une figure mythologique, un personnage, une chose personnifiée. Le caducée est l'attribut de Mercure, le sceptre celui de la royauté. |> emblème, symbole. Il était revêtu de tous les attributs de sa fonction. |> signe. * 3 LOG. Ce qui s'affirme ou se nie du sujet d'une proposition. |> prédicat. * 4 GRAMM. Terme décrivant la qualité, la nature ou l'état qu'on rapporte au sujet ou au complément d'object par l'intermédiaire d'un verbe (être, sembler, paraître, devenir, rester, demeurer). Attribut du sujet, du complément. -- APPOS. Adjectif, nom attribut.". Accourding to en.wiktionary: sujet = subject, du = of the. So it should refer to attribute. But "latin attributum" should simply mean that french attribut comes from the Latin word attributum and not that the Latin word necessarily has the same meanings.
  • [22]: "An attribute, attributum, 2." (2 could stand for the declension).
  • [23]: "ATTRIBUTIO, onis, f [attribuo] 1) An asignment of money. 2) Attributum.     ATTRIBUTUM, i, n. [attribuo]. Tech. t., in gram., a predicate, an attribute."
  • [24]: "Adiectivum, quod substantivo subiungitur proxime adpositum, ut in [Arab] vir doctus, attributum sive epithetum vocari solet. Quod vero, verbo interposito, ad substantvum refertur, ut in [Arab] vir ille erat doctus, praedicatum nuncupatur." Here attributum and praedicatum should be what attribute and predicate are.

So, is attributum a Latin translation of attribute in grammar? - 11:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


This says that it's a form of llamar. Is this a mistake? —CodeCat 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wonderfolly. It’s been fixed. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Read between the Liens[edit]

While reading about the film "The Tigger Movie" I noticed a sublinked text called "read between the liens" which was obviously a spelling error, and the correct word should have been "lines" instead of "liens." I just wanted to alert somebody to do the editing. The link also led to a Wiktionary page upon clicking. —This comment was unsigned.

We can't fix it unless you give us the Web address of the page containing the error. Equinox 02:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (The Tigger Movie): Plot para. 3. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

va banque[edit]

Is also a noun meaning "all in", a hand in a poker game and, by extension, a risky business with high stakes? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The noun I know of is tapis. I have a book in French about poker, though it is translated from an English one. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


I can't figure out the English translation for this Italian word from astronomy. Its definition (translated from Italian sources) is "the point of intersection, in the celestial sphere, of the meridian of a place with the celestial equator". Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a simple translation. It is transparently "middle-sky" or "middle-heaven", but from the supplied definition is not the zenith (being that point directly overhead), but the point on the celestial equator (which is not necessarily directly overhead the geographic equator), corresponding to the defined latitude. See Declination. Is it an astronomical or astrological term? That will teach me to read all the details.
Or, the mezzocielo is the celestial point at the given latitude and declination 0.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

cause and effect[edit]

I feel like we should have an entry for cause and effect, but for some reason I feel if I create it, it will unfortunately be deleted. Is it a keeper? --Enterloppd (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given it a stab. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You've defined it as karma?! For example...? Equinox 06:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine it happen, though probably only as a weakly metaphor-ish interjectional: "Why does this keep happening to me?" "You are nasty to people, they return the favour. Cause and effect.". But the other senses are quite SOPpy, and I doubt even this usage is common or standard. Ultimately this should be determined by citations, I think. Keφr 11:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Germanic/sibiz (Engl. sieve, German Sieb)[edit]

I'm just flagging an inconsistency here. The termination here is -iz, which would make the word masculine or feminine, but the gender stated is neuter. Is it *sibiz, feminine, matching the gender in Dutch; or is it *sibi, neuter, matching the gender in German. Given the comparative rarity of neuter i-stems (such as *mari, sea), I imagine the first alternative is more likely. Dave crowley (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's move it. Leasnam (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Are we missing the medical sense - i.e. "we found shadows on your X-ray"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I've extended sense #1 a little. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


tidy-up and tidy up exist as separate entries, both claiming to be a verb. Is the former not a noun? Compare clean-up, clean up. —This comment was unsigned.

They are probably both found as nouns. I'm not so sure that all the inflected forms of tidy-up (especially tidied-up and tidies-up) exist. The gerund tidying-up might and the bare form tidy-up might, as the entry suggests. As a matter of style I would never write the hyphenated form for any inflection of the verb, but others seem to differ. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Can someone better qualified than I have a look at this? I believe the third 'noun' usage is in fact an adjective. There is, however, no section for use of the word as an adjective while we speak of landmark events in history and landmark rulings in law. Perhaps I'm missing something? Happy New Year to all S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's attributive usage, like "crisis point" or "tractor parts". You can't be "very landmark", or say "the event was landmark". It's not truly adjectival. Equinox 15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's plausible as an adjective, "a very landmark ruling". I say plausible because I haven't checked for usage. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
google books:"very landmark" has enough citations without searching for more, including a couple from Jimmy Carter. google books:"quite landmark" gets 5 hits that I can see and google books:"the most landmark" gets hits as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


What is the specific, official, meaning of FLIFO. Any dictionary I can find, including here, only states it means flight information, but I am sure it has an official, more technical meaning. Thanks. --Dmol (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

in no small measure, in no small part[edit]

Are these worthy of entries, or should they be parsed as individual words? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither is in a OneLook reference. In no small measure seems to use measure in a sense, possibly archaic or even obsolete, and in a construction that is not common. In no small part uses the same construction, but a common and current definition of part. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Template problem[edit]

The pinyin at this page was wrong for the example 她借着闪烁的烛光读书, which is «tā jiè zhe shǎnshuò de zhúguāng dúshū» and used to be «tā jiè zhù shǎnshuò de 燭guāng dúshū». I tried to correct it, but the template doesn't let me fix it. Right now, the phrase is given only in simpl. characters with [trad. and simpl.] beside it, and the pinyin is only half corrected in that the character in the middle of the pinyin is now properly pinyin-ized, but the "zhe" (著|着) is transliterated to zhuó. How do I fix this? Also, see how Google perfectly transliterates «她借著閃爍的燭光讀書». Why does the template get things wrong? And the phrase is translated with the past tense, but could well be present tense without context, right?

The Pinyin is now fixed, all I needed was the tr= optional parameter. MGorrone (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

brick wall[edit]

How can we add the sense as in, "having a conversation with you is like talking to a brick wall"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've had a try now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


If stopcock is 'UK', then what do Americans call their stopcocks? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To judge from the Wikipedia article on the stopcock, Americans don't have them. I'd guess residential water supply is set up differently in the U.S.  From my childhood in Texas I vaguely remember my father talking about turning the water off "at the mains" when work needed to be done on the pipes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"shutoff valve" DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh. My wife and I are both US-East-Coast-born English speakers, and we both call the shutoff valve for a toilet a stopcock. Neither of us has spent any time living in the UK. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
shut-off valve. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
By the Pawley they-call-it-an-X,-we-call-it-a-Y principle, we need an entry for shut-off valve. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I don't know who Pawley is. I think we can use 'shut-off valve' as well in the UK. https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22water+off+at+the+shut-off+valve%22+site:.co.uk has only two result, but https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22the+shut-off+valve%22+site:.co.uk does have some results; although it doesn't seem to refer to the 'stopcock in the road' (the water mains shut-off valve), it does have some more general usage as far as I can see.
Sadly, 'stopcock' is being usurped by 'stop tap', leading to one water board website to explain that 'stop tap' means the same thing as 'stopcock'. Kaixinguo (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How about ballcock? Ball rooster :) ? Kaixinguo (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kaixinguo: Andrew Pawley is a New Zealand linguist who wrote an interesting 20-page article ("Lexicalization", in Deborah Tannen and James E Alatis eds, Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application (GURT '85)) listing various types of evidence that support treating a collocation as part of the lexicon, ie, worth/requiring a dictionary entry. User:DCDuring/Pawley has a summary of the 1985 article that someone here prepared. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Ooh thanks, that sounds interesting. Kaixinguo (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting, but it is a long way from providing us with what we need for speedier RfD discussions. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

sort of, kind of[edit]

From my experience and intuition, sort of sounds to be more British and kind of more AmEn, maybe because sort of being direct borrow from French. Google Ngram suggest they're not, the only English dialect where they are close is BrEN2009 around year 1840. The rest of dialects are the same, in all kind of gaining momentum around 1940. In AmEn, % are higher. Any knowledge or idea? Sobreira (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I only sorta, kinda get what you're tryna say. Wanna try again? DCDuring TALK 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not positive (given your suspicion that sort of is more used in BrEn) is due to any association of the word sort being ultimately from an Old French word. The word sort has been in English for hundreds of years. It is no longer thought of as being connected at all to French, or France...that mindset may have existed in Mediaeval times in Middle English but it certainly doesnt exist today. In English, the two variations sort of and kind of (despite the ultimate origin of the two words sort and kind) are not representative of any Germanic-Latinate pair in the same way that cow and beef are. Both were created in English as variations because the words are synonyms. Leasnam (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Merci Sobreira (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Is it an alternative spelling of acquiescence, or a misspelling? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it was originally entered as a typo, so presumably misspelling, but how common? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

fetherstane and the -d- of 4 in Germanic[edit]

On w:Crimean Gothic, an IP added the following text, talking about the presence of -d- in the word for 4 (Germanic *fedwōr): "However, one should not forget "fetherstane" (cromlech), from Old Northumbrian (Germanic) "four stone", which indicates a partial survival of this D in some dialects of West Germanic." Is it true that there are attestations of this word in Old English which preserve the original -d- intact? —CodeCat 20:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! But not as -d-, it has been modified to -ð-, as in the prefix fiþer- (four-, tetra-). Leasnam (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So the IP was wrong, and this is not a remnant of the -d- of *fedwōr? —CodeCat 11:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it depends on how strict or exclusive you choose to be. Would I consider it to be a remnant? Yes. The prefix ultimately is tied to, if not derived from the numeral *fedwōr, so the Old English prefix fiþer- does preserve a reflex of the more original form of the word in regards to it containing a medial dental consonant. But I wouldnt say that it is a survival in the word for 'four', I have never seen a dental in any form or variation of Old English fēower. Leasnam (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Should this not be a proper noun? I don't usually edit English entries so I am checking here. Kaixinguo (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but since there's no clear definition of the difference between a proper noun and a common noun, it's impossible to know for sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello all,

I'm very new, indeed I joined to add this very word, but I'm also an avid dictionary enthusiast and I greatly appreciate the service done here for mankind, bravo!

So, when I searched online for this term, there are bloggers and individuals using it as I do, very few, it seems very new. It is of concern to me as the term fits me rather well. No "outrovert" was listed here, so I created it, and then signed up immediately afterwards. Since, checking for the term, brings up a false definition! At least it is not one I, or anyone else online, is using.

Outrovert is not just a pointless other term for extrovert, and here I'm a tad annoyed, I shall confess, extroverts already have so much attention and are assumed 'normal', introverts are my under-dog brethren, and "outrovert" is actually being used, in the wild, to mean, well as I already defined it in my entry, an introvert that takes to the outdoors for their solace and recharging time, rather than hiding indoors. It's such a positive term, and one empowering a minority of people to club together, I see it as rather a poor use, and even an injustice, to have it being a mere synonym of extrovert, as a silly quip from introvert. No no no.

Kindest regards, K

I've restored your preferred sense (reworded somewhat to be a suitable definition for a noun rather than an adjective and to be more concise) but left the "extrovert" sense as well, and I've started a request for verification for both senses so that we can see how the word is actually used in durably archived sources. It's possible, of course, that both senses are attested. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Angr!

People who invent a word for their personality, and get upset about who uses it, tend to be making up words that nobody else uses. We will see how the RFV turns out. Equinox 01:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

foot loose and fancy free[edit]

Surprised we don't have this relatively common idiom. Still not exactly sure what it means though. Any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this really an eye dialect spelling? Isn't the pronunciation somewhat peculiar? --Fsojic (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not eye dialect, though "goverment" would be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Angr: If it isn't eye dialect, what is it? It certainly seems to me to be attestable as eye dialect, however else it may be used. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It's just a nonstandard form. It would only be eye dialect if the standard pronunciation of government were /ɡʌbmɪnt/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. I think we have a lot of use of {{eye dialect}} to clean up if we use that definition rather than "the use of misspellings to identify a colloquial or uneducated speaker" (AHD, WordNet and its followers). I don't think we have been using the term as the coiner intended. If we had been, we would/should have created {{pronunciation spelling}} to cover the spelling we now include and show as eye dialect.
  2. The spelling is certainly often used as a way of indicating something negative about those who purportedly use the "non-standard" pronunciation, which is implied as being one used by poorly educated speakers from "red" states. DCDuring TALK 11:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, people have long been misusing {{eye dialect}} here. I try to clean it up as I discover it. I've changed it now to:
{{nonstandard spelling of|government|nodot=1|lang=en}} {{i|used to reflect a nonstandard pronunciation}}
Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We could also call it simply an alternative spelling of gubmint. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is, should gubmint follow the same formatting as gub'mint? Or does it deserve a full entry? --Fsojic (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
They are both eye dialect by the definition of eye dialect that has been used here and seems to be the one most accepted, non-prescriptivist one. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition we have here isn't different from the one implied by Angr or the one we can find on wikipedia, it has just been misunderstood because it's incomplete, in that it doesn't say that the spelling is only suggestive and doesn't reflect an actual change in pronunciation. So this doesn't apply to gubmint. --Fsojic (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this would not be eye dialect. I disagree with Angr, and with their edit in gub'mint. Some definitions here: AHD[25]; Wiktionary in old revision before Angr changed it: this revision: "Nonstandard spellings, deliberately used by an author to indicate that the speaker uses a nonstandard or dialectal speech." --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    Later: Angr may be right, and my diff wrong. We need to clarify that. I placed some quotations at Citations:eye dialect. Please let us collect more quotations, even mentions; I think mentions will be more helpful to clarify the various meanings in which "eye dialect" is used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    The wikipedia article sums it up pretty well:
Eye dialect is the use of nonstandard spelling for speech to draw attention to an ironically standard pronunciation. The term was coined by George P. Krapp to refer to the literary technique of using nonstandard spelling that implies a pronunciation of the given word that is actually standard, such as wimmin for women; the spelling indicates that the character's speech overall is dialectal, foreign, or uneducated. This form of nonstandard spelling differs from others in that a difference in spelling does not indicate a difference in pronunciation of a word. That is, it is dialect to the eye rather than to the ear. It suggests that a character "would use a vulgar pronunciation if there were one" and "is at the level of ignorance where one misspells in this fashion, hence mispronounces as well."
The term is less commonly also used to refer to pronunciation spellings, that is, spellings of words that indicate that they are pronounced in a nonstandard way. For example, an author might write dat as an attempt at accurate transcription of a nonstandard pronunciation of that.
I think we should just stick to the former definition (as does, again, the article), and speak of "pronunciation spelling" in relevant cases. --Fsojic (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You are proposing a change in our practice. I'll quote from Talk:eye dialect: "RFV-failed as sense in that entry (but kept as the definition of the term in our glossary, because it's how our entries and templates use it)." In sense definitions, it seems Wiktionary has been using "eye dialect" in the broader, AHD sense; you now want to change that. The current manner by which Wiktionary uses the term should be verifiable by the current content of Category:English eye dialect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
See also Appendix:Glossary#E, "eye dialect". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I do. Wiktionary is a linguistic work, and should be as accurate as possible. There is no reason for us to choose the broader meaning that encompasses two different concepts, especially when there is an appropriate terminology at hand. --Fsojic (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You are implying that the broader meaning is inaccurate, which I do not think to be the case. "cat" originally used to refer only to the domestic animal, and now is used in a new sense to also refer to the likes of tiger, and being late on scene does not make the broader meaning of "cat" inaccurate. If the narrower meaning is much more widely used, a switch in Wiktionary practice may be advisable, though. Such a switch is much better suited for Beer parlour than to Tea room, which discusses individual words rather than changes in practice and policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that eye dialect is a technical term, and cat isn't. Eye dialect is more comparable to felid; it has a firm definition in its field, and although nonspecialists may sometimes use it imprecisely, a reference work like a dictionary should be careful to use it in its technically correct sense. So even if we find that eye dialect is sometimes used to mean nonstandard spellings that reflect a nonstandard pronunciation, we can add that definition (with an appropriate label like "loosely" or "by extension" or something), but we still shouldn't use the {{eye dialect}} tag in the nonspecialist sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
If eye dialect is a term with a technical sense and a more general sense closely connected with the component terms, the technical sense is totally inappropriate for use in a definiens in a general-purpose dictionary for the general population, as Wiktionary is. It seems that the better approach would be to rename or redirect {{eye dialect of}} to {{pronunciation spelling}} and then use hard categories or switches to add categories for finer distinctions. This particularly true as the history of our use of the template clearly uses a definition close to spelling pronunciation and not the narrow, original sense. Clearly we need to show a bit more respect to the work done in the past before wantonly attempting poorly thought-through unilateral reforms. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel any particular need to show respect to poorly researched work done in the past. People who don't know what eye dialect is shouldn't go around labeling things {{eye dialect of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Such an approach is not appropriate for a work funded by charitable donations and volunteer effort and intended to serve a broad population of users. It smacks of elitist prescriptivism. The use of technical definitions of terms that seem to have a surface meaning significantly different from the technical one is wrong for Wiktionary in all cases, as wrong as using obsolete, rare, and sesquipedalian words unnecessarily in entries. Non-academic published works try to find terms that allow better communication with normal folk.
It seems to me that the solution to the problem is to redirect {{eye dialect}} to {{pronunciation spelling}} immediately, bot-edit all uses of {{eye dialect}} to {{pronunciation spelling}} when convenient, and look for the relatively few instances of actual "eye dialect" and hard categorize them to subcategories of Category:eye dialect. The last thing we need to do is once more subject curious readers unnecessarily to the ambiguity of a term such as eye dialect. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Without getting into the question of which meaning of "eye dialect" is correct, my impression is that the number of entries which use it in the way DCDuring describes do dwarf the entries which use it in the way Angr describes. Hence, if we want to discontinue use of the term with the meaning DCDuring describes, his suggestion of bot-renaming all current uses is sound, and I would add that we should probably also discontinue {{eye-dialect of}}, lest new uses take us quickly back to the current lopsided ratio of DCDuring-like-uses to Angr-like-uses. However, I question if "pronunciation spelling" is the best replacement term; The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style suggests that it means the same thing as "pronunciation respelling" and refers to a nonstandard spelling used to more closely reflect a (standard) pronunciation. But perhaps if we included, by default, text along the lines of what is currently added by the optional from= parameter, it would work. I.e., by default the template would display "[whatever term we decide to use] of x, representing a dialectal pronunciation.", and by setting the from= parameter one could optionally specify which dialect. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds good to me, though I hypothesize that most folks wouldn't look up the term in The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style but rather in a reference such as those at pronunciation spelling at OneLook Dictionary Search, specifically RHU and AHD to find a more transparent meaning or construct the transparent meaning from the components. RHU uses pronunciation spelling to mark the entries we have been calling eye dialect. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportMr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

judging by[edit]

Would "judging by" warrant an entry as a conjunction with the meaning of "according to"? E.g. Judging by the market reports, this sort of product sells well. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO no. Standard grammatical construct. Could also say "if we judge by __", "when judged by __" etc. which is not the case with "accord" ("*I hope it will accord to __"). Equinox 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a meaning for Sabre[edit]

anyone knows what Sabre means??

