Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:51, 3 April 2011

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

Scope of this request page:

In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

January 2010

intelligent system

Really? Or is it spam for "Intelligent Systems Corporation". SemperBlotto 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligent Systems" is a term widely used by the Computational Intelligence community and should not be mixed with "Intelligent Systems Corporation", who should not highjack the scholarly entry "Intelligent Systems". — This comment was unsigned.

Please provide citations for use in the sense given. Usually, the wordier the definition the harder it is to find citations and show that the citations actually support all the elements of the definition. The definition given is not one I would want to have to provide citations for. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had to change the def, sorry, but it was rubbish. Also I'm doubtful of the definition of "computational intelligence" - Wikipedia says it is an "offshoot" of AI, differentiating it from GOFAI, but not from AI. If it means to include the study of types of intelligence (or problem solving) not inspired by emulating human thought, it is still not separate from AI. Pingku 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are "SC techniques" and how does that establish that AI techniques are involved? What basis is there for the "particularly" clause. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I'm going with "Simulation and Control", from the book title (whence also NDS). (It appears to be real - see, e.g., [1].) It's not obvious from the grammar, but what they're ~~describing~~ implying is searching the "solution space" of potential models to find the optimal model. Searching solution spaces, and the various techniques for doing so, pretty much sums up what classical AI is about. (Reading it this way, I don't think it really matters what "SC" means.)

(2) What I want to encompass is that a system: (a) may have a design/purpose that requires AI techniques to work well or perhaps at all; or (b) may use AI techniques throughout but not in a way that is critical to its purpose. For example, the design of an advanced German tutor might require a model of how each student responds to different teaching methods and how advanced he/she is, and a decision process about how then to proceed. A game program might use AI techniques in many places to improve efficiency or to make the game more interesting, but still be much the same game without them. I suggest that the German tutor has the better claim to being called an "intelligent system", but both might be so called.

Cheers, Pingku 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The overall approach you are taking seems prescriptive/normative. I know it is more work to inductively extract meaning-in-use from a variety of usage instances, but users expect us to have done something like that. Including a reference to AI may serve users interested in the history of such matters, but introduces encyclopedic elements into the definition and makes it harder to cite, it seems to me.

Also a citation that has elements that even the contributor doesn't understand ("SC") seems a poor choice to appear even on the citations page, let alone in principal namespace. Could SC refer to, for example, Statistical Classification, which is not really an AI technique? I wonder whether a definition as narrow as you are suggesting and attempting to cite won't require a narrow context, like "artificial intelligence". DCDuring TALK 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It seems SC refers to Soft Computing (fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic algorithms and such), which from the early 90's has been part of AI research. SC provides "new" ways to search the "solution space", ways that can be faster but also may produce non-optimal solutions. Ugh! More encyclopaedic stuff. Pingku 19:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sociology of academe? The old-line AI folks (MIT, Stanford, CMU, et al} vs newer schools of thought? "Soft Computing" might have enough adherents publishing books and articles to warrant an entry. Does SC have its own associations, conferences etc? Or is it just someone's umbrella for various techniques somewhat distinct from the older AI paradigms? DCDuring TALK 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous books on the topic, including the book series "Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing" (originally "Advances in Soft Computing") and "Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing". The International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing will be held in Poland this year, and has been going at least since 2002. There is also a journal (Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing), which appears to be long-standing (volume 9 was published through 2003, according to the website). Pingku 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to pass? — Beobach 22:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verified – move to RFD if you're still not convinced. Ƿidsiþ 08:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

romantic friendship

Moved from WT:RFD#romantic friendship

A friendship of a romantic nature? Note that the current definition and the previous one contradict each other. The former ones described it as a friendship with benefits, and this one describes it as 'asexual'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Polysemy. It's merely a matter of facts. Move to RfV for one or both senses. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of whether the definition is correct, and idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; it's a question of whether this definition is attested, instead of just 'a friendship of a romantic nature'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gobby

Rfv-sense: obese.—msh210℠ 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're all clear here, I added the definition based upon the following: [2] [3] [4] . Above user reverted my removal based upon the context in which he saw it used in a google search, providing this as example [5] in which it's even shown to mean fat a few times so I don't know why any verification for this definition is necessary when I've even provided the above definitions on the term's talkpage. I do however think it's necessary for verification on the term as meaning loud and critical, as according to his reversion here[6]. From the examples the user provided in his google search, only one seemed to imply obnoxious in speech at best. The rest of the examples were just unclear and didn't directly imply that in my view and neither did any of the dictionary definitions. 65.31.103.28 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where among those Google hits it's "shown to mean fat a few times", or once. All those whose meaning is clear (to me) mean "talkative", or possibly "talkative and critical". Here's one hit possibly (unclearly (to me)) in the rfv'ed sense, though: [7].—msh210℠ 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, based on [8], [9], [10], inter alia, I'm adding a sense "full of gobs".—msh210℠ 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example one relates to food and eating; example two seems to imply to a sharp retort; example three seems to imply a willingness to tell the truth; example four implies to an inability to keep a secret; example five it says is not suffering fools gladly (which means not tolerating stupidity in others) which I suppose could imply the critical portion of your definition if you make a bit of a stretch; example six implies competitiveness, mentioning two people having to get somewhere first; example seven implies offensive in speech without specifying much else; example eight speaks on fatness and roundness.

Again, I'm not sure why obese needs to be verified. If anything, frequently being loudly critical ought to be verified as these examples don't seem to be consistent enough to support that definition. Just my opinion! 65.31.103.28 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on "example one", which, assuming you see the same Google hits I do, is [11]: This uses the word (in quotation marks indicating that the writer knows its not a proper word) to mean "full of gobs", the sense I've recently added (as noted above). Nothing to do with obesity. "Obese" needs to be verified per the "attestation" requirement of WT:CFI, q.v. The definition "frequently and loudly criticising other people" may need fixing, yes, though gobby certainly means something like that: I think "talking overly much" might be a better definition, per the citations.—msh210℠ 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and re the eighth example, which you say "speaks on fatness and roundness": If your eighth is my eighth, it's one of the ones I can't see more than a snippet of, and that snippet reads only "beer every once in a while, every couple of weeks or so. Sankey is very gobby.¶[Due to an argument at Christmas, two weeks before the incident] every time I saw him he would just stare at me, blank me out or play" (brackets in original). I have no idea what it means there. Can you (or anyone) see more of it?—msh210℠ 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Msh210, I'm a little unsure of why you added a second definition to gobby of "marked by the presence of gobs" (as shown here [12]) The 2 definitions you've added are based on weak evidence. As I've highlighted above, this Google search result you provided are using the word in a whole different assortment of ways all across the board. As for Example 8, it speaks of drinking beer and then goes into gobby. That hardly connotes talkative. Example 9 speaks of fatness and roundness while speaking about gobby. That hardly connotes talkative. All dictionaries suggest obese and nothing about full of gobs or talkative. Besides, your reversion of my edit removal of frequently and loudly criticising other people is not supported by your arguments for talkative as the definition of gobby. [13] [14] 65.31.103.28 08:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "unsure of why you added a second definition to gobby of 'marked by the presence of gobs'", please see what I wrote above. While you're correct that "talkative" may be a better definition than "frequently and loudly criticising other people", there is certainly some sense like that, so I reverted your unilateral removal thereof. As always, cites rule, and I see you've {{rfv-sense}}d the remaining senses, so I suppose cites will rule for those, too. I suggest you get cracking on the "obese" sense if you have any interest in its remaining (which you seem to), as you now have ~4 weeks to cite it. :-) —msh210℠ 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, re "[t]he 2 definitions [I]'ve added", actually, I only added the "presence of gobs" one. The loquacity one was added by Paul G when he created the entry.—msh210℠ 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the noun sense ("blowjob") I found this on the Steam Community forums: "if i was friends with crucial irl i would give him a gobby." (Crucial is someone's user name.) But I don't believe it is attestable. Equinox ◑ 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from the Web: "Hey Pinto, yeah I saw that sthlut^[sic] at Motel. She gave me a gobby in the car park." Equinox ◑ 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As according to this slang dictionary http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/g.htm the term can apply to offensively outspoken/shooting one's mouth off as a slang usage in the UK; however, in the USA it connotes obesity and fatness. I'm guessing because it was foreign slang used in another country it wasn't coming up. I thought this was the English Wiktionary as opposed to the Slang/UK Wiktionary. I suppose both terms can be added as long as they state the location in which they're both used. As for this other nonsense about blowjobs and lumps, Msh210 clearly went a little nuts with these definitions. They look like blatant vandalism. 65.31.103.28 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Hardly. Just because you never heard of the term used in this way doesn't mean other English speaking regions don't use it. Gobby in the sense of fellatio is heard among the less 'educated' individuals in Australia. It's definitely not uncommon. It's probably a diminutive form of the slang word 'gobble' meaning 'mouth'. Thanks Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blowjob definition was added only once I found three citations for it. See citations:gobby. It's now been {{rfv-sense}}d (unnecessarily, due to those cites).—msh210℠ 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, I've found two citations (see citations:gobby) for a sense meaning "obese" or possibly "overeating": it's hard to tell which. (That is, the citations seem to be using the word to mean "overeating", but "obese" is a reasonable alternative explanation, and since you say other dictionaries define it that way, that may well be what the sources mean by the word.) So if spend effort on finding one more citation instead of on getting all gobby about the fact that the sense was {{rfv}}ed in the first place, and you find one, the sense will remain, and you'll have nothing to complain about. (Assuming, of course, that it doesn't actually bother you that other senses remain also. That may be a bad assumption, of course.)—msh210℠ 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can someone help with splitting up the speech-related senses appropriately, please? See citations:gobby.—msh210℠ 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest to the usage of "gobby" in the sense of fellatio(blowjob) by many Australian teenagers, and thus I believe it is in fairly common usage. If you go to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gobby I think you will find a large consensus on the meaning of the term. --Anthonzi 05:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when can we get rid of the RV tags for this sense? I think IP:65.31.103.28 had already been thoroughly debunked before I came on the scene.--Anthonzi 06:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've detagged the "criticizing" definition, added a "talkative" one, and detagged the fellatio defintion, all per cites. I'm still not happy with the split in the talking-related senses: it still needs attention (please!). I've for now not removed the "obese" definition, as it has two cites, but perhaps it should go.—msh210℠ 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously not understanding something here. We have a sense de-tagged defined as "Frequently and loudly criticising other people; inclined to shoot one's mouth off" with three citations underneath it, but none of those citations really seem to support that sense. On the contrary, the first one uses it in the phrase "the gobby cow", which really makes it seem that it means "fat" (though I can't track down the source using Google, so the only context I have is what's in the entry), and the third one uses it in the phrase "you gobby bastard", not long after "you fat bastard" by the same thinker directed at the same target. The second one doesn't say enough for me to be able to tell one way or the other, but from the context I can trick Snippet View into showing me, Tyrone doesn't seem critical at all — talkative probably, but not critical. —Ruakh_TALK 01:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, the talkative sense is in clear widespread use, "tending to shoot one's mouth off", well that's the same sense just used pejoratively. And the one cite we have for 'obese' doesn't help IMO. It seems to be clearly pejorative but it isn't clear beyond that; I'd instantly interpret this as 'talking a lot' It's really common in the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I said a lot of things — which one(s) are you disagreeing with? —Ruakh_TALK 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for gobby (obese). Having said that, looking at the citations pages there are too citations which back this up more clearly. Still, the one on the page itself (to me at least) is more ambiguous. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning "blowjob" is cited. Right? I have added references to the entry. It appears to concern homographs with somewhat different etymologies. - -sche 21:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a third quotation that uses the word in the sense of "fat". It is uncommon, even rare. - -sche 19:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I find many quotations, including two of the "gobby fat" quotations and many of the quotations supposed to mean "talkative", where the word could also be only a generic filler or intensifier (like "super" or "bloody" in "and got super drunk" or "he's a bloody fat bastard") or else is totally unclear. I suggest, either we move the quotations and reference for the meaning "fat" to the citations page and delete the sense as unattested, or we trust the reference (Dictionary.com) and keep the sense. I suggest also, either we find better quotations for "Frequently and loudly criticising other people; inclined to shoot one's mouth off" (because I agree with Ruakh, they are deficient) or we delete that meaning and keep only "Talkative". - -sche 01:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

novum

Rfv-sense: "The feature of a fictional work's setting, especially in science fiction, that distinguishes it from the real world."

In general this just means "A new feature". I don't doubt that this word is used in the context of sci-fi literary criticism. I am just not sure that the def. above really defines is properly. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first hit at google books:"novum" SF has this to say:

It seems that this ‘point of difference’, the thing or things that differentiate the world portrayed in science fiction from the world we recognise around us, is the crucial separator between SF and other forms of imaginative or fantastic literature. The critic Darko Suvin has usefully coined the term ‘novum’, the Latin for ‘new’ or ‘new thing’, to refer to this ‘point of difference’ (the plural is ‘nova’). An SF text may be based on one novum, such as […] . More usually it will be predicated on a number of interrelated nova, such as […] . This ‘novum’ must not be supernatural but need not necessarily be a piece of technology.

link

So our definition actually seems pretty good to me. I think the big problem will be demonstrating independence: the b.g.c. search I just linked to says it finds tens of thousands of hits, but a large proportion of them likely mention Suvin. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, we don't have a clear definition of "independence".

—Ruakh_TALK 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a single author (Suvin) is mentioned in tens of thousands of books, is his work "well-known"? - -sche 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we make Suvin's definition a usage note or move it to the reference section? - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conserver un suivi

I'm not saying that this isn't right, just that I've never heard of it, and the French Wiktionary doesn't have it either. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's sum of parts (keep + a + follow). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it either. The normal word is, simply, suivre (or assurer le suivi). Lmaltier 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember now where I read this, but I can see that it's listed here. There are some clear uses here, although it does seem pretty rare. Wish I could remember where I saw it in the first place, but it was probably in a news script at work. Ƿidsiþ 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct, but not idiomatic, nor a set phrase. The first link you provide defines conserver, not conserver un suivi. Lmaltier 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down you'll see the phrase is at the bottom. I'm not sure it's sum of parts...a suivi is usually not quite the same thing, surely. Ƿidsiþ 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

conserver à l'esprit is worth a mention, but why mentioning conserver des livres? and conserver un suivi de? Is this reference site very reliable? The Wiktionnaire defines the noun fr:suivi as Mise en observation du progrès, de l’évolution d’un sujet ou d’un objet., and this is the only sense of this noun. Lmaltier 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, normally (deprecated template usage) suivi means monitoring or a follow-up of some sort. I suppose it could be seen as SOP. It seems like a difficult one to translate intuitively to me. Ƿidsiþ 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been a confusion in the reference, because conserver une trace de does exist as a set phrase. Lmaltier 07:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the quotation of "conserver un suivi" in the entries "conserver" and "suivi". I suggest, either we delete "conserver un suivi" or we keep it and I remove the quotations from "conserver" and "suivi". - -sche 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse

Needs attributive cites. (I assume that the translations can be removed if this fails and don't have to be rfv'd separately?) --Yair rand 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the proper noun defn that's being RfV'd, though for the life of me I can't think why. Normally, when there is an associated adjectival sense, the proper noun is kept in the entry for reference. But even so, haven't we all heard of Mickey Mouse ears, gloves, voice, etc. If you really think it needs attributive cites, there are thousands of them along similar lines. -- ALGRIF talk 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cites for "Mickey Mouse ears, gloves, voice, etc." do not make the entry pass CFI AFAIK. It needs attributive cites, like Tigger or Prince Charming. If terms passed CFI just by having things related to them being mentioned in durably archived works, we could probably cite half the Disney characters and a decent portion of video game franchises (one could find cites for "Mario jump" and "Mario style" fairly easily). --Yair rand 23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what is meant by "attributive" in CFI?

I oppose the deletion on the ground that this RFV invokes the controversial attributive-use rule, and does so by reading "attributive" in one particular way, whereas when "attributive" is read as "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase", the term sent for RFV is cited. --Dan Polansky 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been controversial in the context of brand names and fictional characters (but see Wookiee). It has been more controversial when the oxen that were being gored were folk's favorite place names or national or cultural heroes. We clearly need to include the adjective sense, which is almost an archetype of attributive use of a proper noun. What is a bit unusual is that Mickey Mouse is a true adjective (appearing after "become", gradable, and comparable). Most proper nouns that we've discussed haven't been so thoroughly transformed. As a result the citations that would normally only support attributive use of a noun PoS now support an adjective PoS, showing yet another inconsistency in the conceptual framework implicit in WT:ELE and WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The attributive-use rule is the one in the section "Names of specific entities"; the sections of CFI "Fictional universes" and "Brand names" do not invoke the term "used attributively". Explicitly, the attributive-use rule is the sentence "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning" under the section heading "Names of specific entities". This sentence applies neither to brand names nor to fictional universes, so introducing brand names and fictional universes into the discussion is off-topic.

That the attributive-use rule actually is controversial is plentifully documented in various votes; to refute this you would need to do more than invoking rhetorical language in "...oxen that were being gored were folk's favorite place names or national or cultural heroes".

If you want to demonstrate that the attributive-use rule does have a community consensus, why don't you start a vote for confirmation of the rule? Good luck :p. --Dan Polansky 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea with merit. Or have a vote-off between the existing rule and proposed alternatives, rather than trying to amend it. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:31 z

Mickey Mouse (adj.) is 1) formed as an attributive noun, and 2) has a widely understood meaning independent of the eponymic specific entity.

Mickey Mouse (proper n.) can be used attributively, but then it just means “of or relating to Mickey Mouse.” It's not an English word; it's the name of a cartoon. It should be plain that this doesn't belong in the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:31 z

Very very easily cited. DAVilla 07:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the first citation would not seem to meet WT:BRAND. I am also unclear on the semantics of this. But, as we no longer have the attributive-use rule, other more or less normal citation principles must apply. If the semantics of the citations don't fit the proper noun definition (as almost all attributive-use citations don't, almost by definition), then they don't count for that. They may count for another sense of the noun, perhaps one marked (attributively). There is of course no shortage of attestation for the proper noun as name of an individual entity, presumably under WT:FICTION, though I am not sure that very many of such citations would actually support the numerous attributes appearing in some of our definitions. They mostly seem to attest the mere existence of a well-known entity having a given name. It would seem to me that an ostensive definition is the best we can do. The main ways would be a minimalist gloss (perhaps taken from WP), a sense-line link to WP, an image, commons clips or sounds, or external links, such as to YouTube or to official sites of self-proclaimed trademark owners.

The semantics of proper nouns that apply to individuals seems quite different from what applies to common nouns and even given names and surnames. If we are to include them, then we must throw off our old ways of looking at such entries and approach them more straightforwardly. I see some point to limiting ourselves to proper noun entries that embody some meaning and don't see why we would not require our entries to specify the meaning, just as we do for common nouns. Perhaps we can even use non-gloss definitions.

It is also possible that we would choose to dispense with any semantic or importance requirements whatsoever for including proper nouns. If so, I see some value in reserving them to be entered by unregistered users as only format and not semantic content or attestation would be an issue. Our more skilled users could work on the minimal corrections required or on making forms to facilitate the creation of the entries with WP links, Commons images, and appropriate external links. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cites support the existence of the term and that the referent is well known ("famous"), but not the other elements in the definition ("The most famous Disney character, an anthropomorphic mouse."). I would guess that a good definition might include that the character is animated. The 1974 quote implies that the Mouse must be a cartoon character. More quotes of this type are probably available.

The entry probably would benefit from more time for citations. Alternatively, the definition could be replaced with {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if may be perverse, the point of WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION is basically to find cites that don't support the information in the definition. I suppose cites that do would also be nice, but firstly, such cites would get in the way as we try to evaluate which cites (if any) satisfy WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION, and secondly, we all know what (deprecated template usage) Mickey Mouse refers to (it's in clearly widespread use). It doesn't make sense to discuss whether individual elements in the definition are citeable; if they're accurate descriptions of Mickey Mouse, and we know that (deprecated template usage) Mickey Mouse refers to Mickey Mouse, then attestation is not an issue. (Appropriateness to a dictionary may be an issue, but if WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION are met, then we've done basically all that WT:RFV can.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a dictionary is about usage, then what "Mickey Mouse" really is is not our concern. The issue is: how is the term used. What are the salient characteristics of the character the general understanding of which an author or speaker can rely on? If we include more, we are becoming a short-attention-span encyclopedia. If "Mickey Mouse", the proper noun, means all propositions about the character and brand name, then no reference work can encompass them. If "Mickey Mouse" means just some of them, then some principle of selection should apply. Wikipedia has its criteria, mostly the existence of authoritative sources for the propositions. What should ours be? I would argue that they should be about salient characteristics illustrated in usage. If we aren't being selective, then we aren't offering much of a service to our users, should we have any users for this type of entry. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I like the implications of it. For example, our entry for (deprecated template usage) goose uses the phrase "of the family Anatidae", which is a true predicate about the animals that get referred to as "geese", but probably not something that most users of the term know. By your approach, would we remove that phrase on the grounds that it's a statement about geese rather than about (deprecated template usage) goose? —Ruakh_TALK 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've long been troubled by such definitions because they do not reflect usage, except by those with specialized expertise. That is one reason why I have striven to add pictures. We need a substitute approach for definitions of "natural kinds" that has less recourse to technical terms. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

secondant

Rfv-sense in French --Rising Sun talk? 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

519 google hits for "un secondant". Might be too specific as to sport. Polarpanda 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when training for top competition, you either have a coach (entraîneur) or a secondant : this term applies to chess-players or sport-masters so high ranking that nobody could sensibly qualify as their coach. no idea about best translation in English but permanent assistant is what comes to my mind. --Diligent 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the sense which had the RFV-tag. - -sche 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. Resolved? - -sche 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense which had the RFV-tag is cited. If you would like quotations or improvement of the other sense, add a new RFV or RFC. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

lieu de mémoire

Supposed to be English. It's certainly French (see w:fr:Lieu de mémoire), but is it English as well? (Not absolutely sure of the definition, and needs formatting if OK) SemperBlotto 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/2.6.html

I read it in Brubaker's "Ethnicity as Cognition" and had to look it up. Also, Edward Said has a book subtitled Lieux de Mémoire (ie, plural)CMEHalverson 05:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find quotations and have added three to the entry, but the word is always italic. I suggest, we preserve it as a "==French==" instead of an "==English==" word... - -sche 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

message

Rfv-sense. Tagged but not listed. Also, given as a plurale tantum, but under the singular form. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many other plurale-tantum senses whose singulars exist are given under the singular form also (as that's where people may well look for them), though many others are given under the plural form. We don't seem to have a policy/BCP on this.—msh210℠ 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, we have common noun sense of message as "Any concept or information conveyed by the use of (usually written) symbols". Does this match your experience? It doesn't mine: to me, a message is merely any concept or information conveyed. It can just as easily be oral ("he relayed the message") as written. But maybe I'm exceptional in this regard (as in so many :-) ).—msh210℠ 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's wrong. Go for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sense for groceries should only be at messages. It always ends in the s.--Dmol 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that unless someone finds quotations that mean "groceries" and adds them to the entries, the singular and plural forms will be deleted. - -sche 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Bart

Rfv-sense. (British) a baronet. Note this is Bart, not bart. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (deprecated template usage) Bart. (with a dot) is easily cited: do a b.g.c. search of your favorite baronet, plus "bart", restricting your search to full-view books, and you'll find plenty of examples. Capitalized seems to be more common than lowercase. Without the dot is much harder to cite (which surprises me; I had thought that Britons tended not to put a dot after abbreviations that end with the last letter of the word they abbreviate), but I think we have a tradition of excluding the final dot, anyway. —Ruakh_TALK 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bart(.) does sometimes appear in uppercase when not part of a title; see, e.g., google books:"walter scott" "a bart". It also appears in lowercase (same search).—msh210℠ 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

falsehood

Rfv-sense: The trait of a person who is mendacious and deceitful. (previously called "obscure") Not sense 1: the state of being false. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept any of these? :

—Ruakh_TALK 15:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition means dishonety/deceitfulness, right? Overlap with the first definition "the state of being false" I'd have thought. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be defined as "the state of being false", but it's nonetheless very different from the question of whether a statement is false. —Ruakh_TALK 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And actually, for people and statements both, it's less a "state" than a "property" or "quality".) —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one might be arguable, but the others are clear. Do you think it is still in use currently in this sense?

Other dictionaries report as many as five senses, including (deprecated template usage) mendacity, only sometimes shown as obsolete.

Some make the distinction between "a false statement" and "something false; an untrue idea, belief, etc." Other senses are "lack of conformity to truth or fact" and "deception".

If we are to be merely a translating dictionary or aimed solely at earlier stage language learners, these kinds of distinctions may be more than can be supported. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

evenhood

I am having trouble finding three uses of this. There are certainly more mentions than uses. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any unselfconscious uses on b.g.c.; though this one is O.K. per WT:CFI, and this one probably is (though snippet view makes it hard to be sure). But to be sure, I don't think all the mentions are actually wrong; rather, they seem to be updating the spelling and form of an old word spelled in an old way. ((deprecated template usage) Euenhede, for example, would have no difficulty meeting the CFI.) We are unusual, even among dictionaries, in our obsessive emphasis on spelling. —Ruakh_TALK 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A spelling like "euenhede" would seem to be attestable in Middle English at least. Such a spelling is more reliable than our sometime use of {{dated}} and other tags as indicating that a term is not used in current English. I found the mention of evenhood by the advocate of the use of Anglo-Saxon words in philosophy to be telling of its non-use. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd call that (deprecated template usage) evenhede on Wiktionary. I think we require three citations post 1470 for this to count as Modern English. Presumably if (deprecated template usage) evenhood is not attestable, the only uses of it must be a long time ago. The difference Ruakh, as you know, is that we allow all attestable spellings to have entries, whereas paper dictionaries and some online ones will just direct you to the most common spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the difference, yes, but not the relevant part. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 16:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

compass

Rfv-sense

"The chief end in all my labours is to vex the world rather than diert it; and if I could compass that design without hurting my own person or fortune, I would be the most indefatigable writer you have ever seen without reading" - Johnathon Swift in a letter to the Pope 29th September 1725, according to "Camelot Classic - Prose writing of Swift" chosen and arranged by Walter Lewin, 1886.

April 2010

eccentricate

Added as an anonymous one-liner. I've cleaned it up, but am not sure it's attestable. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentricated is attested, I think, and seems to be either an adjective (having eccentricity, of an ellipse or the like) or a participle (made to have eccentricity), but I'm not sure which. This uses it in "have been eccentricated from": does that make it a verb? DCDuring? this is invisible to me, but the search-result page's snippet reads " […] Milton cramps with hard words and eccentricates by […] ", fwiw. Usenet shows but three hits, in none of which do I understand what the word means: [15], [16], [17].—msh210℠ 17:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two quotations to the entry. On Usenet it seems, that it is an eggcorn of accentuate. - -sche 07:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly cited. There are a few more quotations of "eccentricated shaft" one could add. - -sche 02:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

colourable

Rfv-sense: that can be coloured. Not in my dictionaries, but could well be out there. Ƿidsiþ 08:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just colorable? Do we really need two distinct pages for these? In any case, I can find a few senses on the open web of colourable colouring books, but the only hits in b.g.c. are for colourable (or colorable) graphs, which is "that can be coloured" but arguably a more narrow definition.--Prosfilaes 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: "Authors, in general, have denominated the matter which, in these experiments, affords colour, the colouring parts of the vegetable. This matter, however, is not itself coloured, but is only capable of exhibiting colours, by the addition of other matters : and hence we have ventured to call it the colourable, rather than the colouring parts of the plant, by which we merely indicate its property of becoming coloured, but not its actual possession of colour." Farther inquiries into the changes induced on atmospheric air, by the germination of seeds, the vegetation of plants, and the respiration of animals, Daniel Ellis, 1811, pg. 117[18] or "The colouring material is totally soluble in water, and can be extracted from the ligneous matter by repeated decoctions or infusion. It exists in the wood in an almost colourless state, or at least its colour is only a pale yellow, but on coming into contact with air this hue becomes gradually darker, and at last red-brown. There appears to be slow oxidation of colourable matter to form a real pigment." A practical handbook of dyeing and calico-printing, Sir William Crookes, 1874, pg. 333[19]--Prosfilaes 14:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would be much obliged if you could insert the complete citations in the entry in one of the appropriate places, using {{quote-books}} or otherwise conforming to the format. It is one excellent way to contribute to Wiktionary.

We usually have entries for all spellings. If there are no differences in sense etc one of the entries (usually the first common spelling entered) becomes the main entry with the other spellings being alternative spellings. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there citations available for the added senses of "plausible, covert and pretended"? Dbfirs 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, they were added from colored, on the presumption they were different spellings of the same word.--Prosfilaes 01:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two more cites, one referring to mathematics, and one referring to crayon coloring. That should be sufficient, no?--Prosfilaes 02:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990 cite is for the alternative spelling, not the headword. DCDuring TALK 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Citations merges them all into one page, so I put them all under the main entry. In any case, you've added a replacement citation, so there are the requisit three cites.--Prosfilaes 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Modern English, where there should be no shortage of citations, there is no reason to accept an absence of citations for each sense of the main word. I wonder whether colorable and colourable have the same sense distribution so that "alternative spelling" does not do justice to colorable. The situation with spellings is entirely different in Middle English and, to a lesser extent, in Early Modern English, which probably justifies more acceptance of alternative spellings for attestation of senses before, say, 1650 or later. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the word at RFV has enough cites. In the larger case, there's a lot of words in Modern English that have multiple spellings. Spaces and hyphens are one group: e-mail/email, role playing game/role-playing game/roleplaying game. British/American differences are another: -ise/-ize and -or/-our. This is a derivative of color/colour, so it's going to automatically and silently changed by editors to match the local spelling standards.--Prosfilaes 18:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge at least an entry if not a sense and would not accept any but the exact headword spelling and punctuation in Modern English. Users expect us to not legitimize words that aren't even attestable. I don't think that every sense of every word is attestable under all spellings, usually because the sense does not have actually much currency, not because of some artifact of the attestation process. Spelling differences can be a clue about sense differences between the US and the UK. The corpora we can conveniently use don't provide much other evidence, especially for older usage. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toblerone

A brand name that is to be attested as such under our increasingly-ignored WT:CFI.