I'm sure someone does. But I don't know what you mean: sabre, any of w:Sabre (disambiguation), or something else? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


To which sense does the quotation belong? DTLHS (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

'eponymous' usage[edit]

I'm discussing the cocktail called the Ramos Gin Fizz. Its creator H.C. Ramos called it a New Orleans Fizz, but his name was ultimately the one that stuck. I'm tempted to say the following: The New Orleans Fizz first served by H.C. Ramos didn’t become eponymous with its creator until the early 1900s. I'm not sure this is acceptable, however, and I think I have two related concerns:

  • Can something become eponymous? (my guess is yes)
  • Can something be eponymous with someone? (I have no idea)

I do see some scattered usage in Google searches but nothing that's set my mind at ease. With thanks —JamesLucas (" " / +) 14:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at COCA finds with to be the only preposition that heads a prepositional phrase complementing eponymous. But Google books search shows abundant use with of and to also. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that source. I did see plenty of uses of "eponymous with" but none of them seemed particularly reputable. I think I'm going to scrap this. —JamesLucas (" " / +) 21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

... has your name on it[edit]

Was just watching a TV show where one of the characters visits a fortune teller who says, "You will have some very interesting connections in Indonesia in the future. You’re coming and going, coming and going. Indonesia has got your name on it." Was wondering how we can cover this construction of "x has your name on it" on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We have have one's name on it. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang has have one's name on.
Google "have|has|had|having|got my|your|his|their name|names on" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) and Google "have|has|had|having|got my|your|his|their name|names on it" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) show that the literal senses dominate. The extended, non-SoP meanings include "is owned by one" (nearly literal} and "is destined for one". Variant forms like "have one's name all over" and "have one's name written all over" will show a higher proportion of the extended meanings, I think. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wasn't the original form referring to a bullet "with ones name on it" - meaning one was certain to be shot? Maybe World War One? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt that it was the original usage, but it certainly popularized the "destiny" sense of the term. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've moved have one's name on it to have one's name on in line with the first usage example, which had her instead of it. Feel free to move it back, split the entry etc. It's just a suggestion. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

affair and love affair[edit]

I think we have a problem here. An affair or love affair just means a romantic or sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other right? It doesn't have to be adulterous as far as I know. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC) What I mean is, it can refer to an adulterous relationship, but it can also refer to a non-adulterous one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that any two people can have a "love affair", but a plain "affair" in the context of the relationship of two people tends to imply that at least one of them is married to someone else. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Or in a steady relationship. Usually talking about marriage, just not always. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think there is always an element of betrayal, that, for at least one partner, the affair is not with the person with whom one is in a more public, long-term committed relationship. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

you never know[edit]

From my understanding, this phrase can have two meanings: 1) it's possible 2) it's not impossible. For example, if my friend says she will never accept a low-paying job, and I say, "you never know", what I mean is that she could actually find herself in a situation where she might accept a low-paying job, that the future is unpredictable. I am not, as the entry currently suggests, speculating about a slight possibility - I am actually expressing doubt about an impossibility. Right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I interpret that as "actually, there is a slight possibility that you will accept a low-paying job". Equinox 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Today's Guardian newspaper has a picture of these strange German things. There is no entry in the German Wiktionary but their Wikipedia has an entry for w:de:Silvesterklaus. My German is not good enough to add an entry here, and I don't know if it should be "Silvesterklaus", "Silvesterchlaus" or even "Silvesterkläuse". I don't know how to translate it as the English Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an entry. Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's Silvesterklaus with the nominative plural Silvesterkläuse. I know that in France every day has a saint's name and the 31st of December it's Saint Sylvestre, so la Saint-Sylvestre is the most common name for New Year's Eve. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Chlaus I think is an archaic form of Klaus. Also see Silvester which explains what I was saying about saints. Quite common in Europe it seems, but not whatsoever in the UK! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Chlaus (IPA [xlaus]) would be a Swiss German form of Klaus and related to Nikolaus (called Chlaus in Switzerland as well). I've never heard of a Silvesterklaus or anything of this kind. It's probably restricted to Switzerland, or southern Germany at most.Kolmiel (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. It's a Swiss thing, it seems even restricted to a certain part of Switzerland. (I hadn't seen the Wikipedia article you'd mentioned.)Kolmiel (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It's true, of course, that Silvester (also spelt Sylvester) is the normal German word for New Year's Eve. (Actually the only word there is, I think.) But the chlaus-thing is not common at all. As I said I had never heard of it, even though I'm not uninterested in regional traditions.Kolmiel (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


I was wondering about this greek. This word basically means whole,everything or like the whole universe. Is this where peter pan got his name? I would certainly like to know the origin of the peter pan name and if it came from this word.

Peter Pan’s name comes from the Greek god Πάν. See the etymology on that page. —Stephen (Talk) 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


apparently truculence in French means vividness of style. This is rather different from the meaning in English. Only the English definition is currently available in Wiktionary. RP

translation needed from english to sanskrit[edit]

hi. i would like the below verse translated into sanskrit. Live every moment, Laugh everyday, Love beyond words, Accept Life.

Sorry, it is too complex and difficult. I would have to spend hours trying to understand the meaning of some of those lines. I usually allot only five minutes or so to a free Sanskrit translation. —Stephen (Talk) 11:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You almost certainly mean "Laugh every day", not "Laugh everyday". 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of venturi terms[edit]

venturi effect, venturi mask, venturi scrubber, venturi tube. From a glance in Google Books, I think for each of these terms the V is overwhelming or always capitalized. Not so sure about venturi itself. Equinox 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A look at COCA suggests otherwise, but does not provide enough data to be relied on. I am afraid that each collocation needs to be looked at individually. Some attributive use of lower-case venturi seems to be attributive use in the sense "venturi tube". DCDuring TALK 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
venturi scrubber looks more common than Venturi scrubber in running text at Google Books, based on sample of 30. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
None of the following suggests overwhelming capitalization: venturi scrubber,Venturi scrubber at Google Ngram Viewer, venturi effect,Venturi effect at Google Ngram Viewer, venturi tube, Venturi tube at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

pronunciation of etymology 2 of dam[edit]

Can someone check a definitive dictionary for the pronunciation of this? I've only ever seen it used in writing by Gilbert White, I don't know if it's an alternate spelling of the more common word, and has a diphthong, or if it comes from french damme, and has the same vowel as that one, or perhaps as the other sense of dam, the structure? edit: copied to tea room, I was confused about which section to use for these discussions —This comment was unsigned.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you "check a definitive dictionary"?
I would pronounce it like dame#French. I think that the dam spelling is intended to avoid pronouncing dame to rhyme with aim. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Are we talking about the English word? If so, etymology 2 is pronounced just like etymology 1, and they're both homophonous with damn and rhyme with ham and jam. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the pronunciation of etymology 2 of dam is [vɛəɹiənt ʌv dæm]. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How to denote a noun that consists of two nouns joined by "and"?[edit]

I'm a bit unsure how to write the entry schering en inslag. These are two nouns, and the combined phrase acts grammatically like any other conjunction of two nouns. It can be compared to something like fire and water in English. Because it's two nouns, it doesn't really have grammatical gender, and plurals in Dutch have no gender. But this is not really a plural either because it doesn't require plural verb inflection, just like an English phrase would (both "fire and water is" and "fire and water are" can be used). So what is it? —CodeCat 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

dvandva ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see, that term also has a semantic implication. It looks like a dvandva is something that uses two words to denote a semantic "boundary" where the combination includes everything in between. That wouldn't necessarily apply here, especially as this combination is an idiom with a totally different meaning. —CodeCat 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition for dvandvas is how they behave syntactically, not what the resulting compound means. Idiomacity is just an additional semantic constraint that precludes exchangeability of the constituents. Wikipedia article is too biased in favor of grc/sa, a better overview can be found here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Like fish and chips, clicks and mortar? We seem to class them as nouns, though "noun phrase" might be more accurate. Equinox 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
But in a language like Dutch, the gender is not clearly determined either, which makes it more difficult to call it a real noun. Unfortunately, gender inflection in Dutch adjectives is rather rudimentary, so it's not so easy to figure out what the gender of a combination like this is. I wonder how languages like Spanish handle it. —CodeCat 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would leave them genderless. Spanish, French, etc. would use the gender of both nouns, mixed genders being masculine. In Russian, it would only matter if they are animate or inanimate. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If it's genderless, then it can't be a noun. Which kind of makes sense, because it's two nouns. Also, if such a phrase is used as the subject, does the verb inflect as singular, plural or either in those languages? If it can be singular, what gender does an adjective have? For example, if you say "X and Y is/are (adjective)"? —CodeCat 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In German, they would either be a noun phrase in the plural and thus without gender (Feuer und Wasser sind, never *Feuer und Wasser ist). Or they would be nouns of their own right with a gender, most often neuter (e.g. das Hab und Gut, das Fish & Chips).Kolmiel (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) --- (Or at least I can't think of any that are singular and do not have a gender. Of course, gender might sometimes vary, but speakers would give it a gender.)Kolmiel (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this word attestable in English too? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Singular 'they' for animals/objects[edit]

There is a discussion if singular they can be used to refer to animals or objects at Talk:they#Singular_senses. We are thinking of combining senses for unknown gender singular and known gender singular if there are citations for singular with an animal or object as its referent. Timeraner (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Years ago as a kid, I used to read those Commando war comics. One word that often came up was "kato". It was used by Japanese characters as an insult for the allies, as in "Die, you kato dog". But I could not find any evidence of it now. Anyone remember it, or able to find it.--Dmol (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This was on WT:REE for some years. I searched a few times, but found nothing, so eventually removed it. Equinox 00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Japanese is such a bonkers language in terms of homophones, but one "kato" (actually "katō"), 下等, means something like "inferior" or "low-class". I wonder whether it could be that? 13:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


There is a sense missing. I mean the one that is often found in casual online forums or speech as in "someone farted "cough" brian". Can someone add that sense please? I would really appreciate that. Thank you. 00:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a run at this, but the non-gloss definition could be improved (replaced?) and more usage examples added. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't think it would qualify as an interjection? DTLHS (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think hardly anything qualifies as an interjection except for words that are: 1, not derived homonyms of words of other word classes, 2, are expressions of emotion (broadly defined), and, 3, occur in grammatical isolation from the sentence(s) surrounding them. Others here classify anything that is in grammatical isolation as an interjection, which would included absolute expressions and prosentences if they were consistent. I have not seen a definition offered here that would include all and only what we include as interjections. DCDuring TALK 03:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Letter "ⴻ" in Central Atlas Tamazight (and Tashelhit)[edit]

This letter, meaning the absence of vowal (and double following consonant), seems to be no more popular in modern Tifinagh writings. For example, my reference book (see here) do not use it, but notes the double consonant.

For example : ⴰⵎⴻⵍⴰⵍ => ⴰⵎⵍⵍⴰⵍ

Transliteration is the same (amellal). Pronounciation is /a.məl.'læl/

--Lucyin (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see both forms are in Wiktionary. So, it should be evidenced that it is the same word, with the same pronounciation, just differences in orthography conventions.

--Lucyin (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I completed both articles with alternative forms and pronounciation. Is it right ?

--Lucyin (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lucyin: Normally we would mark one as an alternative spelling of the other. See dramatize and dramatise for an example. It doesn't really matter which you pick to be the "main" form and which to be the alternative form. This, that and the other (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Chuck Entz and I have a dispute on the wiktionary page for blasphemy. You can see my correction and his revert here. My attempt to resolve our disagreement can be read here.

A draft version, that I submit for comments to Tea room participants, can be seen here. Contrast it with the reverted version.

Reasons I favor the draft version:

  • While I am fine with including the definition of word as "insulting a deity", this is incomplete because these are not redundant. A God is a deity, but a deity is not necessarily a God. A deity can be demigod, non-god, natural object, etc.
  • Per WT:NPOV poilcy, wiktionary definition should express all significant meaning, viewpoint. The predominant use, most widespread meaning of blasphemy relates to "certain speech and action against God or a sacred entity". (See any major dictionary or encyclopedia; for exampe: Meriam Webster (2012), Blasphemy, Quote: "great disrespect shown to God or to something holy"; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2013), Quote: "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity."). The older/reverted version did not mention "God" anywhere, not even once.
  • The older version alleged the word to mean "irreverence to deities". But "blasphemy against deities" fails attestation, clearly widespread use, per WT:CFI policy.

Which version of blasphemy definition is more consistent with WT:NPOV and WT:CFI, and why?

RLoutfy (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If blasphemy can't apply to any deity, but only to a god, then "deity" should be replaced. Otherwise, it is fine as it is, "god" is redundant as "deity" already encompasses it (see the definitions at deity). NPOV means that we should describe all meanings, so limiting it to just "God" is showing a preference to the monotheistic view of religion, which of course is definitely not neutral. —CodeCat 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we should have both, monotheistic and polytheistic usage, to respect WT:NPOV. The current version is inadvertently pushing only the polytheistic angle, which is not the widespread sense of use of word blasphemy.
Can you attest, per WT:CFI guidelines, that the word blasphemy applies to "any deity" or "deities"? I find none for "deities", nor for "any deity" (universal sense). Yes, there is some historical usage for "deity" as well as "gods", but predominant usage is "God or sacred entity". RLoutfy (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a slippery slope, though, because there are as many POVs as there are religions and gods. Are we to replace "deity" with "God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Odin, Jupiter..."? We use the term "deity" because it encompasses all those things. That said, it's easy to find references of blaspheming against a variety of things. Just look for "blaspheme against (insert deity here)". —CodeCat 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The context of any above is demi-god, natural objects, non-gods - all of which can be deities in various pagan traditions. My concern is that blasphemy doesn't apply to any deity, nor deities. Disrespect, criticism, cursing demigod deity, non-god deity, natural object deity was/is not blasphemy in some pagan traditions.
The word God, in English, includes the various contextual sense of words you list. On search you recommend, I have done that already (e.g. "blaspheme against deities") - a sense reflected on the current wiktionary page. I get two hits on google (one in a forum), none in any book, none in scholarly publications. The results for "blasphemy of deities" thus fail WT:CFI.
Why not include both poly- and mono- theistic versions of the definition? RLoutfy (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It may not be blasphemy in some religions, but it is in others. For example, what an Ancient Greek might have considered blasphemy against Zeus is probably not considered blasphemy by modern-day Orthodox Christians. Recently, many people considered the publication of pictures of Mohammed blasphemy, but many others did not. This is the slippery slope. We can't possibly list every single sect's nuanced version of blasphemy. So the definition we have is general enough to include the overall aspects that these various definitions of each religion have in common.
And as for your search, have you tried searching for things like "blasphemy against Odin", "blasphemy against Artemis" or "blasphemy against Vishnu"? —CodeCat 22:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"Blasphemy against Odin" etc are not mentioned on the wiktionary page. All it mentions is "deity" and "deities". That is what is relevant for WT:CFI.
Show me WT:CFI-compliant attested use of "blasphemy against deities", or "blasphemy against demi-god/nongod deity".
Once again, I am not saying "do not use deity" or "replace deity everywhere on the page with the term God" on blasphemy page. I am suggesting that include both "God" (widespread) and "deity" (fringe, historic) sense of meanings, for WT:NPOV. I am also suggesting that we remove "deities" per WT:CFI. RLoutfy (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Um... but you realise Odin is a deity, right? Therefore, the definition fits. That's what's relevant for CFI. Furthermore, people still use the word "blasphemy" to refer to an act against a polytheistic god or other kind of deity. So that's a modern sense, modern utterances are still created with that meaning. And "fringe" is completely irrelevant for a dictionary entry. —CodeCat 23:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know. And that would be covered by including the "blasphemy against deity" sense of meaning. The issue is that that is not the only, nor even widespread sense of the meaning. That creates WT:NPOV issue.

Your position ignores the fact that deity or deities do not mean God in Islam, for example. The Shahada (Arabic: الشهادة‎) of Islam states, "There is no god but God". Blasphemy in Islamic context isn't "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning deity or deities". Blasphemy in Islam, for example, is "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God". For neutral point of view, the monotheistic version of the definition should be included. RLoutfy (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it's the entry deity you want changed. It currently defines it as "a divine being; a god or goddess". This definition includes the Islamic god. But I get the feeling you're just trying to push your POV while calling it neutral. I already said that we can't include every single religious group's particular definition of what blasphemy is. The current general definition already includes the Islamic definition. Any act that is blasphemy by Islam is also blasphemy by the current definition in the entry, if I'm not mistaken. For example, insulting the Islamic god does fit the description "act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for any religion's deity or deities". If you don't understand that then I don't know what else to tell you. —CodeCat 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, did PaM hire a gang of Islam kooks to come and screw us up, after he got banned? Equinox 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Codecat - Not at all. I do not want "deity" page changed. It matches the widespread meaning of that word.
My focus is the blasphemy page. I am saying include both definitions, monotheistic and polytheistic senses of definition. I gave three reasons above (God is deity, but a deity is not necessarily God; etc). I have even added references to help you verify attested use. Monotheistic concept of God is different than monotheistic concept of deity (god) - I have given you proof above. You are alleging that polytheistic definition covers the monotheistic definition, which is neither true nor have you provided evidence/attested-use to prove so.
I am open to constructive collaboration with you to improve the blasphemy page. While you accuse me of POV, I refuse to accuse you of anything. Let us assume good faith. RLoutfy (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Would changing it to 'against a god' make you that much happier? In term of polytheismgoogle books:"blasphemy against Odin" google books:"blasphemy against Vishnu" both get a hit. You seem to be by your own admission, ardently arguing to replace one word with a synonym of that word. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not seeking replacement of "deity" to "god". I am seeking that we add, "4. Disrespect, contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God" with capital G. That is the widespread use, and attested in every major dictionary and encyclopedia I have checked (see two examples above). RLoutfy (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
But as I said, that sense is redundant to the existing one, because a capital God is a deity. —CodeCat 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "God" is "a god", which is a deity. And which God is the God depends entirely upon who you ask. You are seeking to make a distinction without a difference, to include a specific example of a general term purely so that monotheists can feel fuzzy and included because they can then continue to make believe that their God is not somehow "a god", and that they are uniquely special, and the definition is written specifically for their God, and not for any of those heathen imposters who call themselves "God".
You are pushing a point of view (that "God" is somehow not "a god") which is semantically nonsensical, and you are pushing it in a passive-aggressive "I'm being nice and reasonable so you aren't allowed to call what I'm saying bullshit", "I'm being NPOV if I say I am" way. And I'd have a bit more respect for your position if this argument were not literally the only thing you've done on Wiktionary under this name. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
CodeCat - Not so. See: google books:"God is not a deity" for attested counter-examples. RLoutfy (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of those examples are part of sentences which directly contradict you ("But the true God is not a Deity who can neither help nor injure men"... ie., God is a Deity), and even if not, the existence of a sentence does nothing to argue for the truth of that sentence. See: google books:"I am a teapot" for attested examples. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Attestation doesn't make truth, google books:"Elvis Presley is alive" and so on. RLoutfy has made his point, it's been rejected, and we should all move on. Good day everyone. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Catsidhe - See Pierson (ISBN 978-1490426334).

Quote - "The Pagan gods and goddesses of pre-Christian Europe like Odin, Thor, Mars, Aphrodite and Venus are deities. Deities are human like. God is not a deity."

If you want to go by "most of the examples", then most examples of attested use of "blasphemy" are with the word "God", not with the word "deity", never with the word "deities". The current blasphemy page never uses the word god or God even once. Once again, I am not asking to replace deity with god on that page. I am asking, why not include both polytheistic definition and monotheistic definition. I have already shown attested examples that it is not redundant - "God is not god" in some cases, "God is not deity" in some cases, and "deity is not God" in some cases. A WT:NPOV version would include all attested sense of meanings.

Folks - I am not going to edit the disputed page, if I fail to persuade you. I do appreciate your feedback here, and that I sense is the purpose of Tea House. I am going to sign off for now. I hope you will weigh the evidence on both sides, and revise if appropriate, or leave the page unchanged if appropriate. RLoutfy (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pushing your own point of view against majority wishes while citing WT:NPOV. That'll make you popular. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in. My thoughts, after reading this through:

  • Checking this user's global contributions shows an odd focus on blasphemy.
  • The above arguments made by RLoutfy fail to follow logic, and fail to persuade. I can find no sense in the motion to change the blasphemy entry.

Keep unchanged. The context of this user's edits makes this whole thread seem like part of a broader obsession that I neither share nor understand. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


The entry says that "billiard" is an adjective but no examples are given. If it is referring to uses such as "billiard ball", I feel rather doubtful that it is a true adjective. 14:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now moved under the noun section. Equinox 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this standard usage or is it a misrepresentation of summons as a plural? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not standard usage at all. As you know, the contributor who added that isn't a native speaker of English and tends to overlook a lot of details Chuck Entz (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be formatted like kudo, with a second etymology section. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


I've greatly expanded our entry on that, and although the usage notes may need more work, I think the senses are now pretty complete — as complete as what Century had and what Merriam-Webster has. There's just one use of the word that I'm not sure how to cover:

Merriam-Webster has this as pronoun 2 sense 2b, "according to what : to the extent of what — used after a negative", but that definition makes it sound more like a conjunction than a pronoun. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see why MWO def for conjunction 1a(4): "used as a function word to introduce a subordinate clause modifying an adverb or adverbial expression <will go anywhere that he is invited>", isn't sufficient for the usage example. Also couldn't one say, in response to "Was Simpson there?", "Twice that I saw."? Ie, not with a negative. How is the negative supposed to change the grammar, so that switches word class from conjunction to pronoun? DCDuring TALK 19:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point re "twice that I saw". OK, I've added two usexes (one with a negative, one without) of this sort of usage to that sense. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


In the translations for the first sense: "Dutch: auto (nl) m, wagen (nl) m, automobiel (nl) m (deprecated)"

I had a bit of a chuckle at "deprecated" there. Seriously though, I think deprecated is an inappropriate word here. Is "automobiel" archaic? Obsolete? Just old-fashioned? This, that and the other (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably just dated. People wouldn't use it. —CodeCat 16:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


The current definition of "manslaugter" seems to be wrong because it explicitly defines it as "unwillful" killing. It seems that manslaughter can be both "willful" and "unwillful". Wikipedia's w:manslaughter distinguishes between "voluntary manslaughter" and "involuntary manslaughter". ---- This is particularly relevant because we translate "manslaughter" with German Totschlag and Dutch doodslag, both of which are explicitly restricted to "voluntary manslaughter", i.e. killing with a will to kill but without prearrangement or premeditiation. ---- An alternative definition could be something like: A criminal act of killing a human being considered less culpable than murder, with legal definitions varying by jurisdiction (unless there is someone who could provide a more detailed definition fitting the situation in the "Anglo-Saxon" laws). What do you think?Kolmiel (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

AHD has: "The killing of a person without malice aforethought but with either the intention to commit an unlawful act that leads to an unintended death, or with an otherwise murderous intent that is extenuated by some partial defense, such as acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance occasioned by a substantial provocation on the part of the victim."
Legal definitions are complicated and may differ by jurisdiction, eg, by country and, in the US, by state. In the absence of an ability to definitively analyze all laws for the jurisdictions, we either have to restrict our definition(s) to what we can cite or rely on authorities while avoiding copyright violations. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
All right. Thanks. (And sorry for answering so late) ... Now what would you propose? At any rate the current definition is wrong, isn't it? We could probably use "malice aforethought". My English isn't good enough to give a perfect solution, just something along the lines of: "The crime of killing a person unlawfully, distinguished from murder by the lack of malice aforethought, and therefore considered less culpable. (Precise legal definitions vary by jurisdiction.)" Do you think you could make some edit of this kind? I mean what harm can it do if the current definition is explicitly wrong?Kolmiel (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: I have reworded using Webster 1913, which is copyright-free. I can't distinguish the substance from more modern definitions. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you! It's certainly better now. The translations might still be wrong or misleading in some cases. I don't know, but they should be checked. I've adapted the German translations, they should be fine.Kolmiel (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

additives to hashish[edit]

When I was young in the 70's I didn't know what my peers were getting me high on. So I wonder now if I'm being a drug in my adult life what was Hashish mixed with in the 70's? Was in heroin, was it opium, was it cocaine? To ask what it really was is the very ignorance of my youth and it greatly concerns me today. All my mental illness may stem off of the drug I was taking and if it wasn't pure hashish then I'm concerned about what I'm to do about it today. What the question I ask is what are the additives they mixed with hashish back in the 70's to know what I can do about it in my adult life? This opinion only stems off of what drug we are when it comes to that we need to take notice it is how our mind works today. I can understand when we where just teens they would give us an unpure derivative of hashish for a cheaper price. Maybe none of us knew what it would do until they decided to get me high on the drug. How dumb of me when I trusted anyone and everyone I was with. It is time to concern ourselves in 2015 what is legal in the six states that cannabis is legal when it amounts to a pure extraction of marijuana.

Sorry, but this is a dictionary staffed by volunteers, not the Source Of All Knowledge. Even if one of us knew about that stuff, it wouldn't be ethical to discuss it here. The closest thing we have is definitions for slang terms for drugs, but I wouldn't stake my life or well-being on their accuracy. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Soute (FR) - tasinko (FI)[edit]


I use Wiktionary too seldom to remember the knobs and buttons....

Could someone establish a link between "soulte" in French and "tasinko" in Finnish ? They are the same word in both languages It would be useful to create the English translation too (amount one has to pay to somebody in case of unequal shares in an inheritance)


--BeeJay (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


I just read this on the ManCity homepage: "Our live stream is available in all territories excluding those listed below, but you can watch the game courtesy of these alternative broadcasters."

However I don't quite understand the meaning of courtesy in that sentence, since English is not my native tongue. Could someone explain that to me? What is a game courtesy?-- 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • See the preposition courtesy of. (I've added your quote) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (EC) In this case, it's part of the phrase "courtesy of", meaning "thanks to". Another way to write it would be "You can watch the game, thanks to these alternative broadcasters", or "These alternative broadcasters will let you watch the game". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


"A feeble utterance or complaint. I don't want to hear a peep out of you!" That's not my understanding of the word. I think it means the smallest possible sound (along the lines of whit or jot for the smallest possible amount), so "not a peep" means not even the smallest sound — whereas our definition of "a feeble utterance or complaint" suggests something closer to "no dissent". Equinox 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

bicarbonate -- year coined[edit]

I just edited Wikipedia's article on "bicarbonate" to include the date (1814) on which the term was coined.

If you want to add that information to Wikitionary's article on "bicarbonate", here's the information:

The term "bicarbonate" was coined in 1814 by the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston.[1]

[1] William Hyde Wollaston (1814) "A synoptic scale of chemical equivalents," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 104 : 1-22. On page 11, Wollaston coins the term "bicarbonate": "The next question that occurs relates to the composition of this crystallized carbonate of potash, which I am induced to call bi-carbonate of potash, for the purpose of marking more decidedly the distinction between this salt and that which is commonly called a subcarbonate, and in order to refer at once to the double dose of carbonic acid contained in it."

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

blackheart tree[edit]

Wirlu is a Martuthunira word that references gloss as "the blackheart tree". Related languages use wirlu to denote acacias, so the blackheart is probably an acacia. Can anyone figure out which one? The Lincoln Library of Essential Information (1962), page 1072, says "The Blackwood, or Blackheart, an Australian species (A. melanorylon), now grown in California", while Australian Dry-zone Acacias for Human Food (1992, ISBN 064310240X), page 62, lists it as a common name of Acacia coriacea. @DCDuring: since it's a taxonomic issue. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not finding blackheart as a vernacular for any species of Acacia. I searched for additional sources both at Google books, at the general taxonomy and plant taxonomy sites and some specialized Australian and acacia sites. No further joy for blackheart. A melanoxylon is usually called blackwood. It is native to the eastern parts of Australia from Tasmania to southern Queensland. There is also an Australian species called blackheart sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum), but it is only native to Tasmania and Victoria. But Martuthunira was spoken in Western Australia per WP. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    This search on a Western Australia database for acacia tree species native to the Pilbara found a long list that included A. coriacea. I'd go with that or get in touch with someone in language studies or botany at the University of Western Australia. HTH. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    That's a lot more information than I had been able to find! Thank you! - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


The ety says "Used in English since the 14th century, and as a term of abuse since the 17th century." Yet we have no definition of "pork" as a term of abuse. Equinox 14:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a job for the OED.
But, could it be that for "as a term of abuse" it should be "pejoratively" and refer to the sense we limit to US political slang? DCDuring TALK 16:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2015/January#forecastle.

Kanji/Hanzi etymology sources[edit]

It seems the source for an etymology was removed some time ago, also possibly on pages of other charaters to which I added etymologies from that site: * http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm Habemus (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

bekommen sense 3 transitivity[edit]

german bekommen in sense 3 is marked intransitive, but the example shows otherwise. I want to simply change it but perhaps the example is ungrammatical?

It's considered intransitive because the object is in the dative rather than the accusative: Das Essen bekommt ihm (not ihn) nicht.Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Do transitive verbs have to take an accusative object? —CodeCat 20:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


It's probably not used in Mandarin at all, "nou5gian2" is not valid POJ and, it may be lô͘ -kiáⁿ. @Wyang, WikiWinters:. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Understandable. Are we sure that it doesn't have any Teochew usage? WikiWinters (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It was added a long time ago as the Teochew translation of "child". I don't know if "nou5gian2" is a valid transliteration for Teochew and we currently don't have methods for handling this dialect. Only Mandarin, Cantonese, Min Nan, Min Dong, Wu, Hakka + Middle Chinese and Old Chinese. In order to make an entry work for any dialect not covered, some work may need to be done. If there is no reliable data available, then maybe we should just skip it, since Mandarin "nújiǎn" and Min Nan "lô͘ -kiáⁿ" readings may be non-existent and Teochew can't be added with confidence. Removing Pinyin and POJ readings will result in no PoS categories. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I'm not saying "nou5gian2" is wrong but it's not a valid Min Nan (Hokkien) transliteration. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Teochew added to Module:zh-pron. Wyang (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Striking. Thanks! @Wyang: Teochew probably needs categories? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this a valid Asturian verb, or an invention of Wonderfool? See Special:WhatLinksHere/desendoldcar. - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably a typo for desendolcar. Unless Asturian is very strange, that looks phonotactically rather unlikely. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted that crap. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


seco has the perfect secuī, but this verb has circumsecāvī. Is this correct? —CodeCat 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Lewis & Short and the Oxford Latin Dictionary say circumseco has no perfect forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Phrases: Etymology of "hasta luego"[edit]

Could we take a look and see if there's any documented etymology for this phrase? The verb "hasta" seems to take on a different meaning, typical for expressions, but the lack of history leaves me thinking we could find it. What do you think? Secretkeeper12 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • hasta is an adverb, not a verb. Sobreira (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually it's a preposition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

child abuse[edit]

Does "child abuser" and "child abuser" have hypens between them?
How do I figure this stuff out?
Why is there a page for "rapists" but no page for "child abuser"

Because "child abuser" is SOP. A child abuser is one who abuses a child, whether sexually, mentally, or emotionally. Similarly a "dog abuser" would be one who abuses a dog, whether sexually, mentally, or emotionally. Ad infinitum. SOP. Tharthan (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A nice graphic on Indo-European languages[edit]

This article from the Washington Post has a nice graphic, though the resolution is not high. The article itself holds no surprises for the linguists among us. DCDuring TALK 03:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You can get higher resolution by clicking on the image. The only thing I disagree with is its implication that the Indo-European languages are split into two major groups, Indo-Iranian and European. That's a convenient way of thinking about it, maybe, but it has no linguistic basis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The enlarged image is not very high resolution, as I found when I printed it. Some of the labels are not legible to normal folks who do not have an internalized lexicon of language names to draw on. I still am or can remember being normal in that way.
I'm sure the author of the image would be happy to make a higher-resolution on available on some basis, though probably not a WMF-acceptable public license. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a higher resolution at io9, and also at the artists original comic, although that version is partly fictionalised according to the setting of her story (post-apocalyptic Iceland and Scandinavia). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The author's version is quite legible, the other a little less so. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice graphic indeed! - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary in the press[edit]

As Ulmanor pointed out, we were mentioned, briefly, by American public radio. - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia corpus at BYU[edit]

Joining BNC, COCA, COHA, Time magazine, and GloWBE at the BYU motherlode of free corpora is a compilation of all terms used in Wikipedia.