Arguably, it has as much potential linguistic interest as a toponym with the same etymological, pronunciation, and transliteration/translation content. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology added, courtesy of company website. Pingku 13:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Mandarin translation correct? I would have expected more of a transliteration. It looks like a different brand, possibly owned by the company or its Chinese distributor. If so, it would certainly seem encyclopedic to provide a multinational directory of brand names for "equivalent" products. Most multinational brands make significant efforts to "localize" their products, so that, say, a European Coca-Cola is not identical to, but is reminiscent of, the current US version (which is probably not absolutely uniform in the US. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Coke is not absolutely uniform in the U.S.: around Passover time, they put out a version that doesn't use any corn syrup. But it's still the same product; details of composition might be relevant to an encyclopedia, but not IMHO to us. —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE DCDuring "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”." This passes under line one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are these? They compare things to a Toblerone shape (which more people understand than the term triangular prism) --Soleil levant 09:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 2002, Richard Bangs, Ed Viesturs - Richard Bangs, adventure without end
  Below us the white granite and quartz of the most sacred of Inca sites sparkled, its Toblerone-shaped walls and deserted craters stretching over seventy acres.
- April 9 2005, Sydney Morning Herald - The battered face of the Sphinx
  You don't have to climb every mountain, just choose one: Kilimanjaro. The volcano stands out from the Tanzanian plains like a Toblerone triangle with a bite out of the top. But the mountain is far from sweet. It is high and, after the gentle slopes lull you, hard to climb. Climbing it takes from five to eight days, but if you reach the top you'll feel as strong as a lion

- There's also evidence of the phrase on one's Toblerone as rhyming slang for on one's own --Soleil levant 09:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fat-ass

"(pejorative) A jibe used on someone disliked or regarded as lazy." Not the usual sense (second in our entry) of somebody who is fat. Equinox ◑ 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just means a generic insult, like dickhead or something like that. If that's the case, I'd claim clear widespread use. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "lazy" sense seems OK to me. I think of it is having the three senses, in declining order of aptness and specificity: fat, especially....; lazy; used as general pejorative. The last seems the most questionable/hardest to attest in print, but I wouldn't challenge it. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of lazy would come from the implication that someone who does no work lacks exercise and hence becomes fat. It's rare, but plausibly used. —CodeCat 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a generation thing, but it doesn't seem rare at all to me. It was popularised on the TV show South Park I think. Definitely keep IMO. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly in widespread use. It is hard to nail down which of the three senses I perceive is meant at any one use, but my memory of the instances suggests that all three are possible. I would want to have to attest these from text-only sources since one could not readily differentiate sense 1 from the other two. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

state of the art

Rfv-sense: distinct legal sense. No OneLook reference lemming has a separate legal sense. Also the wording seems amateurish as it incorporates a specific time reference, whereas I expect that the time reference is almost always derived from implicit or explicit context. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely a correct definition. A patent that is challenged as having been obvious at the time the application was submitted (obviousness being grounds for overturning the patent) is reviewed in light of the state of the art at the time the application was submitted, which courts often abbreviate be referring only to the state of the art. bd2412 T 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no lemmings with us on this? DCDuring TALK 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me, but here are some citations from Supreme Court cases. The first explicitly states "at the time". The second doesn't use such a qualification, but is in the context of patent law, can only be referring to the state of the art when the application was made (developments thereafter being irrelevant to patent validity). The third uses the phrase twice but only qualifies it in the first usage, and not immediately after the phrase:

Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 180 (1853):

The apparatus, essential to develop this property, would at once suggest the material parts, especially in the state of the art at the time.

Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat'l Bank, 135 U.S. 342, 372 (1890):

Judge Lowell held claim 3 to be invalid on the ground that, if it was a claim irrespective of any particular means for carrying it out it was void as a patent for a principle, independently of the state of the art; and that, in view of the state of the art, it was void.

R.R. Co. v. Dubois, 79 U.S. 47, 65 (1871)

The only remaining assignment of error is, that the court declined instructing the jury as requested, that in considering the question whether the plaintiff was or was not the first and original inventor of the improvement described in his patent, they might and ought to consider the evidence in the cause in relation to the state of the art of building and setting piers known at the time of the alleged invention of the plaintiff. ... While, therefore, evidence in regard to the state of the art was proper to be considered by the court in construing the patent and determining what invention was claimed, it had no legitimate bearing upon the question whether the patentee was the first inventor.

Cheers! bd2412 T 00:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first problem with the definition is that it seems that in use the appropriate time frame of reference would necessarily either be explicit or implicit in context. If, in a court case report or law-review article, there were two different unqualified "states of the art" under discussion, it would presumably be the more-recently-referred-to one that would be the reference, not necessarily the "legal" sense. Ie, the date is not guaranteed to be limited. In the overall context of patent law the specific time frame of our legal sense is simply the most likely to show up. It doesn't really seem inherently distinct, which is, I think, why we are alone on this.

My second problem is that, if the default assumption of a specific time frame is the only differentiator between "plain or garden variety" and "legal" "state of the art", why are the definitions worded differently in any regard other than the specific time frame. The existence of two definitions with somewhat different wording forces the user to look for some other distinction where apparently none exists. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how this would be hard to distinguish from the other definition offered. bd2412 T 02:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose [20]. - -sche 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it has been done. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dernier cri

Rfv-sense: French. Is this really used to mean state of the art in the context of products, business methods, academic science and technology, etc? In its English application it is solely used in reference to fashion, style, fads (ie, pejoratively/sarcastically, including in technical contexts). I think of it as close to the English idiom (deprecated template usage) last word or the possibly idiomatic (deprecated template usage) latest thing. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this a bit quickly with the intention of re-reading it later. I'd be unsurprised if I were wrong or inaccurate. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use in French seems to be exactly the same as the use in English. Lmaltier 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native french speaker, I can say that this phrase is used in the technological domain almost exclusively. FroschmannGilles 00:06, 13 July 2010

To FroschmannGilles. Don't you use it in fashion?! --Anatoli 04:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the online Larousse defines the expression :

“se dit de ce qu'il y a de plus récent, de plus perfectionné, de plus à la mode (peut s'employer en apposition sans article) : Il a acheté un téléviseur dernier cri”.

Which means:

“said about what is most recent, most sophisticated, most fashionable (can be used in apposition without article)”

--Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spose

Rfv-senses

supposed
In the example, it just seems like the /d/ and following /t/ merge into each other
ending a conversation, taking one's leave.
Seems redundant to sense 1 of the entry. A common sense solution would be to have one definition: Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "suppose" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. unless either of the other two can be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're RFVing the "supposed" sense. There are loads and loads of hits at google books:"spose to" in support of this sense. (But yes, it should use {{eye dialect}}.)—msh210℠ 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I usually RFV then check, so that's a clear pass. Thinking about it, the third one is listed as a verb. Is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind checking before RFVing rather than after? It saves others' time and effort (and your own, assuming you currently do check after RFVing and not rely on others to do so).—msh210℠ 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the forms seem attestable. I think that one {{eye dialect}} should cover all except "supposed" as a sense, which I guess is another {{eye dialect}}, and "[many forms of (deprecated template usage) be] supposed", which would be more, probably one for each form. Countless hours of amusement to be had in lieu of working on senses of (deprecated template usage) in. Eye dialect is mostly a time sink. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ending a conversation, taking one's leave." This doesn't tell me how to use the word, and the example sentence doesn't help me either. Is it suppose to be like cya or later or something like that? So I think citations at the very least might clarify how to use the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the verb section, which I think is a mistake. Or does it mean "to leave, to depart"? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were in the context of Michigan or Wisconsin, you would know. It is in the air there. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, we need a definition any reader can understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am for removing meaning [3] and either removing meaning [2] or formatting it like meaning [1]. - -sche 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

- -sche (discuss) 04:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

importunate

Verb. No definition given. Presumably it would be related to importune. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy, but you can't RFV a verb with no definition, so I removed it. Maybe add to WT:REE or mention on the talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You're crazy. I'd like to know whether the word exists as a verb. From the cites we can always figure out the meaning. A contributor had put in the verb PoS section without a definition and out of order. It had an {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point was that's not an RFV issue, it's an RFC or Tea room issue. Anyway, that's splitting hairs, so I'll undo my edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks real, perhaps dated - see google books:importunated, google books:importunating. Pingku 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have both of the meanings we have for importune#Verb? DCDuring TALK 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find variations of the "harass" / "plead" sense. The closest to any impropriety was something about a mythological character changing herself into a bird to escape being importunated by Zeus - and we all know what he was like! Pingku 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter might be enough to include the "other" sense. I wonder whether writers added the extra syllable to avoid the negative association of the second sense. I'd like to see what citations make it clear that "importune" has the "solicit for prostitution" or "make improper advances" senses. What exactly are we to make of the "importuning" suitors of Penelope in the Odyssey? Was it "harassment" or "improper advances"? Or is it left ambiguous so the children don't have to be sent away? DCDuring TALK 17:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the downside of rfv'ing something before it actually exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But both the word and the (incomplete) entry do exist. It is only the precise meaning relative to (deprecated template usage) importune that was and remains unclear. What it needs are citations to clarify not merely its existence, but its meaning.

What else should we have done? Deleted it? Some very imperfect entries point up gaps in our coverage. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm being picky; personally I'd have used rfc-def, but that is picky. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three cites that more or less match the "harass with persistent requests" sense of (deprecated template usage) importune. —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be cited. I have marked it rare. - -sche 01:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zamie

Jamaican slang for "lesbian". Equinox ◑ 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Trinidad and Tobago slang for lesbian or the act of lesbianism. Eg. Mary makes zamie with Jane, or Jane is a zamie queen. Both of which would suggest that Jane is a lesbian.[reply]

If it does exist, then it's from French les amies where the s is pronouned /z/. I have some Jamaican relatives, although most of them have lived their whole life over here, plus homosexuality is not really the first thing you want to talk about with Jamaicans. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Green 1998 (the huge slang dictionary), marked W[est] I[ndies]; and the Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage has "zamie-girl" meaning "lesbian", marked Trin[idad]. But actual uses seem to be vanishingly rare on the web. Ƿidsiþ 06:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, keep zami (Citations:zami) and delete zamie. - -sche 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commère

Use in English in this (or any) spelling? DCDuring TALK 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists "‖commère", supported by four quotations wherein the word is spelt (deprecated template usage) commère and one quotation wherein it is spelt (deprecated template usage) commere. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

compère

English, this spelling. If cited, this should probably be an alternative spelling of compere. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[21], [22], [23], [24],[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED [2^nd ed.; 1989] lemmatises the spelling with a grave accent for both the noun and the verb. For the noun, it lists (deprecated template usage) compere as an 18^th- and 20^th-Century variant, solely supported by a 1738 citation of an obsolete sense; for the verb, it lists no spelling variants. The 2009 Oxford Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus lists only the diacriticked spelling. The pronunciatory information given by the OED 1989 for both the noun and the verb is (‖kɔ̃pɛr, ˈkɒmpɛə(r)); without the grave accent the pronunciation which the spelling suggests is /ˈkɒmpɪɚ/. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. It seems then that we can steal a march on them by recognizing that the accentless spelling in overwhelmingly more common on bgc (plurals to eliminate the proper nouns) in the works Google claims are English, excluding any with some common French words. and with at least limited preview: Google count 623.

I wonder how the untutored actually would pronounce this, if forced to. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first twenty hits of your search query, [39], [40], and [41] actually spell it (deprecated template usage) compères; [42], [43], and [44] are scannos for (deprecated template usage) competes; [45] is a scanno for (deprecated template usage) compares; [46], [47], and [48] are French; and [49] misspells it *(deprecated template usage) compéres. That is to say that, according to that sample, over half those hits are wrong, and that, notably, 15% of them should properly be counted as instances of (deprecated template usage) compères, not (deprecated template usage) comperes. I admonish everyone to bear in mind, once again, that Google Books sucks at picking up diacritics. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cooperation

Rfv-sense X 3. sociology, ecology, mechanics, software. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cadre party

Definition seems too vague, describing almost any political party: "A political party that is dominated by an elite groups of activists". I am not aware of any party that can be shown not to fall under this definition. Can the definition as written be supported by quotes? What do citations say it means? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lividans

The definition essentially says: "This is part of a proper name" and the entry declares it to be Translingual. As far as I am aware, this is never used as a word in its own right, except in Latin. --EncycloPetey 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what I have done to (deprecated template usage) erectus (above). If that is OK then you can do the same to this one. SemperBlotto 08:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC) p.s. To find other words that might need the same treatment use "What links here" to (deprecated template usage) specific epithet and (deprecated template usage) specific name.[reply]

The entry should be improved, but kept per #neanderthalensis. - -sche 22:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hit the ball twice

Rfv-sense: noun. Any cites for 'a hit the ball twice' or 'the hit the ball twice'? Two cites we already have justify the adverb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Facts, did you really have to remove the adverb? That now means if the noun fails RFV, this entry will be deleted. Also, I don't see how your citation justifies a noun, any more like "rule 2: hitting a six" justifies a noun entry for hitting a six. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just rfv-sensed the adverb as well, so both can be discussed. Facts707 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to frustrate you. It just appeared very obvious to me that the entry was a (deprecated template usage) rule, hence there was no need for the adverb. Apparently you don't see it that way, so I'm happy to discuss it here with others. Facts707 11:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: adverb. The adverb appears to me to be an attributive use of the rule "hit the ball twice". Thus, in (deprecated template usage) cricket, the (deprecated template usage) rule is "hit the ball twice" and the (deprecated template usage) ruling is "out, hit the ball twice", "out 'hit the ball twice'", "out Hit the ball twice", "out (hit the ball twice)", etc. Facts707 11:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly (very clearly) we disagree on what the citations actually support. Try comparing:

The batsman was out happily
The batsman was out hit the ball twice

It seems to describe the way of being out, in the same way that happily does. That said, we need more input. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

windmill

Rfv-sense: "Of a rotating part of a machine, to become disengaged and rotate freely". Is this distinct from the other rotational sense? --EncycloPetey 06:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this sense is intended in the sense of a cogwheel in a machine coming loose from the mechanism and being sent off spinning in a random direction. Think for example of a helicopter blade that becomes detached from the helicopter and spins into the air for a while before crashing down into something. That's certainly not the 'normal' sense of a windmill's operation... —CodeCa t 09:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite common in aviation to describe a propeller disengaging and spinning in the airstream. I believe most aircraft have a system to prevent it, as the windmilling blade can cause vibration and drag.--Dmol 10:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the usage examples show that the first sense is transitive and the second intransitive. I've heard the second sense more than the first. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "to become disengaged" is necessarily part of the definition. Again in aviation, it's common to describe the rotation of a turbine engine's compressor fan as windmilling when the movement is being caused solely by the surrounding air stream (e.g. surface wind when the aircraft is parked on the ground, or the movement of the aircraft through the air with an engine shut down in flight) rather than by the gas generated by fuel combustion – but nothing is "disengaged". -- NixonB 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a difference between a turbine blade and a propleller. A prop must disengage to be spun in that manner, a turbine fan does not.--Dmol 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

transphenomenal

Apparently from a translation of Sartre. Independent use? DCDuring TALK 17:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be a (deprecated template usage) word - but what the hell does it mean? The (deprecated template usage) definition doesn't mean much to me. SemperBlotto 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's existence is definitely attestable, but possibly in more than one sense, going back to 19th C at least. I would need to work up to this, but it seems like a long run for a short slide. We could use someone familiar at greater depth than WP offers with the Idealists of the 19th C for one sense and someone who knows Sartre for another. The term does not appear in WP. It appears once in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (article on Sartre). DCDuring TALK 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of hits: google books:"transphenomenal"--687 hits. I find many hits from which a link to Sartre is unapparent, thus seem independent. I am not eager to add attesting citations myself, but the term looks attestable. --Dan Polansky 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition now reads "Having its being not reducible to its being perceived." The being of a thing, I estimate, is the essense of the thing, meaning the set of all monadic predicates that hold true of the thing. Example monadic predicates would be "cat(x)", "white(x)", "living(x)", holding of a white cat that is still alive. It is quite plausible that the truth-values of some monadic predicates holding of a real-world concrete entity such as a cat or an electron cannot be determined by observation. These could be tagged as "transphenomenal", although it is not clear why they would not be tagged as "noumenal". In any case, the contrast set could include "phenomenal", "transphenomenal", and "noumenal". This is a mere estimate, though. --Dan Polansky 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've already demonstrated a high level of aptitude for the task: you make it seem to easy, as if it were second nature to you. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The late w:Anthony Flew's A Dictionary of Philosophy only uses the word in this article on Sartre, from which one could infer a definition of "having its character (nature?) not completely revealed in the totality of its manifestations". I don't know how this relates to other usage by philosophers. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations which suggest Kantian origins. I think there is a fairly clear line Kant>Hegel>Fichte/Schilling>Husserl>Sartre. The citations don't clarify the definition for me. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re origins: the putative etymon seems to be no older than the English term (possibly younger). It appears in commentaries on Kant starting in the 1880s, but I cannot find the German term in Kant, nor even the English term in any translations. It appears to be the sort of word invented by latter-day interpreters in order to confuse the uninitiated. -- Visviva 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this RFV on the whole entry as cited and thus RFV passed (nominated in this diff). Whether this entry has any meaningful definition is another question that can be further clarified as part of a cleanup. The word is used in plenty of hits in Google books (google books:"transphenomenal", 595 hits) and some quotations appear directly in the entry. --Dan Polansky 09:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish

Rfv-sense (adjective): (informal, derogatory, dated) Nonsensical, illogical.

I am fairly sure that this is based on the fairly common collocation "Irish logic", which I take to be "a type of logic typical of or attributed to the Irish." It is not always derogatory and does not seem especially dated. I doubt that this is ever used as a true adjective or, indeed, used in the sense given except in the expression "Irish logic" or its synonyms.

Is it a true adjective? See Wiktionary:English adjectives.
Is it ever used in this sense except in "Irish logic" or synonyms thereof?
Is there any usage that could not be included in a definition limited to "Typical of or attributed to the Irish"?

There are a large number of demonymic stereotypes that provide widely used pejorative senses of virtually every demonym. We seem quite arbitrary in how we treat these. As descriptivist adherents to "all senses of all words in all languages" we would seem compelled to have such senses, but we don't. Can we simply finesse the matter by having "Typical of or attributed to the X" for any demonym "X"? DCDuring TALK 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know this one. I may be difficult to cite because of the other meanings that will be used in texts a lot, but I've used it and heard it used. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of presentation. I feel faced with a choice between the most natural way of presenting pejorative (and certain other) senses of demonyms and avoiding fanning flames of hostility and ethnic defensiveness. We need not make every pejorative sense explicit if we show a sense of "relating to the X people, their culture, and language(s)". If someone has a pejorative view of the "X people, their culture, and language(s)", then the non-evaluative sense arguably includes the pejorative associations they have. The shifts in the way the word "black" has been used by both blacks and non-blacks is interesting, but it seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. Similarly, with the implicit racism in the (dated) expression "That's damned white of you, Thomas!". It seems to me that there is a long appendix on the sociolinguistics of demonyms and ethnic slurs. Any particular nuances for a given demonym seem more like usage notes material than definitional material. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provided I (or anyone) can cite it, this seems very different from "from or pertaining to Ireland". It can refer to concepts as well as people, an "Irish idea", and "Irish suggestion". Now... I just note to prove it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has this meaning as a separate meaning to the other ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you expect from those stereotyping Edwardian logophilic Gaelophobes? I wonder whether they see fit to include "perfidious Albion". DCDuring TALK 19:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping this is a joke rather than a shot at Oxford. Anyway it's turning out to be a bastard to cite, as there are so many uses of Irish to mean 'relating to Ireland or the Irish people' that finding three citations is gonna be hard. Let's be honest here, RFV is about whether entries are cited, not citable. I'd like to see this kept as good faith, but we'll need more opinions than just mine. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the OED: I'm looking through their entry online — they're currently making it available for free, briefly, to advertise its new appearance — and I don't see such a separate sense. The closest I see is sense A. 3, “Irish in character or nature; having what are considered Irish characteristics. spec. Used of seemingly contradictory statements.” Most of the citations are of people saying something seemingly contradictory and themselves pointing it out, such as “followed by anticipation (to speak Irish)” and “Isaac and I went alone (that seems rather Irish)”. So the true sense is something like “Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "dated" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. Seemingly contradictory” — not at all what our current definition sounds like.
Incidentally, the OED doesn't mention "Irish logic" at all in their entry.
—Ruakh_TALK 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ratelessly

"In a rateless manner" (but it's not clear from (deprecated template usage) rateless what that means). Only one match in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find citations that are independent of the 2 non-independent ones at bgc at Scholar. I found none at all at News or Groups. We are at the top of the Web hits (~160 total). The web hits are consistent with what I found for "rateless" at WP. I found our definition even less comprehensible than what WP had.

From w:Fountain code: "The term fountain or rateless refers to the fact that these codes do not exhibit a fixed code rate." The actual wording of the definition of (deprecated template usage) rateless is left as an exercise for the reader. (ie, I don't have any understanding of what would in the numerator and denominator of a "code rate". I doubt if I could say more than a sentence about w:Category:Coding theory, which seems to be the context, part of mathematical communications theory.) DCDuring TALK 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quotation, presumably the one to which Equinox referred. It appears to be from an edited book — which is to say, from a conference paper invited to be included in said book. I think this maybe has (or maybe should have) the weight of a journal publication. In any case, the sense seems to be of "in a manner that employs a rateless code." Pingku 09:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks

Four senses, all proper names of teams, need to meet the brand criteria.—msh210℠ 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The brand CFI is only for “a physical product.” But wouldn't it be easy to attest Shark as n. “member of the San Jose hockey team?” —Michael Z. 2010-05-26 02:56 z

We have not been distinguishing between service and product brands. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beavage

Seems to be in use, but certainly a neologism. Might pass our CFI, but if so, only barely. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tuefit

(County Durham) the lapwing. Possibly Topcat tosh, unfortunately County Durham's a pretty small area so trying to cite this is gonna be tough even if it does exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

boglet

Top Cat. Two senses, animals in Welsh dialect. Equinox ◑ 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoscientific

I'd like to see both definitions verified. They seem iffy and possibly like original research to me. __meco 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first definition - Of, relating to, or employing pseudoscience - has widespread long-term use. Hundreds of book hits, going back to the late 1980s. (The only variation is the alt hyphenated spelling, but this is not the issue you have raised). Easily verified.--Dmol 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't forget that this is not Wikipedia. We expect ALL entries to be original research - not just copied from other dictionaries. SemperBlotto 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added two citations for the first sense. There is a sort of grey area, though: is it pseudo+scientific (i.e. resembling, but not actually, science) or pseudoscience+ific (employing pseudoscience)? In practice they are almost the same. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "From (deprecated template usage) pseudo- + (deprecated template usage) scientific, after (deprecated template usage) pseudoscience", which seems a good compromise. Ƿidsiþ 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the citations is that they don't actually document the specific definition. My particular issue is with the word employing. I was arguing on a Wikipedia talk page the position that employing the theory of either science or pseudoscience can not be labeled scientific or pseudoscientific per se. __meco 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fliver

Alt spelling of (deprecated template usage) flivver. Can't find evidence. Equinox ◑ 18:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

casuist

Rfv-sense: pejorative. Tagged, not listed here. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

scree

Rfv-sense: verb

I can find plenty of evidence for this processing being called (deprecated template usage) screeding, that it uses (deprecated template usage) screed boards, and that once complete the concrete is described as being (deprecated template usage) screed. This suggests that it would be logical for the verb to be "to scree" to but I haven't been able to find evidence of it on bgc or ggc. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this bgc search for some distinct verb collocations, I found 2 new verb senses (added), one citation that fits the definition, a few scannos for forms of screed#Verb, and numerous scannos for forms of screen#Verb. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lag

Rfv-sense: (Internet) bad connection, loss of connection, causing a delay. DCDuring TALK 10:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Very common in gaming circles. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the definition and usage note implies that it is used in gaming to mean delay in a sense distinct from sense 1 "latency". The quotations don't make clear a distinction. In fact, the third suggests there is no difference. I could as easily create a distinct sense for control systems engineering or economics. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A gamer might say "there was a lot of lag" or "too much lag". Can sense 1 be used uncountably? Equinox ◑ 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Good point. I tried splitting sense 1 into countable and uncountable. That might be overkill, but we get reports that countability is a troublesome issue for language learners. Perhaps we should make a point of splitting countable and uncountable variants of the most common of senses. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is this an rfd-redundant now? If so, I say merge.—msh210℠ 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

microtomed

Rfv-sense: Needs to be shown to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 09:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three citations added. SemperBlotto 09:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those cites don't show traits that distinguish adjectives from past participles. Past participles can be used in the attributive position. See Wiktionary:English adjectives for the tests ("too X", "very X", "more X than", "become X"). DCDuring TALK 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

acupuncture

Rfv-sense, is/was this used in a sense other than the Chinese medicine? Conrad.Irwin 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. And may I just say, books like this make me uncommonly glad to live in the 21st century. I think there is also a modern extension of the Chinese medicine sense to refer to any sort of comparable needle-prickery, but that can probably be rolled into the earlier sense. -- Visviva 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gilder

Rfv-sense: Dutch coin (a guilder) is this an alternative spelling, an archaic one, an obsolete one, a misspelling or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an alternative spelling, perhaps archaic (but then so is the term 'guilder' itself nowadays). Influenced no doubt by the verb gild. Google books does have a few references for 'Dutch gilder' in reference to the coin. —CodeCa t 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

algerine

To prowl with the intent of burglarizing. Cites needed to get proper context for this. Also missing senses, etymology. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized, it means "of or pertaining to Algiers", with special reference to pirates according to the OED. SemperBlotto 14:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bgc has mostly mentions in the verb sense: 2 from Victorian British dialect glossaries (Wales and Cheshire), one from Notes and Queries. The meaning is not at all clear from the quotes reported. It might mean something like "to sneak around like a thieving Algerine". DCDuring TALK 15:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arean

Definition says, "Of or relating to Mars". I went looking for citations to clarify the entry as to whether it pertained to the deity or the planet, but could not find any b.g.c. English citations. Nor does this appear in the original OED or Oxford's sci-fi dictionary. Please help! --EncycloPetey 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deity should properly be Ares. We may be missing deity-related senses for Martian and martial. Pingku 12:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have one 1894 quote relating to the planet. --EncycloPetey 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schiaparelli, or perhaps translations of Schiaparelli, used the word around that time. I'm not aware of any other instances of it.

Sorry, I thought the tag was a request for citation, so I deleted it after supplying the cite.

BTW, although it looks like a homonym for Aryan, it possibly was intended to be ə-REE-ən. I doubt we can know. kwami 23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was both a request for clarification and a request for citations. To meet WT:CFI, Wiktionary requires three durably archived citations per sense. Alternatively, a single usage in a "well-known" work, or single use in a peer-reviewed journal will also suffice. If you can find it in an astronomy journal, that would be enough for the astronomic sense. I wasn't very successful in my own hunt, but I don't have easy access to great astronomical resources. I'd look in my copy of Cosmos but I haven't seen it since I moved. It's the sort of word I can imagine Sagan using. I didn't find it in Edgar Rice Burroughs either.

So, the question at this point is whether the word also pertains to the Greek deity, since we have a Nature citation for the astronomical sense. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found two more citations for the planet sense (from SF) and split the senses. Just one for the deity sense - I'd thought it would have been easier than it has proved. It seems also to be a surname and there is another deity, "Na Arean", (and variants) who apparently gets a mention in Cosmos (page 25 in someone's copy.)

My favourite scanno is "Arean square inches." Pingku 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were able to find that, can you dig up anything more on Mimantean? I have one (as 'Mimantian') from Socrates, but other than that only blogs and the JPL website, which only mentions the word, so I haven't used them as refs. (JPL Hulles BadAstronomy. It would seem from our rules that blogs are good enough for the 3 citations, but it would be nice to have s.t. that's been published.)

As for Atlantean, I've seen at least one dictionary claim that the -ian spelling is used for 'of Atlantis' and the -ean spelling for 'of Atlas', but I don't know how robust that is. kwami 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPL (first link you cited) has a usage as well as a mention of 'Mimantean': "This is puzzling because Mimas is closer to Saturn than Enceladus, and the Mimantean orbit is much more eccentric (out of round) than the Enceladean orbit." I'm not sure that counts though, because of the mention. Pingku 01:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. How did I miss that?

How would the mention be a problem? In the CFI link EncycloPetey provided, we even have an example with a mention inside a usage. kwami 06:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a feeling that if every time you see a word used it has had to be defined first, you haven't proved it's not a neologism or a nonce word or something similar. Perhaps my concern is not widely shared. In any case, it's probably not a problem in this case. Pingku 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's cited now. Pingku 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. It looks like the 1998 cite for the god-Ares sense is not durably archived, so it doesn't count for verification. But the other five cites seem O.K. (though I'm not positive about all of them). —Ruakh_TALK 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the meaning "of the planet Mars", move the meaning "of the god Ares" to Citations:Arean? - -sche 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prut

Is this an adjective? I can't think of any cases where this can be used as such. The sense itself is not wrong, but this would not be considered an adjective. It would be a compound. —CodeCa t 11:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accident

Rfv-sense: (obsolete) Unusual appearance or effect, used in Chaucer, per Webster 1913. Was this used in this sense in Modern English? DCDuring TALK 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Modern English renderings of Chaucer? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Philosophy sense is related? Pingku 15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't find this sense in Shakespeare using my Shakespeare Lexicon. I'm also not finding it in Milton's works. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has "A casual appearance or effect, a phenomenon" citing Chaucer's Clerk's Tale "Non accident for noon adversité Was seyn in hir", and has three subsequent cites up to 1765, but marks this sense as obsolete. Dbfirs 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'd take their word for it, but we could use the citations. It is difficult to find citations for a specific uncommon sense of a common term using Google alone. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another quotation to the entry. It is not clear to me, that "unusual appearance or effect" is a correct definition. - -sche 20:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mince

Rfv-sense two verb senses:

(countable) A short, precise step.
(countable) An affected manner.

And one noun sense:

(transitive) To affect; to make a parade of.

I can't seem to find any of these senses on OneLook, nor can I find examples of usage on Google. ---> Tooironic 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you meant noun senses from the valid verb. The OED records this usage ("An instance of mincing speech; a mincing walk") citing: "She always wore flat heels so she didn't have that mince like most girls.", J Fowles, 1963 and Shaw's "Stage smart speech, which, like the got-up Oxford mince and drawl of a foolish curate, is the mark of a snob" from 1897. I don't know if this helps. Dbfirs 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, I think. - -sche 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

runaway

Rfv-sense X 2:

out of control.
who has run away.