From the e-mail announcment:

"We have just recently released the BYU Wikipedia Corpus, which is composed of 1.9 billion words in 4.4 million articles. With this new corpus, you can now search Wikipedia in the same way that you can search the other corpora​ from BYU — by word and phrase, part of speech, variable strings, synonyms, comparisons of words, collocates, and concordance lines.
"Most importantly, however, with this interface you can quickly and easily create and then search personalized "virtual corpora" from the 4,400,000 web pages. For example, in just a few seconds you could create a corpus with 500-1000 pages (perhaps 500,000-1,000,000 words of text) related to microbiology, economics, basketball, Buddhism, or thousands of other topics. You can then modify any of these corpora -- adding, deleting, or moving texts; grouping corpora into categories, etc.
"Once you’ve created a virtual corpus, you can limit your search to just that portion of Wikipedia — for example, to see collocates or concordance lines. You can also compare the frequency of words and phrases across these different virtual corpora, or find which of the 4.4 million pages use a given word or phrase the most (and then create a virtual corpus from those results).
"And perhaps best of all, you can quickly and easily create keyword lists for these virtual corpora, including multi-word expressions. So if you are researching, teaching, or studying finance, for example, you can quickly create a "finance” corpus. You can then find keywords (e.g. nouns, verbs, or adjectives) related to this topic, and see many examples of these words or phrases in context from that virtual corpus.
"Hopefully you can see how powerful of a tool this corpus is. Rather than having to scour the Web to create your own corpus for a particular topic, just find the relevant pages from Wikipedia. And then use the data from Wikipedia to focus in on the words and phrases of that topic.
"We hope that this new corpus is of use to you in your teaching and research."

You should register. If you can legitimately claim to be affiliated with an academic institution and be engaged in language research, you can probably get better access than I get (Level 1). But level 1 allows a useful searching. I have not run up against any limits. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


An IP suggests (see the entry's recent history) that this term is more offensive than our entry currently suggests. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


BTW, displaying the language

Talk pages of individual entries are not usually monitored by editors, and messages posted there may not be noticed and responded to. You may want to post your message to the Tea Room or Information desk instead.

implies, in std English, that the talk page is there just bcz your geeks haven't found a way to suppress display of the talk pages. And means that accumulating insights about an entry over the years and decades won't happen without additional effort. (Or has the geek locked in your steamer trunk created a facility to let a chosen few know when article-talk pages are edited, and you prefer hoi polloi not knowing such a facility exists)?
--Cranky Wikipediant 07:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow you sound like a jerk. Anyway, see Talk:stealer for a response to your original query. Equinox 13:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

my word[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2015/January#my word.

I should have remembered, in Latin[edit]

Should the first-person singular pluperfect subjunctive indicative of meminī be meminīssem or meminissem? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the i is short; it should be meminissem. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Angr, JohnC5: There is one source that suggests otherwise. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Which source is that? I checked three different books on my bookshelf and they all give the ending of the pluperfect subjunctive as -issem, -issēs, -isset, -issēmus, -issētis, -issent; and they all do mark vowels that are long by nature before double consonants (something not all sources do), so the lack of a macron over the i really does indicate a short vowel. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Angr: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/conjugation/defective/memini.html --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I trust print sources, which are more likely to have been proofread, over online sources. That link omits the macron over the final e of the 2nd person singular, and the implication that the i was short in the 1st and 2nd plural, but long in all the other persons, strikes me as especially suspect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau, Angr: Allen and Greenough provide meminissem explicitly. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Latin epithets you'll most likely find on the page[edit]

I've made yet another ranking of Latin epithets. This time I've ranked them by how many books they actually appear in, so the ranking is now much more reflective of how likely someone is to come across an epithet (if they read random Google books). I've automatically grouped the conjugations now (though it's not always perfect). Each entry gets up to 5 example species for reference (which are ordered how much they helped push the entry to the top of the list). This is pretty much the sort of thing I always wanted to do with the list but never had time to.

Thanks to the work of Wiktionary's editors, the majority of the top epithets already have entries, but here's some select missing ones (and the scientific names they're most likely to be found in):

  1. arundinaceus, arundinacea, arundinaceum,
    e.g. Phalaris arundinacea, Festuca arundinacea, Maranta arundinacea, Bambusa arundinacea, Acrocephalus arundinaceus
  2. junceus, juncea, junceum
    e.g. Brassica juncea, Crotalaria juncea, Spartium junceum, Chondrilla juncea, Solidago juncea
  3. carpio
    e.g. Cyprinus carpio, Carpiodes carpio, Floridichthys carpio, Salmo carpio
  4. leucocephalus, leucocephala, leucocephalum; leucocephalos
    e.g. Leucaena leucocephala, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Oxyura leucocephala, Columba leucocephala, Amazona leucocephala
  5. dactylon; dactylus, dactyla, dactylum
    e.g. Cynodon dactylon, Panicum dactylon, Capriola dactylon; Grapholita dactyla, Lepanthes dactyla, Porroglossum dactylum
  6. papyrifer, papyrifera
    e.g. Betula papyrifera, Broussonetia papyrifera, Edgeworthia papyrifera, Boswellia papyrifera, Fatsia papyrifera
  7. cannabinus, cannabina, cannabinum
    e.g. Hibiscus cannabinus, Apocynum cannabinum, Eupatorium cannabinum, Carduelis cannabina, Sesbania cannabina
  8. leucopus
    e.g. Peromyscus leucopus, Saguinus leucopus, Lepilemur leucopus, Sminthopsis leucopus, Rattus leucopus

The full top 1250 is here. It's a long list. You can scan through for red-linked epithets. I'll try to make a condensed list just of the top missing ones another time (hopefully soon). Any feedback welcome. —Pengo (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(the words next to the numbers were mostly redlinks when I posted this, in case anyone's wondering.) Nice work, DCDuring :) —21:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if we had automatic entry creation for the Latin inflected forms from the Latin inflection line templates. It would also be handy to wrap the epithets in {{l|la}} to make it more obvious which do not have Latin L2 sections.
I've been trying to make sure that we have the genus names, including obsolete ones, that are sometimes used as specific epithets, either in the nominative, eg, Bufo bufo or genitive Nonagria typhae (< Typha). DCDuring TALK 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm now listing any genera which sound similar to the epithets. Let me know if there's a general case where it's not grouping things together that it should. The stemmer which forms groups is based on some odd code that was originally designed only for Latin nouns, and it didn't seem to work that well even for that. I've tweaked it a bit to work more broadly. I'm not sure it handles all genitive forms, so let me know if you come across any common problem. I'm sure it's more broad than ideal, but I guess that's better than too narrow.
I've now included all species and synonyms from the Catalogue of Life, not just ones seen in books. Each species gets one free "point", as if it had been seen in a single book. This hopefully gives a more "complete" view.
I've made book/volume counts visible now so you can judge whether an epithet is something popular or anomalous so you can better judge how much time to spend on it and whether it warrants an entry or an inclusion as an alternative form or whatever. Making the numbers visible seemed necessary as adding all species adds a lot of noise to the data. The numbers also add a lot of visible clutter to the list, so let me know if they're useful or how to better format them. I was thinking of maybe hiding anything above a certain number, because it's probably more useful just to know which ones are rare. e.g. "cola (2)" generally means there are two species with the epithet "cola" and neither of them were seen in any book. "Cola (2270)" means that either that the genus Cola has a huge number of species, or Cola species are seen in a bunch of books. Most likely a combination of the two. But it's probably not that useful to know exactly how high the number is.
I've wrapped the epithets now in {{l|la}}. Does that do anything practical other than add #Latin to the links? I did {{l|mul}} for the genus links. Lemme know if you something else would be better. Sorry I've clobbered your edits, but hopefully the changes are worthwhile. Enjoy. Pengo (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, thanks. This makes it easier to work on.
Some of the generic names that serve as epithets are obsolete ones. I don't see a reasonable way of getting at them. Some are buried in Wikispecies synonyms, but getting them would probably be a long run for a short slide, as it would be a very incomplete list and many aren't ever used as epithets.
The practical value of enclosure in {{l|la}} is that it yields color-coding to differentiate links to Latin L2 sections from those to other L2s, which could be Translingual, English, Italian, or indeed almost any Roman-script language. I wouldn't have asked except I guessed it was relatively easy to execute. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh.. I just discovered the "OrangeLinks" preference. Awesome :)
I've hidden numbers larger than 100 now because it was getting too messy. (see here for the version with too many numbers). Now, basically, you can take any number as a caution that the entry might not be particularly significant, and otherwise assume that it's common enough.
There are a lot of synonyms that can show up in the list now, but it looks like you've found others. If you find another good source, let me know. At some point I might try scraping Wikipedia or Wikispecies but probably not soon. Pengo (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I had forgotten about the substantial loading-performance penalty of so many instances of {{l}} (or any template). #Latin would be better for this purpose - or multiple subpages. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Out of curiosity I made an obsolete genus list with the obsolete genera I found in the Catalogue of Life. There's 41,938. Don't know what specific use there might be for it (so I've made no attempt to format it). It's still from the same data source, so it's not going to contain anything new for the "epithets on the page" list. To be honest, I'm more interested in the obsolete genera that haven't made the list (e.g. Lamblia), as they're less well documented elsewhere. Pengo (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pengo, Chuck Entz: There's a case to be made that obsolete taxa should be a class that has a higher priority than the class of taxa that are current but not often used and without any corresponding vernacular name. These names, when they do come up, are often hard to research. If we had external links to the bodies of old taxonomic literature that had them (like the Biodiversity Heritage Library), we would be providing a service. Better yet would be links to successor taxa if we could determine them. Those in Century 1911, Webster 1913, the old encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica), or well-known natural histories of the 18th and 19th centuries would be a good set to start with. Within these taxa, genera and higher taxa are probably more valuable than species names (other than type species names). All that is conjectural. I am not all that familiar with the full range of relevant older taxonomic literature.
There must be some online sources that facilitate search for obsolete taxa, possibly specialized by groupings at the family level or higher (eg, The Plant List).
Of course. I continue to believe that those in current use or with a vernacular name in any language are the highest priority. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you're thinking of around facilitating search for obsolete taxa. I can think of a few ways to generate lists of candidate obsolete/un-databased taxa. When I went through Google Books' 2-grams I searched only for exact matches of CoL's species. I was thinking I could re-run the search and make it more fuzzy to include anything which looks a bit like a binomial name. (E.g. a Latinate-looking genus and a previously seen epithet), and then I could sort these by how much they look like a binomial (while excluding already known ones of course). Another possibility would be to search texts (like the ones you suggested, or perhaps pubmed) for telling phrases along the lines of "the species Capitalized-word lowercase-word (Family ...iae)". However, even if one of these methods (or a combination) produced mostly good results (i.e. forgotten/obsolete species, missing from other databases), there'd still be a huge manual task of searching for and sorting through evidence and documenting each species and genus. Will be something I keep in mind for a future project though. Pengo (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you think of a way to get the taxa entries from a late edition of Century c. 1911 or earlier? Those would include a good number of obsolete taxa, arguably some of the more important ones, and would have good out-of-copyright definitions to boot. DCDuring TALK 05:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: How goes it? OK, so Ecphymotes, an obsolete lizard genus, is defined in Century, Volume 3 (1895) (the online search fails, so you'll likely have to download the PDF or another format and search that, or you can try any of the other scans of Volume 3 on archive.org and see if their search is broken too: 1897, 1897, 1904.) Other candidates in this volume are: Epenthesis, Eupagurus, and Exocephala. Century is pretty difficult to work with because no one's ever cleaned up the OCR (that I can find), so there's no way to even get a list of head words. See how you go with these. If you can make something from them, and you don't find it too tedious to work with, and you want to work on more of these, I'll have a go at making a larger list. Pengo (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I got lucky with the first one I picked Ecphymotes and was able to make a substantive entry, relatively quickly (40 minutes). This is not low-hanging fruit. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Ah well, it took quite a while to find just those examples. I thought the most useful part of the Century entry (or the quickest way to use it) would be to use the etymology and the definition, and mention it was obsolete. Though I just spent way too long trying to transcribe the Greek to add an etymology to Ecphymotes. To use the obvious cliché, it's Greek to me (and I have no idea which diacritics to use). ἑκφυμα or ὲκφυμα?, so I'm going to give up before I get to the further etymology which they have under "ecphyma". Pengo (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The two sites I use that have the Century 1911 pages, but only the scans apparently, though they might have a list of headwords. One site is [global-language.com], the other is the one behind Ecphymotes in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911. DCDuring TALK 06:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


It is said that the English word egg was ultimately from Proto-Germanic ajją, but in the page for the Proto-Germanic word ajją, it says that in Old Saxon and Middle Low German, a form of the word "egg" is also spelled as "egg", does anyone have any evidence to prove that? was it actually a Norse or Old/Middle English borrowing? --Neptune Purple Heart 13:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The native English word for egg was "ey", with the plural "eyren". However, that form died out AFAIK several hundred years ago, replaced by "egg", with the plural "eggs", from Old Norse. Nevertheless, both "egg" and "ey" are from the same Proto-Germanic root. Tharthan (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the question, though. The OP was asking about the Old Saxon and Middle Low German spelling egg. I don't know where that comes from, but if it's real, I suspect it's a borrowing from Old Norse, just like English egg is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading through the question again, I realise that I misread it before. Whoops. Tharthan (talk)


[[26]The bodycon page] does not give a definition, it only cites an off hand definition in one source. That definition is "body conscious". "Body conforming" might be better as it describes what it is as opposed to its effect. You can certainly be conscious of your body (or someone else's) without wearing skin tight clothes.

P.S. The link insertion feature on this tea room page seems to have some problems. When I first gave it a link it told me "the page does not exist". By careful editing I was able to compensate for this.

  • You need stronger glasses. The definition given is:- "figure-hugging, skintight, form-fitting". SemperBlotto (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

dèan coimeas air (gd) listed as a verb[edit]

There is a page that confuses me: dèan coimeas air, which says this phrase is a verb. I believe, at best, it is a (...n idiomatic) verbal phrase.

  • dèan is a verb meaning "do", or "make".
  • I believe that in this case, coimeas ("comparison") is a verbal noun of coimeas ("compare").
  • air ("of"/"for") in this phrase, I believe, is a preposition.

How do these elements combine to form a single verb? If it is a verb, how is it conjugated? I assume by conjugating the verb:

  • dèan (past rinn, future nì, verbal noun dèanamh, past participle dèanta)

Granted, I am fairly new to Wiktionary, but this seems a case of trying to force a square peg in a round hole. Kibi78704 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We usually list idiomatic verb phrases as verbs here. See kick the bucket for an English example. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology for Macbeth[edit]

On the Macbeth page there is no etymology. Does anyone know why shakespeare used this or is it unknown?

He took the name from a real Scottish king, Mac Bethad. bethad is equivalent to the modern Gaelic beatha, meaning "life". Macbeth (MacBheatha) means "son of life", which is a flattering way to refer to oneself. There's more information about the real Macbeth at the Wikipedia I linked. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

There's actually a pattern in Old and Middle Irish of "Mac ..." names: Mac Laisre (Son of the Flame), Mac Coirbb, Mac Tire (son of the Land / Wolf), Mac Raith (Son of the Fortress), and so on. And we can tell that they were analysed in a unit as single names. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)



For the English word "a" (indefinite article), it gives a stressed and an unstressed pronunciation. Could someone please make it clear that the unstressed version is the usual one? I don't know how to format entries myself and I don't want to mess it up. Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would do this. I thought of changing "stressed" to "stressed for emphasis" (since you'd never pronounce a in a dog like the letter A, unless you were e.g. contrasting it with the dog), but then emphasis is the purpose of stress. I think it has to be taken as understood that function words are not generally stressed in English; a certainly isn't the only entry we'd have to change, otherwise. Equinox 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

alpinus and a big list of just the missing epithets[edit]

User:Pengo/missing epithets:

  1. tuberculosis, tuberculosa, tuberculosus, tuberculosum (28) — Tuberculosa (4)
  2. pylori, pylorus (5), pylora (2)
  3. botulinumBotulina (1)
  4. typhi, typhae, typharum (14), typha (5), typhus (2), typhia (1) — Typha, Typhis (49)
  5. solani ( < Solanum), solana (55), solanus (7), solanum (3) ( < Solanum), solanii (1), solano (1), solanae (1) — Solanum
  6. lamblia ( < Lamblia)
  7. arundinacea, arundinaceus, arundinaceum, arundinaceae (2)
  8. tetani, tetanus (1) — Tetana (1)
  9. mulatta
  10. juncea, junceum, junceus, junceae (1), iunceus (1)
  11. pertussis
  12. stolonifera, stolonifer, stoloniferum, stoloniferus (16)
  13. stramonium, stramonii (1) — Stramonium (12)
  14. mariana, marianum, marianus, marianae (28), marianii (12), mariani (4), marianarum (3), marianiae (2), marjana (2), marianorum (1), marian (1) — Mariana (3)
  15. salar, salaris, salarius (8), salaria (4), salara (3), salarii (1) — Salaria (53), Salar (9), Salaris (2), Salarius (1)
  16. pennsylvanicus, pennsylvanica, pennsylvanicum
  17. papaya, papayae, papayas (1), papayum (1) — Papaya (88)
  18. helix, helixus (1) — Helix
  19. dactylon, dactyloni (4), dactylonii (1), dactylonis (1) — Dactylon (1)
  20. cereale, cerealis, cerealium, cerealia (3)
  21. alpina, alpinus, alpinum, alpiniae (22) ( <Alpinia), alpini (9) (mostly in two-part epithets such as polygoni-alpini)), alpinia (3) ( < Alpinia), alpinii (2), alpinae (1) ( < Alpina) — Alpinia, Alpina (16)
  22. more...

Here's just the epithets which are missing, from most common to least commonly found in books.

Only entries with either Latin or translingual sections are counted as "not missing". The list currently includes a lot of orange links (if you have them turned on in preferences), because there's a lot of them without Latin (or translingual) sections.

Items with numbers after them are less important but included for completeness (and someone might want to add them too all the same)

alpinus is in the list because it was moved to Alpinus at some point with just a redirect left behind. alpina and alpinum were not moved. Should probably be fixed up.