These senses correspond to noun senses. I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that in "a runaway train", that runaway is not an adjective? I would also argue the same for "a runaway bride". I rather suspect that the noun derives from the adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is possible that this was at one time used as a true adjective, but is used as one no more. Online Ety Dict puts the noun as having attestable use by 1547. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re EP's comment: AFAICT when a noun follows another to refer to an object that is primarily in the class denoted by the second noun but also in that denoted by the first, which also has members outside the class denoted by the second, and the primary intent of the dual terminology is to point out that the relatively unusual case that a member of the second class is also of the first — like with runaway bride and runaway train if runaway is not an adjective — then the stress goes on both terms, perhaps slightly stronger on the second, but never stronger on the first unless especially emphasized: an apprentice lawyer, a sword walking stick, etc. The same holds true here, which leads me to tend to accept that runaway may be just a noun. see also [[Wiktionary:English adjectives]].—msh210℠ (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED isn't quite sure either. It puts (and adjective) in brackets and claims that the usage is attributive use of the noun, or as an adjective (though all of the cites seem to be attributive noun usages in my view). Perhaps we should just add a usage note to the noun senses that some attributive usages can be considered adjectival. Dbfirs 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I take it that OED has the notation at the top of the headword (or at the inflection line). Visviva had long ago suggested that we need some such treatment.

What has slowed me down is uncertainty about what would be effective in preventing users from adding an adjective PoS section notwithstanding what appeared in the noun section. I think the best place for some notation would be the inflection-line for the noun. The alternative of having an adjective section that directs users to the noun section would be more effective, but uglier. Part of the problem is that we have trained users to find PoS sections in alphabetical order, placing Adjective at the top of each language section. DCDuring TALK 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:guerrilla and sense 3 of guerrilla for why nothing this simple may work. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added an RFV tag to the noun sense "An object or process that is out of control." (This raises an interesting conundrum: phrases of the form "runaway ____", meaning "out-of-control ____", are readily citeable, but what happens if we can't find any unambiguous-noun or unambiguous-adjective cites?) —Ruakh_TALK 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited IMHO. But, interesting conundrum. I am inclined to credit grammar before semantics. I would posit that all senses (which seem more fluid than grammar) have license to flow into the syntactic slots made available by any one of the senses. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your cites clearly support a sense meaning "a runaway train"; is that just a consequence of the terms you used in finding those cites? Or is our definition just way too broad? (If the latter, then we still have the conundrum …) —Ruakh_TALK 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three cites, none of which are about trains. I think the now well-cited "process" sense needs a usually attributive tag. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! I've added the tag. I've also split the train thing out into its own sense. —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "iron horse" (before pneumatic braking) as a transition between living and not-living runaways? Is that a linguistic or a non-linguistic, reality based shift is usage? DCDuring TALK 20:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me there is no more reason to split train from other inanimates than to split runaway slaves/apprentices from runaway children (dominant modern use). DCDuring TALK 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., then feel free to re-merge them. But maybe trains should be called out explicitly within the sense, at least? Just the fact that our example sentence and first three quotations (both chronologically and in terms of when you added them) were all referring to trains made me think that that was an original, primary, and somewhat independent usage; but you've obviously spent much, much more time investigating this word than I have, so I'm happy to defer to your judgments about it. —Ruakh_TALK 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Runaway slave/apprentice/animal/horse/horse and carriage" => "runaway train/locomotive" => "runaway boiler" => "runaway process"? DCDuring TALK 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Runaway slave/apprentice" + "runaway horse" => "Runaway bride" => "runaway child"? DCDuring TALK 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

juice joint

Not in any OneLook reference except Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bgc reveals dictionaries that define it as a speakeasy. Citations:juice joint has some ambiguous quotations: The Mezzrow and Nest quotes clearly mean bar (tavern) — or some kind of bar. The Ridley quote seems to be referring to ~~a place to~~ an opium den (well, the modern equivalent). The Brown quote, I just don't know. And there are many bgc hits that refer to a place that sells juice (y'know, like orange or mango). It's probable that we're missing appropriate senses s.v. juice and that this is SOP, given its wide range of meanings.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the modern kind selling fruit juice is most often called a (deprecated template usage) juice bar. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but [noun] joint is used to mean a place that sells [noun] for consumption on the premises. See google books:"meat and potatoes joint" or "spaghetti joint", for example.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added (deprecated template usage) juice. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "juice" begins with Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "dʒ" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. makes it a priori one of the slang terms for liquor most likely to combine with "joint". Is that alliteration a reason to include or exclude a collocation? Other alliterative collocations with nearly as high to much higher Mutual Information scores on COCA are "jook"/"juke, "jazz", "java", "gyp" (and "jaw"). DCDuring TALK 20:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this becomes an RfD question. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if the definition is accurate. It says a nightclub, not SoP IMO. If it's any joint (bar, nightclub, pub, etc.) that sell alcohol, then it's SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At COCA nine of ten hits relate to fresh juice-selling establishments; one to a kind a hand-rolled crack- and marijuana-enhanced cigarette. Nothing at BNC. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re SOP: I don't think this could be considered SOP, since there are two or three possible meanings, one of which was not immediately obvious to me. I would have sooner assumed this was smokeable marijuana before guessing it was a speak-easy. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, this seems to have various meanings, of which the one entered and challenged is at best barely attestable. It's use with joint seems to be quite as relatively infrequent as the use of "juice" to mean "liquor". DCDuring TALK 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

navy

Rfv-sense. Belonging to the navy. Seems like the noun used attributively. I don't think you can say this warship is navy (excluding the color, of course). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This looks like attributive use of the noun, and I can think of no counterexamples. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MG's test is not conclusive. One could say "Jack is navy through and through." See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per DCDuring, I didn't tag it with {{rfd-redundant}}, so if it's here we should try and cite it. How, well, that I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

attachment

Rfv-sense X2. Can the first three senses be distinguished meaningfully? Are they inherent in the word itself? (The 2nd and 3rd senses seem included in the first. Is this an RfD-redundant sense problem?)

A strong bonding towards or with.
A cloying type of dependency.
A relationship that is not in the best interests of one or both of the participants.

-- DCDuring TALK 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that 1 is certainly different to 2 and 3, given that it is neutral, where 2 and 3 are negative. I would say 2 is too specific, can mean just "a dependence, especially a strong one" not necessarily just a "cloying" one? I don't think we need 3 at all - is attachment ever used in this sense without an adjective (or context) explicitly saying that the attachment/relationship is not a good one? We could add the word "relationship" somehow to def 1 though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am bothered by the inclusion of valence in the definition itself. Does the word carry that assessment itself or is it derived from context (or the speaker's or hearer's experience)? In the case of a word like risk, I am quite familiar with the need to make an analogous distinction, but I don't see it in this case. Perhaps citations will help me see the light. DCDuring TALK 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. I've implemented Thryduulf's suggestions (remove sense 3, change sense 2 to "a dependence, especially a strong one"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

association

Two first senses are defined as:

The act of associating.
The state of being associated.

Aren't these a bit too general? Do they apply with every sense of "to associate"? Should they be divided into several, more specific senses? --Hekaheka 06:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most dictionaries at OneLook handle it as we do, more or less. This is a general aspect of such terms. I would not want to define each and every derived term of a polysemous word with each sense of the polysemous word. Sometimes efforts along those line may be necessary.

Do you doubt that we could find 3 uses for each of these? It seems you would like the definition improved. Perhaps {{rfc-def}} or {{rft}} or {{defn}} or {{rfdef}} would fit you request better. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the question because we sometimes separate the senses with split-hair precision, whereas this entry in its current form takes a more wholesale approach. It's perhaps only my problem, but as there's no one word in Finnish that would cover all the senses of "to associate", I needed about a dozen words to cover each of the two senses that I tagged. There's no doubt about it being possible to find three quotes for each. I just wanted to verify that the definitions are clear and specific enough. If everybody else is happy with them, I'm happy. --Hekaheka 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. I don't have a strong opinion about whether we should split these senses up, but regardless, {{rfv-sense}} isn't going to accomplish that. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unwriggle

It is rare, and I don't think it usually means what is given here. Consider: "unwriggled his stone feet, and stood up"; "You rip off that golden paper and unwriggle the wire" (okay); "he unwriggled from the small car" (intransitive, to exit by wriggling); "Swish curtains or unwriggled forefront of rich opacity" (adjective, perhaps meaning "unwrinkled"); "her white, unwriggling bum looked plumply impervious", "curls a satisfied smile around its unwriggling mouthful" (adjective, not wriggling). Nothing for "unwriggles". Equinox ◑ 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two positive hits for the sense we have are [50] and (figuratively) [51]. Another is the golden-paper one you mention, Equinox. That's three, though I'm too tired to want to bother formatting them at the moment.—msh210℠ (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm now defending my new article. Are these ones OK? Although, I'm not sure what the situation is in number 2. Old Bill Swyer's been coiled up in a serpent for a long time? It seems fanciful to me. --Mat200 11:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 1987, Henrietta Garnett, Family skeletons:
  You rip off that golden paper and unwriggle the wire. Then push up the cork with your thumbs and give it a little twist and try not to let it go off.
- 1988, Thomas Hardy Society, The Thomas Hardy journal:
  we been a-trying to unwriggle old Bill Swyer from his serpent now for many a year.
- 2001, alt.drugs.psychedelics, Counting Comets:
  He was actually almost unwriggled when we came to finally untie him. He was beating us up alot before this.

phase

Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To become stunned or shocked. (We do not have this sense s.v. faze.)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard that used in a transitive sense, though I can't vouch for one spelling over the other. --EncycloPetey 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quadfecta

Rfv-sense - situation. I believe that it is a type of bet. SemperBlotto 09:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (similarly (deprecated template usage) trifecta)[reply]

bid

Rfv-sense "The announcement of a goal" (as distinct from "The attempt toward a goal", which is the following sense: this is one is specifically the announcement). It gives some usexes, which I think belong to the following sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

tap

Rfv-sense. To force a submission in combat sports. You can make someone tap, you can tap (submit, tap out) but this I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The caption to the lead photo of this story at Sherdog.com, a well-known MMA site, reads: "Fabricio Werdum taps Fedor Emelianenko". — Dale Arnett 02:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it does, so that would be one citation, if we accepted it as "durable". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. And (deprecated template usage) tap out is also used this way. —Ruakh_TALK 20:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nutella

A brand name. Needs the appropriate attestation. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~And it should be Nutella with a capital N. The definition implies that there is a generic spread named after the original.~~ Oops, just realised we're talking about a French language entry. Striking my own comments.--Dmol 01:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it as a common noun. Could we just accept three lowercase cites? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 lowercase French cites for the French entry as it is. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can actually cite this; problem is my gut feeling is that all the hits are just errors for Nutella the brand name. I'm not sure if forgetting a capital letters counts as an attestation for a common noun. No more than I'd accept michael as a given name with 3 lowercase citations either. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could Nutella meet WT:BRAND in any language? DCDuring TALK 23:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to tell if a word has been genericized, but I gave it my best shot. (Well, I didn't exhaust Google Books. I stopped right about halfway.) DAVilla 13:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue (well, an issue) is whether the citations refer to Nutella or to any of several chocolate spreads. Similar to hoover meaning vacuum cleaner. Perhaps keep per the 'reasonable doubt' 'rule'. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bring up

Rfv-sense: "To stop a vehicle; to park." The usex given ("He brought his Ferrari up to the side of the road") seems to actually be bring + up to ("Against; next to; near; towards: Go up to the counter and ask").—msh210℠ (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toepoke

verb "# Template:football To kick hard and far with the toes", noun "Such a kick". --Volants 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added one citation each for verb and noun. Seems to exist, but might be too rare. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW we used to use this lots and lots when we were kids, but orally. So if it is attestable it could be toe-poke or toe poke I suppose. Perhaps North of England slang, dunno. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as alternative form of toe-poke. --Moppo 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unkept. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation. —Ruakh_TALK 13:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited both. —Ruakh_TALK 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

traino

In Australia "train station" --Volants 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible but RFV failed. I could only find a couple of not-very-usable posts on Usenet. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox has removed the sense. I see only one Usenet and one Books hit (both of which I've added to the cites page); if there's another Usenet hit, I'm not seeing it, but that might suffice then.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jinky

Tagged anonymously but not listed.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following three quotations from online newspapers. Are they valid? I don't like the third quotation from John O'Groat Journal, but that's just because I've never heard of that newspaper before. --Mat200 09:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 1999 Irish Independent - Bell rings warning over Leslie
  He's also quite jinky off his feet. He steps through tackles and offloads there are no frills. He brings other players into the game.
- 2006, Telegraph - Tevez must sharpen up before axe needs to fall
  Coming out second best then, he then tried a jinky dribble from right to left, only to find McCann standing in his way again.
- 2007 John O'Groat Journal - Millbank Man o' Steel event brings season to a close
  Darren was the smallest on the pitch he is certainly not fazed by the bigger lads and his jinky runs regularly stretched the opposition to the limit

- Online papers are not durably acrhived. Have these same articles appeared in print, in papers that are in libraries somewhere?—msh210℠ (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess this question is for me. I have no idea if they appeared in print, sorry. Do you have any idea how I can find out? I'll hazard a guess that the Irish Independent and Telegraph appeared in print. Can we use nicknames as valid references? I'm thinking about the Celtic footballer Jimmy Johnstone, nicknamed Jinky, because of his zigzaggy runs down the wing. --Mat200 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A bit of online research will often tell you. (Of course, microfilm works, too, but I have only once resorted to that AFAIR.) The 1999 Irish Independent cite was in print: [52]. (The only information I got from that that's not at [53] is that the article was on page 20, FYI.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re Johnstone: Yeah, google news archive:"jimmy johnstone" "jinky because|for" might help demonstrate that that's really why he was called that.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French

"(informal) risqué, racy, bawdy." Not sure the given citation backs it up. Equinox ◑ 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same sort of thing as French letters, it sounds plausible although I don't know if I've ever heard it outside set phrases. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mythic

1. "awe-inspiring"; 2. "heroic". Equinox ◑ 19:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if those are the best defs, but yes, there is some sense in which (deprecated template usage) mythic means "larger than life" rather than "not real". See e.g. google:"has become a mythic". —Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wa lao

"(Singapore, vulgar) Unhappiness at an unexpected or unpleasant situation." I don't think the references are very reliable. --Volants 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also have wah lau and wahlau. One of the links was dead and one of the links was Urban Dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gat

Rfv-sense: An Irish slang sense, gat#Etymology 3, meaning something like tomcat#Verb. Claimed only as gatting, gating. No ety. Other forms, esp. base, need to be attested. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the Irish, though I suspect it is just a variant of gadding. I was surprised to find that we don't have the only sense of the word that I know - gat as a variant of got - the past tense of the verb to get. Is this usage now rare other than in dialect? e.g. And Abraham gat up early in the morning Genesis 19,27 Dbfirs 09:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aller-

Is there a pressing reason why the etymology is listed the way it is? It seems more likely to me for it to be simply the old genitive plural of 'al', as in the German aller. Sources would be nice. —CodeCa t 10:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what needs verifying? RFV is specifically for attestation, as long as you're not denying that this exists the best place would simply be the talk page, and tag it with {{attention|nl}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

namesake

I've checked three paper dictionaries and can't find evidence for this entry being correct. If Freddie is the grandson of Frederick, then, according to this entry 1) Freddie is the namesake of Frederick and 2) Frederick is the namesake of Freddie. Can someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Haus 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think (2) clearly sees widespread use. (1) is attestable also, though: [54], [55], [56], etc. (Of course, those could be instances of the other ("A person, place or thing having the same name as another") sense. I don't know an easy way to rule out that possibility on a search.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All persons with the same name {full name, given name, surname, nickname) are in an equivalence class with respect to the shared name. One of the uni-directional variations undoubtedly had preference when the supposed source phrase "for the name's sake" was intelligible. MWOnline has one sense with an especially including the RfDed sense. BTW, see OneLook for convenient access to many online dictionaries and glossaries, including AHD, RHU, MWOnline, Encarta, and Online Etymology Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanations. I'm now convinced the entry is accurate. Although I reserve the right to raise an eyebrow if someone were to say that Kim Kardashian is Kim Jong Il's namesake. Haus 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian is not the namesake of Kim Jong-Il. The North Korean leader's name is actually, 김정일 (according to Wikipedia), with Kim Jong-Il being the Romanisation (and in any case "Kim" is the family name). Similarly Michael Schumacher and Michael Portillo are not namesakes, as the German name (deprecated template usage) Michael is not the same as the English name (deprecated template usage) Michael, even though they have the same spelling and similar etymology. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most folks would buy these distinctions, which only linguistic theorists and certain philosophers could love. I wonder whether KimK and Kim Jong-Il are related. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying then that Michael Douglas and Douglas Hurd are namesakes? I certainly wouldn't regard them as such. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hypothesize that most folks would actually view the namesake relationship within a naming convention as applying only among names of a given class (given names, first name, surname, patronymic, etc), though some may use the term more broadly. I think most lexicographers attempt to word definitions so as to finesse the need for such precise delineation of sub- and sub-subsenses. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have really confused me! You're saying appear to be saying that:

Michael Douglas and Douglas Hurd are not namesakes as they share neither a given name nor a surname

I agree they are not namesakse

That Kim Kardashian in Kim Jong-Il are namesakes, presumably as they share a first name(?)

I disagree - they share neither given name nor a surname - the "Kim" in the Korean's name is a romanisation of his family name "김"

That Michael Schumacher and Michael Portillo are namesakes because they share a first name

I disagree - the names are cognates (they are both descended from Hebrew) and coincidentally have the same spelling, but they are not the same name.

As I read what you've written to be self-contradictory, what do you actually mean? Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to be jesting about over-extending the concept across naming systems, just as I would be loathe to call "w:Red Bull" (beverage) and "w:Sitting Bull" namesakes. Sorry for not making that clear. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fragus

I don't find this in Latin through the Medieval period, and it's unlikely to have the given meaning based on similar roots. The verbs (deprecated template usage) fragor and (deprecated template usage) frangō mean "break, fracture", not "bend". The Latin for "joint" is (deprecated template usage) articulus. --EncycloPetey 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

familism

I can't see any evidence for this. SemperBlotto 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC) - also familistic[reply]

Sorry? 57 700 Google hits (including Merriam-Webster). Lmaltier 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they durably archived and consistent with the sense in the entry? In any event, the definition is under challenge. 30 days should suffice for valid cites. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition that involves high importance of the family relative to the individual, but some of the usage suggests that it is the importance of the family relative to the community (or the nation). That would be worth resolving. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

triumphalism

Rfv-sense: Excessive expression or demonstration of glee at the defeat or failure of a rival; brazen gloating. vs "Attitude or belief ....". DCDuring TALK 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shuffle

Rfv-sense: (noun) To get lost in the shuffle: to lack attention when you deserve it. Seems confused. Am I missing what the contributor is trying to say. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That definition is a little confusing, but I think there's still something in there.

The phrase "lost in the shuffle" seems pretty popular; it means failing to stand out against others.

1975 Gil Scott-Heron, "Lost in the Shuffle," Ebony (July 1975), Vol. 30, No. 9, Johnson Publishing Company, p28
We have allowed ourselves to be "lost in the shuffle" of American priorities in the '70s, but we should never lose sight of ourselves and our goals as our priorities.
1987 Robert Subby, Lost in the shuffle: the co-dependent reality, HCI, p39
We get lost in the shuffle, and in the end we don't even know that we have needs - much less know what these needs might be.
1992 Michael G. Kalogerakis, Handbook of psychiatric practice in the juvenile court: the Workgroup on Psychiatric Practice in the Juvenile Court of the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Pub, p24
In the occasional highly publicized case, then, the best interests of the child may be lost in the shuffle.

So "shuffle" by itself might be used in the sense of a "a jumbled crowd of people", as below:

1996 Kate William, Francine Pascal, In Love with the Enemy, Bantam Books, p18
Suddenly the girls were caught in a shuffle of people pushing down the aisle.

There might be another unrelated sense, with "shuffle" being the sound of movement (probably closely related to the walking sense), as used here:

1967 Betty Schechter, The Dreyfus affair: a national scandal, Gollancz, p207
There was a rattle of rifles and a shuffle of people rising to their feet and then tense silence as the judges filed into the courtroom and took their places at the central table.
1995 Mel Kernahan, White savages in the South Seas, Verso, p113
As I lay there listening to the strange night sounds, I hear the shuffle of someone creeping by outside in the grass.
2003 Edmund G. Bansak & Robert Wise, Fearing the Dark: The Val Lewton Career, McFarland, p394
She has a crippled leg, and every time she walks we hear the shuffle of her crinoline skirt and the thumping of her cane.
2008 Markus Zusak, The Book Thief, Pan Macmillan Australia, p148
Around her, she could hear the shuffle of her own hands, disturbing the shelves.

Thoughts? Ackatsis 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the person who originally added the sense did not mean to say that one sense of the noun (deprecated template usage) shuffle is “To get lost in the shuffle: to lack attention when you deserve it”; rather, I think (s)he meant that one term containing the noun (deprecated template usage) shuffle is the phrase “to get lost in the shuffle”, which (s)he defined as “to lack attention when you deserve it”. (This is what's called a "run-in entry"; many or most dictionaries have them, including the French Wiktionary; we tend not to, instead putting such phrases in a "derived terms" section and giving them their own full entries.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hothouse

Is this a true adjective? See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

antique brass

A colour, apparently. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on Google Books, and the best I found were:

1929 Metal industry, Metal Industry Pub. Co., Volume 24, p158
Most parts are hammered sheet brass and all require antique brass color.
1950 American builder, Volume 72, Simmons-Boardman Pub. Corp., p64
[...] r alloy, rustproof and finished in antique brass color.
1998 Desire Smith, Fashionable clothing from the Sears catalogs: early 1970s, Schiffer Pub. Ltd., p82
Leather belt with double row of holes all around. Antique brass-color buckle with double hooks.

Ackatsis 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 1998 quote is talking about something that is antique brass coloured, just an antique that is brass-coloured.

- Lua error in Module:parameters at line 828: Parameter "colour&f" is not used by this template.

I think that one fits the bill though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Antique brass color" does not imply that "antique brass" is a colour, only that it has a colour. A book calling something "sky colour" does not imply the existence of a colour called "sky". Equinox ◑ 16:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The Weddie quote works, though, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I also think some of the this at google books:"black and antique brass" are good, though it's hard to be certain that they mean antique brass color. They certainly don't mean literal antique brass, but they might mean brass that's made to look antique (as here), in which I'm not sure if that counts.
Regardless, there is some idiomatic sense here, unless we're missing a sense at [[antique]].
—Ruakh_TALK 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bad form

I don't think this is attestable as a true adjective (vs attribute use of noun). DCDuring TALK 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly not just attributive use of the noun — if anything, I would say it's most often predicative. The problem is that (deprecated template usage) form is not always countable, so predicative use can easily be read as straightforward use of the uncountable noun (much as how "getting there is hard work" doesn't turn "hard work" into an adjective); and (deprecated template usage) bad is already an adjective, so something like "very bad form" is easily read as "{very bad} form". Honestly, I'm not sure what sorts of cites could confirm that this is an adjective, if it is. —Ruakh_TALK 01:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled on this; since it can be qualified by adverbs it should pass RFV as clear widespread use with very, with absolutely. However, I wouldn't object to some sort of rewrite to make clear what the distinction is. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ruakh's comment above re "{very bad}". Besides, is absolutely bad form is absolutely sometimes "{is absolutely}...".—msh210℠ (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would one assume that the grammar was not "very" or "absolutely" modifying "bad" in the normal way that adverbs modify adjectives, as Ruakh said? We would need a cite of the "more bad form than" type or something like "a very bad form display" (whereas I would expect "a display of very bad form"). DCDuring TALK 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "What is still more bad form is for a medical journal to air the political views or religious beliefs of its editor."? —Ruakh_TALK 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you (and others) have told me, this kind of example is not usually compelling, certainly not compared to "more bad form than". I find it a little surprising that only Websters 1913 has this (as a run-in at "form") among OneLook references. The usage examples are of nouns. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

f-word

Verb sense "to fuck". If it can be attested, then what sense of fuck? I think it would mean to shout expletives at (something), not "to fuck" which is vague. -- 203.217.41.136 02:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the quote given, it seems to mean "to swear" i.e. to use f-words. SemperBlotto 06:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Appears to be all senses. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the following is usage rather than mention but I include it for possible use in citing related terms and amusement:

Template:quote-news DCDuring TALK 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SemperBlotto that in the 2010 quotation it means “to use the word (deprecated template usage) fuck” rather than “to fuck”. And the other two cites are actually for (deprecated template usage) F-word. —Ruakh_TALK 17:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

create

Rfv-sense: to manufacture. Tagged by Verbo (talk • contribs) but not listed. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly valid, just perhaps redundant? We have four senses that seem pretty similar meaning 'to make, to bring into existence'. I'm not really sure if these senses justify 4 senses, 3, 2 or even just 1. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I only see 4 senses: to bring into being (used of God, this was the original sense); to make or form (in other ways); to cause; to confer (a title on someone). Ƿidsiþ 10:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

belt and suspenders

The adjective looks like attributive use. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

raspberry ripple

"(Cockney rhyming slang) A nipple." Note: if attested, I suppose the word should be changed from uncountable and given a plural. Equinox ◑ 17:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created raspberry ripples as a plurale tantum with one citation. Attesting the plural is gonna be hard enough, I imagine the singular will be even rarer. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, the nipples sense does seem to be plural only. I seem to remember hearing it (only as "raspberry" - that's the way Cockney rhyming slang properly works) to mean (deprecated template usage) cripple. SemperBlotto 10:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books find it in three slang dictionaries, but actual uses are much harder to find. There are a couple of ambiguous uses where I'm not sure what it refers to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pockmas

Uses an ad-hoc, arbitrary way of spelling that is far from being commonly used (if at all, apart from a few cases of people mocking Bavarian dialect). In other words, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, specifically "widespread use". If this entry should be kept, please verify it with quotations conforming to WT:CFI#Attestation --Zeitlupe 20:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just barely cited. -- Prince Kassad 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is one citation that seems valid (the one from the book). But I don't think the two citations from usenet can be used, because they are just people playing with words and spellings. The fist one contains another (intentional?) misspelling "Bayuvaren" (which should be Bajuwaren), and the second one is not even understandable by a native German speaker: abudawi is maybe a fun spelling for Abu Dhabi, but what does "rade" mean? I don't think that usenet or chat sources where people intentionally play with spellings for fun and make up new words or spellings can be used for reference quotations. --Zeitlupe 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't they? Usenet does count for CFI purposes, and that people are a bit joking does not invalidate the entire quotation. Oh, fyi, "rade" is the name of the person he's replying to. -- Prince Kassad 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they are really only joking a bit in these postings. They are intentionally butchering the language for fun. I mean, do you really think the second posting could count as a valid citation to prove that "abudawi" is a German word? --Zeitlupe 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We're doing the same for English, after all. Of course, you would still need to find three independent citations spanning at least a year so that rules out words someone simply made up, but other words written like that do appear in Wiktionary. -- Prince Kassad 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't do that for misspellings, unless they are common. A common way to transcribe this Bavarian/Austrian dialect expression would be "pack ma's", "pack mas" or "packmas", because the first vocal is pronounced like a very open 'a'. If I look at the Google hits, these expressions get >300,000 hits. In contrast, "pockmas" gets less than 200 hits and many of them are unrelated (e.g. Manga names). So this is not even a common misspelling, but extremely rare. --Zeitlupe 08:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think that it is consensus here that Usenet postings are a good source for quotations. WT:Quotations: "Quotes should only be from date-able printed source, except for in the case of earliest usage where reliably date-able electronic sources (e.g. Usenet) can be used." --Zeitlupe 10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly accepted that Usenet quotes are valid. Just ask the others. Also, if you think it's a misspelling, you should start adding the supposedly correctly-spelled variant. -- Prince Kassad 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have used Usenet quotations to cite the existence of words. I'm not sure I agree with using it to cite spelling since posts aren't edited, but to go against precedent you would have to raise the topic in the Beer Parlour. [Edited:] I wanted to bring this back to RFD, but I'm not sure what you think the correct spelling to be. If it's a question of attesting spelling then I would agree with you, but this seems to be citing the very existence of the term. In that case Usenet is entirely applicable because it captures language how it is actually used. The stipulation is not that the source be formal but that it be durable. DAVilla 06:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition lists a question form but this is not yet cited. DAVilla 06:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

bumfoolery

"Messing about, often in a homosexual way." Needs a better definition if it is citable somewhere. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough Google Books gets one relevant hit. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three cites that support a definition along the lines of "messing about" or "nonsense", and there are more. Oddly, a sense related to homosexual activity is harder to support. I say "oddly" because (1) Cassell's Dictionary of Slang lists only that sense, (2) the only use on Google Books (which I've also added) seems to be using it in that sense, and (3) both Google Groups–proper hits seem to be in that sense (even though not even one of Google Groups' ten Usenet hits is). —Ruakh_TALK 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Markup

Of the five citations on that page, three suggest the correct spelling is actually with a hyphen, not with a space. -- Prince Kassad 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the two that do have the string "Wiki Markup", with a space, are using it English contexts: one has "Wiki Markup Editor", and one has "Wiki Markup Language". (Those English phrases are embedded in otherwise German sentences, but that doesn't make "Wiki Markup" German, any more than the existence of à la mode makes à English.) In all fairness, the 2009 cite comes from a book that, a few pages later, does use "Wiki Markup" on its own (in the sentence, “Durch die Verwendung der Wiki Markup entsteht ein an Foren angelehnter Thread-Modus mit einem Thema und eingerückten Kommentaren der Benutzer”‎), but I couldn't find other cites that do so. —Ruakh_TALK 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to [[Wiki-Markup]]. —Ruakh_TALK 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

waitable

Looks like a hoax, possibly the same vandal who gaves us pleuvable and all the other -able words that got zero Google Hits. Or it could be genuine, let's be fair. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deprecated template usage) waitable is definitely a term in computing - bgc is full of results for "waitable timers" [57], "waitable kernel objects" [58], "waitable resources" [59], etc. but I don't understand what it means.

A possibly different sense is used in [60] contrasting "waitable" and "non-waitable" messages, presumably a "waitable message" is one that is not urgent and is able to wait, which isn't quite the sense given. This has appeared in a refereed academic journal and so would fulfil that criterion of the CFI, but I've not yet found any other uses in this sense, but getting past all the computing uses is tricky.

I've found two cites from usenet ([61], [62], meaning "a length of tine that is reasonable to wait for something", which might or might not be the sense given in the entry, I'm not sure. Again the number of uses in the computing sense make finding other uses non-trivial. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another two bgc hits, 1 [63] I don't understand at all. In the second [64] I think "but they were not waitable" means "the time they would take to arrive is longer than the length of time he could wait for them", if so this would be a similar usage to the 2 ggc hits about waiting time above, but I'm not sure if it is the exact same sense. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trophy

RfV-sense for an adjective defined as "Based on physical appearance rather than on individual merit, especially if regarded as a status symbol."
Not a true adjective, but rather a noun used attributively (if frequently). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears at [65], but I don't know what it means there.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a true adjective to me. I think it is attributive use of a sense meaning "status symbol". That certainly fits the common "trophy wife". A trophy wife is often good-looking, smart, and well-connected, famous, talented, or rich. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doobly-doo

A neologism about a YouTube feature. RfVed by contributor but not added here. DCDuring TALK 11:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see #dooblydoo further up this page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

woulder

My early research seems to show this is attestable as an eye-dialect of "would have", but not "person who would". Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The verb sense is clearly attestable, so I've added it and converted the rfv to an rfv-sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google books:+"woulders" shows quite a few works quoting various forms of (the) wishers and woulders are|were never good householders, a proverb. I suppose various people's use of a proverb count as independent (otherwise how could we have any proverb entries?) even though they're eventually all quoting someone, albeit unwittingly. Are those uses?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meet

Rfv-sense 11. (Irish) to give a French kiss. -- Any takers? -- ALGRIF talk 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, how good are you at kissing? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lolicon

Two senses tagged, not listed, with explanatory comments embedded in the page source. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the third sense (erotic art) should be easily citeable. However I haven't got time to look right now, but the source of that page sis a perfect example of why we should always use the templates for quotations - without them the source is a right mess and it's hard to pick out the definitions from the quotations, and hard to work out what each bit of information about the quotation is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment was previously in a separate section.

Rfv-sense Its primary function is not to make an artistic statement but to arouse sexual sensation — This unsigned comment was added by 97.120.253.250 (talk) at 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

wordflow

Three perplexing senses. Related to (deprecated template usage) workflow, to words? Protologism? Equinox ◑ 11:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The senses given do look like protologisms. OTOH, the word is used uncommonly. It means - wait for it, wait for it - flow of words, AFAICT, which sense I have added. It is sometimes used in literary criticism. The earliest use I could find was 1860 and reminded me of the movement to mimic Old English morphology to construct "Anglo-Saxon" words, often to replace latinate ones, perhaps "loquaciousness". I don't think we will find nine citations to support the three differentiated senses provided, though there might barely be enough for one in a sociology/OD/systems-analysis sense. I have an OD book titled Stream Analysis that is reminiscent of the concept. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-arian

Rfv-sense: residents of a place. This is apparently based on words such as Bavarian, Bulgarian, Carian, Hungarian, and Tocharian, all of which are formed by suffixation of -an/-ian or derived from Latin or possibly French. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is (deprecated template usage) Lunarian from Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 38: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead.? [comment continues below]

Lunarian is formed in English from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) lunaris + -ian. — This comment was unsigned.

[comment continued from above] Aside from that, I can't think of any standard demonyms that use it, but a few colloquial (humorous?) (deprecated template usage) -arian demonyms do seem to be attestable on Usenet (using Google Groups):

(deprecated template usage) Canadarian — three hits — 2000 noun, 2002 noun, 2002 adjective.
(deprecated template usage) Torontarian — eight hitsq — 1994 noun, 1998 adjective, 1999 noun, 2000 noun, 2000 noun, 2003 noun, 2005 noun (mention?), 2006 noun.

You'll have to click the links to judge for yourself, but the great majority of the hits seem to be using these to mean simply "Canadian" or "Torontonian", not to denote believers or proponents or whatnot.

Also, (deprecated template usage) USArian is better attested than (deprecated template usage) Canadarian and (deprecated template usage) Torontarian put together (not that that says very much), but I'm not sure whether it counts as using the suffix (deprecated template usage) -arian.

—Ruakh_TALK 13:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are so many spurious derivatives shown in the entry, not just for this sense. Many suffix entries have similar problems, but [[-arian]] may be the worst I've seen. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also already had planetarian, which could be viewed as "planet" + "-arian", though I think one sense is "planetarium" + "-an" and another is "planetary" + "-an". DCDuring TALK 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense 2: Someone of a certain age. (Perhaps to be reworded to avoid of a certain age.) This seems intended to address words similar to nonagenarian. But "nonagenarian" has a much more direct derivation from Latin (deprecated template usage) nonagenarius. I think the RfV question is: Are there age-specifying words ending in "-arian" that are formed by suffixation of "-arian" or are they all blends or formed like "nonagenarian"? DCDuring TALK 11:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also gets parsed as (deprecated template usage) -genarian, and the term (deprecated template usage) genarian has seen some usage (compare (deprecated template usage) ism), but that only covers 40/50/60/70/80; 20 ((deprecated template usage) vicenarian), 30, and 100 ((deprecated template usage) centenarian) are different, which reinforces -arian. While we’re at it, (deprecated template usage) sesquicentenarian (rare) does exist, but I can’t think of any age words not actually from Latin (or Latinate) (a 23-arian? A 65-arian?).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(typo) —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, links for (deprecated template usage) genarian: Word Spy: genarian; How to win a Pullet Surprise: the pleasures and pitfalls of our language, by Jack Smith, 1982; The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Your True Age, p. 10, Roget’s Super Thesaurus, p. 413)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

valor

Rfv-sense: "A brave person; a person of valor." If this is correct, then we need a plural valors. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikification

"The process of adding wiki links to specific named entities (usu. capitalized) and other appropriate phrases in an arbitrary text (usu. news articles in current research). The automated process consists of automatic keyword extraction, word sense disambiguation, and automatically adding links to documents (or other unstructured text) to the Wikipedia or other reference." Equinox ◑ 23:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like tosh, but hey, I've been wrong before. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

only son

Rfv-sense: a male only child. I think this is more commonly used to mean the only male child in a group of children in a family. I did not find anything unambiguously in the RfVed sense at COCA. "An only child" and "an only son" and "an only daughter" are all idiomatic, I think, so "an only car" implies a peculiar relationship between owner and the car in question. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant to sense at (deprecated template usage) only, which in fact uses the same example sentence. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

only daughter

As above. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLWT

"Good luck with that." Google pulls up a fair number of uses, but Google Books and Google Groups do not SFAICT. —Ruakh_TALK 03:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clape

Noun not in any online French dictionary. Not in fr.wiktionary or wikipedia. SemperBlotto 07:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted my references just now on Talk:clape. Alex 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

massive

Tagged but apparently not listed: Rfv-sense. "Of particularly exceptional quality or value; awesome. " I've found the five I've added to the entry, but I'm not sure about any of them except the 2003 one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try a web search for "massive tunes". One example BBC Radio 1 It's probably most common to London and England. Google says 16,500 hits for "massive tunes" and 25,200 for "massive fun", one example Denver Post. ITS MAAASSSIIIVVEE!! :). RTG 02:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

insidious

I have no idea how this works. I am unlikely to post here again. Insidious does not = treacherous. The sources listed do not support that assumption either although one says, "stealthily treacherous". Stealthily is the operative word in this case and I would support the idea that treachery might be a more confusing example than something like cunning. Treacherous is very close to deceitful but not insidious. Beside that, the entry "intention to entrap". The intention to entrap is not an example of insidious although the entrapment itself or its manner may be. And, for the entry which says "witch's insidious gingerbread house". Is it not "the insidious witch's gingerbread house". Is it not her cunning and deciet which is insidious or is it the gingerbread and candy canes? RTG 01:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers has "developing or advancing gradually and imperceptibly; deceptively attractive; cunning and treacherous." The house is the middle one. Equinox ◑ 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary.com says, "Beguiling but harmful; intended to entrap; working or spreading in a hidden and usually injurious way." It says intended to, not intending to, i.e. the purpose rather than the intention. I did not see any gingerbread houses in those ones but perhaps the gingerbread house had "an insidious purpose"? The one you quote in bold is rather vague to say the least even if it is a quote from Chambers. Are we restricted to the quality of Chambers if it is not so good? There are various hits for the phrase "insidious treason" and hundreds for "insidious treachery" (page one of James Russell Lowells book Abraham Lincoln for one to pick). Suggesting that "insidious" is used possibly to describe treason rather than being it. Currently it blunty says insidious = treacherous. It could be ironed out of those at very least. Note, the "insidious treachery" hits are quite revealing, everything from marvel comics to Lincoln literature, news, blogs and the like. Barnes and Noble quote Lowell (under features tab) RTG 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone who has it like to check the OED? Equinox ◑ 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command :- Full of wiles or plots; lying in wait or seeking to entrap or ensnare; proceeding or operating secretly or subtly so as not to excite suspicion; sly, treacherous, deceitful, underhand, artful, cunning, crafty, wily. (Of persons and things.) SemperBlotto 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Party Now But All For Our Country, Francis Lieber, Inaugral Meeting of the Loyal National League, 1863, page 2, line 3, quote:"Insidious treachery" [66] RTG 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, treachery is treacherous, so that doesn't preclude "insidious" having that meaning. Compare e.g. "his devices for preying upon the avaricious greed of his fellows". Equinox ◑ 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not relate the e.g. but for curiosity I searched "treacherous treachery" There were over 1,000 hits on the internet most of which were lists but one quote included the bible... so I searched for "righteous righteousness" which turned up almost 30,000 of which all but one on the first page were about the bible and that one again was a list of words on answers.com. Probably doesn't matter anyway it's only a bunch of meaningless words when you put it like that. Try Leisure Guys The Torturous Tourture Debate [67], an ex head of torture teaches us that torture really is torture. RTG 04:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge: Find us a newspaper heading, or the like, published EVER that says, "...found guilty of being insidious." "...was court martialled and shot for being insidious." Not, "...insidious plan." but, "... found to be insidious and sentenced for it." That which means treacherous is often taken very seriously. Find us a quote that not only equates insidious to a state of action or being, but to a state of crime. The most defining feature of treachery is that it is a crime and punishable by death even in countries long abolished of the death penalty. A defining feature of insidiousness is that it is not viewed a crime by any on its own. Show us the statute that says"...the minimum and maximum sentences for insidiousness..." There are none I think. For being treacherous though, there are in every book. RTG 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few citations to the various senses. However, it can be hard to tell precisely which sense is intended. IMO, "this insidious city" (1969, Brewster and Burrell, referring to Paris in Henry James' The Ambassadors) seems to fit the disputed definition of "alluring but harmful", while "insidious house of Austria" seems more likely to mean "treacherous". Equinox ◑ 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

give cry

Rfv-sense: To give full pursuit; chase after.

I think it is really just to cry out. The association with pursuit is the sound of the hounds. The quote given is clearly about the "hounding" behavior of journalists, better known for "hounding" in print than for dogged pursuit, excluding paparazzi. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. I agree with your analysis, BTW. —Ruakh_TALK 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

radio

RfV for the newly-added verb sense "To order someone home or back to HQ, by radio or some other method." — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is a specific example of a more general sense "to contact someone by radio". Whether or not this more general sense is itself part of the existing "to send a message by radio" I'm not sure either way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a creative google search would give us a clue. Maybe this is from something like "to radio someone back (locative adjunct)". If might be found in war-type fiction. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found citations for the sense. I think it is a particular construction "[radio] NP 'locative adjunct'". I don't know how general the locative adjunct can be. "Back" and "in" are examples.

Sense 1 includes 4 different grammatical possibilities, now illustrated by a single four-part usex. Should they be 4 separate defs? I think "ambitransitive" saves contributor time at the expense of user understanding. No learner's dictionary (indeed no dictionary AFAICT) uses that label. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seed

Rfv-sense X 3: all adjective senses. They each look like attributive use of a noun sense. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney

Sole adjective sense: Available for public hire. Is it used in this capitalization in this sense? Is it used in this sense for any collocation other that hackney cab/Hackney cab? DCDuring TALK 20:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are thousands of uses for "Hackney carriage" (including in legislation) and "Hackney coach"/"Hackney-coach". bgc also shows uses for "Hackney car" (most are where "Hackney carriage" is hyphenated, but there are some that are genuine), "Hackney chair", "Hackney sedan-chair"/"Hackney sedan chair", "Hackney boat" (most of the hits are from a single source though) and "Hackney cabriolet".

A "Hackney horse" is a horse that is available to be hired, but it may or may nor be a specific type of horse as well - there are various "Hackney Horse" societies around the world.

There also exists (deprecated template usage) Hackney-man, which appears to mean "a person who hires out horses", which isn't quite the same meaning.

"Hackney cart" gets hits too, although I'm unsure whether this is a cart available for hire, or a specific type or make of cart.

Pretty much all combinations of capitalisation and hyphenation seem to exist for all the terms. I've not found any (relevant) bgc hits for the following collocations: truck, lorry, barge, ship, tug, van, skiff, coracle, locomotive, engine, bicycle, motorbike, bike, sidecar, or wagon. I've not looked on ggc or for any other collocators. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I doubt that this can be shown to be a true adjective: *"My car becomes Hackney/hackney every Monday for five days." See Wiktionary:English adjectives.

How would we word this as a noun used only attributively in compounds? Is there also a sense (or senses) for it as head of compounds that is distinct from the existing senses at Hackney and hackney? Can {{alternative spelling of}} help simplify? If this were used in US English I would try to do it myself. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazop

Noun, verb, and adjective. A chemical engineering methodology with 2 alternative spellings. May ultimately be spam for someone's brand (not necessarily trademarked/servicemarked) of consulting service. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC

Australian band. Should meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can speedily delete this one, right? Equinox ◑ 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be suitable attestation somewhere. It doesn't seem like pure spam. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 14:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an opportunity to clarify WT:BRAND, at least for my benefit. I have three problems with the citations as they relate to the proper noun in this case:

I didn't think that we took similes as valid cites.
It would have certainly simplified many earlier WT:BRAND efforts if we simply allowed all citations of the form "the [Proper noun] of X" constructions as valid citations of [Proper noun].
It is also unclear to me what the actual meaning "AC/DC" in the citations is. What aspect of the band is being referred to?

-- DCDuring TALK 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very confused. On the other hand, this response is six weeks late, but for clarity:

1. Sorry, we do. WT:BRAND has two explicit instances of simile. Metaphor is only a proposed criterion for specific entities.

2. These citations are not valid under WT:BRAND merely because they follow that pattern. The pattern is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet WT:BRAND. I chose those quotations because they were the strongest in allowing a specific entity. As you know we don't have criteria for that yet, so strong quotations will avoid having to cite again in the future.

For instance, the last cite is valid because it does not indicate at all what AC/DC is in the preceding and surrounding text. On the other hand, I'm realizing I didn't check that some of the others weren't written about the type of "product" (music?) in general, so they may not work in that regard.

3. The less clear the meaning, the stronger the case for passing WT:BRAND. I really don't care to cite what AC/DC actually means because we all already know that. DAVilla 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

accumbent

Rfv-sense: could find no usage of the noun sense. The OED has only 1 citation. Nadando 02:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clickster

"An Internet user." I tried a brief search on Books and Groups and didn't find this; I did find possible senses along the lines of "an experimental musician who uses clicks and glitches" (in the (deprecated template usage) IDM genre, like Autechre), "somebody who clicks on an advertiser's banner", and "snapper or photographer". Equinox ◑ 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ubersexual

Tagged but not listed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be cited already and gets plenty of bgc and ggc hits, what is being requested here, specifically? Thryduulf (talk)

It was a technical listing; feel free to mark it passed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither noun nor adjective has technically been demonstrated to meet the CFI. I have some concerns:

The noun's quotations span less than three months.
It's not obvious to me that the October-2005 noun quotation is durably archived. At least, our source for it is not durably archived so far as I can tell; the original radio program may well be, but then the question is, do we consider WorldNetDaily to be a reputable source for transcriptions of radio programs?
I'm pretty sure that the November-2005 noun quotation is not durably archived.
I can't confirm the 2007 adjective quotation. But it, like all the other quotations, was added by DAVilla (talk • contribs), so I'm inclined to trust it anyway.
Neither of the adjective quotations really backs up the adjective definition, but that's probably best addressed by improving or broadening the adjective definition.

And the September-2006 adjective quotation could actually be an attributive use of the noun, but that's only a concern if someone doubts the distinctness of the adjective.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be attestable. World English Dictionary has this definition: a man who exhibits traditional masculine qualities as well as the caring nature of the New Man. --Hekaheka 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added more cites. DAVilla 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pastaierie

Old French for paste. Can only find it in etymological dictionaries so far. Will keep trying. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Godefroy lists this under pastoierie with one citation using this spelling, and two others using the -o- spelling. I'd propose that these are acceptable, therefore, as Old French spelling isn't fixed; pastaierie and pastoierie are the same word, just not the same spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

porposer

Old French "to propose". Found in lots of etymologies, and in Modern French. Google Book citations seem to be from Early Modern French (1700 - 1900) so we could always modify the language header. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Godefroy dictionary lists this under proposer, but only uses it once in a citation. I'd suggest changing to an alternative form of proposer, creating that entry for Old French and keeping that rfv tag - that way if this fails, we only lose an alternative form of a verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

train wreck

"(Music) The point at which many or all musicians in an orchestra fall into unrecoverable discord while playing a piece, usually caused by an incorrect note, missed beat, or poor conducting." Equinox ◑ 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, [68] (consistent with the Wiktionary entry) and [69] (although a somewhat different definition). The term is a popular one in music dictionaries, most of which are quite similar to the Wiktionary definition in question. Bob the Wikipedian 00:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out a few other entries at the two references I listed and realized those two sites looked like pretty specialized slang references. I'll check a couple printed bound music dictionaries when I get a chance this evening and let you know what I find out. Bob the Wikipedian 01:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are entries from two more popular and authoritative references:

train wreck (slang): When the parts in an ensemble "collide" because the musicians are not playing together. Hal Leonard Pocket Music Dictionary, p. 122.

Train wreck: in jazz, when everything comes off the rails - someone misses a repeat, skips the bridge, and so on. Dolmetsch Online.

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And can anyone verify the additional sense just added by User:Bob the Wikipedian: "Something that is highly distasteful, yet inspires a morbid fascination"? If that definition is correct, then I guess all those splatter-filled zombie and werewolf films now in vogue must be train wrecks, along with all the sideshow freaks of an older era. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken...I didn't add that definition. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. It was added by an anon who had the edit above yours (his/her only edit ever). I'll just delete the fool thing. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was satisfyingly simple.

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

end

Rfv-sense for 2 senses: (1) Extreme part, and (2) Extreme line. Does anyone know what these are supposed to mean? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The end of something is the extreme part of it. My toe is the extreme part of my foot. I'm not sure about "extreme line". Equinox ◑ 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, is your toe the end of your foot or would it be better English to say that it's at the end of your foot? And does this "extreme part" sense differ significantly from the existing and much clearer defn2: "The final point of something in space or time"? I think defn2 covers this meaning adequately. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "extreme line" was intended to be an improvement on a definition relating to "limit, border". Whatever the intent, it fails to communicate it. BTW, MWOnline has 7 main senses, 17 total lowest-level senses for "end" (noun). DCDuring TALK 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

badge

Rfv-sense: To enter a restricted area by showing one's badge. Seems to me like a literary use playing on "to barge in". Is it used? Outside of a literary context? DCDuring TALK 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be badge in and badge out. The construction reminds me of clock in (even though that doesn't involve showing anyone a clock). Equinox ◑ 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, in English, we ever have de-nounal phrasal verbs that do not have the corresponding bare de-nounal verb itself. IOW, would it make sense to have badge in and badge out without having a corresponding sense of badge. Don't we have some other particle or adverb, like "through", "into", "onto"? DCDuring TALK 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a similar use of "badge" as a transitive verb: "The policeman badged him and asked him some questions." Perhaps the use in question should be considered an intransitive variation of the same sense. More generality in a definition, especially if it makes the definition shorter, rarely hurts, especially if the specific sense has a good usage example. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

model

Rfv-sense X 3: All senses. I don't believe that any of these meet the tests of true adjectivity (See Wiktionary:English adjectives.) From RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be enough Google Book hits for "become model" that aren't attributive use to suggest that at least one adjectival definition is justified. I say justified rather than needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

give face

Rfv-sense: "To honor; to pay respect." Related to save face. In use? Context? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the request, since a skim-through of google books:"give face" shows many more uses in this sense than in the other. The context seems to be "when talking about Chinese people and culture" (because everyone knows that we Americans love it when people embarrass us?). —Ruakh_TALK 02:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the entry because I stumbled across the Ety 2 sense (which I also had never heard of, while trying to cite downtalk, as best I can remember. I'd never heard give face in the Ety 1 sense and it seemed fanciful, though plausible. It wasn't in OneLook or my Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. I RfV things like that in case I forget to come back to them (as I did). In my wanderings through English entries I find many more problems than I can solve, which is why I keep on hoping that we can get more English-language contributors.

If there isn't a context suitable for {{context}}, then any quotes illustrating typical usage would be great.

I think there is also a collocation/idiom "to give (a) face to" meaning something like personify, embody, or represent. Did you come across anything like that? DCDuring TALK 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. (I thought there might have been something more specific that you were doubting, but I couldn't figure out what. Hence my confusion.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at quite a few bgc pages and wonder whether give face, save face, and lose face haven't become NISoP. The Chinese concept of "face" itself seems to have been substantially absorbed into English. That might have been underlying my RfV. This development seems to me to have occurred mostly in the last 20 years, possibly less. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tattoed

There certainly seems to be use of this spelling, yet it's unlisted in any of my usual references - including the OED. I assume this is a non-standard spelling, and should be marked as such? - Amgine/^talk 01:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have tatto as a misspelling of tattoo. FWIW this just seems to be a bad bot import, though that in itself isn't a reason to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (deprecated template usage) tatto: I dunno, "tattoed" "tattoo" gets many times as many b.g.c. hits as "tattoed" "tatto". Part of that is due to instances where (deprecated template usage) tattoed is merely a typo, but mostly it seems to be due to actual use of (deprecated template usage) tattoed as the past tense of (deprecated template usage) tattoo rather than of (deprecated template usage) tatto. —Ruakh_TALK 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be confusion with (deprecated template usage) lasso. Equinox ◑ 11:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

young lady

"A young ladylike woman". Equinox ◑ 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hits at google books:"act like a young lady" seem to suffice, though IMO this is SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be includable as a form of address. As such it might merit fairly long usage notes. It also seems to have had a dated sense. Macmillan and Encarta include both of those senses. RHU is like our entry + dated sense. Citation doesn't seem likely to be difficult, even in the dated sense. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biafran

"A skinny person." I found a Web page saying that this term was formerly used in German, among schoolchildren, as a taunt, but nothing about English. Equinox ◑ 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly exists. As a skinny person, I spent half my school years (1970s) being called a Biafran. It was based on news reports showing starving refugees which were common at the time. Dated now.--Dmol 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

crank

Tagged, not listed. Rfv-sense for "To act in a cranky manner; to behave unreasonably and irritably." --Hekaheka 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No defenders, delete? --Hekaheka 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example provided, found another in the net, looks all right, even if rare. --Hekaheka 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flatlander

"A resident of Edwin Abbott's fictional Flatland." By definition this seems as though it can't be used without reference to the one specific fictional universe. Equinox ◑ 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could generalise to "an observer in a two-dimensional universe" because the word is used and understood by those unfamiliar with the works of Edwin Abbott. I think I could find sufficient durably archived citations [70]. Dbfirs 07:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minuterie

Note: the title of this section was previously [[minuterie#German|minuterie]]. —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German noun. Nouns are always capitalized in German, and I haven't ever come across this word. Longtrend 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to uppercase. There are some (but not all that many) hits for die Minuterie on books.google.de. At a push, I could probably cite this and translate the citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dhumbal

Nepali card game. Apparently not in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 20:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also not on Usenet. I suggest we delete the entry. - -sche 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

assload

Rfv-sense: An ancient unit of measure. (I'd like to speedy it, but see buttload.) DCDuring TALK 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of non-sense "definitions" given to assload in the internet. Two examples:

The international unit of the assload is derived by multiplying the average mass/volume/surface area by the universal unit for load: Avagadro's Number (6.02 x 10^23). Therefore,

Mass: 1 assload = 1.204 x 10^24 kg which is approximately 1/5 the mass of the earth.

Volume: 1 assload = 1.12 x 10^27 cm^3 which is approximately 2.68 x 10^10 times the volume of earth.

Surface Area: 1 assload = 4.395 x 10^26 cm^2 which is approximately 8.62 x 10^9 times the surface area of earth.

"metric ass-load" is a unit of measure invented in the early 40's by the Royal Navy. It's about 30% heavier than a U.S. ass-load.

Roland de Vaux explains in his book Ancient Israel: its life and institutions that the origin of the unit homer is an ass-load, i.e. as much as an ass can carry, but he does not suggest that ass-load would be the name of the unit. Another site www.metrum.org/measures/appendix.htm gives an exact figure of 91.125 kg to an assload, but it remains unclear how the writer has entered into this figure.

Unless the contributor or someone else can provide better evidence, I would say delete. Nonsense written in Wiktionary seems to spread extremely fast to other internet sites, and becomes very soon "standard knowledge". It's a remarkable achievement to have reached this status, but it brings some responsibility also, IMHO. --Hekaheka 08:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could move the sense to the talk page and respect the RfV 30-day rule in cases like this. Defining what we mean by "cases like this" is a bit of challenge, however. Maybe I'm just too inclined to hold my fire on "cases like this". DCDuring TALK 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah don't speedy, it says as much as an (deprecated template usage) ass can carry. It's probably a joke, granted, but I see no reason not to give it 30 days first. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally clear on the distinction you're drawing between the sense that you added and the sense that you RFV'd. It's not hard to find cites where (deprecated template usage) assload is being used more or less as a unit of measure, much as (deprecated template usage) handful or (deprecated template usage) armful is today, but with the added twist that whereas nowadays we have thorough systems of standardized units (pound and kilogram and whatnot) that are used when precision matters, historically that was not necessarily the case. For example, this book mentions a tenth-century price of three assloads of coal at a certain place, noting that "an assload contained at least 60 kg.", and this one talks about how many ass loads a certain canoe could hold. (That one doesn't count for this entry, since it spells it with a space, but it's not atypical.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now use the word and similar word as a crude approximation. If there are explicit mentions of it use in exchange, especially in a market place or repeatedly or in a clearly mercantile context, than that suggests a little less crudeness. Human nature being what it is, there was probably some sense of what a "fair" assload was (eg half an oxload, 4 manloads, 8 deerskins). That would seem to evidence that it could be considered a unit of measure vs. a mere approximation. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the balance scale is an ancient device, I'd bet a marketplace might have had standard weights for resolving disputes. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we combine meaning [2] into meaning [1]. - -sche 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

thems

(Appalachian) Plural form of that. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very hard to produce three uses of (deprecated template usage) thems as — [71][72][73] — but I'm not sure whether (deprecated template usage) thems is used otherwise in this sense. Probably yes, but it's hard to search for. —Ruakh_TALK 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially plural of that, or otherwise an Appalachian form of those: "Thems are good cars."

Recorded examples are a bit hard to find, but otherwise, see the Talk on its page. Wōdenhelm 04:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ Also, here's a Twitter users's status, using thems as a form of those/these, seen here. (I have no clue who the user is. I searched Google for thems are, and this was in the top results) Wōdenhelm 23:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche 19:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sutoru

Absolutely nothing on Google. Would be awesome if we actually had trial pronouns, but... -- Prince Kassad 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google books:dusner pronouns or dusner trial supports the claim that Dusner has dual and trial pronouns in the third person, but Snippet View won't tell me what they are. And I live a hundred miles from the nearest library with the book. Primary sources are out of the question. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 19:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ambient findability

Just an ad for a book? Equinox ◑ 00:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. google books:"ambient findability" gets hundreds of hits. I assume that the book introduced the term, but it's clearly gained some currency. Many of the hits don't count, in that they're not using the term themselves beyond just quoting the book title, but even so, I'll be surprised and disappointed if no one manages to cite this convincingly. —Ruakh_TALK 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leafstorm

For some reason, Razorflame moved leaf storm to leafstorm, but the citations actually use leaf-storm. That's attestable (assuming the citations are correct) but leafstorm only appears in one citation, hence needs to more. I was reluctant to move the page, in case this spelling also meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

normal

"(informal, pejorative towards homosexuals) heterosexual". Needs to be cited distinct from the existing senses "usual, ordinary" (because heterosexuality is more frequent and is the traditional Western norm) and "healthy; not sick or ill" (because homosexuality has often been regarded as a disorder). Equinox ◑ 10:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"normal and homosexual" turns up some interesting uses. this book consistently distinguishes between "normal" and "homosexual" males of genus Barbus (as do other works by that same author); this page and this page also demonstrate such a distinction. When you say that this "[n]eeds to be cited distinct from the existing senses", what do you have in mind? —Ruakh_TALK 03:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is something attributed to person A pejorative to person B? Is "She was the valedictorian of her class." pejorative to those who weren't? This is far outside of what a dictionary should represent. Perhaps it fits in some appendix on pragmatics or discourse analysis. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we delete the meaning as not distinct from other senses, as Equinox says, or mark it as offensive. - -sche 19:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demerara

Originally tagged in 2007, never listed.

I do not know the basis for RFV. The sugar currently marketed (in Canada) as Demerara is a natural brown sugar plus additional molasses to make it a dark brown sugar (6.25% molasses.) (see w:Brown sugar and w:Natural brown sugar.) - Amgine/^talk 16:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, clear widespread use. And we don't have demerara. For a guess, I'd say the RFV is based on the uppercase/lowercase issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pigopolist

pigopoly

Needs cites. Seemingly almost entirely from single non-durably archived news source. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularised (and probably invented) by irreverent IT news site The Register, but sometimes used elsewhere. Ruakh has now cited pigopolist. Equinox ◑ 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox and I have now cited (deprecated template usage) pigopoly as well. —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citations look good. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

constructed language

Rfv-sense: Any language used by people, as opposed to less civilized means of communication, such as the socialization between animals.