Might try to refresh this list semi-regularly if it gets used and if I can fix some speed/caching issues. The full list also includes the most common example species for each group of epithets. Pengo (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Alpinia is a ringer- according to w:Alpinia, it's named after an Italian by the name of w:Prospero Alpini Chuck Entz (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Alpina is a genus name in Geometridae (moths), not in Wikispecies, but in the Catalog of Life. It is possible that some instances of alpina and alpinae are of this genus, not of the Latin adjective. The only instances we are likely to detect are the genitives and those where alpina is used with a masculine or neuter genus name. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think my conclusion is that we need to focus on the low-hanging fruit: those of the 1st/2nd declension (-us, -a, -um}, those 3rd with two or three endings, (usually -is, -e). For obsolete genera, the names of subgenera, sections, and subsections (marked, subg, sect, and subsect in botany etc and capitalized between a genus name and a specific epithet in geology) would be a good start. Stems of the higher taxa from subtribe to magnorder that have regular rank-indicating endings would be a good list. We can usually infer a single candidate generic name or a short list of candidate generic names from those stems, especially if we know the class (eg, Aves, Insecta, Mammalia) or phylum (eg, Mollusca, Nematoda, Porifera) of the higher taxon that is the source of the stem. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I made a list now of the "low hanging fruit", candidates for first/second declension. Hopefully will be useful. Pengo (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. So although I've been putting together these lists, my understanding of Latin grammar is still pretty poor. I partially understand the alpinus/Alpinus explanation but I don't at all understand the steps that it takes to pick a declension and be confident about it. But I figure from my epithet lists now it should be relatively easy to pick out the 1st/2nd declension terms? Might be easier to create an example of how you imagine an entry to look than trying to describe it?
Would it do if I added other ranks to the epithet lists in much the same way Genus has been included? E.g. "bufo — Bufo — family:Bufonidae" (including Bufonidae because it shares a common stem, not because it's the family). Including phylum/class can be tricky, as none of the taxon bits listed are necessarily related. I know kingdoms have different naming rules, but can you clarify how you'd use this info? It would be easiest to add to the example species.
Subgenera and sections are tricky. I've just tried to extract them from CoL without success. Although the database is structured to allow for their inclusion, there are none in there at all. I'm probably not going to attempt to scrape other sources just yet. I'm only thinking about improving my current epithet lists, but I'm not sure if you're thinking of different kinds of queries?
So, the main things that should be relatively easy to do are (1) to add any other ranks which share the epithet's stem (ala the Bufonidae example above); (2) mark any obsolete taxon with a double dagger (‡) (epithet, species, genus, etc which only exists in synonyms); (3) list two-part epithets within the entries of their single-part counterparts. Pengo (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort involved in finding the best way to do this. In part, I'm thinking simpler is better for rapid addition of new entries. A list of all the stems where the forms were all in lower case and ended in -us, -a, and -um, having at least one instance of each ending would be a very good way of adding a lot of epithets quickly. Ordering them from most to least frequent is further assurance that the most important are added first. Additional information is not very helpful and may be a distraction for the core task. Another useful list would be similar for epithets ending in -is and -e.
Once we have these regular, common epithets covered we can work on the harder cases with more complex listings such as those you have produced. The double-dagger enhancement is useful. Adding the use of the stem in other taxa is distracting. I thought it might be useful to find more obsolete genus names, but mining Wikispecies would be much better. A two-part epithet will be much less common. The genitive endings of a compound epithet usually indicate that the species "X y" is a host for the species "Z X-y" of a parasite or symbiont. It is more helpful to have them on a separate list from which we would add the species, which is probably important economically or in research.
The Wikispecies dump might be the best source for subgenera, sections, and subsections, as well as for higher taxa. They explicitly label each taxon used in an entry and have a hierarchy of hyponyms in every entry. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
By definition, specific epithets can only be nominative singular/plural or genitive singular/plural nouns or adjectives. The adjectives agree in gender and number with the generic name, but I've never heard of a plural generic name, so the adjectives should be all singular. The first and second declensions are easy, but the third depends on the ending of the stem and how it interacts with the inflectional endings (of which there are variants)- not that easy to code for. I've never worked with the 4th and 5th declension, but there are very few of them, which you can ignore. See w:Latin declension. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you have the direction of the derivations wrong: higher-level taxa are usually named by taking the genitive of the type generic name and replacing the ending with the rank-specific ones. Thus the bird order Passeriformes is ultimately derived from Passer domesticus (genitive passeris), the English Sparrow, and the family Bufonidae gets its name from Bufo bufo ( genitive bufonis). For animal taxa in the "family group" and below, this is explicitly specified by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but above that, it's only a matter of relatively recent custom. In the case of plants, there are a few family names such as Leguminosae and Umbelliferae that have been grandathered in and coexist with the standard Fabaceae (dating from when Vicia faba was classified in the genus Faba) and Apiaceae from Apium graveolens. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We're not trying to derive genus names, we're trying to infer them from higher taxa. We are doing this to get at obsolete/archaic genus names. Once we have a list of candidates we can attempt to determine whether such candidate names actually ever existed. We would have the reasonable assurance that such names were at one time at least the names were important enough to be the source of higher taxon names. The point of looking at infrageneric names at the rank of subgenus, section, and subsection is similarly because they are also candidates to have been genus names.
If you know of some reliable source of obsolete/archaic generic names, I am all ears. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, we're probably one of the leading sources, what with all of the Webster 1913 articles. I've been changing a lot of species names to use {{taxlink}} lately, and more often than not the links go to a page that says Wikispecies doesn't have a page for it. A good bit of that is due to Wikispecies only having a page for the genus, and often the specific epithet is obsolete- but there are a significant number where the generic name is out of date. Just comparing the contents of the {{taxlink}}-generated categories for genus and species with Wikispecies and Wikipedia would probably turn up more obsolete generic names than the above methods. For that matter, when I go looking for plant and animal names to categorize, I find lots of entries with taxonomic names either redlinked or hardcoded as italicized text. From that, I would infer that we haven't {{taxlink}}ed or created taxon pages to cover more than a fraction of the candidates. Do we have a list somewhere of entries with italicized binomials? Just checking for <space>''word<space>word''<space>, <space>''[[word]]<space>[[word]]''<space> and <space>''[[word<space>word]]''<space> would be extremely useful. As for converting old generic names to new ones: this is not a simple mechanical process. Yes, there are a good number of generic names that have been found to be invalid and replaced with new names, but species get moved around so much that a single old genus might easily have its former members in a dozen modern ones. Even extant ones get changed a lot. Think of all the common names based on generic names such as chrysanthemum, geranium and azalea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: We have only 123 members in :Category:Taxonomic names (obsolete).
It might be possible to find some unlinked taxonomic names using the capabilities of Cirrus search, by searching non-Translingual entries for "species" or "genus" and an absence of the template {{taxlink}}. I fear that the list you propose would generate many false positives, but it's worth a shot.
The process of generating candidate generic names would be mechanical, but validating them would not be.
I certainly don't think that we can recreate the history of membership of species in a genus. I'd be happy if we could reference some contemporary taxon, preferably a genus. Type species would be nice. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Century would be an even better source for obsolete/archaic taxa than Webster has been. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: @Chuck Entz: Thanks for the feedback and help. I've updated the common and missing lists to mark synonyms/obsolete taxa with a double dagger (which does seem quite helpful). I'm pretty happy with the lists now, although I haven't done a bunch of things on my to-do list (such as including other ranks; special treatment of two-part epithets; and highlighting possible 1st/2nd declensions). I'm going to leave obsolete taxa searching for another time too. I'm going to move on to other projects for a while, namely an audit of IUCN red list statuses (statī?) on Wikipedia, and some other personal projects. Hope the lists are useful for a while. Seems there's no shortage of things to do here regardless. Hopefully the alpinus/Alpinus thing can be sorted out soon too :) Pengo (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

ring road[edit]

If this is British English, what is it called outside Commonwealth countries (and China for that matter)? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In the US this corresponds to beltway. But beltways are limited-access roads. I don't think of ring roads (eg, Ringstrasse in Vienna) as being limited in access. circumferential highway is a (SoP?) hyponym that is more inclusive, but would still not include Ringstrasse, which is not a highway. See beltway at OneLook Dictionary Search and ring road at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think German Ringstraße or Umgehungsstraße would still fit "beltway". Straße could also be various kinds of roads including "highway".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I was specifically talking about the one in Vienna with does not fit in any definition of beltway that I can find.
The poor correspondence between the empirical membership in the categories corresponding to the terms ring road and beltway exemplifies the general problem of poor matches of words and concepts between cultures. It limits the utility of translations as we will never have both base English definitions that are useful to English speakers and definitions sufficiently atomic to allow all FL terms to correspond to a set of such definitions. DCDuring TALK 02:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: mismatches - It's nothing new. There may be no perfect match but a close match. If a translation is too loose, a qualifier or a descriptive SoP translation can be used, especially when a concept/term is missing in a given FL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As for Austrian "Ringstraße" (spelled "Ringstrasse" in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, not Germany or Austria), it's a "circular road/street" but "ring road" is one of its senses. The US "beltway" has a narrower sense.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Atlanta has something called the Perimeter, which is basically a beltway. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
In the UK, I think we only have one road similar to a beltway - the M25. That is described as the "London Orbital" - definitely not a ring road. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There's (for example) the Manchester Inner Ring Road (a mixture of American-style elevated motorway and standard A-roads) and the Manchester Outer Ring Road (fully separated motorway). This might be less an issue of language, and more of different approaches to road planning on different continents. There are quite a lot of American books that refer to "ring roads" in a US context, both to mean beltway and to refer to a non-freeway solution to circulatory roads (mostly in New England, it seems, where dense population and historical city centres make the beltway a poor solution). Notably, the city of Providence used to have a system that was officially referred to as a ring road. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Melbourne, Australia, has the Western Ring Road (and that's its official name). Its definition here is a freeway or highway which runs around a city, instead of radially out from the center. Sydney has the Sydney Orbital Network (a system of ring roads), Perth has the ring road made up in part by the Roe Highway, and Brisbane is building one now. In all cases they are described as "ring roads". --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a lot like terms for stages in schooling: in the US we have preschool, kindergarten, elementary/grade school, middle school/junior high, high school, with grades from 1 to 12 that overlap with some of those (and k-12 schools that have kindergarten, elementary and junior high in one school). They can be hard to convert to school systems in other countries, regardless of language. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to everyone who replied. The entry looks great now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you a noun if you feel like yourself?[edit]

Yourself has a noun section with the definition "Your usual, normal, or true self", with the usex "feel like yourself". Myself with the more opaque definition "that being which is oneself", with the same usex. None of the other pronouns have noun sections, although they can all be used in exactly the same way ("feel like himself/herself/ourselves/etc"). Are the noun sections unnecessary (do the plural sections cover "feel like _self"-type usage)? Or should noun sections be added to the other pronoun entries?
This is part of the more general issue that our pronoun entries are quite inconsistently formatted.
- -sche (discuss) 04:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not only -self, since you could say "I feel like them" (i.e. like they do). Equinox 16:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


What does this mean? "(countable, in translation of Chinese) The sweet osmanthus (O. fragrans)"

Can it be said more clearly, so normal folks could understand? DCDuring TALK 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that it means there is a Chinese word, which properly refers to the 'sweet osmanthus', which is commonly translated as 'cassia' instead of as 'sweet osmanthus', for reasons. Whether it is true that there is such a word, I don't know. (RFV?) - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, both cassia (the type of cinnamon) and sweet osmanthus were originally referred to by the same single-character term, , with the compound terms 桂花 (桂 flower) and 肉桂 (meat 桂) emerging to remove the ambiguity. There's also 木樨 that refers to sweet osmanthus as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If one knew that, then the label would make sense. But how does the label begin to convey that to someone who doesn't know the underlying situation. It would seem to be merely a canard to someone using the entry. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have a usage note saying that cassia and sweet osmanthus are often confused by translators of Chinese. For one thing, I would imagine it would be possible for references to cassia to be mistranslated as sweet osmanthus, too. Older translations of all sorts of works are rife with mistranslations. We do have similar senses for biblical mistranslations at cony and fitch, though. The entry at tare has a sense that also comes from a biblical mistranslation, but is deceptive because it doesn't mention the fact. It quotes the biblical passage that's the original mistranslation, but also quotes another that's obviously an indirect allusion to the biblical passage. Just off the top of my head, the word rose as used in Bible translations is definitely wrong, as are references to hyssop and most (maybe all) references to lilies. I know there are similar issues with many other works, but biblical translation is the area I've studied in greatest depth and therefore the easiest for me to come up with examples for without research. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

force of will[edit]

Would the term "force of will" pass CFI? It seems idiomatic. There are also some idiomatic translations, e.g. Chinese 精神力 (jīngshénlì), Japanese 精神力 (せいしんりょく, seishinryoku), Korean 정신력 (jeongsillyeok). . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

force of will is the fourth most common term of the type force of [noun], after force of nature, force of gravity, force of arms and ahead of force of law and force of habit. We join other references (force of nature at OneLook Dictionary Search and force of habit at OneLook Dictionary Search) in what we include (and exclude). It is not a set phrase, as possessive and adjectival modifiers may be inserted. Both of the included force phrase have definitions and application that makes them idiomatic. Force of will does not. It's definition would be something like "power of one's one's own strongly felt intention and choice", which is pretty much "willpower" or "force of will". DCDuring TALK 02:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Since OneLook dictionary is often used for references, it could be a candidate for Lemming tests, no? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no force of lemmings in Wiktionary policy, just as there is no force of will at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Some etymological references mention this as a medieval Latin noun meaning "mesh"; for instance, it is the posited etymon of mascle. Is it attested? Homography with the adjective masculus/mascula makes it hard to search for. (Incidentally, I've just found one reference that derives mascula from macula; the other references I've seen derive it from Germanic and relate it to mesh.) - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:I'm so meta even this acronym and User:Metaknowledge, who are familiar with Latin. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: It wouldn't be too surprising if mascula (mesh) occurred at some point as a variant spelling of macula (which exists in a “mesh” sense; see sense 2.2), but it isn't recorded by Niermeyer, and the Old High German māsca is also a plausible cognate, if not an etymon. Johann Jacob Hofmann has an entry for Mascula (a city of Numidia), but it reads merely "MASCULA, urbs Numidiæ, Antonin. & D. Auguſt.", which is of course irrelevant. That's as much as I know. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

capital works, capital construction[edit]

What does "capital" mean in capital works/capital construction? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but according to one .gov.uk website, "Capital works are works to the structure and exterior of your flat and building, and to any other premises that your lease grants you the right to use". According to the Australian Taxpayers' Guide 2013 (ISBN 0730307263), "The term 'capital works' includes buildings, structural improvements and environmental protection earthworks that are used for an income-producing purpose". And Tax For Australians For Dummies (ISBN 1118551206) says "Ordinarily, you can't claim a tax deduction in respect of the purchase of a building. This rule applies because the outlay is considered to be capital in nature and not tax deductible under the general deduction provisions [] However, you may be able to claim a tax deduction under the capital works provisions, which allow you to write off certain construction costs of a building over a period of time." The Dictionary of Property and Construction Law (ISBN 1135801177) defines "capital improvement" as "Capital works undertaken on an asset with a view to enhancing its value. It does not include repairs or maintenance." Is any of that helpful? - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's just sense 1 of capital, in that "capital works"/improvements/etc are improvements to "Already-produced durable goods ... such as ... structures"? - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you not to bother with w:Capital (economics), a "vital" article, rated C- by their economics project. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:över-, Talk:huvud-[edit]

Someone questioned (ages ago) whether these were really Swedish prefixes. Discussion went nowhere. Are they prefixes or not? sv.Wikt has an entry for the first one but not the second one. - -sche (discuss) 07:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say över- is prefix but huvud- is not. I don't know if there are any clear criteria but at least this would be analogous with our English entries: "over-" is considered a prefix but "head-" is not. Also, this line would be in agreement with sv-Wiktionary. However, sv-Wikipedia has a list of Swedish prefixes (förled in Swedish), but över- is not included. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
huvud- seems like a prefix to me, comparable to hoofd-, haupt-, pää-. —CodeCat 20:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)



It is indeed a great pleasure for me to participate in the magnificent endeavor that is Wikipedia!

I am creating a new page, using Sandbox, since I am a new user - - - I do posses programming skills and have a diploma in computer science. ...also fluent in 6 languages; ...which means I intend to create these pages in other languages.

The pages are about one of Canada's best musicians, known world-wide; I have about many.. virtually thousands newspaper and magazine articles, media, etc. to choose from. So I will be working very hard to encapsulate this celebrated 45 year international career, in due encyclopedic form of course.

I tried creating in Draft mode, inadvertently broke some rules, and the page was deleted. So now I work in Sandbox and I copy my code every day, just in case.

So my questions are:

1) might my Sandbox page also be deleted. 2) I am wondering what to expect when I click "Submit your draft for Review"; I am hoping I will have a chance to correct whatever is required.

Many thanks, and of course I appreciate any feedback.

very best wishes, Michael —This unsigned comment was added by Mlaucke (talkcontribs) at 06:58, February 3, 2015‎.

That seems like a Wikipedia article, not a dictionary article. Wiktionary is a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

tomate de colgar[edit]

The original user (WF) translated this is "hanging tomato", although there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that name being used. Any ideas what was going through his head at the time of creating? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A Google Image search for "tomate de colgar" turns up bunches of tomatoes hanging on vines like grapes. In some cases, they seem to have been strung onto artificial vines (for storage?). - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a tomato varietal grown around Alcalà de Xivert, Province of Valencia, Catalonia, and Majorca. In English, garland tomato. —Stephen (Talk) 07:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

depict pronunciation[edit]

currently the first vowel is given as [ɪ], based on my own pronunciation I believe it is more accurately [ɨ]. (in english linguistics this is used to represent a vowel in free variation between [ɪ] and [ə].) Can someone check a definitive dictionary about this?