There are quotations given in the entry that are intended to attest the definition, but I do not quite understand what they say, and that they really attest the definition. --Dan Polansky 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations appear valid to me. Still, I find it quite unlikely that this would be a valid sense in today's linguistics. Why on Earth use the term "constructed language" as a hypernym of itself (sense #1)? Note that all three quotations are from 19th century. Unless newer quotations are provided, this could be tagged "archaic". --Hekaheka 22:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tocome

I'm having trouble believing that this is a single Modern English word and not a scanno or Middle English. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our reference, the 1911 Century Dictionary, has this:

tocome†, v. i. [ME., < to¹ + come.] To come to; approach.
These to-comen to Conscience and to Cristyne peuple.
Piers Plowman (C), xxii. 343.

which seems to justify your disbelief.
—Ruakh_TALK 02:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dalrymple's Leslie's History of Scotland of 1596 we have it: ‘He [...] wastes, burnes, and slayes al that he tocumis’, where "tocomes" means "comes to". It probably survived longer north of the border. There is very little research on it in the OED. It needs some proper examination of older texts, which Google Books is poor at. Ƿidsiþ 12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A second reference is Coleridge, A dictionary of the first, or oldest words in the English language, which has an entry for tocome (same def.). In addition, I found a few nominal uses of the word in The poetical works of Gavin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld and Virgil's Aeneid (keyword: "now this tocome" or "the contyr or first tocome") meaning "an approach, an onset". Leasnam 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1939, Joyce, Finnegans wake uses tocoming. This work is Modern English. A Wake newslitter also uses this term. Does this need to be changed to (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "dialectal" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. perhaps with a special emphasis on Scottish and Irish: (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "obsolete" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.? Leasnam 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Gavin Douglas wrote in Scots, not English.--Prosfilaes 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So we can disregard those works. Leasnam 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tocome (also tocum) are entried as both verb and noun (with derivative tocum(m)ing) in the Scots dictionary. How often is the occurrence of these words in Scottish English? Does anyone know? Even if it's the word cosmetically written as to come (= approach, come to), which I have seen done. Leasnam 02:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Scots and Scottish English is more of a state of mind than a linguistic fact. We may not be able to cite this, although I very strongly suspect it was still in use in early modern English. Also, I must say I'm uncomfortable with using Finnegans Wake as a citation source, unless we're quoting from one of the (few) passages written in standard English as opposed to Joycean awesomeness. Ƿidsiþ 08:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Middle English to + come seems to imply it was formed in Modern English, or else it would be from Middle English tocome (not to + come). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It is from ME, composed of ME equivalents of to + come. Leasnam 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused a Modern English dictionary listing this as Modern English justifies disbelief? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your phrase "a Modern English dictionary listing this as Modern English" is understandable, but IMHO not very well-supported. The headword slot indicates it's obsolete; the etymology slot says this is “ME.” (not “< ME.”, as is done with some words); and the sole citation is in what we would call Middle English. I'm open to the possibility that the dictionary is a Modern English dictionary that only lists words that made it into what we call Modern English, but I haven't seen compelling evidence of that. On the contrary, I see evidence that the dictionary does not consider this word to be what we would consider Modern English. —Ruakh_TALK 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It is ambiguous no doubt. The normal ME form for the verb would be tocomen rather than tocome, which this word is clearly indicated as a verb. Leasnam 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Century dictionary appears to be very inconsistent in its etymology format: Compare todash (" < ME. todashen...") with tobreak or toburst ("ME. tobreken..."; "ME. tobresten..."), which shows that sometimes they use " < ME." and sometimes they do not. Leasnam 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 citations to the entry. Leasnam 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think any of those are valid: the Dalrymple cite is actually Scots, and the Caxton cites seem to be using (deprecated template usage) tocoming as an adjective meaning "soon-to-be". (Plus, they're not independent of each other.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've actually found a suitable one. It's in a letter from James III to King Richard III (therefore it is post 1483), written in what appears to be Scottish English (there are definite Scottish characteristics, but it isn't today's Scots to be sure), where James uses tocome twice as tocum. The spelling of this word may have still been variant (Middle English also having tocumen beside tocomen; cf. betwixt vs. betuix within same passage). Otherwise, if indeed the term itself is a Scots word, it is used in English (?--EME?) context, analogous to how foreign words are adopted into English today--like French à propos or cliché which, when used in English become English words. Same here I think. Clearly, James knew that Richard would have understood what this word meant or he would have refrained from using it. Leasnam 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mokita

I would like the following English definition verified:

A widely known but unspoken truth.

Is it used anywhere? Given its conspicuous spelling, would it perhaps be a loan word? There is a reference to a "Worthless Word for the Day Dictionary", but it is a dead link to me.

There is also a hidden comment, stating: "Etymology needs to be checked, as given by anon contributor: Apparently 'mokita' is a Kilivila word, from the language spoken on Kirwinia, the largest of the Trobriand Islands, in New Guinea." --Daniel. 00:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

multiculturalism

Rfv-sense: Tagged earlier in 2010 by Ultimateria, this is the only ever edit by User:Jprulestheworld01 (talk • contribs) - looks bogus to me, either a protologism or a misunderstanding of the primary meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See google:multiculturalism "all cultures are equal". As with many movements, its proponents and opponents often define it differently. It's hard to construct an NPOV definition that captures all range of uses, but it's probably not ideal to create a "POV fork" definition that implies that the proponents and opponents are simply talking about different things. (For a similar previous discussion, see Talk:feminism. That one ended up failing RFV because antifeminists are too incoherent, but antimulticulturalists — despite often being the same physical people as antifeminists — seem to be a bit better.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed; but if anyone has any thoughts on how to improve the entry, please be bold. —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uno

(English.) Needs to meet the CFI of brand names.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's five citations at Citations:Uno, several of them added when this was at RfD. It would be nice to know what the problem with those citations are.--Prosfilaes 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WT:BRAND exclude citations like "the Uno card game" and "the card-game UNO", where the brand is mentioned alongside the nature of the branded product? Equinox ◑ 09:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if more information is needed to understand the quotation. That case would have to be made, however. DAVilla 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2003 quote seems valid - "charming mama’s boy is playing Uno with a pack of giggly girls" - Uno might be anything. The 1999 quote says it's a game, and the other three specify it's a card game, so they don't meet the brand name citation requirements. I think two more citations are needed. Why have the WT:BRAND rules at all if they are never applied? --Makaokalani 15:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the 1999 quotation is also admissible because it does not indicate what type of game is being played, as WT:BRAND weakly suggests would be necessary. For instance, a game that required physical activity could have consequences on the girls' ability to fall asleep. One that required heavy concentration, like a learning game, would indicate that the girls were generally up fairly late. Also, although it's called an "Uno game", Uno could potentially be something other than the name of the game, such as the name of a cartoon character featured in the game. If you thought that about 2006 quote, or thought that "Uno cards" are just the ace cards, then you'd wonder if you were to "play the game" of a specific type or just make up the rules. But frankly that's a pretty weak position, and now I can't think of why I thought 2007 was lexicographically significant. Mostly it's just difficult to find quotation of such a short word without joining something on topic like game or cards in the search. DAVilla 08:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've found some really good quotations using "play Uno". DAVilla 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

osmotic communication

Tagged, not listed. Currently one of the oldest tagged RFVs. —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Google Web source says "Alistair Cockburn introduced in his book “Agile Software Development” the concept of osmotic communication", so that may be a place to look. I suspect the "Crystal Clear" mentioned in the entry is some company spamming itself by mentioning a technique it uses. Equinox ◑ 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Crystal Clear: see [[w:Crystal Clear (software development)]]. It does sound spammy, but no, it's actually just a poorly-worded expression of a relevant fact. —Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major barrier to citing this is that I don't think we have a clear definition of "independent". I'm taking for granted that different uses by Alistair Cockburn are not independent of each other, even though the CFI doesn't quite make that explicit, but what about cites that attribute the phrase to him, but also use it themselves (not in verbatim quotes)? How about cites that mention Cockburn and Crystal Clear, but don't explicitly indicate that that's the source of this phrase?
Does "independence" mean exactly the same thing for words as for multi-word terms? Does it depend on how idiomatic the multi-word term is?
—Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

muller

"(UK) to utterly defeat in a sport, game or other competition." Never heard of it. I think TopCat14 added this one. Equinox ◑ 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though, there are (now) two citations, both of which seem to be valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nargery

Since (deprecated template usage) narg failed RFV, I doubt that this can pass, either. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are sufficiently many uses on Usenet which I'd think mean "technical discussion" or something like that had I not seen our definition of "speaking of work outside of work; shop talk" but which also seem to fit the latter.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cruscire

A supposed Latin verb (presumable infinitive of (deprecated template usage) crusco). I can see lots of mentions in etymologies (all copies of each other) but no actual usage. SemperBlotto 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say infinitive of (deprecated template usage) cruscio, if attestable I mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the mediaeval Latin form of Old French (deprecated template usage) croissir, Spanish (deprecated template usage) crujir, Italian (deprecated template usage) crosciare. Du Cange uses it in his glossary in the 17th century; clearly, it was never used in classical Latin. Ƿidsiþ 10:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be in a glossary, but it's not listed in any of the leading modern compendia of Medieval Latin vocabulary. It's not in Latham or Niermeyer. It may be a dictionary-only word, as I can't seem to find it used anywhere outside of glossaries or dictionaries until 1851, where I find a single (ecclesiastical) use. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5

Rfv-sense: "MI5; the agency or a particular agent." mainly listing it here as it needs citations to find out which, if either of the definitions are correct. "MI5; the agency" is a proper noun, and "a particular agent" is a common noun. I don't feel confident to split the two senses 'blindly' without knowing if either of them meet CFI. PS finding citations might be tough. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever seen the terms (deprecated template usage) 5 and (deprecated template usage) 6 used for the organizations. Stella Rimington (who should know) uses them that way in her novels. SemperBlotto 08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, the Google Books–indexed versions of her novels don't use them that way. But that might be a change the American publishers made (like how Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone here). If that is the case, do you have ready access to a British version, that you can add a cite from? —Ruakh_TALK 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beat

Rfv-sense: "A small part of a dramatic play". Tagged but not listed, if you can find out who tagged it, all the better. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the user who added it is confusing it with a small pause in a play? If that is the case it should be merged with "A pause with the camera focused on one shot, often a characters face (often used in screenplays/teleplays)." ---> Tooironic 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCDuring did, FWIW.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A theater glossary now at OneLook has "A deliberate pause for dramatic / comic effect.", ie, Tooironinc's sense, which IMO should replace the camera-specific sense we now have. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outbuy

Rfv-sense To pay for the ransom of (a prisoner). I don't see evidence of this definition. --Sparkliest 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added by Widsith (talk • contribs), one of our most reliable editors. However, after a couple of Google Books searches, I have nothing at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it dated, literary/poetic, rare? I see some possible Victorian and earlier usage, but find it hard to be sure of my reading. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my bad. I can't find any good citations of it either, except in really old texts. It seems like in later use it was only used kind of metaphorically, like in this Bulwer-Lytton quote: "That correspondence names thee as one who has taken the gold of Count Charolois, and whom, therefore, King Louis may outbuy." Here outbuy means basically buy out, which probably would be a better definition. The OED calls this sense: "To ransom (a prisoner), to buy out of slavery; to buy out of (a state of sin) through the purchase of indulgences; to get rid of by buying. Cf. to buy out." Ƿidsiþ 09:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Scots outby ("to buy out of bondage, buy oneself out of bondage, ransom"). Otherwise, in English, another form is outbuie (1608) used in Byron's Conspiracy: "He that winnes Empire with the loss of faithe out-buies it, and will banck-route" --Thomas Thorpe. Leasnam 22:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure on Google Books I saw a citation meaning to buy up/buy out (such as one would buy out a company). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inneil-GhPS

(Scottish Gaelic.) Does this exist attestably in writing? Equinox ◑ 23:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vela güira

original title was Vela Güira

Looks dubious, especially with its really long definition. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this, but I don't know what sense that supports, if any. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups provides some sort of supporting evidence, but it does seem to be invariable - "los vela güira", no hits at all for "velas güiras". I don't think my Spanish is good enough to cite this, then. Mglovesfun ([ [User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books hit looks like a verb to me, "velar güira" = "to watch over children". The groups hits look sufficient to pass this- "opportunist" fits, as far as I can tell. I'll add some of the citations to the entry later. Nadando 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clemency

Rfv-sense: "The moderation of the severity of a punishment"; and "forgiveness or compassion". I think these are badly-written attempts to define sense 1 (which I just added), and should be merged thereinto. Ƿidsiþ 09:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art union

"(Australian) A raffle run to raise money for a charity." There seems to be a specific organisation called RSL Art Union that runs raffles, but I can't find usage of art union to mean a raffle. Equinox ◑ 11:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you didn't look hard enough. Widespread long-term use in Australia. Search for "art union" -RSL will show the term for a dozen different charities on the first page alone.--Dmol 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three examples of the term mentioning ticket sales.

New Art Union now selling. Every ticket you buy is helping people breathe better.[74]

Enter CPL’s current Art Union to win one of five fantastic prize packages valued up to $40,000 – it’s your choice![75]

I would like to purchase tickets at $50 each in the current Guide Dogs Queensland Art Union only.[76]

--Dmol 05:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is it ever not capitalised, or do we need to move it to Art Union? And, given the caps, are you sure this isn't the specific RSL organisation I mentioned above? Equinox ◑ 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vanly

"Representative of or suggestive of a van or minivan." The given citation is vanlier, is clearly a nonce usage, and is not from a notable work. Equinox ◑ 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe and Sports Illustrated have it (--Globe is referencing SI however). All appear to be from October-November 2010: less than a year. Leasnam 19:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhumulangma

English?! Looks like a Mandarin transliteration. Equinox ◑ 01:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a variant spelling. Mandarin toneless pinyin may be disallowed after the vote. --Anatoli 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the request. It is attestable. Can be used in English as well, even if used in brackets, quotes, etc. More often used in Chinese English language media but not exclusively. --Anatoli 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite it? I had trouble finding citations that looked like English. Equinox ◑ 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I found:

1) The report of scientific investigation on Zhumulangma Mountain (1966-1968). 2) "The discovery of the strata of Gondwana facies in the north slope of Zhumulangma-Mountain." Geological Survey of India - 1996
British Broadcasting Corporation. Monitoring Service - 1981
United States. Joint Publications Research Service - 1985 --Anatoli 03:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zyxst

"(obsolete) Sixth." Equinox ◑ 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attestable -- just -- going by a cite in the OED. This looks like old Kentish dialect. I suggest changing to {{rare}} {{obsolete spelling of}}. Ƿidsiþ 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that it is in the OED.--Longfellow 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heifer paddock

Girls' boarding-school. Equinox ◑ 03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@#$%

Appendix:Unsupported_titles/Profanity Substitution for vulgarity. I'd like to see citations for wacky unsearchable things like this. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt its existence, or are you merely presenting this an exercise for the citer?—msh210℠ (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt its attestable existence with these exact four symbols in this exact order. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote keep just for the sheer silliness of it. Unfortunately I know better. :P Still, I think it's worth mentioning that random characters are commonly used as a substitute for profanity. The fact that it's not those exact four symbols doesn't mean the idea is wrong on its own. —CodeCa t 21:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it does mean that those four symbols aren't a suitably generic place to put the explanation. We could mention "used as a placeholder character in profanity" under various symbols, but I suspect that's not really a closed set. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often see @#$% in comments on sites where there is a filter against profanity, in this particular order and these particular symbols because it's easiest to type on english keyboards (and because it's four characters long, and ! and ^ are not as commonly used in this type of self-censoring). — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide suitable citations then! Equinox ◑ 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is nearly impossible to search for this stuff on any Google site, so I've posted six screenshots of one Yahoo! News comment feed at imagebin.ca (since I couldn't find a way to permalink the comments): [77][78][79][80][81][82] — lexicógrafa | háblame — 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the durable-archiving issue, if those were machine-generated obfuscations of user's words, all by the same machine (well, the same code, anyway), then they're not independent. (I'd think that the nominator could overlook the durable-archiving issues and rescind his nomination in light of the difficulty of finding this particular term durably archived....)—msh210℠ (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a wee bit of durably-archived indirect evidence of this, in the form of this Usenet posting. The poster has bowdlerized the text he's quoting (from this posting), replacing "fucking" with "2345ing". I imagine he meant to replace it with "@#$%ing". But not terribly compelling, I admit! —Ruakh_TALK 01:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bo jook

-- Prince Kassad 17:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - linked Wikipedia article was deleted. SemperBlotto 08:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deletion summary was "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". More relevant question, where do you look up Chinglish poker slang? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

learn to play

Supposed distinct gaming sense, yet to be provided. Is it distinct? Is it just a use-in-context? DCDuring TALK 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the entry correctly, and reading between the right lines, it's saying that MMORPGers use (deprecated template usage) learn to play to mean "You are bad at playing [this game]", much as drivers use (deprecated template usage) learn to drive to mean "You are a bad driver" (see google:"Learn to drive, asshole!" for some fun examples). I don't see that it warrants an entry even if it's attestable. —Ruakh_TALK 23:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this RFV is premature. Equinox tagged it with RFC, presumably hoping to get a clearer meaning of the term, then we can move it to rfv or rfd. But if there is no supporting evidence, by all means delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could wait for a gamer to define it or we could get some cites and define it based on the evidence. I strongly suspect that Ruakh's estimate is right: it is an imperative, all of which are trivially "speech acts" of some sort. But how can we know without some effort. I also feel that cleanup doesn't attract as much effort as RfD or RfV. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know (being a gamer myself), this phrase is used in response to complaints, and means basically 'your complaints demonstrate a lack of understanding of how this game works'. —CodeCa t 18:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the same thing as you (all of you) it's just purely instinct on my part, rather than evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Codecat sounds about right. It's something that might be said when someone's doing something stupid or "nooby". Perhaps it might be worthwhile to note that it's often something used arrogantly (at least that's what I think. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the meaning, it seems to be decodable from its components in context, ie, NISoP. From the lack of effort to cite it, I infer that most don't think this would meet CFI.

If it makes sense to include such "pragmatics" considerations in Wiktionary, shouldn't that be a distinguishing feature of a phrasebook-type entry, a large proportion of which are necessarily NISoP. Except as part of such a phrasebook I see little reason for including this. Meaning shifts due to irony, sarcasm, tone of voice, linguistic politeness are not, in themselves, sufficient for inclusion in our practice. Such expressions as the dated "Get a horse!" yelled at bad drivers of automobiles in the first half of the 20th century in the US are quite analogous to this expression. I think we could find many, many thousands of such expressions if we should choose to include them. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On World of Warcraft, it often gets abbreviated to L2P in game chat. — Robin 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L2P would be almost certainly be attestable, not that we have very explicit standards for abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Cd it and removed the RFC, finding durable cites might be hard, but I know that it has been around for more than 15 years, probably since the origins of MUDs. - [The]DaveRoss 20:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

break 2

Rfv-sense, these senses:

28. (transitive, US) To arrange a temporary split (with a romantic partner).
29. (intransitive, of an emulsion) To demulsify.

After a discussion above (WT:RFV#break), I completely overhauled the English section of break. In doing so, I found these senses given, and doubted them. In the time it has taken me to write this, someone has already set about citing sense 29, demulsify! :) I may withdraw my RFV of it in a moment. With regard to sense 28, "to arrange a temporary split with a romantic partner", what I doubt is that it is not used with a preposition. "You broke with your girlfriend?" I would believe, and "You broke up with your boyfriend?" is of course a phrase (though generally it means a non-temporary split), but can one say "she broke her boyfriend" (or "they broke") and mean "she arranged to temporarily split with him"? If the phrase is "break with" or similar, wouldn't that belong at break with (cf get to)? — Beobach 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The emulsion sense feels to me like it should be a specific example of something more general, but I can't come up with anything right now- maybe it will come to me later. Nadando 04:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently many citations of the "demulsify" sense have been on the citations page for months.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you for pointing that out! Now we must only consider whether that sense should be made more general (probably retaining the specific subsense), as Nadando suggests, or not. — Beobach 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, does "to break" mean "to temporarily split with a romantic partner"? Certainly the noun, as in "I think we should take a break", does (as an extension of the more general meaning of "take a break"). — Beobach 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue

Comment (I am not the nominator) I nominated one of these for RFV some time ago and it failed. Not only is usage hard to track down in some cases, the definitions are written in 1811 'euphemistic' English and are sometimes bloody hard to understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tilers

I am going through the Category:Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue and attempting to verify all of the terms in it. Those I cannot find in use, I am bringing here. I have cited Adam Tiler (although most of the quotations involve people not knowing what it means), but there is only one good citation for the plural. — Beobach 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(...and I consider it entirely plausible that the term only exists in the singular. — Beobach 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Admiral of the Narrow Seas

Admirals of the Narrow Seas

I am going through the Category:Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue and attempting to verify all of the terms in it. Those I cannot find in use, I am bringing here. I have cited Adam Tiler (although most of the quotations involve people not knowing what it means), but I can't find any uses of (or for;) this, in the "drunkard" sense. It seems to be a real naval rank, though — we may need an entry for narrow seas. — Beobach 20:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the entry for narrow seas be majuscule or minuscule? — Beobach 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony pig

I have found some use of the plural, but generally in a different form (either "T Anthony pigs" or "St." or "St Anthony pigs"), and with a different and more literal meaning of "pigs that followed St Anthony" or, in the case of "T Anthony pigs", "pigs which St Anthony marked with T-crosses" (sic!). I have found only one use of the singular (though many mentions), and it explains the term with a footnote. — Beobach 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that tantony pig probably passes. — Beobach 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch reckoning

I have found several uses of the term, and added those which were not plainly non-idiomatic (eg dates "by the Dutch reckoning" vs the old English) to the entry, but I'm not sure that enough of them support the given sense for it to pass. — Beobach 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably pass, with tweaking. — Beobach 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passes, as uncommon and somewhat murky. — Beobach 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lady abbess

— Beobach 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to just barely pass. (Or not. Some of the quotations are unclear. Struck for now.) (When this discussion is archived: cf the then also-archived discussion of abbess.) Marked as rare. — Beobach 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abbess

RFV-sense for the "prostitute" sense. I have found a few mentions and a few statements that brothels "have a director, [who runs them] in the manner of an abbess" running a convent, but no uses of the term to mean "prostitute" directly. — Beobach 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2XtWDhgljvkC&pg=PA1&dq=abbess gives nine specific uses, five of "lady abbess" and four of "abbess" alone. —Ruakh_TALK 14:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good find — I'll see if I can track down any of the works it cites. — Beobach 20:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady abbess seems to just barely pass, but abbess seems to fail: one of those four citations is not English, one is for "mother abbess" not "abbess", and I can't find the third to check whether it supports the given meaning or not, meaning we only have one citation that might support it. — Beobach 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abel-wackets

I find exactly no uses, only mentions in other dictionaries. — Beobach 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abram

RFV-sense for the first section, the "naked" sense. I tried to find examples of "he was abram", "she was abram", "an abram woman", but couldn't find anything relevant. — Beobach 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abram cove

I've found examples of use, but "lusty rogue" seems a stretch (perhaps it just means "scoundrel"?), and "naked man" is wholly unattested. — Beobach 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "lusty rogue" sense may just be a flowery 1811 way of saying "scoundrel", the attested sense. It is interesting that I cannot find support for the "naked man" sense, though, given that "abram" is (above) supposed to mean "naked". — Beobach 20:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two unattested senses as RFV-failed. — Beobach 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

academy

RFV-sense for the "brothel" sense. The only examples I could find that seemed to support the given senses were about Cervantes (eg 1991, Adrienne Laskier Martín, Cervantes and the Burlesque Sonnet, page 267: "This is not to say that he never frequented such academies ..."), and nevertheless about academic academies. — Beobach 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ace of spades

RFV-sense for the "widow" sense. I tried to find claims that "she was an ace of spades" or (his death left) "her an ace of spades" or similar, but the only thing I found was this note about a ship:

1978, Anna Sproule, Port out, starboard home: the rise and fall of the ocean passage:
The horrible rumour grew up that her double bottom contained the bodies of two riveters who had accidentally been walled up alive. She was an ace of spades among ships. The problem of the Australia run was finally solved by the introduction of the compound engine.

— Beobach 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

act of parliament

I found the obliging Act of Parliament, but I can't find anyone asking for five pints of it. — Beobach 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

active citizens

active citizen

I doubt the given sense of "louse" (not the currently-missing, SoP sense of a citizen who is active). If by "louse" "parasite" is intended, I cannot find any uses supporting that; if "contemptible person" is intended, the entry in addition to being verified should be clarified. — Beobach 02:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addle plot

The only quotations I could find were by the same author, Georgette Heyer, who seems to use as many of these 1811 terms as she can. I added one quotation to the entry (the others would not be independent). — Beobach 02:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

autem quaver

I find no uses, only mentions. — Beobach 06:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

autem quaver tub

I find no uses, only mentions. — Beobach 06:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

avoir du pois lay

Avoiding the whole Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue issue, how can this possibly be a verb? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

veger

If this is a neologism, it is really recent; sounds a lot like Quebec French to me. French Wiktionary doesn't have it, and doesn't have any incoming links towards it (apart from towards its Indonesian section, fr:veger). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a protogism to me; I've uncovered végé which seems to be (deprecated template usage) veggie, but nothing for this, not even on groups.google.fr. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[83] ou sinon je vege sur l'ordi et je download des films\séries télés

[84] je vege devant la télé

76.66.194.212 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either of these durably archived? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggestopedia

Finnish, w:Suggestopedia. WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(How) Is this a brand? DAVilla 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a brand, but a name of a widely used teaching method, suggestopedy by another name. It is supposed to be a good method for teching languages, but not everyone is a believer, and it has also been criticized as quasi-scientific humbug. I think an English section should be added, probably also an entry for the adjective suggestopedic. --Hekaheka 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potterism

Not about Harry Potter. Related to w:Rose Macaulay's 1921 novel of the same name. The bgc hits seem to be of the book title, not of any other real-world phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ampere定律

In looking through WT:RFC, and trying to clean up some of the oldest messes there, I found this discussion of "Chinglish" terms, which closed with the note "send to RFV". The RFV discussion, in turn, ended with Ruakh commenting: "A number of these entries have been deleted already, mostly pursuant to RFD discussions. Those that haven't, are hereby kept. If there are any specific ones that you think are not attestable, feel free to RFV them individually; but some of these get hundreds of b.g.c. hits, and overall it looks like these should have been RFD'd rather than RFV'd". I have searched for e-mail地址 and found that it, as discussed, was rightly kept as attested. I have found only one book that uses Ampere定律, however: I therefore (re-)nominate it. — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pizza饼

This may be attestable: I find two books (1, 2) which use it. It needs a third, though. (Once this discussion is archived: cf Ampere定律.) — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find one quotation on Usenet. If someone adds the quotations to the entry, the word will barely pass. - -sche 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

East Slavic

There seems to be a problem with the names of language families, and their categorization in grammatical categories, which is why they are not standardized and completely different depending on the editor. Some think they are adjectives, others think they're proper nouns, some use both.

The sense rfv'd here is (rare) Any of the East Slavic languages or their dialects, including Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian.. It is categorized as a common noun, but I doubt it is one. It is never used in that way (see the capitalization, for example), and it does not really make any sense. An entirely different issue is that I don't think it's rare. -- Prince Kassad 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unthawed

Rfv-sense for the sense "thawed, not frozen". The verb has both senses — "freeze" and "unfreeze" — but does the adjective? It's plausible (even probable), but the collocations I can think to look for have the opposite meaning: "unthaw the meat before you cook it" means "unfreeze the meat before you cook it", but "unthawed meat" means "frozen meat". I tried "unthawed limbs", but that too means "frozen limbs". — Beobach 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the examples I can find where "unthawed" seems to mean "thawed", it seems to be a true past participle rather than an adjective: things like "That he was frozen until he was unthawed. That he was in bondage until he broke free", or " […] Montague creates an image of frozen virgins immune to time’s affects,^[sic] until they are unthawed by a worthy lover." The only one I could find where I really think it's an adjective meaning "thawed out" is this one, but if DCDuring is reading this, I don't think he'll let me get away with it . . . —Ruakh_TALK 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German States

Apparently, you can RfV categories. Wow, I'm certainly surprised. So, do we need citations showing this category in use among categorization systems, or what? -- Prince Kassad 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre! Move to RFD. — Beobach 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Also move to BJAODN? — Beobach 23:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Cited. ;) — Beobach 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could they be moved to the citations page, perhaps? (What would it even be called: Citations:Category:German States or Category citations:German States?) -- Prince Kassad 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently, you can RfV categories" says who? Couldn't you also rfv Template:Xyzy as well then? If you want to rename the page use {{move}} not {{rfv}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, it had been tagged RFC. Yes, move to RFD or MOVE. — Beobach 17:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ragleaf

Previous discussion: Talk:ragleaf. —Ruakh_TALK 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, but not listed anymore. I will see about cleaning it up and verifying it myself, as there are a few hits on Google Books, but I thought I should list it (as it was already tagged) given that I am listing the supposed plural below. — Beobach 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm storing quotations on the talk page. — Beobach 19:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I find, I conclude: ragleaf bahia (which is Bahia dissecta) might meet CFI, but is rare (some of the quotations I've found are mentions, not uses). Redflower ragleaf (which is Crassocephalum crepidoides) might also meet CFI, but is rare (again, some of the quotations I've found are mentions, not uses). "Ragleaf" is only used by itself once; it does not meet CFI: unless citations are found outside of Google Books, it fails. — Beobach 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: "fireweed" is not a synonym but a different plant, and "thickhead" and "ebolo" are only synonyms for "redflower ragleaf" (Crassocephalum crepidoides), not Bahia. — Beobach 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MissingNo.

Needs citations that meet WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has all the necessary citations, I think. The real problem is that this is a specific entity, for which we have no set rules. --Yair rand (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a fictional universe. For those we have fictional universe rules, which invalidates all the Usenet quotations by itself. -- Prince Kassad 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it isn't from a fictional universe. It is a glitch existing inside of a commercial product, a video game. The fact that the video game uses a fictional universe is irrelevant. The bug itself is not part of the fictional universe. --Yair rand (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, a few of the cites seem to take the view that it is part of the fictional universe of the game, albeit an unintentional one. That is, it seems like there are two senses: (1) a certain glitch; (2) a sort of pseudocharacter in the game that results from the glitch. But regardless: move to RFD and delete, per your first comment above. —Ruakh_TALK 02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WT:CFI and WT:FICTION. The latter provides criteria for inclusion as applied to terms originating in fictional universes. "MissingNo." did not originate in any fictional universe.

I don't think that considering it a "true" Pokémon would necessarily generate a new sense. It certainly would be similar to considering Windows 95 a fictional character based on OS-tan.

The phenomenon of rationalizing MissingNo. as a fictional character is addressed on the article MissingNo. of Wikipedia:

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and the mass replication of the sixth item in the player's item menu; the latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines. IGN has noted MissingNo.'s appearance in Pokémon Red and Blue as one of the most famous video game glitches. Fans of the series have attempted to rationalize MissingNo. as canon, which has sparked discussion in sociological studies about the impact of video games upon society." is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

--Daniel. 05:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. That entire quotation seems to be treating MissingNo. as a character; the last sentence merely distinguishes "character" from "canon character". Note, for example, that the previous sentence describes "MissingNo.'s appearance" as a glitch, rather than describing MissingNo. itself as one. —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this passes CFI, we must change CFI so it doesn't. -- Prince Kassad 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CFI leave this one up to us. (See Yair rand's first comment above.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, agreed with Prince Kassad. — Beobach 19:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it strikes me as exactly analogous to the F00F bug, which can not be dismissed as fictional. Clarifying CFI seems like a good idea; we seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time arguing over words that are clearly citable as English, but are in some way limited or proprietary.--Prosfilaes 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the video game to be part of the fictional universe. It's true, we don't "cite" video games. I can only imagine the headaches in trying to do so, and for what purpose (even if they could be considered durably archived)? But this term does originate from the video game, and that video game is a work with reference to the fictional universe. IMO a definition of MissingNo. as a species of Pokémon would be subject to WT:FICTION. Most of the quotations fall into this class. However, a definition of MissingNo. as a glitch is a term that was adapted to describe the video game, not one that originated from within. WT:CFI does not make this distinction clear, but we all know intuitively that if this happens for e.g. genericized trademarks then the etymology does not disqualify the term. Per Yair rand and Ruakh, this definition as written is of a specific entity. In that case the rules are unwritten, and I would apply a stronger criterion of metaphorical use that is probably less likely to be met than what this request is asking for. So delete unless it can be defined outside of the universe. DAVilla 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's set aside the issue of text from video games being citable or durably archived. First of all, we should not delete any attestable entry or definition just because there is potential for developing a novel rule that would exclude said term or definition. Secondly, DAVilla, mentioning in this discussion that you consider "the video game to be part of the fictional universe" apparently stems from a misleading simplification. Not all words that reference a video game are fictional in origin or in nature. For example, MissingNo. is a glitch of the game "Pokémon Red". The name of this game is a brand name and not of fictional origin, thus WT:BRAND, not WT:FICTION, applies to the possible inclusion of Pokémon Red as an entry. As a similar example, according to Wikipedia, the video games of the "Higurashi When They Cry" series depict a fictional universe and were made with NScripter[85]. If, hypothetically, this engine has functions and bugs named in English, WT:FICTION simply would not be the right policy to define whether or not to include said functions and bugs here. --Daniel. 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But "MissingNo." is not a WT:BRAND... ---> Tooironic 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe nobody said that MissingNo. is a WT:BRAND. It isn't. --Daniel. 22:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misread your comment above. Never mind. ---> Tooironic 21:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you or anyone in particular should delete the entry because of a potential criterion. I said that I believe the entry should be deleted (as a result of this discussion), and I gave the potential criterion as my basis for voting that way, stating that the rules are unwritten so as to avoid making it appear that metaphorical use is the accepted standard. But others are certainly in their right to delete on different grounds, or to vote the other way. In my opinion, MissingNo. defined as a glitch is a specific entity that, as with nearly every proper noun in the yellowbook, has not entered the English lexicon.

Frankly I would think that WT:BRAND, being a much stronger set of criteria, (in fact so strong that there have been complaints that nothing has passed under it,) supersedes WT:FICTION. But even WT:BRAND doesn't apply to genericized trademarks, terms in common usage where the meaning is a product of this type rather than of this make. You are ignoring my argument, that one must consider the definition being analyzed before considering the origin. So I would have to almost completely dismiss your analogy.

I reiterate that MissingNo. defined as a species must, as I see it, pass WT:FICTION because it originated in the corpus of works, be they books or video games or movies, that is immersed in the fantasy of that universe. (Frankly I don't understand why that would invalidate all citations from that corpus, instead of say all but one on the grounds of independence, but those are the rules we agreed to, so those are the rules to interpret and apply.) DAVilla 02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAVilla, sorry if I'm mistaken, but I don't think that I gave the impression that I have ignored your words. By saying "First of all, we should not delete any attestable entry or definition just because there is potential for developing a novel rule that would exclude said term or definition.", I am not opposing the possibilities of defending and/or developing and/or applying a novel rule.

The origin of the definition is important according to WT:FICTION, with its wording "These are examples of the criteria for inclusion as applied to terms originating in fictional universes such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Dungeons and Dragons. Examples below include lightsaber, protocol droid, Darth Vadar, and Vulcan." (I edited the italics myself)

In addition, we are not talking about a fictional glitch (for example, a glitch of a fictional machine), but a real glitch. The fact that it is closely related to a fictional universe does not make MissingNo. fictional. As other examples, there are Pokéfan and Pokémaniac as "real" words and of "real" origin.

I'm fine with applying possible rules of inclusion or exclusion of specific entities to MissingNo. as a glitch. I'm not sure about considering it a fictional character, but this may be argued (and probably excluded either way, given our current rules). --Daniel. 06:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like we're coming to understand each other. You say you're not sure about considering MissingNo. as a fictional character, but I'm thinking that's the only way it can make it. Since that wouldn't be a specific entity, there would be tighter rules and it wouldn't be subject to complete discretion at RFD. As a specific entity, I'm assuming here that there would be consensus to delete. There's always the possibility I could be wrong about that since it would, after all, require consensus, but so far we seem to have it. So better to try proving its use as the species, which isn't a specific entity and less subject to whim. Anyways that's what many of the quotes so far indicate it to mean.

Realize that I've only ever suggested applying WT:FICTION to MissingNo. in this sense of a fictional character. In the current sense of a (very real) glitch, I couldn't give a damn what WT:FICTION says, as I believe very strongly that it shouldn't apply, regardless of how the wording could be tangled. Prince Kassad might (or someone with that viewpoint could) argue that the video game is a work immersed in the fictional universe, that the string of letters MissingNo. was first seen within that game, and that the term whose definition is the glitch likewise originated within that universe. I agree with all but the last, and in every post I have been iterating that there is a critical change in meaning between the statements "Wild MISSINGNO. appeared!" and "How do you fix MISSINGNO.?". MissingNo. the creature originated within the Pokémon universe, MissingNo. the glitch did not. DAVilla 07:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus particularly inclined to deleting MissingNo. as an individual entity. Perhaps the future voting Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment will shed a light on the situation. I humbly consider unprofessional and ridiculous the suggestion of emphasizing a single word on CFI as "not permitted", but it may be improved.

How would MissingNo. have a chance to be kept if it is considered a fictional character and not an individual entity? Pikachu and Gyarados are Pokémon species and presumably excluded according to WT:FICTION.

The citations of Citations:MissingNo. that qualify it as a glitch but don't mention it as a character include:

"MissingNo. is a deadly glitch, that's why it was removed from Yellow. It's on Red and blue because it was part of the initial testing software."
"Everyone has a hissy fit if you so much as mention the name of this little glitch. I had played through Yellow and then Blue and not having anything else to do I tried the Missingno thing."
"MissingNO is a programming quirk, and not a real part of the game."

In addition, there are multiple citations that demonstrate both characteristics of a glitch and of a character. I assume the concept of "capture" of the following sentence is fictional:

"MissingNo. is a glitch in the game. NEVER TRY TO CAPTURE IT! It will screw up your game, but it brings some advantages just by encountering it: [...]"

In this case, it can be considered an indication of both senses. Similarly, in the sentence "The noble blood that runs through my veins.", we can notice blood as the substance and as ancestry.

However, MissingNo. is defined (currently, after a few revisions) as:

A glitch of the games Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue that is a common result of trying to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species and that imitates a Pokémon species whose image is comprised of random pixels.

How would a separate hypothetical definition for a character be worded? Perhaps like this?

A species of Pokémon based on the glitch.

The hypothetical second sense is very similar to the first one. In fact, this distinction is akin to creating a new definition of "king" as a class of fictional characters, because there are (many) fictional kings. I believe the fictionality is simply a nuance of the unique sense.

Naturally, my counterargument whose basic idea is "WT:FICTION does not apply to MissingNo., because it is a real glitch." is directed to people who consider MissingNo. fictional, especially if they don't actively defend a distinction between the senses of "fictional character" and "real glitch".

Namely, I disagree with Kassad's "It comes from a fictional universe. For those we have fictional universe rules, which invalidates all the Usenet quotations by itself.". In addition, Equinox' laconic "Needs citations that meet WT:CFI." does not particularly mention that policy, but he has repeatedly labelled certain words as universe-specific to be deleted, so he may or may not be expressing this opinion once more. --Daniel. 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the last part, which is why a distinction between character and glitch is necessary in the first place, so as to tame and qualify those sentiments. By the way, besides those two contributors, you would also have Ruakh, Beobach and myself voting to delete. Yair rand and Tooironic have not given an indication as far as I can tell, and only Prosfilaes has sided with you. I would give a tally except this RFV cannot be construed as a formal vote. I hardly consider the targeted CFI amendment to be serious either, although the points being considered on the talk page aren't so illegitimate.

As far as categorizing each quotation, you're also entirely right that there could be a mixture of meaning. I was very careful to select the two example quotations since it doesn't make sense to correct a species nor for a wild concept to appear. "Wild MISSINGNO. appeared!" is clearly a character, and "How do you fix MISSINGNO.?" is clearly a glitch. I would say that anon's "MissingNo. is a glitch in the game. NEVER TRY TO CAPTURE IT!" lends a lot more weight to the idea of it being a character than to a glitch, just as "the noble is a glitch in Nietzsche's system" and "Internet is a glitch on the regulatory system" do not use is to actually define noble and Internet. In fact it is the first three quotations you give that could ambiguously support either sense of figure or concept.

Still, just as with shades of king, this is mostly irrelevant if you would simply concede to applying WT:FICTION in finding citations for the character, since the glitch as a specific entity is more subjective. But perhaps you've had an unfavorable impression. Pray tell, why are Pikachu and Gyarados excluded? DAVilla 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring and attesting Pikachu. Yes, I probably had an unfavorable impression on how CFI applies to Pokémon species. Notably, (as mentioned in a related current BP discussion) WT:FICTION's example "Wielding his flashlight like a lightsaber, Kyle sent golden shafts slicing through the swirling vapors." qualifies lightsaber to be defined in the main namespace while it arguably isn't actually independent from Star Wars, so I conclude the concept of independence from that policy is broad enough to allow various modern fictional terms.

The citations that mention the status of MissingNo. in "Red", "Blue" and "Yellow" are not so ambiguous if we know that these three colors are names of video games. Other sentences that mention words like "video game" or "play" may be even more precise.

Please clarify: from your proposal of applying WT:FICTION to MissingNo. as a fictional character, how its status as a "glitch" would be mentioned? In the etymology, or maybe as a separate sense? Or the current entry as it is now, without any changes? --Daniel. 07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a character that arose from a glitch in the game. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that in the definition, since there's more than enough evidence to support it. Verification is only necessary to allow the term to exist in the first place. Well, usually only. Sometimes it's sought for other parts like the etymology say, but in this case as with most there's no question as to the facts, only the linguistic importance, if you will. DAVilla 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kick and a flick for being so quick

A pinch and a punch for the first of the month seems to be attested, though our definition may need improvement. On the other hand, I find nothing on Google Books for this response. (I find examples of "pinch and a kick for being so quick", but only in many copies of the same book.) There seem to be a some hits on Usenet. By the way, look at the second of the quotations I've added to pinch and a punch for the first of the month — it may support a broader sense. — Beobach 00:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plenty

As an adjective ?? -- ALGRIF talk 11:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, see google books:"were plenty and". —Ruakh_TALK 12:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we mark this? Semantically its meaning is obvious. Grammatically, I would think that most would view it as not archaic, but wrong. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other "lemmings" seem to mark this as the pronoun usage. The example I put in the entry of "..six eggs are plenty.." I placed under the pronoun because that's what I find elsewhere. (I'm aware that that doesn't make it right though ;-) ). -- ALGRIF talk 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be intending to include google books:"more plenty than" as a pronoun, except for usage like Adam Smith's in Wealth of Nations. I doubt that those uses were wrong at the time (pre-20th century). DCDuring TALK 17:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Six eggs are plenty" is not in the RFV'd sense, though. Did you look at the results in the search I linked to? Most of them are using "plenty" to mean "plentiful, abundant". —Ruakh_TALK 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Century Dictionary lists plenty as both noun and adjective, with the adj being derived from the elliptical use of the noun, and carrying the meaning of "being in abundance, plentiful". It's marked as "now chiefly colloquial", I would venture Template:archaic?. Leasnam 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember a Shakespeare line about "reasons being as plenty as blackberries"? Ƿidsiþ 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! According to Google: Henry IV, Part I, Act I, Scene IV, line 101. Sadly, Wikisource's version substitutes "plentiful". —Ruakh_TALK 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mutest

Verb. "Thou mutest the television"? Equinox ◑ 21:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scanno for a staggering variety of words. I also found an actual use of "thou mutest", but it was "thou mutest among all the mute". — Beobach 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to cite, but not obviously wrong. "Mute" has lots of old meanings including "to murmur" and "to defecate (of a bird)", and in those senses there are plenty of usable citations for "muteth", so "mutest" must be valid (albeit I can't actually find any usage). Ƿidsiþ 12:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshirite

Someone from the English county of Hampshire. Equinox ◑ 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's from Wonderfool in (or via) Spain. But most of his edits are OK, so who can tell? SemperBlotto 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who checks a bunch of books. Google Books with the appropriate search exclusions for "New Hampshirite" doesn't look promising. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB there appears to be a minuscule word hampshirite, some kind of rock. — Beobach 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'tis a very rare term. I guess I can't cite my friend's Facebook page ;(. p.s. Spain is sunny. --92.58.38.197 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

forge

Rfv-sense. Forgery is a counterfeit. Any takers for forge(noun) = counterfeit -- ALGRIF talk 13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hors delais

This was listed at RFC (two years ago):

Supposed to be a noun, but the first definitions are as verbs. See previous. SemperBlotto 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen it used in English, but surely it would be an adverb if it is English. —Stephen 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now semi-clean, but it needs verification. Google Books turns up some English hits, so some sense probably meets CFI, but I doubt all of the senses we give are supported. (I will peruse what Google Books has and work on cleaning it up myself in a few hours or a few days — feel free to beat me to that — but for now I focus on RFC.) The "previous" entry referred to was non partant, by the way. — Beobach 21:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mention, and a secondary source, rather than a use; this is the same work. This italicises the word and glosses it. A Books search for ""hors delais"" turns up many more hits than those three, but I searched for ""hors delais" race" so as not to be inundated with French-language hits. — Beobach 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also find this:

May 29 2003, Dan Gregory, in rec.bicycles.racing:
Finished 23rd at 15min+ - Petacchi and 40 others hors delais..that snow made it hard..

All of the other uses I have found are in quotation marks. Maybe it doesn't meet CFI. — Beobach 03:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TERP

From RFC: — Beobach 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US(?) aviation jargon. Needs research. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the quotations given are actually for (deprecated template usage) TERPS. I'd suggest RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 19:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of note is that each of the two senses (noun and verb) has only one citation. Thus, not even TERPS meets CFI at the moment. — Beobach 03:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

superomnipresent

Can anyone find a third citation for this term to add to the two at Citations:superomnipresent? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even on a general Google web search did any of the three pages of results suggest anything additional that's durable. (The one scholar hit is for "super, omnipresent".) This one's going to be difficult, requiring access to some other system. DAVilla 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor created superomniscient and superomnipotent. All three of them seem a bit daft, the best definition I can think of would be

Template:humorous Omnipresent.

Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are both citeable. I think (deprecated template usage) superomniscient even makes some sense, because an "omniscient narrator" is a normal sort of authorial voice, a third-person narrator who just naturally knows everything in the world (s)he's writing about, so a stronger term is needed if you're talking about a narrator who's noticeably omniscient, if you see what I mean. —Ruakh_TALK 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

data democratization

This one was tagged, but not put here by the tagger. Simple rfv for existence and usage. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like this was a protologism, but there are some Google Book hits for it. I haven't yet checked to see if they can support a single meaning (idiomatic, or otherwise). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

academic bulimia

Another one tagged but not included here. rfv validity. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a popular slang term for cramming and memorizing right before a test and forgetting about everything afterwards. A related term would be academic bulimic. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poecilonym

I'm not finding this anywhere except in word lists. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one instance of it's usage in here Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

str

"Abbreviation for string in many programming languages." I've seen it as part of longer abbreviations (e.g. substr for substring) but not alone. And a noun? The plural (deprecated template usage) strs seems dubious. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Programmers often use str as a string identifier (like using n or i for an integer identifier), but that doesn't quite seem to match our def. And some (many?) dialects of BASIC, as well as Visual Basic, provide a function str/STR (or more properly str$/STR$) that accepts a number and returns a string version, but again, not quite what our def says. Honestly, I'm not sure what would match our def. Is the idea that many programming languages have str and string keywords or built-identifiers that are equivalent? Or that many programming languages have str keywords or built-identifiers that mean more or less "string", or that are intended to be read aloud as "string"? —Ruakh_TALK 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited just about as well as it can be. DAVilla 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think one can well argue that the 1993, 2006, and 2009 cites justify a sense, but I don't think they quite justify the challenged sense. Only the 2009 cite is using a str that's in a programming language, and none of the cites is using str or str in a way that could be replaced with string or string (respectively), which means that is not so much an abbreviation of "string" as it is a term formed by abbreviating "string". (That is, its abbreviated nature is just etymological information.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paw

RFV-sense for the Verb sense "{{context|of a person whom is a member of the furry fandom}} To masturbate". Note the page history for the back-and-forth, and the talk page for a little discussion. I understand why the addition was repeatedly reverted as vandalism, but it does also seem plausible that the word would be used with this meaning in this context. Thus, I think the best approach to keep it for a month with this RFV tag and see if its proponents can cite it. — Beobach 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deprecated template usage) paw off is very easily attested from Usenet (though I'm not sure if each of the four subsenses is easily cited). But bare (deprecated template usage) paw, I can't find. The form (deprecated template usage) pawing sometimes appears in this sense without (deprecated template usage) off, but as far as I can see, only as a gerund/noun (sometimes attributive; for example, google groups:"pawing material", meaning roughly "[furry] porn", gets one Usenet hit). That's not to say that a relevant verb (deprecated template usage) paw can't be cited convincingly, but it doesn't look easy. And digging through furry erotica communities trying to cite this . . . well, it's not my idea of a good time. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a furry myself and I can confirm that this sense is valid, I've heard it plenty of times. But I don't really feel like digging through such sources either... —CodeCa t 10:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... move the sense to paw off, with a ===See also=== at paw? — Beobach 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "pawed him", and while the results weren't furry, they do suggest we're missing a sexual sense. Urban Dictionary has "to touch someone in a sexual way without their consent" and "to touch someone too much, sexual or not". These suggest something in the middle, like "{{context|by extension, of a human}} to touch someone (with the hands) in a sexual way" (with or without their consent). It would belong under our existing "{{context|of an animal}} to gently push on something with a paw".

August 17 1997, Robert Spector, in misc.fitness.weights:
IronMan used to be good in this way, back in the '80s. [...] They wouldn't subscribe to the old, "Let's put a male bodybuilder with silicone babes pawing him" cover that's mainstay now.
October 26 1997, Verbotene, quoted by Amy McWilliams, in rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc:
So, Katherine was out with Luke and they were both quite dolled up and swoon-worthy. Katherine fawned all over Luke and pawed him, but to what end? Was Stefan supposed to believe that Luke and Katherine have some sort of a thing going? What was the point of this display from Katherine's perspective?
July 18 2002, Lurker Dave, in rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe:
Subtlety is great, but what exactly happened with Jessica and the cop during sex that he locked her up afterwards? Also, what was the item she nicked from his shirt while she pawed him?

— Beobach 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, surprised we don't have this; I'm familiar with it from books. Suggests unwelcome fondling by an inept would-be lover, e.g. among teenagers. Not a "furry" term in this sense, and not masturbation. The response might be "Get your hands off me!" Equinox ◑ 20:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

breezy

Rfv-sense: A woman. See talk:breezy and User talk:SemperBlotto#breezy. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Nemzag

Note WT:RFV#Special:Contributions/Nemzag. I have gone through all of Nemzag's mainspace edits; most have been verified or corrected by other knowledgeable editors. A minority had never been edited by other editors, or had been edited but still seemed to me to have problems. In about half of those cases, I was able to verify or correct the information myself. Here, I list all of the words I could not verify myself. I'd prefer the input of knowledgeable editors to actual citations (but conferred with other editors and decided RFV was the best venue). — Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coerator

Specifically, I doubt the pronunciation. I thought even the most educated Romans used only aspirated /tʰ/, not full-fledged /θ/. Correct me if I've misunderstood. — Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hipje, hypje, and hipi

The etymology, the related terms, the pronunciation, and of course the definition all need to be verified. — Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's apparently recent Albanian-English thesaurus glosses hipi as "climb" (verb), "mount" (noun?), with example collocations like i hipi shaluar "bestride", i hipi kalit "ride", and i hipi "hop". It has hipje në anije as "embarkation", hipi në anije as "embark". It doesn't have hypje or hypi, though (which are given in the etymologies of our entries). — Beobach 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Këndime anglisht-shqip, or Albanian-English reader by Margaret Masson Hasluck (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1932) has hypi as "climb, go up, get on, mount" and notes "like eci". — Beobach 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

truni

— Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's apparently recent Albanian-English thesaurus has tru as "brain" (we also have tru), and njeri pa tru (which would literally be "man without brain") as "palooka". — Beobach 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lirë

— Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

njer, njeri

— Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's apparently recent Albanian-English thesaurus has njeri as "person, human". Can we verify the pronunciation? Is the conjugation alright? What about njer? — Beobach 20:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, doesn't Webster usually take its data from other sources, like Wiktionary? I know I've googled some terms and it found one source and then one of those Webster books with the exact same content. -- Prince Kassad 10:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's hasn't referred to any one company since the 19th century; see [w:Webster's_Dictionary#The_name_Webster_used_by_others]. This data is from [86]; given that the word of the day is a link to a Youtube clip that embeds "LORN (adj): Lost, undone, ruined" with a bunch of unlinguistic junk, it doesn't impress me as a quality site.--Prosfilaes 17:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China Hand

I have several doubts about this:

Is "hand" really capitalized?
Is this the most common sense? A quick Google search would imply that "China hand" is a cardgame. The Wikipedia article is about more specifically defined groups of people.
If the indicated sense is real, isn't it just "China" + "hand" ? --Hekaheka 01:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it derives from the term "old hand." I believe it should be "China hand" but sometimes it appears with both words capitalized. See [87]. 71.66.97.228 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can be a "hand" about many things, especially places (Washington, Asia, Africa, Japan, California, Chicago, Hong Kong, India, Russia, Germany) or people (Nixon, Reagan, Warner). A "hand" can be "old", "experienced", "veteran", "three-decade". (All examples from COCA.)

IOW, the novelty seems to be entirely in the specific sense of "hand" not in any multi-word term that uses it. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is included in sense 7 of our entry, which could be split to cover the senses in "hired hand" and "old hand" more clearly. DCDuring TALK 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both capitalised and non-capitalised forms are used. I would say keep this because even if you could argue it's SoP, are you telling me a non-native speaker (or native speaker for that matter) could figure out which "hand" is being referred to in the #18 noun senses currently listed at hand? ---> Tooironic 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is obvious that listeners do this many orders of magnitude more frequently than they successfully resort to dictionaries.

I think the actual questions are:

How many of those a users coming across "China hand" and resorting to a dictionary would look up "China hand" (vs "hand")?
How many of users finding "China hand" would realize that "hand" could be used with other attributive nouns and that it was the same sense of "hand" as in "an old hand at ..." ? DCDuring TALK 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

south

rfv-sense: noun:

(figuratively) The down or negative direction.
His luck turned south.

The water numbed everything south of my ribcage.

The examples look like adverbial and adjectival usage respectively. I am not sure that figurative senses are used in the noun form, though it would not be a surprise.

I have added adverb senses covering "down" and "adverse". I am not sure that the "negative" sense is used adjectivally. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cookie饼

As with WT:RFV#Ampere定律. This one seems to have slipped through the cracks, having been tagged RFD, but not listed there (only mentioned in passing in another section). It also seems to be the last of its kind. I bring it to RFV rather than RFD because the consensus was to accept the terms if they could be verified. I can't find anything on Google Books. — Beobach 02:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confusion

"(computing) The situation where data income exceeds processing speed." May be real, but I'm suspicious because I've never come across it and "income" doesn't sound right (perhaps "input"?). Cite please. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I would likely say "data transfer rate", but perhaps this is merely a confusion. Here is an example of people getting into a muddle trying to get their heads around data transfer rates and processing speed (and in this case, the fact that because Blu-ray uses less compression than HDDVD, it requires more data per second of film time). Pingku 14:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gristle

Rfv-sense something young and unformed. I've never heard this sense before, and the predominance of the other sense (and the fact I have no idea what context this sense would come in) makes it hard for me to search for.--Prosfilaes 20:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the gristle is easy to find, but that doesn't mean that this exists independently.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sense of unhardened bone seems citeable, and perhaps some extension on that.

[ ... citations moved to page ... ]

—Pingku 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if you see this message in time please move citations to the entry. This page is already long enough. Also you'll save the closer unnecessary work in copying them over. Otherwise just keep that in mind for future quotations. DAVilla 15:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apple

Rfv-sense: tree that grows apples. This is always apple tree, right? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless citations can show otherwise, IMO yes you are right. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[88], [89], [90], [91]. I'm pretty sure that it can also refer to the wood. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the second and the third ones, and the first and the fourth ones won't be much help until someone points out what the citations are. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have plum, damson, orange, quince etc all meaning the tree, just as "apple" on its own can refer to either the tree or the wood as well as the fruit. Why pick out this tree for rfv just because the word "tree" is often attached for clarity? I'd be happy to have a tag of something along the lines of mainly horticultural to the sense. Examples: [92], [93], [94] Dbfirs 10:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'ookin'

Also 'its and 'ook (verb). All are questionable, as are some of the lemma forms --Mat200 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged 'its and 'ook so that this nomination can be found.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to attest the noun sense of 'ookby searching google books:+"by ook or by". I suspect the others will be as easy if someone can think of a similarly indicative collocation.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye dialect spellings of aitchless pronunciations seem likely to be common in fiction. Do we really have to cite them in every PoS? Noun 'ook is cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jule

Etymology 2. Never heard of it, and I doubt this is citable. Longtrend 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it uses in the organization of a conference I helped with. Therefore the example sentence.

JULE-Club bietet Möglichkeiten zur Freizeit- und Feriengestaltung für Kinder, Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene

JULE-Programm 2011 Wir freuen uns, Ihnen unser aktuelles Ferien- und Freizeitprogramm für Kinder, Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene vorstellen zu können.

Junge Leute (JuLe) und FÖJ

Often, it seems to mean ‘Junge Lesben’, young lesbians only, as in Junge Lesben Leipzig, but I think that’s more of a name, rather than a word, so not includable, whereas in the sense ‘Junge Leute’, I have heard it used as if it were a normal word, without any context. That was in leftist circles, though it might be some sort of slang.

Maybe move that sense to JuLe or JULE? H. (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

snowdog, snowboy

Snowman's an island (WF?) is creating a host of creatures and other terms made of snow. Everyone knows about snowman, but the others sound ridiculous to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madeup words. Not in wide use and not found on google books or google search that matches the definition. On a side note, I have a bad feeling about this editor. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snowdog is verified. snowanteater could be tricky, tho unsigned comment by User:Snowman's an island 10:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

predicative case

I see no evidence that the phrase "predicative case" is actually used in published works about Volapük, though it does have some web use. I've added the one hit from Usenet for predicative case Volapuk. There are numerous Google Books hits for just predicative case; it will take more linguistics knowledge then mine to make something of them that's not SoP.--Prosfilaes 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now the original creator of the entry has added a cite to a CompuServe document (not durably archived) that's not only in German, but uses the word Prädikativfall. I have no doubt that something that is sometimes called a predicative case is used in a revision of Volapuk made in its twilight years; the question is the words "predicative case" in English.--Prosfilaes 20:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

Previous RFD, needs to meet WT:BRAND. DAVilla 06:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nutella

If we take WT:CFI at all seriously, this needs to meet WT:BRAND. Of course the translation rationale for inclusion seems to apply as much to brand names as to proper nouns and common collocations. It is only a prejudice against commerce that applies different standards to brand names. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a prejudice, as you know. It is to prevent floods of spam gumming up the wikiworks. (I say this mainly so that those who don't know become aware of the whyfore). But to the main point, I do not find any relevant examples in English. (French doesn't count, does it?) -- ALGRIF talk 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we apply WT:BRAND to toponyms, personal names, etc? There is plenty of nationalistic spam, fanboy spam, etc. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we? I would imagine that it would be ridiculously easy to find citations for personal names and place names that don't specify something like "Her friend Bill, which is a name, came from Alabama, which is a place". bd2412 T 01:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is generically used in German, so the page must stay anyway. For the English section, I don’t know. H. (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

milk it

Supposedly "Faking it, pretending a sickness". Not seeing it, but it's hard to look for (note the existence of (deprecated template usage) milk (transitive verb)).—msh210℠ (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of these "verb + it" expressions. The it in maqny of these is a particularly weak form of of the pronoun, it not being at all clear just what it might be that is being "milked". Often it is just "the applicable aspect of the situation". Doesn't this look like more of an RfD than an RfV? DCDuring TALK 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not afaIct, as we don't have a "fake" sense of milk. Should we? I've never heard of it.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is that it's just plain wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I agree with Msh210. I viewed the definition as an excessively narrow specialization of the sense of "milk" he identified. Maybe RfV is the best we can do. I look with suspicion on all "verb + it" expressions, as on all expressions beginning with forms of "be", with adverbs like "all", or with pronouns or determiners. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the range of meanings is wider than that (or perhaps different in the UK?), but the definition would be better at milk. Dbfirs 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice couple of anecdotes here, but I don't see anything to warrant an entry separate from the verb. Pingku 02:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hán tự

Rfv-sense: English section added by me last night. Linked to User talk:Mglovesfun#Vietnamese characters as what should the Chinese characters used in Vietnamese. Though it has a Wikipedia article, finding 'uses' in English is turning out to be difficult. Han tu seems to be as hard to cite. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerismas

Not without attestation, please. Not in “Consumerismas”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. or “Consumeristmas”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly citable on Groups, probably not on Books or News. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO not citable from Usenet either (remember that Groups includes a bunch of Google-specific stuff that isn't Usenet). Consumeristmas is a possible alt spelling, also probably unattestable. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

foodfish

In the absence of citations or definitions in OneLook references, it is difficult to tell exactly what this means. Superficially, it appears to be used in rather restricted contexts, which raises the question whether it means the same thing as food + fish, food fish, or possibly something else. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you want the current definition verifying? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I can mean. If other definitions are a better fit with the actual usage, then they would have to be added. Resulting multiple definitions could be deemed redundant so it would be good to make sure there are meaningful differences among any multiple definitions that may fit actual usage. At first glance the typical usages of "foodfish" seem more "technical" than those of "food fish". If the meaning is the same, but the spelling differs by context, that can be shown (and WT:COALMINE would arguably be properly invoked in defense of food fish). DCDuring TALK 13:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

racaille

Rfv-sense: French, gangster. Tagged but not listed. I don't know the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gangster is too precise, but this very pejorative word may be used for a gangster, and I would keep this sense (as the 1st sense), with a wider definition. I also would remove the mention of inner-city from the 1st definition (I understand the idea, but, in France, inner-city has the opposite connotation!). Lmaltier 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

line, RFV-senses "a tapeline" and "to impregnate"

I have overhauled our entry on line, grouping and checking the definitions. We lack a handful of senses, and we list a handful that other dictionaries don't, but most of those are familiar to me (e.g. the "number of shares taken by a jobber") or straightforward to cite (e.g. that "line" is used to mean "line segment"). However, I haven't found evidence of these two senses:

Noun:
1. A long tape, or a narrow ribbon of steel, etc., marked with subdivisions, as feet and inches, for measuring; a tapeline.
Verb:
1. (transitive, obsolete) To impregnate (applied to brute animals). — Creech.