It's your ass[edit]

I'm wondering about expressions like "If anyone finds out, it's your ass". I think they are idiomatic and reasonably common, and don't seem to be explained by ass. Should there be an entry for be someone's ass? Siuenti (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Never heard it. Is this an elliptical form of "it's your ass on the line", or "it's your ass that's going to get kicked", or some such? Equinox 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. I would have said it's the same as "be fucked", dictionary.com has a less vulgar definition under it's one's ass [27]. These quotes might help:
"Tell him to do what ever it takes to close that loan or it's his ass" [28]
"There is a lot of deterrents for a QB to override the last play of the super bowl, even if the called play is dumb. If things don't pan out, it's his ass." [29]
" He’s stuck on the shitty missions, in all of the danger, and if something happens, it’s his ass, because he’s not worth saving in their eyes" [30]
Siuenti (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it certainly came from something like "it's your ass on the line". Of course can be pluralized, used with many possessives, and with any tense of be, eg. "It would have been the whole team's asses had it failed". DCDuring TALK 00:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a sense at ass for "one's self or person". That seems close to what this phrase is saying: i.e. it's you, it's your problem, or your responsibility, or your whatever. Equinox 00:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I thinks it's a bit more specific than that. We should add a sense to ass#Etymology 2 like "responsibility; jeopardy".
If we were to add a phrasal idiom I conclude that it would be be one's ass with lots of redirects thereto. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In a related question, how should we categorize the similar phrase "to have someone's ass," as in "They'll have my ass if I don't get this report in on time"? Do we think that this form came from a transitivization of the phrase "It's my ass" or from a different usage? JohnC5 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Possibly a vulgar modification of "they'll have your head" (on a spear, on a platter, etc.). Sometimes people just change a word for a rude word, as in "can't be fucked" for "can't be bothered". Equinox 01:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. JohnC5 01:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

science questions[edit]

Q.1. what is fungi ?

Q.2. what is algae?

Q.4. why did potato regarding modified stem ?

Q.5. what is perculation ?Italic text--Anjalikumari090 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)anjali

fungi — any of a large group of eukaryotic, unicellular, multicellular, or syncytial spore-producing organisms that feed on organic matter, including molds, yeast, mushrooms, and toadstools.
algae — any of a large group of simple eukaryotic nonflowering plants that includes the seaweeds and many single celled forms. Algae contain chlorophyll but lack true stems, roots, leaves, and vascular tissue.
why did potato regarding modified stem (incomprehensible; it is not English)
percolation is the process of a liquid passing slowly through a filter. —Stephen (Talk) 06:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:on the defensive[edit]

Linking to a question on Talk:on the defensive. Someone left a frustrated message on Wiktionary:Feedback#Talk:on_the_defensive --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit, this message of yours amused me (though I’m still depressed). --Romanophile (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Romanophile: Why did it amuse you? Were you the one who left the message in Wiktionary:Feedback? I only copied the question to a better location, where it has a better chance to be answered. I have no opinion (or interest, sorry) on the substance of the question. It's up to you to follow it up or expand the topic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a prepositional phrase. Almost all of them can be used both adverbially or after some copulative verbs, almost always after forms of be. "Prepositional phrase" is a better L3 header. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


The entry for "primally" lists it under the heading "Adjective" even though it is clearly an adverb. However, the hot links at the bottom of the entry include "English Adverbs" rather than "English Adjectives" -- the entire entry needs to be reconfigured somehow. Also, the entry for "primal" lacks a link to "primally."

Fixed. It was only the "Adjective" header that was wrong: the entry was created that way, apparently as an absent-minded error that no one else noticed. Thanks for letting us know. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

battle of the bulge[edit]

Should we include "battle of the bulge" under battle of the bulge or just at bulge? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Do we consider "battle" to be idiomatic? Purplebackpack89 04:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't it a WWII term? I think it is used now in cases where someone has too much around their middle, and would like to get rid of it. I could consider it to be an idiomatic term in today's usage. Donnanz (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I would consider it idiomatic. It is used to reference a back-and-forth effort at weight loss, but named for a World War II battle that is increasingly obsolete to modern youth. bd2412 T 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a cliche already. It must be idiomatic. We should memorialize so someone unfamiliar with the allusion to Battle of the Bulge will understand it as dated or soon to become so. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with its origin. Perhaps someone could help me create an entry for it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've given it a go Purplebackpack89 22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well done, but it may need some fine tuning, especially the plural. Donnanz (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

shower tea[edit]

Neenish tart is said to have originated when someone was preparing for "an unexpected shower tea". What is a shower tea? All I can come up with is "a tea-time taken while in the shower", but that seems implausible both in context and, for that matter, out of context. - -sche (discuss) 09:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be Australian term for what Americans would call a bridal shower. 1 2 3 Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Aha! Thank you both for the explanation. - -sche (discuss) 19:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

storm in a teacup[edit]

Why has it been redirected to storm in a tea-kettle? (a term I'm not familiar with). I think it may be a British term, and should be treated accordingly. Donnanz (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I woulda thought it should be redirected to tempest in a teapot. Purplebackpack89 18:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoever did it was rather naughty to say the least. I think there should be a separate entry, saying it's a British term, THEN refer it to wherever. Too much of this goes on, it's upsetting the natives. Donnanz (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there's no entry for upset the natives either. Donnanz (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, only variants of long idioms and verb-based idioms (couldn't punch one's way out of a paper bag) get hard-redirected; variants of short nounal idioms like this (and like e.g. give a rat's ass) get soft-redirected. So, yes, this shouldn't be a hard redirect. But sorting things out is made complicated by the fact that there are two entries to which various forms are redirecting; ugh. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So how do you undo the dirty work? I think it's beyond my powers. Donnanz (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe hard redirects should be banned / outlawed altogether, or is that a subject for the Beer Parlour? Donnanz (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
To "undo" a hard redirect, you just go to it (and get redirected to another page, but then click the small "redirected from" link at the top of the page to get back to the redirect...which admittedly seems to have become slightly more difficult after one of the recent software changes) and replace the "#REDIRECT" text with some other text. (Or you go to the redirect using this format: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=forget,_when_up_to_one%27s_neck_in_alligators,_that_the_mission_is_to_drain_the_swamp&redirect=no)
Hard redirects are "mostly banned" already; the two circumstances where there seems to be agreement that they're good are, as I mentioned, long idioms (forget, when up to one's eyes in alligators, that the mission is to drain the swampforget, when up to one's neck in alligators, that the mission is to drain the swamp) and verbal idioms with pronoun and tense and object changes (burn his fingersburn one's fingers, ). In my experience most existing hard redirects date from 4+ years ago, like this one did. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@-ische: I didn't realise that you'd already undone the hard redirect (while I was tucked up in my bed). Many thanks!! Donnanz (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Declension of ales in Romanian[edit]


I am not 100% sure, but I think I detected a mistake in the declension table of the word "ales" in Romanian. According to http://dexonline.ro/definitie/ales the feminine indefinite singular should be aleasă (not alesă). Now... I don't know how to change this on the wiktionary page, because it is not a table but a template.

Thank you.

number one[edit]

Is a sense missing here - e.g. as in "enemy number one"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by def #2, the one who is at the top of a ranking? Purplebackpack89 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I think it's not. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be either noun def 2, or an adjective(?) version of noun def 2. (But perhaps the definition could be worded better.) It doesn't seem substantively different from "he's our number one suspect", "prior to 2011, bin Laden was fugitive number one", "X was our number one informant", "neenish tarts are Australia's number one export", etc. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, probably adjective section is needed. From Google: (adjective sense, here with a hyphen): most important or prevalent; foremost: "a number-one priority". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Noyau is in Wiktionary but the entry carries only a definition that refers to a liqueur. Noyau is French for "core" and is a scientific term for "a social structure in which a male's territory overlaps the smaller territories of several females," according to http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/glossary#N.

Thanks! I've added that to the page. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of redact are sorted oddly, new definition[edit]

I had thought that dictionary definitions are supposed to be sorted by popularity of use. The first six definitions of redact are all labeled as obsolete, the seventh is (I believe) bordering on obsolete, the eighth is labeled as rare, and the last two (#9 and #10) are the only forms of the word that are at all common.

Those are close to the definition I was trying to link; as a security professional, sometimes it is necessary for me to redact a malicious link. One common form of that would be e.g. hxxp://evil.example.com, which should not be interpreted as a link (thus you cannot accidentally click on it and get infected). This is a somewhat common practice; just search for "hxxp".

I am requesting a reordering of the definitions (something like 9,10,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6) and the addition of the security usage. I'm not performing the edits myself because I'm not sure my understanding of ordering is correct, and I'm not decided on whether my new definition should be a part of #9 or #10 or whether all three should be merged since the principle is the same: content removed to protect some interest, such as censorship, privacy, legal protections, or security threats. (Another example that doesn't fit into the existing definitions: some Jews redact "God" as "G-d") Adam KatzΔ 19:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Most (although not all!) users here agree that it's not very user-friendly to put obsolete terms at the top. I've reordered the page, and made the definitions slightly more general so that they should cover the computer security and the religious case as well. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that will do, even though it's still rather specific about the usage (which doesn't cover security threats). Adam KatzΔ 23:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

working committee[edit]

What does "working" mean in the term "working committee"? Seems we don't have this sense of working on Wiktionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A committee which is working on a particular matter? Governments seem to use them a lot. Donnanz (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It could be in more than one ordinary sense of 'working'. Inn that it contrasts with standing committee which uses standing in the archaic sense of "permanent". DCDuring TALK 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


I would regard it as a suffix, rather than a postpositive adjective. Donnanz (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's probably a better characterization of what it has become. Formerly it was a preposition phrase, sometimes used as if a sentence adverb, as well as otherwise as if an adjective or adverb.
Incidentally it is productive, as evidenced by such terms as dog-in-law and others to be found here at OneLook, some only at Urban Dictionary. Apparently "Related by marriage" has now been generalized to mean "Associated indirectly by marriage, a sexual relationship, or otherwise." in some of these cases, while retaining its narrower, traditional meaning for most speakers. One can find similar generalizations such as granddog "dog belonging to one's child". DCDuring TALK 18:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the most bizarre in that list is "urinal-in-law". Anyway, shall I change it? It occurred to me that a list of words suffixed with -in-law would also be useful, as I have done with sviger- in Norwegian. Donnanz (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


This entry was altered from Schwieger- last year by a Japanese user. I have read the reference left in the history, but this is only used with nouns, so was this a useful change or not? My Duden is no help. Donnanz (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, schwieger- is found on adjectives like schwiegermütterlich (mother-in-lawish) (even though it's pretty clearly Schwiegermutter + -lich, not schwieger- + mütterlich), so it can be lower-case. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, that's not shown in Duden either. I only found schwieger- when adding to the translations for -in-law. I don't think it should have been altered without leaving a redirect; it wasn't very joined-up thinking. Donnanz (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Schwieger (feminine noun), which is shown in Duden Online, is an outdated term for Schwiegermütter. Donnanz (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be lowercase, for reasons outlined on Talk:ur-. Namely, compounds like Schwiegermutter are not Schwieger- + mutter(!), they're schwieger- + Mutter + (rule that the first letter of a noun is capitalised, and not other letters). - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
R-right, but bearing in mind case sensitivity versus user friendliness I feel a redirect from Schwieger- is also desirable. However not all German -in-law words use schwieger-, see Schwägerin for instance. Donnanz (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary. Searching for Schwieger- will find schwieger-, and people are far more likely to search for the whole words than for the prefix anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, you're right. I had to alter the etymology for "sviger-" though. Donnanz (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Is it just me, or do the first two senses have the same meaning? Also, if the second sense is countable, why is the example given ("experience has taught me...") uncountable? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't just you, but MW Online has eight definitions to our four:
"1a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
"1b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
"2a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity
"2b : the length of such participation <has 10 years' experience in the job>
"3a : the conscious events that make up an individual life
"3b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally
"4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
"5 : the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality"
4 is the only one that seems clearly countable to me, perhaps 5 as well.
I don't think that the edit adding the countable/uncountable labels and adding indefinite articles was good, not that I'm sure the entry before the edit was in good shape. There needed to be usage examples, if not actual citations, to illustrate each usage. And there probably weren't enough definitions. The entry needs revision. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you could help with this. After all, "experience" is one of the commonest words in the English language. We really should get this entry right. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How, according to measurable evidence, is "experience" one of the commonest words in English? Equinox 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We should get every entry right for all wordterms in all languages for all users in everybody's opinion now. 03:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Call me crazy, but I consider it a very common word. Surely you're not arguing it's rare or uncommon. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Nothing about the Baltimore gender-neutral slang pronoun? A comment on this article makes an interesting observation about the Haitian Creole pronoun yo meaning "they". Makes you wonder if perhaps the similarity just might be more than an accident. See also Language Log. Has there been any follow-up research on it? Perhaps there are sentences where yo is truly ambiguous between interjection and pronoun, providing a possible pivot. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's right there, sense 2 under pronoun. I find the Haitian derivation a bit dubious - Baltimore doesn't seem to have a very large Haitian population, compared to other cities in the Northeast or Florida. It's not unheard of for pronouns to jump around in terms of case, person and number (e.g. the royal/editorial we, the Scouse us, the singular they), so it seems at least plausible that a pronoun might go from second person to third person (although not quite the same, the Irish your man is a similar sort of development). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It makes more sense to me as a derivative from the look-at-me attention-getting sense via look-at-that-one. But that's just an untested hypothesis. The borrowing of Haitian into AAVE seems implausible for social reasons even if there were a Haitian population in Baltimore. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

spare wheel, spare tire, spare tyre[edit]

Spare tyre is an acknowledged misnomer for spare wheel, so should the translations be moved to spare wheel (a more neutral term anyway), just leaving the ones for extra fat behind? Donnanz (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If spare tyre and spare tire were not misnomers for spare wheel, they would be SoP, as spare wheel is. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question. I don't think there is any doubt that all these terms should be kept. Are you trying to say "No, it's not feasible"? I am disinclined to enter translations for spare wheel under spare tyre. Donnanz (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I am saying that we shouldn't have spare wheel as it is absolutely transparent. It is also vastly less common than spare tire in US usage when referring to a wheel carried as a spare in a car (172:2 at COCA). At BNC spare tyre and spare wheel are roughly equal. What have your researches found? DCDuring TALK 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I must admit that the only research I have done is in Oxford (both Br. and Am. sides), and Cambridge; they both list spare tyre and spare tire but ignore spare wheel, which doesn't help my cause. I'm retired now, but spent many years in the motor trade (a British term?), and I think both terms are used interchangeably, but I personally prefer spare wheel. When a wheel is taken off a vehicle and replaced by the spare wheel, the removed wheel automatically becomes the spare wheel, even if it needs a new tyre. Because spare wheel isn't used much in Am. English, it isn't grounds for deletion, I think all three terms should be kept for the sake of completeness, regardless of soppiness. This policy regarding SoP terms can be Wiktionary's worst enemy if taken too far. And what about spare part? A spare part once it is fitted is no longer a spare part, unlike a spare wheel, which remains the same even if it's a different wheel than before (as long as there is a spare wheel, manufacturers are trying to do away with them). On a different subject, I entered trolley jack today after some deliberation, as it doesn't meet the normal concept of trolley, and is just one of the many meanings for jack. Donnanz (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If, in someone's native language the word for what I would call a spare tire is a single word that is composed of morphemes for spare and wheel and they find "spare wheel" as the definition in Wiktionary, they may be surprised, even mystified, when they subsequently encounter spare tire or spare tyre.
Compare spare tire at OneLook Dictionary Search and spare tyre at OneLook Dictionary Search with spare wheel at OneLook Dictionary Search. Many dictionaries have a full entry for spare tire. Only Collins has a full entry for spare wheel. BTW, we are already doing the world a service by being explicit about spare tire/spare tyre normally including the wheel. Surprisingly few of the OneLook dictionaries make that clear. Also, given your years in the car/auto/automobile racket/game/business/industry you might want to make this industry glossary a favorite in your browser. (It's one of the OneLook references too.) It is one of the best industry-specific glossaries I've seen.
One good reason to keep spare wheel is its widespread use in UK usage where the US would have the misnomer (with few exceptions). If large groups of people allegedly speaking the same language are in the position of saying "They call it 'X', but we call it 'Y'.", there's a good case for including both 'X' and 'Y' in Wiktionary, even if one is SoP. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

empirical evidence[edit]

Where is the entry for empirical evidence? There is a corresponding entry for anecdotal evidence. I came here from the wikipedia entry, but found only a special page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A dictionary is focused on words, not concepts that cannot be defined in one- or two-line definitions. Would it be handy for users such as you if a search for a term with multiple words did not yield an exact match generated something that provided links to the component terms, ie, to empirical and evidence. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I have split the interwiki link at w:Empirical evidence to interwiki links to [[empirical]] and [[evidence]]. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sports definition of bib[edit]

Looking at the page here: bib

I see there is no definition for "bib" that includes the use of a "bib number" in sports. Where a contestant at an event is expected to wear a "bib number" or "bib" to identify them separately from the other contestants. 14:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

for the love of god[edit]

someone help me out with this guy [31] [32] Equinox 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've RFVed enough things lately, and enough things by this user, that I'd like to leave RFVing this to someone else, but...is this even attested? I'm not seeing any uses on Google Books or Groups or Issuu. (Btw, the only significant page on it I've found, this non-durable one, confirms it's an adjective.) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Sense 1 bothers me:

  1. A person who carries the professional title of sniper.

It seems bad form to use a word to define itself. “Sniper means a person called a sniper.” The tautology is problematic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, It needs to be deleted - but you then have to figure out the translation sections. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it refers to people who are members of a team or squadron of snipers, but is not a sniper himself, such as a spotter. If kept, it definitely needs rewording and to be moved after the other senses. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We can do for the entry what Writer's Cramp, for some reason, failed to do: RfV the questionable senses or build a full entry by looking at the full range of uses in some corpera. It is a topical word, worth some effort. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted the recursive sense and sorted its translations into the appropriate tables. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we would do justice to the term by having its sense evolution in English. I haven't yet attested all the senses, but candidates would be: "One who hunts snipes", "A marksman", "one who shoots at persons from a concealed position, especially one so trained in combat or in police service", "one who snipes ('criticizes')". DCDuring TALK 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Also, "an w:auction sniper" and/or "a w:bid sniper". DCDuring TALK 22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    sniper in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 (Supplement) has a couple more. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


The etymology of аскер (asker) is wrongly attributed to Latin Exercitus instead of Turkish (Asker) which is derived from Arabic (Askar) which is derived from Persian (Lashkar). See Ottoman Askar at @ عسكر (asker). -- —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:44, 2015 February 9‎.