The verb is dubious. The noun may (only) be hard to cite because line is a very common word, and it isn't clear to me what sense is supported by the uses of "steel line" (and similar) I find. — Beobach 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint

Rfv-sense: Brand name of a product.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why we would want to eliminate the proper noun sense from any entry where an attributive or generic form can be cited. Seems to me that these cases would always be worthy of inclusion. If we only include the generic sense we may mislead people who see it used in the specific sense. I am not convinced that a mention in the etymology is sufficient. - [The]DaveRoss 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about mention in the etymology, and a usage note indicating the likely trademark status? (Both of which should be there even if this is kept.)—msh210℠ (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very high usage of the term "death by PowerPoint" should be enough to verify this.--Dmol 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But does any individual citation attest to PowerPoint#Proper noun or to PowerPoint#Noun? I look forward to seeing the citations. BTW, see also PowerPoint#Verb. DCDuring TALK 09:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, citer. The Shenk cite doesn't seem to fit the CFI of brand names ("text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies"), but the others do IMO. Anyone else want to opine?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cites (except Shenk) seem support the qualification of the term for inclusion, but not the attributes of the definition, which is why they should remain on the Citations page.

While we are at it:

The definition is not one of a proper noun.
It does not exclude having as referent Microsoft's old product "Presenter".
I am unclear as to whether, 1., usage does and, 2., our definition should conflate brand and product, all named releases of the product (eg, PowerPoint 2010), and all numbered and lettered release of each named release. Clearly there would be attestable usage of each of these, at least in Groups. If a complaining user says "PowerPoint doesn't let me do X" and a usergroup respondent says "my PowerPoint does", the complainer could by referring to all products bearing the PowerPoint brand or the version or copy on the machine being used and the respondent is probably referring to the version or copy. Should the wording of our definition reflect such ontological variation in referent or do we assume that our users understand this? We currently assume they cannot decode some two-part noun phrases/nominals, which seems to imply inconsistency on our part or theirs. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a physical product, so WT:BRAND does not apply. --Dan Polansky 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint may be distributed on tangible media. In any event, bits are physical. WT:BRAND does not say tangible. Furthermore, at sufficiently high voltage bits could be tangible. Therefore, WT:BRAND does apply. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. Thanks, DAVilla! —Ruakh_TALK 16:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Tim

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. Note that this does not prevent the entry from being RFD'd; Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Fictional universes establishes necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, criteria for such terms. —Ruakh_TALK 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Past

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. I am sure that if the creator knew how to cite the entry, he would. DCDuring TALK 01:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Marley

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Future

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect its creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 10:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Present

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect its creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 10:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect its creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 10:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do things like "as silent as The Ghost of..." count? I can find a book that says "every bit as exciting as Agatha Christie"; does a majority of contributors seriously think that this means Agatha Christie needs an entry in a DICTIONARY? This place is like some horrible nightmare lately. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is independent of reference to that universe, used out of context in an attributive sense, as CFI requires.

No, Agatha Christie does not originate from a fictional universe, and if this vote is any clarification, her full name would not be allowed... unless of course it came to mean something else, like Arnold Palmer defined as a drink.

If desired we could find some criterion to apply to such proper nouns, fictional or otherwise, and a stronger one than this. DAVilla 09:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the definitions for all of these "Ghost of..." entries are dubious. They merely give a description of the ghost itself, rather than actually defining what the phrase is actually supposed to mean. ---> Tooironic 11:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adimpleate

Appears to only exist in dictionaries and online word lists. Dominic·t 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aeipathy

Appears to only exist in dictionaries and online word lists. Dominic·t 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amarulence

Appears to only exist in dictionaries and online word lists. Dominic·t 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amarulence is in more dictionaries than adimpleate or aeipathy, and I found one use. I suggest we move the citation to the citations page, or keep it in the entry, and make the entry an "only in dictionaries" entry. - -sche 01:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Donald Duck

Rfv-sense: Proper noun. Judging from the paucity of material at WikiCommons, the abundance of branded merchandise being sold at relatively high prices, and the association of the Duck with w:Disney (See w:Donald Duck#Beyond Disney for references to licensing agreements, some from this millennium.), the proper noun (and other senses ?) would seem to need to be cited under WT:BRAND. WT:FICTION seems also to apply. I am not sure whether they combine, as it were, additively or multiplicatively. ("Multiplicatively" here meaning that each citation would have to meet both sets of criteria simultaneously; "additively" meaning here that there would need to be three citations that met each set of criteria separately. I haven't really thought it through. There may be no difference between "additive" and "multiplicative" in practice.) For older fictional characters, presumably only WT:FICTION applies, unless trademark works differently than I expect. I hope we don't need an IP lawyer {:~{. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added some cites. I'd appreciate people's input about whether they feel these cites satisfy WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Except for the 1945 Ernie Pyle citation of "Donald-Duck-like", I think they meet both criteria for inclusion. However, they do not support the encyclopedic definition. Specifically, I don't think that most use of "Donald Duck" in ordinary speech has anything to do with the Duck's clothing, for example. The 1945 cite is the only one that is somewhat supportive of "tantrums".

I have been wondering whether and how to include and attest characteristics of historic and fictional characters that are or have been invoked allusively. For example, Cincinnatus has represented a humble military man who did not seek power that could have been his. Plutarch's Lives is a source of many influential allusions of this type. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

capitat

The letter c does not occur in the Chamorro alphabet (except for the digraph ch). -- Prince Kassad 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but I wonder if it's attestable in Catalan or Romanian (past of capitar and capita if they existed). Mglovesfun (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame this 1865 Spanish-Chamorro Dictionary. El Muñeco Shakes It Up, Baby 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fauxnetic

Jocular spelling of phonetic. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to do it now, but I think it would just pass from Usenet: [95] Equinox ◑ 18:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any more obscure than fauxhemian or fauxmosexual? kwami 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cloisonne

Rfv-sense: "An example of such decorative art, or an object decorated by it." I wonder if the word can actually be used to refer to an individual object. There's this quotation: The museum had a fine collection of medieval Italian cloisonne. I understand the word is here used as mass noun, as "art" in sentence: The museum had a fine collection of medieval Italian art. My proposal is to delete sense #2 and keep the example as an example of sense #1. --Hekaheka 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No defenders, delete sense? --Hekaheka 05:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited definition, I think it's ok now. --Hekaheka 15:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exh

Tagged by Jakeybean but not posted here. Two senses. (Both say "exhibition", though, so if cites show general use rather than as the context tags imply, then I suppose they can be combined into one sense.)—msh210℠ (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The art sense is easily cited: google books:"exh cat".—msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! There was an array of new user posts and bits of vandalism last night, I forgot to put it on here. Agreed, but the chess definition is not so easily cited as of yet —Jakeybean^TALK 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this just defined as abbreviation of exhibit, exhibition, and exhaust? This does seem likely to prove context-specific in all of these, least of all "exhibit". DCDuring TALK 20:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

verbier

Doesn't seem to exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have air (that is, nothing) for this. All the cites for verbier are in fact for Verbier (a town), verbiant is attested in Dutch and maybe in German. Verbiée, verbiées and verbiés get zip. All the hits for verbiais are actually for ad-verbiais, the plural in Portuguese of (deprecated template usage) adverbial. So in other words, I think it's just a complete error and I have nothing at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir

I doubt this would be the main spelling in English. Relative usage? DCDuring TALK 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see that most of the attributes of the encyclopedic definition are confirmed in the single citation. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swap content with Izmir. Dorem is pushing his pedantic agenda again. --Vahag 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly my "pedantic agenda"; note that Wikipedia has its article at the dotted spelling. Good luck discovering relative usages when Google fails to distinguish the dotted and dotless (deprecated template usage) Is. For the point about "most of the attributes of the…definition [being un]confirmed in the single citation", see Talk:adolescentilism#Request for verification. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all that, it has been long established that we don't necessarily lemmatise the most common spelling of a word, but rather leave it up to the editor who creates the entry or section is question (see, for example, User talk:Doremítzwr#homœophony: point 3 of my post timestamped 16:26, 13 April 2010). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now tri-cited for good measure. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat and Skinny

Never heard of this. It seems to be a hyponym of Laurel and Hardy and Abbot and Costello. Could such a thing be a proper noun, as it claims to be? DCDuring TALK 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy

Rfv-sense: by extension: Any duo who are so inept at practical tasks, as to be humorous. Uncited. Would such a sense be a proper noun? Also the translations of the proper noun seem suspect, not to mention the proper noun itself. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The translations look OK to me in the sense that that's how Laurel and Hardy appear to be called in those languages, if we believe Wikipedia. But I doubt if they are correct translations for the sense "inept duo". At least in Finland one would prefer Pekka ja Pätkä according to a domestic funny duo. --Hekaheka 15:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there are regional and generational differences for the "extended" sense. "Mutt and Jeff" would work for many in the US, based on their newspaper comic strip, roughly contemporaneously with Laurel and Hardy. There are numerous "buddy" pairings that have some cultural resonance, eg, Starsky and Hutch, Burns and Allen, Bob and Ray. It is not very hard to cite them if our standard allows "the Starsky and Hutch of" to count. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

al

Rfv-sense: Indian mulberry. (All the other senses are at RFD already.)

No apparent hits on b.g.c, and Wikipedia doesn't know about this either, which looks very suspicious. -- Prince Kassad 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al and als are valid Scrabble words. So other dictionaries must have at least one noun sense for this. And searching for any two letter term (for a specific meaning) is an absolute nightmare. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrabble-valid sense is an alt spelling of (deprecated template usage) aal, which is this same mulberry tree. As MG says, that means that a dictionary used in Scrabble validity (Collins, Chambers?) has an entry. Whether it's attestable is another matter. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in Chamber's, which is usually the Scrabble bible. Not in the OED either. Ƿidsiþ 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers isn't the Scrabble word source any more (since about 2007). AFAIK it's now Collins. Anyone got a copy? Equinox ◑ 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has aal but not al. Do scrabble players make up words and rare variant spellings? Dbfirs 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"al" "aal" mulberry pulls up interesting secondary sources, from which I learn that al is "Hindi" whereas aal is "Bombay (including Guzrathi and Mahrathi)", and that crossword-puzzlers love it as much as Scrabblers do. Few mentions treat it as really English, but rather, merely as an English rendering of the Hindi. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some actual uses, finally. And here's one more. —Ruakh_TALK 16:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second link doesn't work for me, but the first one italicises the term, suggesting the author didn't consider it to have entered English. Update: I've just noticed that you already said that. But I am always hesitant to use italics as citations in Wikt. Equinox ◑ 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yottalumen

-- Prince Kassad 14:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have yottabyte, yottametre, yottameter, yottalitre, yottaliter, yottaton, yottagramme, yottabit, yottalitres. And there's lots of the same stuff where it comes from: yottacoulomb, yottahertz, yottalux, yottakelvin, yottawat, yottatesla, yottasecond... I guess somebody gets kicks out of adding these "units". I'm tired. --Hekaheka 00:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

superextruxi

I can't find any citations for this as a noun and I'm unsure what the lemma would be anyway; however, there seem to be a few for a verb (deprecated template usage) superextruo, (deprecated template usage) superextruere, (deprecated template usage) superextruxi. Caladon 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, since there do not appear to be any citations for the noun. I have added the corresponding verb. Caladon 10:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, just to complete Caladon's closing of this request. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

toxaemia

Originally added by Verbo (talk • contribs), the Latin word here, is there any evidence that this is attested? I know that it can be hard to find citations for Neo-Latin, but some dictionaries even contradict the etymology and say that the English comes from toxicum instead. Caladon 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baiskeli

The phrasebook I stole from my mother this holiday has baisikeli as opposed to our baiskeli. Google gives more results for our listing, but the number one link is to us, so some of that may be our fault. Anyone know if they are both accepted or if we have a typo? - [The]DaveRoss 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the issue of foreign loanwords. I'd treat them both as acceptable, and have one be an alternative form of the other. -- Prince Kassad 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[sw:baiskeli]] was created by actual Swahili speakers, not a bot or whatnot, and the same is true of [[w:sw:baisikeli]] . . . so probably both are accepted? (And while it's true that we're the first Google hit for baiskeli, the other hits seem mostly to be genuine uses, not mentions, in which case, that's probably not our fault. A lot of sites automatedly follow our lead, but that shouldn't really affect usage.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This dictionary has baisikeli. Ƿidsiþ 17:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Swahili-Russian dictionary has baiskeli, baisikeli and baiskili. --Vahag 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to my keeping this? (Not marking it "RFV passed", per se, since no one added valid citations, but not deleting it, either, since decent evidence was presented, and the main problem seems to be a shortage of Swahili-speaking citers.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with a keep, this was mostly out of curiosity and to have other folks put eyes on the entry. - [The]DaveRoss 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as RFV kept via an exception to the typical RFV process, given the nominator is okay with the entry. The entry under discussion is this: Swahili Noun "baiskeli": "1. bicycle". --Dan Polansky 09:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duck tape

Rfv-sense: Duck brand duct tape.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duck seems to be a brand of duct tape, that's probably what it means[96]. This doesn't mean that it should be a Wiktionary sense. I think it shouldn't. --Hekaheka 13:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis would it be excluded if it is attestable? Any particular slogan, principle, policy, or practice? We might deem it a common misspelling. But it seems to be a misunderstanding of whether or not the name duct tape preceded Duck tape/Duck Tape, as it did by 1-2 years apparently, the misunderstanding building on the homophony in many instances of "duck tape" and "duck tape". DCDuring TALK 17:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above is suspect at best. World Wide Words reports this. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly shouldn't be uncapitalized, and would need to need WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need duck tape, but does it require two senses? Are senses #1 and #2 separate? --Hekaheka 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, #2 is Duck Brand duct tape, and #1 is just duct tape. #2 is certainly needs WT:BRAND, and I doubt it can pass. The first sense The Oxford dictionary of American usage and style labels as a "mistaken phrase" that "has become quite common"; it passes WT:CFI handily.--Prosfilaes 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, nobody ever disputed #1. --Hekaheka 05:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proculdubio

Speedily deleted by SB; restored and brought here by yours truly.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any Latin dictionary that I can find. Looks like it may be two words run together. SemperBlotto 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely hits for the word (joined up) in Latin, but, not knowing Latin, I can't say what it means in them.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Francis Bacon using the word, doesn't look like a scanno. Here is Abraham Cowley. Journal of theological studies. There are bunches of them, maybe it is some neo-Latin formation. - [The]DaveRoss 03:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tubercle

Rfv-sense: mycology: "A mass of hyphae from which a mushroom is produced." This appears to originate from an author of Wikipedia. Google searches with combinations [mushroom, tubercle] and [mycology, tubercle] mainly produced links to web dictionaries. Webster's online defines the usage "Wikipedic", which supports my suspicion. I would think that a better word for this definition would be mycelium. --Hekaheka 06:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the term be spelled tubercule? -- Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, in English we use -cle for reflexes of Latin -cula and French -cule. I'm not sure why, though. —Ruakh_TALK 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruakh. After I posted I did discover that "tubercle" is the much more common spelling, much to my puzzlement. Curious that molecule squeaked through that historical process with its "u" intact. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who could shed some light to the original question:

Does the word "tubercle" have the sense "mass of hyphae from which a mushroom is produced"?. --Hekaheka 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I looked for evidence of it, but couldn't find any; but I know so little about mycology that I couldn't say for sure. —Ruakh_TALK 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cork

Rfv-sense: adjective. All the Google Book hits for "very cork" are for "his very cork" or "the very cork" meaning "the same cork". NB since this will be difficult to cite if it does exist, this should, IMO, be allowed more than a month. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found exactly one citation in our usual Google sources of the usage "more cork than" that might be showing an adjective usage. I would welcome opinions as to whether it showed true adjective use as it is of a kind of usage that is fairly common.

Incidentally, I found enough usage for attestation of "more Cork than" in reference to the county in Ireland (or its dialect or mores). Very many toponyms and demonyms can be found in such patterns. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think " […] was no more cork than my own" is use of cork as a mass noun. Not sure, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I think this is something other than a standard comparative use of "more." Compare:

The product looked like steel ; but it was no more steel than strong cold-short iron ever will be. — 1873, Frederick Overman, A. A. Fesquet, The manufacture of steel

He is no more a lexicologist than I am.

—Pingku 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the cite proffered doesn't show that it's an adjective. I also doubt it is one.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This distinguished trio's unanimous views (plus Ruakh's earlier similar views) may help keep me from offering such examples henceforth. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore

Two senses, both needing to meet WT:BRAND AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga

Needs to meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jobber

# {{context|hockey slang}} {{rfv-sense}} An entity that jobs stuff

This was tagged a while ago and I can't see a listing for it. - [The]DaveRoss 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make something out of it, or delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zealousy

"Zealousness." Books results seem to be scannos for adverb zealously. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rerape

Rape again. Doesn't seem attestable. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distasteful and rare, but attested. - -sche 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 January 21, "You can't really see me" (username), "CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: Usenet Ghoul of the Year", in alt.music.michael-jackson, Usenet:
Hey, you could always go […] rerape women who have already been raped, or gang raped.

instant messenger

Someone who uses an instant messaging application. How are they the messenger?! Equinox ◑ 22:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the only cite I could find. I assume it results from trying to create an agent noun from (deprecated template usage) to instant message. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aniono

Rfv-sense: Esperanto. JorisvS (talk • contribs) thinks this is only Ido, and the Esperanto is always anjono. Upon asking my opinion, I suggested an RFV as it's not 'ridiculous' enough to merit speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely used; there's two hits in "aniono kaj" in b.g.c. (I always search on kaj, since it's rare enough outside Esperanto to be a better locator of Esperanto than setting the language.) The citations are mildly incomplete, because I was working from snippet view and couldn't get article details or the full title on one work. I don't think b.g.c. is going to yield a third hit, though.--Prosfilaes 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm actually not surprised about that. Even if technically the Esperanto word is just "(an)jono", we are bound to see "(an)iono" in a few Esperanto publications, simply due to interference from people's native language (mostly due to spelling I guess). So far every dictionary I've tried gives only (an)jono and not (an)iono. --JorisvS 11:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually having trouble finding any references to anjono outside dictionaries. On the ground, admittedly from a tiny sample, aniono seems to be the form in use.--Prosfilaes 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you count Wikipedia: w:eo:anjono, w:eo:jono. These pages seem to have consistently used this spelling throughout their histories. The next few days I've got ridiculuously little time to look around in the world at large, so more input from my part will have to wait a few days. --JorisvS 11:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to suggest putting in a "common misspelling" entry at aniono, but now I'm not as sure about that anymore: Googling 'aniono kaj' telling Google to look only at Esperanto (pages) gives a mere 14 results (and several "similar pages" Google leaves out by default), of which one is our page, one a mirror of our entry at anjono, one at Vikilibroj where (an/kat)iono appears only three times alongside countless (an/kat)jono (and thus just look like misspellings), one a Portuguese-Esperanto word list (with eo only anjono), one an Esperanto-Russian word list which uses aniono once, alongside (an)jono, 5 Ido-Esperanto word lists (actually just two pages, but these are five of the hits) with the Ido being aniono and the Esperanto anjono, one is in a very short word list on a Finnish page, and three look more legit (these are actually just two instances, and one of which I can't open). Telling Google to show those it left out only gives a few more of the ones already seen. On the other hand, doing the same thing with anjono gives many many more hits. Googling 'aniono kaj' without telling Google to look only at Esperanto (pages) gives a great deal of non-Esperanto hits and has trouble turning up new hits (maybe one or so later on in the hit pages).

Prosfilaes, the first quote you've given starts with "ci-kaze", which should at least be "ĉi-kaze" (or might even be somewhat better "ĉi-okaze"), and uses "-jono" in the same phrase, and so gives me the impression of it being a misspelling. Oh, and what's b.g.c.? --JorisvS 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.c. is books.google.com (more properly "Google Books" or "Google Book Search"). See Wiktionary:Glossary. —Ruakh_TALK 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's -kaze--OCR doesn't tend to lose letters like that unless it's really having problems. But possibly erroneously I changed the quote to ĉi-kaze; it won't show me a snippet of the text now, just the OCR, and as I noted in an HTML comment, the snippet cut off the tops of letters making it hard to tell whether there was a circumflex on them or not.

I'm having problems seeing anything that's citable under WT:CFI, given that that demands we pull from printed material, or Usenet, or Google News. Webpages are not considered citable. "aniono" doesn't quite hit the standards unless another cite can be found, and "anjono" is completely unattestable so far.

While there has been some noise about eventually accepting webpages for stuff that can be retrieved from the Web Archive, it's not there now, and dictionaries would still be out of bounds as mentions, not use. There has been some argument that the three use rule in CFI shouldn't/doesn't apply to most languages, including Esperanto, ([97] and more fully Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Lingua Franca Nova) but that wouldn't help anjono, as there's no evidence suitable under CFI it's ever been used.--Prosfilaes 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any explicit or implicit prohibition from using webpages at WT:CFI (except Wikimedia sister projects, obviously). And from what Google Books tells me, the first quote really uses "Ci-kaze", without the circumflex (I also saw the snippet where the circumflex would've been lost). --JorisvS 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I can't find any explicit or implicit prohibition from using webpages at WT:CFI": See point #3 at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation. Web pages aren't considered to be "permanently recorded media". —Ruakh_TALK 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? I mean, indiscriminately? So then, basically, all web material, in fact all digital material can be considered not to be permanently recorded, can't it? Is there a page that specifies when something is/isn't considered "permanently recorded"? --JorisvS 23:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

scelestious

I see mentions but no uses.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only found one mention in the dictionary Word Nerd and one other in a German paper, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen: Volume 76. Could not actually view either instance. One or both could be typos for scelestus. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Nerd page is visible via Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Word-Nerd-Barbara-Ann-Kipfer/dp/1402208510; use the "Search Inside" feature). The complete paragraph is:

other terms for wicked are scelestious or scelestic

So, not helpful.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find two mentions, not uses, one on Usenet, one in a book titled Word Nerd.

Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly is just indulging in the hallowed practice of coining/reviving words by anglicizing Latin (and Greek) words. Though this is not so fashionable for the past century, it had a long history before then, especially among those with a training in classical Greek and Latin. Perhaps his acolytes and fans will start using the word enough so we can include it. Perhaps promoting a rare word is a way of showing or testing the impact he has on "the conversation". DCDuring TALK 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermud-3

I've not heard this term in widespread internet use. TeleComNasSprVen 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the standard. I suspect someone will bring up WT:BRAND or something, but all I can say is, though I don't have the time to cite it and the fact that someone will bring up WT:BRAND discourages me from doing so, Developing online games: an insider's guide by Jessica Mulligan, and Bridgette Patrovsky is a good cite from Google Books, and Usenet has plenty of cites.--Prosfilaes 06:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Intermud" is probably more significant than the less widely used "Intermud-3" when it comes to using a certain term, but even that had failed RFV it seems (see this archive for the previous entry on "intermud"). I doubt it's a brand name. TeleComNasSprVen 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palermo

Rfv-sense (Dutch, Proper noun) A place that is organisationally flawed, making it an unpleasant place. Dutch Wikipedia has a page concerning "Palermo's of the world", but I think that is just a metaphor. SemperBlotto 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Rfv tag removed by User:Mallerd. Tag reinstated. User blocked. SemperBlotto 12:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of the articles in the google link provided by Mallerd and my conclusion agrees with that of Semper's. Palermo aan de Maas is simply a metaphor that alludes to the increasing corruption in Maastricht. Many cities in the world that have trademark qualities can be used as metaphors. A good example is Shanghai, which is often titled Paris of the Orient. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking of St Petersburg as the "Venice of the north". SemperBlotto 08:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refidex

Australia. A (any) street directory. By "trademark erosion". DCDuring TALK 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one cite for the contested sense, but it's difficult to find informal usage in with all the other official meanings. I've also added the formal sense, as it is meaninless to anyone without prior knowledge of what it is.--Dmol 11:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ka

Rfv-sense: kiloamp. Should it be kA? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this should be translingual. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sense "kiloyear", which is what ka really represents. Yes, kiloamp should be at kA. -- Prince Kassad 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

work path

All I can see on Google book search is something to do with Photoshop. SemperBlotto 14:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a search at bgc for '"work path" -intitle:photoshop' I found 3 hits for this sense, but in so doing became skeptical that this should be included. There are numerous context-dependent readings of the collocation, all of which seemed utterly transparent if I knew something about the context. On further investigation for a couple of the more technical cases, the context also made the semantics of the combination transparent. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dukebox

A digital jukebox. Also supposed to be a verb. All I can find are misspellings of "jukebox". Equinox ◑ 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether this is a real word, but the verb form dukeboxs looks strange to me. --LA2 05:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duk-Duk

"A tribal language widespread in the Bismarck Archipelago." Equinox ◑ 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coprastasophobia

One of those made-up phobias, I bet. It's in some word lists but never actually "used". Maybe for Appendix:English unattested phobias? Equinox ◑ 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kadigan

or cadigan. A placeholder word. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nominating cadigan, too? Can you tag it with {{rfv|fragment=kadigan}} then, please?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to bgc at citations:kadigan, but the text is invisible to me. Can anyone see it?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a table-of-contents entry "KADIGANS", and then a snippet consisting of the word "KADIGANS" in huge-point font. I imagine that the latter is using it as the name of a section, and that the former is pointing to the latter, but it's fun to think of alternative explanations. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undecomino

Class of shape. Does not seem attestable. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly sees (rather limited) use on the Web, but I see nothing at all for it, undecominoes, or undecominos on Usenet, Books, News, News Archive, or Scholar. A shame: it looks like it should be a word....—msh210℠ (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't change the definitions of word in order to mention this list of sites. The sense of word has nothing to do with them. Lmaltier 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have CFI if we are not to use it? IMO, when a "real" word is just barely too rare to meet the rules (e.g. this one citation instead of three), it's like the age of consent on sex. If the girl is a few days under 16, hey, what does it matter? But it's still illegal because the bar has to be set somewhere. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Lmaltier is proposing we ignore the CFI. He's explicitly taking issue with your usage of "attestable" (we often use "attested/-able" to mean "cited/-able per the CFI", but that's inconsistent and incompatible with (deprecated template usage) attested's real-world meaning among real-world linguists) and he's explicitly taking issue with msh210's usage of "word" to mean "CFI-meeting word". And I think he's right in both cases: we should distinguish between WT:CFI itself and the concepts underlying it, or else we won't have the vocabulary to justify and discuss changes to it. ("Why on Earth would you want to make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 17? People over the age of 16 can give consent, so what's the problem?" "I don't think people under 17 can really give consent." "No, the law explicitly says that 16 is the age of consent.") —Ruakh_TALK 13:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this is exactly what I was meaning. I also think that CFI are inconsistent and that most CFI rules might be justifiable for a paper dictionary, and are unjustifiable here, but this is another point. Lmaltier 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is attested on the Web (more than 400 Google hits). One Google Books hit (in Mcgraw-Hill Dictionary Of Mathematics). Clearly, this is a word. Lmaltier 21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant it looks like it should be inclusible. (But it's not AFAICT.)—msh210℠ (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know Lmaltier is perhaps the most inclusionist Wiktionary editor ever. Where he and I disagree specifically is what should the minimum be for inclusion. Sure, every word needs really world usage, but how many uses? I get 71 hits on Google, many of those are not English, such as Finnish (or Estonian, I can't tell the difference) and Korean! Also some of the results aren't uses but mentions like this one, so overall I don't think 50 or fewer uses of the word can be 'clear widespread use'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not clear widespread use, this is obvious, but no dictionary includes only words with clear widespread use (except maybe dictionaries for children), and CFI states that all words are welcome. It's often for words that are not of clear widespread use that the dictionary is most useful. On the other hand, words of clear widespread use might be excluded because it is unlikely that somebody will look for their meaning. Actually, CFI are inconsistent, they should be changed. Lmaltier 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About inclusionism, this means something for Wikipedia, but here, it makes sense only for phrases (the basic principle is all words). I want to include only words (including phrases that can be considered as words). I would remove all phrasebooks entries for individual sentences (and create real phrasebook pages), so I feel that I am much less inclusionist than most people here. Lmaltier 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

itshay

I understand [[ixnay]] and [[amscray]], but "itshay"? TeleComNasSprVen 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noun cited. Interjection remains; should not be too hard. Equinox ◑ 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection now cited as well. Not so easy as the noun, sadly. —Ruakh_TALK 20:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mad cow

Rfv-sense: Prions that carry this disease. (mad cow disease, BSE)

Also: RfV for adjective PoS. I doubt that this can be attested as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds wrong for the noun, and I would probably have speedy deleted the adjective had I come across it, explaining so in the edit summary as to allow another editor to undo it if they felt strongly enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hamilton

Doubtful, but mostly because I'm lazy. (Hamilton Peak, the President, I'm not sure about the rest.) I've certainly heard of a Washington once or twice though. TeleComNasSprVen 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rollereuse

Protologism? SemperBlotto 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The given citation is the only one currently on Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

farm yakkor

Equinox ◑ 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pit yakkor

Equinox ◑ 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, but (deprecated template usage) pit-yacker seems to be attested, so I've moved it there. —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aprilly

This term is on WT:LOP, which suggests that it cannot be cited. -- Prince Kassad 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried "Aprilly weather" on Google books, and found uses in several books (1907, 1941, 1975). Lmaltier 21:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share? -- Prince Kassad 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know Google Books? Here is a link: http://www.google.fr/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=%22aprilly+weather%22&num=10 Lmaltier 22:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 12:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(_)

Smiley face. Japanese protologism? TeleComNasSprVen 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, terms with no alphabetical characters are notoriously difficult to cite as search engines handle them badly. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just from experience, I have never seen this in any of the mangas I've come across. Might be a common occurrence in chat? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was created by an old, long-since-blocked Wonderfool, with the edit summary "dubious"! Equinox ◑ 12:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rufie

Synonyms for Rohypnol include "rowie", "rophy", "ruffle" (with an 'l'), "roachie", "roofie" (the most common one I know), "ruffie" (with two 'f's), "ruff up", "rib", "roach 2 (R2)", "roche", "rope", "ropie", "circle", "circe", "forget it", "popper", "forget-me-pill", "Mexican Valium", "mickey", "forget-me-now", and "rufilin". But not "rufie". TeleComNasSprVen 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pee-wee

Rfv-sense adj. very small Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think pee-wee is just an alternative spelling of peewee, which is a noun, often used attributively, but may also be an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

transfenestrate

Today's WOTD, never heard of it personally. Ƿidsiþ 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it (and -ation in a few books). Pynchon used it. Equinox ◑ 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear the name Pynchon I reach for my gun. (also Nabokov, Tolkein, Joyce). I think these authors' coinages are examples of why the "well-known work" rule should be eliminated. Perhaps we need to have appendices for literary hapax legomena, such as these authors and others from Early Modern English have coined without subsequent usage. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "nonce" gloss for rarer-than-rare (also making them easy to locate in the event of any change of rules in the future). I agree this is very obscure to have made WOTD. Equinox ◑ 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{nonce}} with the idea in my head it would only work for well-known works, as anything else wouldn't meet CFI, or wasn't really a nonce word. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can one even attest to meaning with one usage? Find three published commentators? What about translations? Find three separate translations? DCDuring TALK 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need to start treating WOTD more like pedia's featured article; let's use entries which have all their ducks in a row rather than simply interesting words. - [The]DaveRoss 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DCDuring, "nonce" doesn't always mean the word was only ever used once. It can mean that each user of the word coined it separately for a single usage, perhaps not knowing anybody else ever had. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done and done

I don't think this is idomatic. It has one cite already. Most bgc hits are for collocations like "done and done right/soon/quickly/now", which is not in the definition given. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition looks correct to me. It's really just repetition used for emphasis, but it's not like you can use any word that way (finished and finished; corrected and corrected). Move to RFD if attested, which to be honest, I'm 99% sure it will be. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing the cites. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good and fast. Could this be UK? I had never heard of it on this side. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I thought it was more of an American thing. Equinox ◑ 03:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it from over here (USA). It's SOP IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a construction, "[Adj] and [Adj]" is certainly trivially transparent. I wonder though how many words can fit in the Adj slot. Hmmm. Seems like a job for COCA. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No joy. COCA doesn't support the forced repetition that is essential to this. BTW, there is the common construction exemplified by "higher and higher" and the less general construction using adverbs "on and on", ~~"out and out",~~ "over and over". DCDuring TALK 16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also through and through, again and again. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fesh-fesh

"Fine dust that looks like solid ground but behaves like soft mud." 1. We may want to reword it (this sentence was taken from someone's Flickr page). 2. All citations I can find are italicised, so I don't know if I can really consider it English. Anyone know the ety and originating script? Equinox ◑ 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arserun

"To follow (and shoot at) (somebody in a first-person shooter game after having passed them)." Equinox ◑ 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ich

Rfv-sense: English, "(obsolete) I." -- Prince Kassad 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain this exists, but it must be very old; maybe Widsith can help. It is British and related to the old dialect (deprecated template usage) che (which we are missing), e.g. "che vor ye" (I warn you) in King Lear. Chambers has related forms like chave (I have) and cham (I am). Equinox ◑ 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.c. abounds in Middle English cites — see e.g. google books:"ich am" and "ich habbe" — but Modern English and Early Modern English cites are harder. (I know that Widsith doesn't support our making that distinction, but some editors are rather insistent upon it.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpsonian

Rfv-sense x 2: 1. (pejorative) Lazy. 2. (pejorative) Stupid.