You are right. I have updated the etymology with a reference. PS. In the future such comments belong in WT:ES. --Vahag (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


This descendant tree is suspect. Could someone look over that (and probably remove all the arrows as well)? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think it’s suspect? — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, why do you? I have added references. --Vahag (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The tree isn't "suspect" to me (although it is very interesting); the arrows are a bit suss though. What do they mean, I wonder? This, that and the other (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Arrows mean "borrowed", as apposed to "inherited". This practice is unofficial. We can make it official or devise something better. --Vahag (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Monosyllabic meus, tuus, suus?[edit]

In some of the Romance languages, the accusative forms of these pronouns preserve the final -m: French mon, ton, son, Catalan mon, ton, son (alongside meu, teu, seu). The Strasbourg oaths attest the early form meon, which still preserves the diphthong. I would imagine that this is only possible if the words were monosyllabic originally, as in this case the -m was preserved as a normal consonant rather than becoming a nasal vowel. Compare for example rien < rem. So is there anything that is known about this? —CodeCat 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

pronunciation of ogin - the sea[edit]

My father was in submarines in royal navy and pronounced this like. log in. without the L

I dimly recall the three simple rules of sailing

1. keep the crew in 2. keep the ogin out 3. don't bump into anything

can't remember origin of rules

Thanks, I've added that pronunciation to ogin. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


I am having trouble with this entry. As I see it the definitions are all worded as if the verb is intransitive. But by simply inserting parentheses around the word "something" in the definition the definitions could be read as being transitive. There are no usage labels, usage examples, or citations to help clarify. As best I can determine, the word is almost exclusively used in academic works, especially in philosophy and philosophical theology. It seems to only have to do with the content of conscious thought or of discussion.

Does anyone have some familiarity with the term who can clear this up? The problem I'm having with the entry doesn't fit what RfC is supposed to do. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have taken a run at two new definitions, but I don't think I've capture the full range of use. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

-@: the suffix[edit]

So, when I was creating the entries for Chicano studies and Chicana studies, I noticed that Chican@ studies is an alternative name for the discipline. So that got me thinking, "is -@ a gender-neutral suffix?" And in what language? English? Spanish? Inter? Purplebackpack89 17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a suffix because you don't form Chican@ by adding @ to "Chican". It's a blend of a and o, supposed to highlight gender-neutrality. There's also Latin@ (again, Latina/Latino). Equinox 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
But, by that logic, -o and -a are also not suffixes... Purplebackpack89
You have to think about how the word is formed. A suffix is a morpheme added at the end of an existing word. @ isn't used that way for the reason I gave. The words Chicano, Latina, etc. were borrowed into English from Spanish, as entire existing words, so that suggests -a and -o are not suffixes in English (though they might be in Spanish; I don't speak it). Equinox 17:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Many morphologists distinguish between suffixes and endings; suffixes alter the meaning of the root, while endings don't (instead they mark grammatical functions like case, gender, number, person, etc.). By that definition, Spanish -a and -o are endings, not suffixes. However, we don't seem to make that distinction here, as we have a fair number of ===Suffix=== entries for endings in various languages, not to mention various categories "Fooish words suffixed with -blah" where -blah is an ending. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Part of that is due to all the affix templates: they make it too easy to make morphology-based etymologies without thinking about/understanding the nature of the morphemes. I work a lot with Special:WantedCategories, and I prefer to stay away from the "<Language> words <affix>ed with -foo" redlinks- more often than not they're bogus, but it's not always obvious how to fix them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

advance person[edit]

How can this be considered a politically correct term? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Some people think that any use of person where one might use man is political correctness. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Would we feel better if we put this in a category called gender-neutral, linked to the current category? DCDuring TALK 13:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is certainly not "politically correct", and "politically correct" is itself a POV (pejorative) term, so I question if it's appropriate to have a "politically correct" category at all, particularly without references to support the claim that the terms in the category are "politically correct".
Putting this term in a category for gender-neutral terms would be preferable to leaving it where it is now, although simply removing the category might be the best option, and is what I've done. (I remember Equinox having to remove "grandparent" from the "PC terms" category!) A category for gender-neutral terms would be hard to name, define, and maintain in such a way that anons wouldn't add terms like doctor and armadillo and most other words for people and animals to it. - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

white vinegar[edit]

Should we include this term on Wiktionary? It's arguably more than just vinegar that looks white/clear, right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should. White vinegar is not white, it’s clear, and it is a particular type of vinegar, with its own flavor and uses. —Stephen (Talk) 06:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Added a quick definition. Feel free to improve. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! Still amazes me after so many years of hard work you still from time to time come across simple, every day words we haven't got entries for. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's not so surprising: people tend to concentrate on the interesting terms, and don't bother with the plain old ordinary ones. There's also an element of what was referred to in the old quote: "We don’t know who it was discovered water, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a fish". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Two separate etymologies, but several overlapping and duplicated meanings. Equinox 03:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The first three sense of etymology 1 look like they should be merged into etymology 2, which lacks the box-for-tea sense that the Online Ety. Dict. says it should have. As no definition will actually be deleted, I don't think even those here who are legalistically inclined can validly object. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

About parallelogramma[edit]

On the article about parallelogramma it says the plural is "parallelogramme". It also says the form "parallelogrammo" is a variant. Now, both Treccani and my Devoto-Oli vocabulary seem to think "parallelogramma" is the variant and "parallelogrammo" is more correct. This is consistent with the etymology: "parallelogrammum" gives "parallelogrammo", whereas "parallelogramma" must be a misuse of the plural form. I for one have been taught to say "parallelogrammo", not "parallelogramma". The etimo.it Etymological Dictionary doesn't even 'have' the form "parallelogramma", whereas it has "parallelogrammo". This seems to confirm the idea that the "-a" form should be marked as a variant of the "-o" form, not vice versa, as is now. Also, both me and my brother, who are mother-tongue in Italian, sort of started when we heard the form "parallelogramme" as the plural of "parallelogramma", since we never heard it once, and though we know of the variant in the singular, the plural never exhibited this variation as far as we heard. Neither Treccani nor the Devoto-Oli report this form. It is my impression that this for is either an invention of the Wiktionary, or an incredibly rare and non-standard form, perhaps even incorrect. I therefore ask if someone could verify how much of what I think is correct and edit the articles accordingly, replying here to notify me, in particular, about the plural form. MGorrone (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Parallelogrammo seems to be almost twice as common as parallelogramma, so I support making it the main entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

strap or loop for hanging a towel[edit]

How do you call in English the little strap or loop that is often sewn in the corner or edge of a towel for hanging it up on a peg? Is a similar loop in a jacket etc. called the same? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's just called a hanging loop. Same for a jacket. Equinox 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Our definition at hanging loop was overly specific. A pendant, a picture frame, a hammer can have one.
An appropriately generalized definition starts to look SoP, only justified by translations. Normal practice for determining the meaning of a noun phrase like this is to determine which of a limited set of relationships is possible between the components, ie, "a loop that hangs", "a loop for hanging (object under discussion)", "a loop for hanging (execution)", "a loop (circuit) inventing by Han-ging", "a loop has a process hung up (ie, infinite loop)", etc. What makes this definition special lexicographically? It's not in hanging loop at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Mm, the construction is similar to "walking shoes" or "cooking ingredients" (i.e. Y intending for Xing — not Y that Xes, as in "a walking man"). Equinox 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
At least this sort of entries will help the learners of English. This is an example of a simple everyday item, the name of which is self-evident for the native speakers and grammatically a SOP, yet very difficult for a non-native to deduce or guess. Another example of such term is spare wheel, which is being discussed a few lines up. If I had to guess, I would probably call it "reserve tire". When using it, I would probably be understood, but might collect a few questioning looks. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't aware of the term "hanging loop" when I read your initial query, and had to use search engines to verify the term that people use for it! Equinox 22:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware of any term for it, either. As for spare wheel: I've never heard one called that, though, strictly speaking, that's what they are. I've only heard them referred to as spare tires, and I doubt anyone outside of automotive professions would call them spare wheels. I think it's just one more example of technically-incorrect usage overwhelming attempts to "correct" it. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only speak for US usage, though- elsewhere, it may be different. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll use "hanging loop" as translation for raksi. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


A poem by Walt Whitman mentions "the red cedar festoon'd with tylandria". What is that? A Google search only seems to turn up Tylandria as an African-American female name. Equinox 06:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

spanish moss, according to this[33]Pengo (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
As to where the term came from, I can't find a trace of it in the usual botanical sources- or much of anywhere, really. The term does sound vaguely like the real taxonomic name (Tillandsia usneoides), so it's conceivable that w:Frederick Law Olmstead misremembered it, and Whitman used the name from the descriptions of southern scenery in Olmstead's newspaper dispatches- but that's just an unsupported hunch. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


What's the word for when the police scour an area looking for clues? Is there a noun for that? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

comb, search, examine minutely, go through with a fine-tooth comb. The noun could be search: following the search, the suspect was arrested. —Stephen (Talk) 12:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you thinking of a stakeout, maybe? Where they snoop and sleuth about for clues? Tharthan (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
In the UK, this is a fingertip search - American English doesn't appear to have an equivalent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It exists where I live, but it doesn't have any name as far as I am aware. Police investigators go in and scan the crime scene. Again, no name that I am aware of. Tharthan (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
American crime serials tend to use the word canvass as in "The police canvassed the neighborhood." JohnC5 01:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That refers to interviewing people, not to searching. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, duh. JohnC5 02:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbian љ analogy to "ll" Spanish is not accurate[edit]

Hello, good day, I just wanted to ask for a review. The content is not true. I am a native Spanish speaker, I am living in Serbia and this is not the sound that we have in "ll". That sound does not exist in Spanish and the sound of "ll" in my language sounds more like Serbian "ђ" letter. 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Juan Carlos Martínez

It depends what dialect of Spanish you speak. There are certainly some Spanish speakers who pronounce words like llave with a sound very much like Serbian љ, although that pronunciation seems to be losing ground in both Spain and the Americas. We'd probably be better off comparing Serbian љ to Italian gl, since the sound is much more robust in Italian than it seems to be in Spanish. What page did you find the comparison to Spanish on? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
љ. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The correct pronunciation of Spanish ll is only losing ground if one speaks a weak idiolect of Spanish. c and z being /θ/ and /ð/, as well as ll being /ʎ/ are still the right ways to pronounce those sounds (although Rioplantense isn't too bad either with certain sounds. I could go for that if necessary [not that I'm any linguistic authority or anything. This is just my personal opinion]). Tharthan (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Can anyone work out the specific meaning(s) of this verb? See google books:"Jesused" and google books:"Jesusing" (there also seem to be quite a few derivations, like re-Jesus and un-Jesus).

  • I've heard it used in the context of sports, e.g. "they trailed by twenty points until the last two minutes, then Jesused (or Jesused out) a win", where it seems to mean something like "to accomplish (by) miracles in the manner of Jesus", but I'm not sure if that sense is attested (maybe on Usenet?).
  • "in class rooms across America each and every year ... there is always one child being Jesused" seems to mean "subjected to Jesus / Christian teachings" or (based on the following sentence) "made to suffer like Jesus".
  • "He didn't seem to be all Jesused out anymore — alcohol was once again his crutch of choice" maybe means "religiously Christian"?

- -sche (discuss) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that your third example is really Jesus out, and is probably somewhat parallel to phrases like max out. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

horseshoes and hand-grenades[edit]

I think there should be an entry to explain sayings along the lines of "close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades". Siuenti (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We have close only counts in horseshoes. Purplebackpack89 04:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


The use of the word "wode" that is most familiar to me is as the name (one name, also "woad") of the blue dye with which British aborignes painted themselves when going to battle. But reference to that appears nowhere in the Wiktionary entry for "wode". Why? Andyvphil (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Because Wiktionary awaits contributions from folks like you. Yes check.svg Done DCDuring TALK 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a "downward dog"? Do we care?[edit]

I was puzzled by the phrase used in this BBC News article 'Yoga pants': Are leggings and other tight trousers indecent?, in the context of leggings recalled by their manufacturer in 2013 "because wear over time led to sheerness (and subsequently awkward downward dogs)."

I don't remember ever hearing of "downward dogs", though I accept that I tend to glaze over when people start discussing fashion (or indeed yoga), and it doesn't seem to fit with any definitions we already have. I've thought of several possibilities:

  • It is a misprint -- but I can't think what it should have been.
  • It's a nonce abusage of the English language, which we can ignore, particularly as it's more opaque than the leggings.
  • The "sheerness", appearing at awkward times, was a similar shape to laddering of tights, and is being likened to frankfurters (or even wieners).
  • Dog means "penis" (or is that my imagination -- we don't include it yet) and men are (strangely) being turned off in the bedroom by patches of "sheerness"
  • Dog can now mean a furtive glance.
  • Downward can now be an adjective meaning "below the waist", complemented by dogs meaning "people unpleasant to look at", who are therefore embarrassed.
  • Or just possibly, downward dog is a phrase which has been used for years, with a meaning too NSoP for me to guess, and is therefore a phrase we should include.

Any ideas? --Enginear 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It is the technical term for a yoga pose, being to place ones hands and feet on the ground, and make a Lamda shape with one's bottom in the air. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- I must have miss-keyed when searching for downward dog the first time. It seems to fall into my last category, and indeed we already have it -- and it falls into the category of yoga-speak which, when I know the context, causes me to "switch off". Oh well! --Enginear 01:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you knew it better under its "English" synonym adho mukha shvanasana. Why would we call this English? I'm glad it's still a redlink. It's more grist for the Romanized Sanskrit mill. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


The pronunciation given seems rather implausible: I'm finding it hard to imagine any speaker of contemporary English (even a conservative RP speaker) producing "/gju:/", and if they did, I doubt they'd follow it up with a short "/æ/". Is this a valid pronunciation anywhere? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a simple, albeit strange, error for /ˈɡu.læɡ/ (maybe someone assumed all /Cu/s optionally have /j/?), which some dictionaries list as an alternative to /ˈɡu.lɑg/. - -sche (discuss) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Emotionless/Neutral Face[edit]

What is another way of saying a "neutral" or "emotionless" face that doesn't sound cold (emotionless is a bit of a cold word)?

Expressionless, maybe? Tharthan (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


"A boy with qualities that are allegedly girl-like, especially squeamishness."
I get that people sometimes derogatorily call boys "girls", but I dispute that that's actually a separate sense — it seems to mean that the people are, well, calling the boys "girls" in that word's usual sense. Compare all the American movies that depict drill sergeants calling male recruits "ladies", "women", etc. Thoughts? - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is not a separate sense. It is a usage point relating to the ordinary sense. 01:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree - it's just sarcastic, like calling a stupid person Einstein or Sherlock. Doesn't literally mean that Einstein and Sherlock mean "stupid person". Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Me too. DCDuring TALK 04:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I've removed the sense in question. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


I imagine this entry was generated by an algorithm, this seems really silly though. Has anyone ever seen this word before? I suggest it be removed, it's really excessive. —This unsigned comment was added by Telmac (talkcontribs) at 16:39, 2015 February 19.


Its part of speech is given as "Numeral", so there is no link to millions, which is a "Noun". How to resolve? Equinox 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe it needs to have both a noun section and a numeral section? Ten does, although not in the way I would expect — I would have expected a noun sense to cover uses like "tens of people attended the rally". Or perhaps the numeral template needs to allow a plural form to be set, to cover uses like the one in millions? google books:"threes of", google books:"sevens of" suggests that many numbers can be pluralized while still referring to a quantity. Small numbers can also be pluralized while referring to glyphs (e.g. "she drew her nines like gs"). - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper poster, headline poster or what?[edit]

Löpsedlar från 31 juli 2007 om Ingmar Bergmans död.

How do you call a poster that promotes a particular issue of a newspaper at newsstands (see pic)? Google searches for "newspaper poster" and "headline poster" produce right-looking hits, but they do not seem to be as directly to the point as Finnish lööppi, and the number of hits looks modest as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe broadside. DCDuring TALK 07:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 Newspaper posters on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons: Newspaper posters DCDuring TALK 07:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Majority of the pictures here are not ads for individual issues of a newspaper but for the newspaper as a whole. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Headline poster" seems to be the dominant term. I'm now disappointed that we don't have a better word for it in English (and also that lööppi doesn't have an entry, so I can't look up its etymology). Pengo (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Lööppi is now added. According to the Swedish Wikipedia the UK term is "newspaper billboard poster", or "newspaper billboard", which gets support from the BBC [34]. Further, the Swedish Wikipedia states that this type of billboards are used only in a relatively small number of countries and in most countries the front page of the newspaper would double as an ad. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


aintno dim/plural! 06:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should there be? It's the name of a dialect. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

sur-pl.luk@theprompt[i/daENTRYimade[nitsmynativLANGUAG[dad=y.iteluppl2talk~LECTSsigh163.32.124.124 07:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that a native speaker of Dutch has tagged Brabans for speedy deletion as a misspelling of Brabants. I assume the question of whether or not it has a plural applies as much to the spelling Brabants as to Brabans. What does our other Dutch speaker, @CodeCat:, think? - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I deleted it. It's a misspelling, at least for Dutch. It might be a Brabantian spelling, but we don't recognise that as a language, nor is there any standard or written tradition for it. —CodeCat 14:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wijf#Dutch <usag-ex


IFso,thenpartofmyeditnedsundon+theusagnotmovdbelo http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Brabantian#English anothrpairofeyes'db.gud:) 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

k,ifelthishascontradictni/it n


Mike, United Nations

proper noun (plural proper nouns)

   A noun denoting a particular person, place, organization, ship, animal, event, or other individual entity.

Usage notes Main appendix: English proper nouns <MISPLACED??

In English, a proper noun normally is not preceded by an article or limiting modifier and is written with an initial capital letter. NOARTICL,THENaBrabantian=noproper1,buthenWICHPARTICULRPERSON[S[c.def=PROPERNOUNS??[ilukd@history+bergarden,thistopik[proprnoun]dunsemclear/diverginopinions..acivildiscusion+[re]solutn'db.nice[nimightlearnsth.myslfofkors:) 08:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

k,dad=mybestshot[c.history,othrppl.welkom! 08:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
WTF? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the user is asking why the "person from Brabant" sense of "Brabantian" is not a proper noun? Or perhaps why the language sense is a proper noun? "Person from Brabant" is a common noun because it's clearly very countable; just ask the Brabantians (any two Brabantians, your nearest Brabantian, etc). The language, in turn, is labelled a proper noun because Wiktionary currently labels languages proper nouns, but see Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Languages_-_are_they_proper_nouns_or_not.3F for discussion of this. - -sche (discuss) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

scatophagous vs coprophagous[edit]

It seems to me that these two words are functionally equivalent in technical usage certainly. I have checked and found that there never since the early 19th century has been a time when scatophag-- and its derivatives came anywhere close to the frequency of coprophag-- derived terms. In fact one really has to search for functional instances in most periods; in modern times a google search records it mainly in dictionaries and similar philological works! Henceforth I shall make a personal point of not using scato when copro is a reasonable alternative, but I see that the Wiktionary entry for scatophagous links to coprophagous without comment or further definition.

Now, that is not unreasonable and I have no intention of meddling, and I do not propose this in the spirit of imposing "correct" or "approved" usage, but it seems to me that it would be a service in such a case to include a remark to the effect that the usage is unusual and unhelpful in technical works at least.

Comments? Policies? Thanks if so. JonRichfield (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no explicit policies that make a positive recommendation. I agree that in English there are many occasions where some synonyms become so uncommon in use that it seems a disservice to a user to not indicate that in our entry. I recently had occasion to change the use of subterraneous to subterranean in our definitions and to amend the entry for subterraneous to reflect its relatively uncommon use in current English. I doubt that anyone would object to your undertaking the same kind of thing with the words in question. One very useful tool to make sure that you have the facts is Google n-gram viewer. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Chinese requested entries page:

I'm staying out of this one, but just for another opinion, here is a previous message from @Atitarev: "KTV request removed, pls don't restore. Citations are unnecessary, Chinese texts use a lot of English abbreviations in a Chinese texts. They don't need Chinese entries, if an English entry exists. See archived discussions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)" --WikiWinters (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hippietrail: What are you trying to achieve by forcing the abbreviation "KTV" as a Chinese term? What sort of lexicographical research is required? In any case, it's a wrong place for such a discussion. We had an RFV, which resulted in an English entry. I think that's enough. You can restart an RFT, RFV or RFV discussion but I see no point, really. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
What are others trying to achieve by forcing out the term "KTV" as a Chinese term? The sort of lexicographical research required is the same as per any term. Investigating its origins and usage patterns. It's origin is Taiwan in the 1980s, it's mainly used in China, it's barely known to English speakers since it's recently introduced from Chinese culture. All of the quotations in the English entry clearly indicate the references to Chinese culture. There is so far zero evidence to support the theory that "karaoke television" began in English, got shortened to "KTV" in English, and has since been used in Chinese without even being borrowed. All I can tell is that some people don't like foreign words or script being used in Chinese and have prescriptivist objections.
What's more disturbing is the summary dismissals on strawman arguments such as citations not being necessary to decide such things! Such as use a lot of English abbreviations in a Chinese texts means all uses remain Chinese. Despite OK having a Chinese entry here. Despite KTV originating in Taiwan.
When did checking the citations become unnecessary in lexicography? When did finding citations from earlier in history become unnecessary in lexicography?
I'll try to figure out the current official way to restart the RFT/RFV to move this discussion there. In the meantime please do not delete lexicographical evidence without investigating. — hippietrail (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@WikiWinters: Yet you deleted the lexicographical evidence without checking and in direct opposition to your statement "I'm staying out of this one". Bad form. Unprofessional. Dishonest. )-: — hippietrail (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The Chinese term: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%A1%E6%8B%89OK 22:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@ The English term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/karaoke - are you trying to make a point that Chinese doesn't have synonyms? That would be incorrect.
What are you talking about? I never removed any evidence. Unless, of course, you're referring to my removing the entire discussion itself, as, at that time, it had already been moved to the Tea room. If there was lexicographical evidence contained in the text that I removed that hadn't also been moved to the Tea room, then I apologize. I assumed the evidence was moved with it. You added a Tea room direct template that messed up the page, as that template is for specific entries' pages, and so that, along with the fact that it had already be presumably moved in its entirety to the Tea room, or at least should have been, was the reason for which I removed the text. If you're not talking about that, then I don't know what. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I moved the entire discussion. I left the request since it is a genuine request. I left a link to the Tea Room because that's what it looked like I was advised to do. I find all these Wiktionary protocols very murky so I read the docs I can find and do as best I can. I imagine it's very difficult for most people. It's always best when deleting any information to check your assumptions before acting hastily. I can accept your apology but a better way is to help people with the tricky protocols when you understand them better. Maybe this is an opportunity to clarify this "template is for specific entries' pages" part of the documentation. — hippietrail (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And Here are the attestations of early use in Chinese context which was just summarily deleted from the requests page without consideration and without being moved here, by a member of the Wiktionary Chinese clique who claimed to be "staying out of this one"! — hippietrail (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • 大衆傳播與資訊..由於開放報禁,報紙出版之家數增加,而張數也大幅增加,各類型理財與休閒雜誌也大量出現。此外 MTV 、 KTV 與衛星直播電視的興起,使得資訊不易再被壟斷與歪曲。 6 .生活素質..由於國民所得增加,民間消費型態,行與育樂全部消費額的 - 國立台灣師範大學敎育心理學系., 1987
  • ... 例如: PUB 〔註二〕、 KTV 〔註三〕、 MTV 〔註四〕、卡拉 OK 、 GO 〔註五〕 康 V.S. 康寧祥〔註八〕。( 2 22 3 )你時作天有去台南嗎? - 世界華文敎育協進會, 1989
  • 註一、載:在台北一般人稱「我載你去火車站」之用法,正式國語應說成「我途你去火車站。」註二、 PUB 酒廊註三、 KTV 卡拉 OK 配合電視情景與歌詞字幕註四、 MTV 音樂電視註五、 GO 地中海俱樂部團隊領隊註六、 DIY (Doityourself)註七、 PV 人工跑道 - 世界華文敎育協進會, 1989
  • ... 許多人都喜歡下班後喝杯雞尾酒,綺子解工作 娛樂場所除了 MTV ,進展至 KTV 、 DTV 71 「上班族」、「火車族」(指常坐火車的人)、「香腸族」、「火腿族」(指夜間使用. - 世界華文敎育協進會, 1989
  • 曾從事「宗教活助」舌計 7 祁萬人或 53 . 16 % .即半故以上之國人具有宗教信仰.常利用休閒時間從事信仰性之活功.致其排名位居第八。反視最近流行之熱門休閒活劫- . KTV 、 MTV 與卡拉 OK 等,制位有 459 萬 7 千人或 32 . 37 %國人曾從事過該項活劫, ... - Xing zheng yuan zhu ji chu, 1990
It is not my responsibility to make sure that your evidence remains intact. I removed the entire discussion because you added a Tea room template, which wasn't even meant to be placed on such a page, saying that the discussion had been moved. The assumption is that the entire discussion is moved. If I am in the wrong in this case, then I apologize, but I'm not so sure about that. Also, you can always just go to the revision history and pull out your evidence. I didn't "destroy" it or anything of the like, so please do not be hostile. I am neutral in this issue and continue to be. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed the entire discussion. I left the request and the link. You removed the request and the link. I welcome your neutrality and accept your apology. I interpreted hostility and replied defensively because I have several times found my contributions on Chinese summarily reverted though never before by you I believe. At this point I have no idea whether it's OK to reinstate the request or if that too will be interpreted as a hostile act! — hippietrail (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


The sense "One who performs menial or tedious work; a drudge." seems like it would be a better fit to the bee etymology, but I can see how the second etymology might work (the drone on a bagpipe just plays the same note constantly without rhythm or melody, and a drone worker just does the same work constantly without variation). Does anyone know which of the two roots this sense evolved from? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Should it be "posttraumatic stress disorder" or "post-traumatic stress disorder?" See Wikipedia:Posttraumatic stress disorder#Terminology. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

gratulieren: is intransitive, not transitive, right?[edit]

German wiktionary points out gratulieren is intransitive. English one claims it is transitive, and I guess needs to be fixed. (I haven't seen an example of transitive usage, but I also haven't researched as well as I could have. In the future I'll research more thoroughly and be bold in making corrections myself, are there people that would notice and correct me if I make mistakes? :) --Hugovdm (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, I had a look at google:"ich gratuliere dich" vs. google:"ich gratuliere dir". A number of the top hits are pages that discuss (in German) which form is correct, suggesting that there is some question about this even in the German-speaking community. Granted, that discussion might be along the lines of "only non-native speakers get confused by this", but it's still a topic of some conversation. google books:"ich gratuliere dich" generates sufficient hits for citation purposes to show transitive use. That said, given the greater preponderance of hits at google books:"ich gratuliere dir" (38.8K vs. only 44 for the transitive), and the discussions online, it probably makes sense to add a {{context|rare}} or even {{context|proscribed}} notice to the transitive sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:28, 22 February 2015
Looking at the discussions. I've only found two of them. One is some person who said they were discussing it with someone (for whatever reason, probably hypercorrection), but they state that they themself had never heard "gratuliere dich". The other one specifically says that it is the son (who may be rather young) who said "dich" was correct (and the mother probably just opened the discussion to quiet the son)... And the hits from google books! Please look at them a bit: They are all, without exception, either deliberate non-standard usage, or texts written by non-native speakers, and/or very old. Many are even in books called "Common mistakes by Russian learners of German", "The influence of English on Nataler German", and so on.
Long story short: I'm a native speaker of German who is always interested in non-standard usage and indeed fond of it, but gratulieren + accusative is just not common in native German speech, I assure you. There are regions (today the Ruhrgebiet in particular, but at least historically the whole of northern Germany, and remember that many of those areas also had strong Slavic populations) where dative/accusative distinction has always been a problem, and you will get non-standard usage for just any verb. "Gratulieren" is by no means particularly likely to arouse such "mistakes" (if we want to call it that). — Therefore: let's make it an intransitive verb and everything is fine.Kolmiel (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Kolmiel, we aim to describe how terms are used, not prescribe how terms should be used. If transitive use of gratulieren can be shown in a way to meet our criteria for inclusion, then we have grounds for creating such an entry. If such use is rare, we mark it as {{context|rare}}. If such use is broadly regarded as incorrect, we mark it as {{context|nonstandard}} or even {{context|proscribed}} (and ideally add a usage note with more explanation). We definitely do not remove entries on the grounds that a term is regarded as “wrong”. By way of example, have a look at the English terms brung (for brought), or thunk (for thought), or taked (for taken). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Please look at my talk page where I say that I am "fighting" against prescriptivism. Don't lecture me about that, please. --- I think a non-standard usage in this dictionary should be common. And if I have a text written in the 18th century by someone who obviously not a native speaker of German, then I don't regard that as a valid usage. But please go ahead. But then add each and every verb with a dative construction to that list.Kolmiel (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, maybe it is possible to find some citations from the 18th/19th century that are from native speakers. There are one or two between your citations on google books. In that case we could tag it "obsolete". See, I'm not against "proscribed" because it is nonstandard. (Again, the contrary is true. I spend much of my time here adding nonstandard usages.) I'm against it because no-one proscribes it because no-one uses it. It just doesn't exist. (Except in speakers who, because of their dialect background, do not distinguished dative and accusative at all. And as I said, you can't include these unless you want to add the same note to each and every dative verb.)Kolmiel (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It was late last night. I think I may not have made my point clear enough. Let’s go step by step.
(1.) Of course you are able to give a limited number of citations for gratulieren + accusative. You will able to do that for any verb that usually takes dative (cf. ich helfe dich, ich folge dich, ich vertraue dich, etc. etc.). The reason for this is (a.) that non-native speakers find this distinction particularly difficult; and (b.) that there are many traditional dialects (including a majority of Low German and a minority of High German) in which dative/accusative distinction does not exist at all.
(2.) Given 1, what would justify making a special note in the lemma gratulieren would be that there might be a special tendency to use accusative among those users of German who, in general, correctly distinguish the two cases (as there is indeed with e.g. the verb kündigen). I’ve tried to show you that such a tendency doesn’t exist: (a.) from my position as a native-speaker, who – given their extensive work on nonstandard German on wiktionary – is, I think, beyond the suspicion of holding back nonstandard usages for ideological reasons; (b.) by stressing the fact that in the two (quite relevant) internet discussions you found the persons who ask have both never heard the accusative use, that is, they are not in doubt themselves, they are just fighting a claim someone seems to have made (who in one case is likely a child); (c.) by showing that there are no contemporary printed sources using the accusative case and that even the old ones are mostly written by non-native speakers.
(3.) It is possible that the verb was (to a limited degree) used with accusative case by users of standard German in the 18th/19th century. We could – although I’m not necessarily in favour of it – add this usage as “obsolete”. It is, again, not part of contemporary standard German in any form.
(4.) If you want to add a special note about the fact that some users of German may construe gratulieren with accusative, you will consistently have to do the same thing with literally every verb that takes a traditional dative. I don’t think you want to go there. At any rate it would be against wiktionary’s normal policy: You don’t have a note in every single English verb that speakers from northern England and Scotland may use the s-form for the 3rd person plural. You don’t have a note in every single English verb that speakers from the southern U.S. may use the endingless form for the 3rd person singular. These are general grammatical features of these dialects, and not particular to any one verb.Kolmiel (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

socio-economy, social economy[edit]

Do these words exist in English? I'm just checking to see if they are Chinglish, or just very academic English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Social Economy is an entire field of study. Socio-economy also has more than a few attestations. Yes, they both exist, and not just as Chinglish. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Would "cringeworthy" count as a slang definition? (痛い子, 痛車(?) etc) —umbreon126 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add a noun, Akpagher. It is a village in Benue State of Nigeria


I notice that the word swatch: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swatch Does not include the definition that refers to a patch work of sewn together swatches or a collection of swatches bound together with, say, a ring. Despite being made of many swatches I believe it is still acceptable to refer to it as simply "a swatch". 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


The entry for entfernen has this, to me, poor translation:

   Der Flug MH-370 entfernte sich auf mysteriöse Weise vom Weg.
   Flight MH-370 went off the way mysteriously.

Leaving aside whether it's necessary to mention an actual flight that has disappeared, would someone with better German agree that something involving "departed from its route" would be better? So should sense 2 have "to depart" added?

有る page claims there is information on ある page which doesn't seem to appear[edit]

On the 有る page, it says "有る is usually written in hiragana. Please see the article for ある for more information."

I can't seem to find any information about ある being written as hiragana on the ある page.


Our definition says:

  1. Made or prepared in advance of need.

I find this confusing. If I prepare a dinner or whatever directly from raw materials for immediate consumption, it is not ready-made. But if I put the same dinner into fridge to wait for tomorrow, it's clearly made or prepared in advance of need. Does it thus become ready-made or is there another condition required for "ready-madeness"? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

志气: loop of redirections[edit]

IMHO one should ALWAYS make two pages for the traditional and simplified form of a word instead of redirecting from one to the other. When however the redirections make an infinite loop, someone really should do something about it. This is the case with 志气: both the simplified form and the traditional form have no definition but only a redirection to the other form. Now I am not good enough with Chinese to go straightening this evident error by myself, so I ask you other editors to fix this. As soon as possible. Also, I strongly suggest you add the link to the Chinese article in the simplified form. The traditional form has no corresponding Chinese article. MGorrone (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. In this case, someone had mistakenly marked a traditional form as simplified. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)