I don't think there is sufficient unambiguous usage evidence supporting either pejorative label (whatever such a label is supposed to mean for a negative-valence word) or the senses, let alone for the simultaneous occurrence of "pejorativity" and the senses. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete. "Lazy" and "stupid" are only two possible interpretations of Homer Simpson characteristics - they are not exact, distinct senses; one can't be "so Homer Simpsonian". ---> Tooironic 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cord

Rfv-sense: The string of a musical instrument.

I do not see this sense in dictionaries. First appeared in this revision. --Dan Polansky 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dog

There's plenty of jokes using the fact that dog and god are reverses of each other, but not that particularly amount to a new meaning. The example sentence works against the sense, since a quick Google books search reveals that "Dog is my co-pilot" is the title of at least two books, one published by The Bark magazine, subtitled "Great Writers on the World's Oldest Friendship", and one (sans hyphen) subtitled "Stories From the War on Mailmen". Another book refers to T-shirts that say "Love me, love my dog" and "of course" "Dog is my co-pilot". One section titled "Dog is my co-pilot" says "My friend Jane and I are always looking for places to substitute Dog for God. We don't mean to offend anyone, so sorry if it hits a nerve. It just makes us both smile to picture our dogs in the passenger seat of the..." The closest thing I find is the old joke about the dyslexic agnostic wondering if there's a dog, even that's not this sense.--Prosfilaes 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sense are you challenging? Or is this for WT:TR. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"(humorous) Not god".--Prosfilaes 19:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I missed Ety 2. As a cynolater myself, I find this definition offensive. Furthermore, saying that (deprecated template usage) dog means "god" doesn't agree with my ~~definition~~notion of "meaning". DCDuring TALK 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro

Tagged Canadian; def is "an electric utility". Maybe it's just a bad def? Or maybe this is a specific company, and not dictionary material? —Ruakh_TALK 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct says it's a poor version of our Canadian definition of hydro. If that's true, it could be speedily deleted as a "bad entry title". Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The largest Canadian power utilities are Ontario Hydro (now divided into several companies of which Hydro One distributes the electic power to customers) and Hydro-Québec. Therefore the electric power is sometimes called hydro in Canada, uncapitalized. This entry looks like plain misunderstanding and should probably be deleted. A similar sense for the word Edison should probably be deleted as well. --Hekaheka 01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qeaj

couldn't find it on google. Gullah, yes but Qeaj? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 06:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is it's not Klingon (which was my first guess on seeing the edit summary.) So we're not being trolled from that direction.--Prosfilaes 07:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 08:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy seems ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Þeodiscland

Did the Anglo-Saxons really use this word to refer to Germany? It seems unlikely because as far as I know even the Germans didn't call their country that at the time... —CodeCa t 10:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See w:ang:Gesprec:Þēodscland. Shortly said, Þeodiscland is a modern word. - -sche 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly doesn't help with WT:CFI#Attestation. Is Old English actually practised at a native or near native level anymore? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relevant? Incoherant or idiosyncratic usage should be rejected, native level or no, and language that is successfully being used to communicate should be recorded, even if it's almost unreadable to anyone not familiar with (say) Tanzanian English. If Þeodiscland is being used as a word in CFI-eligible publications, then it should be good, native or not. Of course, I don't know of anyone publishing Old English, which is going to be the hurdle to get over.--Prosfilaes 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as well as

===Conjunction===
# [[also]]; as well
# [[too]]; [[likewise]]; in addition
===Preposition===
# And in addition to; and [[furthermore]].

I added a second POS for the prepositional sense, but we need to clarify the conjunction sense(s). Are there really multiple conjunction senses or is that one sense split into two lines? Also I am not a fan of the definition line I made for the preposition, so if someone wants to reword that so it is less awkward that would be spiffy. - [The]DaveRoss 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially: I seem to recall some Template:nonstandard use at the start of a sentence as a synonym of also or further (adverb, I guess). Googling for it is hard, but my attempts so far have not been fruitful.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely heard "as well" alone used that way — it's hard to Google for, but I did find this page with two uses — but "as well as"? Crazy! —Ruakh_TALK 23:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one has been giving me headaches trying to track down cites for, I am just going by "I know I have heard this..." which is not something I like to do if I can help it. - [The]DaveRoss 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the obvious security problems, giving out usernames and passwords to unsecure sites and programs can just be damn embarrassing. comes from LiveJournal

As well as the obvious things that hit you immediately when you arrive, such as sights, sounds, smells and tastes, every culture has unspoken rules which ... comes from UW Counseling Center

As well as the obvious category of hiring web space on a server (the cost of which which will almost certainly be negligible assuming the site is to be hosted on an ISP) comes from Producing for the Web (almost a real book!)

As well as the obvious benefits, such as improved access, we should try to make a realistic estimate of the preservation potential, the learning potential, what I might call the synergy potential. comes from Multimedia preservation (Aussies?)

I guess I just need to pick more phrases which I think will get results and search for them. I like your new definition msh, thanks. - [The]DaveRoss 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of prepositional usage doesn't seem to be too rare; [98][99][100][101] are all the sense you have in mind, yes? But I can't think of a sense like Msh210 mentions. —Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only times I can think of it being used that way are combined with "that" or "this"; "As well as that there are..." and that wouldn't be prepositional, it would be adverbial. I guess that is what msh said. - [The]DaveRoss 00:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a conjunction, doesn't it just mean "and", with the second, following term being "backgrounded" ? Perhaps it needs a non-gloss definition.

The putative prepositional use seems to hinge on it being used to introduce some kind of adjunct. CGEL insists that it should be considered as as well#Adverb + as#Preposition. Huddlestone et al insist that in all cases what they view as the PP headed by "as" is optional. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ཀ་ཏ་ཀི

Not in Rangjung Yeshe or Das 1902. No Google hits. -- Prince Kassad 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan has a beautiful script. I must learn to read it one day. --Downunder 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to ཀ་ཊ་ཀི (with mirrored t), which is listed in Das 1902. The definition probably needs some fixes, it isn't quite uniform with the dictionary. -- Prince Kassad 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

screamer

Rfv-sense: an effeminate gay man. Quick googling doesn't give much. Any of our gay company fancy helping us with this one? --Downunder 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added that. Weird, it's used all the time in my social group but I can't find any real usages in published material on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cristadelfià

Does not seem to exist. Tbot created the entry due to In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) creating the Catalan Wiktionary page and adding it as a translation here. There are very few hits for cristadelfià, cristadelfians and cristadelfianes, though cristadelfiana gets quite a few, they seem not to be in Catalan. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling in Catalan is cristadelf. --Vriullop 13:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even that (cristadelf) doesn't seem to be attestable in Catalan Google Books or Google Groups. AFAICT there is no Catalan Google Scholar. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its use is rare, but it can be found at the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, the main reference in Catalan. --Vriullop 18:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ficio

This just looks like a page for (deprecated template usage) faciō and (deprecated template usage) fīgō in the form of compounds, but I didn't think this was an attestable word. Caladon 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paraweatherman

"A person who parachutes into remote or hostile environments to perform meteorological duties." Not in Google Books or Groups. Almost nothing on Google Web search either. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unleadify

Pretty sure this is nonsense, but there is a single groups hit with this exact usage so I thought I would give people a shot at making me look dumb. - [The]DaveRoss 03:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll have plenty of other opportunities to do that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bamdoo

"A religious movement practiced by Buddhists." I can't find anything relating to this in Google Books; even a Web search finds mostly just typos of bamboo. Equinox ◑ 18:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

feck

Ety 4, meaning "blast". I think there is a quote from Dryden and one from Smollett in this sense. The OED might be help is determining the relationship of this usage to the more recent Irish usage as a synonym of (deprecated template usage) eff. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also (deprecated template usage) fecks used in Shakespeare: "i' fecks"/"i,fecks" said to be "in faith", often pointing to Irish (deprecated template usage) faix. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps, but it was used a lot in Father Ted, a popular comedy show in the UK in the 1990s. I'd have thought that was the same etymology as the "fuck" sense, but it may well be citable. My instinct says yes, but haven't tried yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

家里 - home

See Talk:家里#Noun for initial discussion. -- A-cai 01:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Disclaimer: I know absolutely no Mandarin whatsoever.] I wonder if one point of confusion here is actually to do with the English word (deprecated template usage) home, one of whose uses is as an intransitive preposition meaning "in/at/to one's home" (as in "Honey, I'm home!" or "I want to go home"). The Chinese-to-English dictionaries that the anon mentions — do they specifically say that (deprecated template usage) 家里 (jiālǐ) is a noun? Or do they just translate it as "home", without specifying which POS of "home" they have in mind? —Ruakh_TALK 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Yutang's Dictionary provides the following definition: "家裡 [jia1li3], n., (1) one's home; (2) wife." The problem is that no example sentences are given for either sense. The second definition (wife) can easily be verified in other more comprehensive dictionaries, but not the first. Without an example sentence, it's hard to determine what they had in mind by including the first definition. It literally means, "at home" or "inside one's house." I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario where one would be justified in dropping the preposition in the English definition. -- A-cai 01:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on how you interpret it really. It could be treated as a noun as in the definition or as part of the circumposition as in 在...里 (in, inside) to form 在(我的家)里 (in my home). I tend to swing towards the circumposition more. I've never officially studied Mandarin grammar, so I don't know how a grammar specialist would treat this. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

家里 - wife

I'm moving this to a separate section to avoid confusion. -- A-cai 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the definition of wife is historical/literary. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response: fixed. -- A-cai 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of "wife" is not literary. It's not obsolete or archaic either. Nor does it necessarily mean "my" wife. This sense exists in many modern Chinese dialects, for example Suzhou (宿州) dialect, and much of Shanxi (山西) and Hebei (河北) dialects. I'm speaking from my personal experience. Please, do not make conjectural edits like this. Wjcd 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response: I have "unfixed" it for now, and have removed the "my" in front of wife, pending the outcome of this discussion. -- A-cai 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wjcd, personal experience is great, but it generally doesn't hold much water at Wiktionary, since we cannot verify something like personal experience. That makes this a rather thorny problem. I don't suppose you have a book on the Suzhou dialect hanging around that backs up your claim? I'm being facetious :) But seriously, assuming what you say is true, would you agree that the term is more of a literary one in Modern Standard Chinese, as you have described MSC in previous forums? If so, one possible compromise would be to add a "usage note" to the entry. -- A-cai 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather label it as "colloquial/dialectal", if the header were "Chinese", since modern written Chinese has a standard, and this is not quite MSC. However, since the header is "Mandarin", and the group of Mandarin dialects does not have a specific de jure written or literary standard, no tag is necessary really. This sense is as Mandarin as the Mandarin from Beijing. Wjcd 14:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe there is no law on the books, but wouldn't you agree that what you are calling MSC is the de facto standard? In any case, Wiktionary's current policy is that anything under the Mandarin label is presumed to be modern standard spoken Mandarin (Modern Standard Chinese, by your definition), unless otherwise noted. -- A-cai 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a workable solution for this one. Please take another look and see if you can live with it. -- A-cai 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a long-term solution. Language headers refer to standard forms of the language by default, eg. a German header refers to Standard German, a Japanese header refers to Standard Japanese, a Korean header refers to Standard Korean ... unless otherwise specified. "Standard Chinese", according to Wikipedia, equates to the "Mandarin" here. Therefore, similarly, it is legitimate to refer to modern standard written Chinese ("Standard Chinese") as "Chinese". MSC is simply a literal translation from Chinese 现代标准汉语, or a disambiguated version of the current Wikipedia title. Wjcd 14:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems legitimate to refer to Standard Mandarin (a.k.a. Standard Chinese) as ==Mandarin==, no? —Ruakh_TALK 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from The "Mandarin Chinese" article:

Mandarin dialects, particularly the Beijing dialect, form the basis of Standard Chinese, which is also known as "Mandarin".

Here is a quote from the "Standard Chinese" article:

Standard Chinese or Modern Standard Chinese, also known as Mandarin, is the official language of mainland China and Taiwan, and is one of the four official languages of Singapore.

"Standard Chinese" or "Mandarin" can be used. After much discussion here at Wiktionary we have decided to use "Mandarin" as the label. The reason for this is that we have agreed on a policy at Wiktionary that says a level two language header needs to have a corresponding ISO-639-3 language code for an individual (as opposed to macro) language. This was a way to avoid Wiktionary getting into the business of setting standards, which is not our role. Neither is original research. The level two language header shall use whatever the ISO-639-3 describes for that language. It was further agreed that we should use "Mandarin" rather than "Mandarin Chinese" or "Chinese Mandarin" for simplicity's sake. Thus, cmn = Mandarin, yue = Cantonese, nan = Min Nan etc. I had at one point argued that the Min Nan language header should really be Amoy, but was overulled on the grounds that there is no corresponding ISO-639-3 code for Amoy. Likewise, there is no corresponding iSO-639-3 code for Standard Chinese. There is a code for the macro language "Chinese" (zho), but macro languages cannot be used as language headers. Since you used Arabic as an example previously, you may be interested to know that there is in fact an ISO-639-3 code for "Standard Arabic" (arb). The latest list can be found at: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-639-3_20100707.tab. The explanation can be found at: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/download.asp. That's also not the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is to decide whether the "wife" definition, in its current form, is acceptable to all parties. Is it? -- A-cai 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a Wiktionary policy relating language headers to ISO codes. The decision regarding language headers is based solely on the zusammengesetzt perceptions of that language by Wiktionary participants. ISO also lists Arabic, Azerbaijani, Estonian, Persian, Serbo-Croatian, Hmong, Kurdish, Malagasy, Mongolian, Malay, Norwegian, Quechua, Albanian, Sardinian, Swahili, Uzbek, Yiddish as macrolanguages, and almost none of them have ISO 639-3 codes corresponding to standard languages, but none of these language headers have to be compulsorily changed the way Chinese headers are. The Arabic language header was allowed not because of the presence of an ISO 639-3 code for standard Arabic, as evidenced in the code in Category:Arabic language and Category:ar:All topics. The separate treatment of Chinese is apparent. Besides, ISO 639-3 mainly draws its codes from Ethnologue, which is well-known for its factual errors. In its cladogram of Sino-Tibetan languages, Bai is listed as a branch of Tibeto-Burman, a view that has been challenged for about 60 years. Its classification of Chinese languages is also quite unusual, different to both the traditional and modern common classifications (compare, for example, 汉语方言, List of Chinese dialects and Spoken Chinese). It used to have specific codes for Yinglish and Moldovan as well, which is absolutely ridiculous. Wjcd 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought this argument up where it might be appropriate, and then you decided to close it when you weren't getting a good response. Please don't bring it up on RFV, where it definitely doesn't belong.--Prosfilaes 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)--Prosfilaes 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because in that discussion the same old arguments were repeatedly brought up by opponents, and the discussion isn't leading anywhere. But here there is some new argument. Anyway, as long as there is people who'd fervently participate with superficial knowledge, this proposal is going to fail. I give up. Wjcd 06:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wjcd, if by giving up, you mean to say that you have no intention of lodging objections to the "wife" definition as currently written, I will consider rfv "wife" discussion closed. If you wish to further debate the language header policy (or non-policy de facto agreement made by myopic tyrants, if you like :), feel free to post another message at Beer Parlour or on my talk page, but not here. -- A-cai 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

intersex

At first look I see no evidence that this is used as a true adjective rather than attributive use of the noun. I searched for "too|very intersex" and "more intersex than" at Google Books, News, Scholar, Groups. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this into two senses, one describing people and one of the "of or pertaining to" sort. I think the former is an adjective, and I've cited the former by adding three predicative cites from Google Books that I think demonstrate as much. The latter is ambiguous, since it's a non-predicating modifier (like presidential in "presidential candidate"; "presidential candidate" does not mean "candidate who is presidential", or at least, not usually). Nouns and adjectives can both be used as non-predicating modifiers; it's certainly more characteristic of nouns than of adjectives, but if we've already got the adjective section, I don't see a problem with keeping that use there. —Ruakh_TALK 15:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that my reading of the usage suggested that this term has "wanted" to be an adjective lately (~10 years) and was likely to become one. One can find "too|very intersex" and "more intersex than" on the Web, but not from our preferred sources. The cites look sufficient to me. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems misleading to me to characterize the other sense as a true adjective without evidence. It would be somewhat surprising that a noun sense that is mostly technical in its usage would be used as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It would be somewhat surprising that a noun sense that is mostly technical in its usage would be used as a true adjective": Right, but it's perfectly normal that an adjective that is not mostly technical would be used in extended senses. Transgender people form transgender groups, intersex people form intersex groups. (Actually, maybe the problem here is that even the split off sense "of or relating to intersex" needs to be split into two: "of or relating to intersex people" seems to be a non-predicating use of the adjective, whereas "of or relating to the condition of intersex" seems to be attributive use of the noun. The two blur into each other, of course, but the latter is technical/medical/clinical whereas the latter is not. And perhaps the (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "of an individual" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. sense needs to be (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "of a person" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. instead, since use to describe non-human animals is a technical use, and not likely to have become an adjective.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We will get this right with a little more tweaking along the lines you mention or, perhaps, a generalized first sense, perhaps confined to persons. (Though I understand that anecdotes about non-human individual are used not-so-technically in polemics.) DCDuring TALK 18:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

believe

Is sense 2 ((transitive) To accept as true without empirical evidence.) really just (deprecated template usage) believe in or is it used this way without (deprecated template usage) in transitively? Either way the usex is wrong. - [The]DaveRoss 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This definition would be a novel one with or without "in", transitive or intransitive. It reminds me of definitions by w:Ambrose Bierce. Most dictionaries don't have a contrafactual sense. Encarta is the closest: intransitive: to think that something exists: to be of the opinion that something exists or is a reality, especially when there is no absolute proof of its existence or reality. "Absolute proof" is a logical, not empirical possibility. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense To consider something as true without having empirical evidence is the most common usage. — This comment was unsigned.

Wording is not good; surely with or without empirical evidence, it's the same concept. It does say 'without' (that is, none at all). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are a dictionary, so wording has some significance. In any event, it would be interesting to see the context of quotes that use this sense ofor anything like it. I guess people say things like "I really know it can't be true, but I believe it anyway." DCDuring TALK 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this exactly the same as sense 1? What am I missing?—msh210℠ (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we dealing with a sort of methodological conflict here? It seems the point is that people who believe (in this sense that is supposedly most common) do so outside the scope of logic. Perhaps a way to approach this is to regard a belief as an (deprecated template usage) axiom. Pingku 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's not get encyclopedic (or epistemological) here. With respect to making (modal?) assertions about the truth of propositions, the same people sometimes use "know" and "believe" as synonyms and sometimes as contrasting terms. In the contexts using the words in contrast "know" seems to imply a greater justification (social knowledge) for the proposition in question. It also seems that "believe" is used about propositions about which there is/has been a great deal of disagreement and about propositions of broad scope. "Know" seems to be used for 'smaller' propositions. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only just read the whole entry. Delete this, redundant (though not identical to) sense #1. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's redundant. The wording of the rfv'd sense allows for belief based on proof without evidence to back it up. Presumably this would be deductive proof, and if discipline were applied the proof might be subject to peer review. However, I don't see any hint that objectivity is required. So all it requires is that the believer is convinced by said deductive argument. The question should not be whether proof without empirical evidence is possible, but rather whether someone could be convinced by such a proof. Pingku 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "without empirical evidence" bit is the problem. Do we require a different definition for "with empirical evidence"? Empirical evidence is POV in this case. You might say (hypothetically) that my belief in God is without empirical evidence, I might say that the Earth, the Moon the stars, these are all examples of empirical evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betamax

Verb, business meaning. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other meaning would need to meet WT:BRAND, wouldn't it? -- Prince Kassad 14:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I guessed that it could. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgo

An individual or object resembling fecal waste. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like patent nonsense that's slipped under the radar until now. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hagi

"A person with mental retardation. (Comes from H.A.G.I Transit, the local transportation service for the handicapped) (local colloquialism, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada)" Equinox ◑ 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See short bus and ride the short bus for a more widely used, probably attestable synonym. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepto-Bismol

RfV for sole noun sense: "A particular shade of pink associated with said medicine." I don't think that "Pepto-Bismol-hued" or "-colored" counts as evidence. The word would have to be used perhaps attributively in something like "the/a Pepto-Bismol car/room/chair/blouse" or as a stand-alone noun where the branded product itself was clearly not the referent.

I think the citations in the entry under the proper noun PoS meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin

2 senses: Publisher should meet WT:BRAND; fictional character WT:FICTION. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moist

Rfv-sense: soft, supple. In the use example, "moist lips" refers to lips that are somewhat wet. While something that's moist may also be supple, I don't think moist on its own means supple. Evidence? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of moist is dry, and dry things tend to be stiff and hard to bend. It does make sense to me at least... —CodeCa t 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not a definition, is it? Someone who's intelligent may be educated, and someone who's educated may be intelligent, it doesn't mean that "educated" is a definition for "intelligent" or vice versa. It's just a mental association between two ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MFC

AFAICT, this used in this sense only in Brother product designations. If so, WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to rfv-sense as I added another definition. -- Prince Kassad 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly not limited to Brother. A quick search showed the same term used by (or about) HP, Epson, Kyocera. Until recently I worked in a large retailer, and both the staff and the public used the term regardless of manufacturer.--Dmol 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In product designations only or in a usage like "Our MFCs are right next to the printers"? If the latter, then WT:BRAND does not apply. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitly a generic use of the term. They even had the "MFC aisle", and I'm sure there wasn't a Brother pinter in there. If the term is Brother's trademark, (and I can't find any evidence that it is) then it is trademark erosion.--Dmol 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

open source religion

"a decentralized religion that is continuously undergoing open source revision by its followers". Very scanty evidence in CFI-suitable sources. Also, does it require a hyphen? Equinox ◑ 00:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notary

Rfv-sense: a civil lawyer.

Originally added as "civil law notary, a trained jurist in working in civil law", in this revision.

I have found no dictionary that has this sense, hence this request for attestation. --Dan Polansky 10:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bare

A noun defined as "(with the) the naked state, nude body." When, where, by whom was this used? DCDuring TALK 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to collocate with in, at least.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The bare which" finds false scans of "the hare which", "the bare before" finds "the hare before". "The bare of" finds scans of "the bars of", but also "Vancha clasped the bare of my neck and squeezed amiably." (2002, Darren Shan, Hunters of the dusk: 7.) Not the requested sense, but at least a correctly-scanned noun "bare". - -sche 02:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Websters 1913 has: "Surface; body; substance." [R.] You have touched the very bare of naked truth. Marston. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kamboji

Suspicious-looking senses. How many of those can actually be verified? -- Prince Kassad 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also should be at upper-cased Kamboji, based on the senses (a tribe, a language name). Equinox ◑ 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mpene

Unintelligible definition. Google Books doesn't turn up anything about this however... -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch

Rfv-sense: "A brand of transparent adhesive tape manufactured by 3M". Based on the synonyms proffered, what's meant is clearly "transparent adhesive tape, of a particular brand manufactured by 3M" (i.e., the tape, not the brand). So we'd need to cite Scotch (note, not Scotch tape) in use to mean tape. In fact, we'd need to cite it per WT:CFI#Brand names.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a separate issue, but our entry for (deprecated template usage) Scotch tape isn't really sufficient, in that (deprecated template usage) Scotch often occurs in this sense outside of the exact collocation (deprecated template usage) Scotch tape. google books:"Scotch or masking tape", for example, gets dozens and dozens of hits. —Ruakh_TALK 03:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOGOF

"By extension, any similar offer in which the recipient is offered twice that which would usually be provided." Like what? Equinox ◑ 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One headline has "The town that's telling Tesco to BOGOF: Residents oppose supermarket giant's planning proposal"; I don't know what the means. There "In other words the Tesco couple were in fact willing a hung parliament, willing a sort of political BOGOF bargain where you got two sharing power for the price of one vote."[102]; I thought about adding it to the cites, but it's obvious metaphor, not really a new definition. (And I didn't verify it was durable, either.)--Prosfilaes 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the former is simply a pun; the true meaning is that of (deprecated template usage) bug off. (Is (deprecated template usage) bug off used in England? If not, then the pun might also be a way to allude to (deprecated template usage) bugger off without crossing a line, vulgarity-wise.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's (deprecated template usage) bog off in England. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and pronounced in exactly the same way as BOGOF. Dbfirs 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a UK word? Around here it is (deprecated template usage) BOGO and googlefight gives BOGO a huge margin. - [The]DaveRoss 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, common in the UK, where I've never heard of "BOGO"! Dbfirs 11:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outburp

To burp longer, louder, more medolically(?) etc. than. OTOH, I've not heard any such "medolical" burps before. TeleComNasSprVen 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "to burp more than or in a manner qualitatively superior to", following the general meaning of (deprecated template usage) out-. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b.g.c provides lots of evidence of usage; they mostly seem to indicate that one burper was able to burp in a superior fashion to another, whether that pertains to frequency, volume, duration or melodiousness. Not exactly sure what needs to be verified here. That link does provide alt spellings, including (deprecated template usage) out-burp and (deprecated template usage) out burp. - [The]DaveRoss 01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melodiousness is probably too specific for a semi-rare word. "To burp more or better than" should cover it. I agree it's quite CFI-attestable. Will have a try now. Update: The inflections are a lot rarer than the infinitive; I've added a mixed bag of three. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mud wrestling

"Figuratively, a contest, usually implying desperation and underhandedness. " Equinox ◑ 23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given is not quite spot-on, but I've heard this before. "political mud wrestling" on Googe Books —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice's Restaurant

"An eighteen minute, twenty second song, (Arlo Guthrie, 1967) as a satirical protest against the Vietnam War draft; by extension, any hectic place of apparent reprieve." Equinox ◑ 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

latex

Rfv-sense: Made of latex (not comparable). Looks like use of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nutbar

Rfv-sense. Originally listed with rfc saying "is this really an adjective?" I've decided to list it here. Looking for true adjectival use. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pool

Tagged but not listed. I have no opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guide-book speaks of "local men drinking beer and shooting Mexican pool beneath fluorescent lights" at a certain pool hall in Mexico City, but the previous page says this:

BILLIARDS
Shooting pool is a favorite pastime (mainly for men) in Mexico City, as it is throughout Latin America. The game of choice at most Mexican billiard parlors is pool, where in balls 1-15 are lined up around the sides of the table and are sunk in order. Several players, rather than just two, can play at the same time (as in the common U.S. game cut-throat). Second in popularity is ocho bola, or eight-ball, played much like it is in the United States. […]

so I assume that by "Mexican pool" the guide-book is referring back to that description of pool. That doesn't match our explanation at all, and even if that usage appeared in other books, I wouldn't be totally sold on its being idiomatic.

(of course, it's quite conceivable that some Americans play a game they call "Mexican pool", just as Egyptian ratscrew is not actually how Egyptians play ratscrew and Martian chess is not actually how Martians play chess; but b.g.c. turns up absolutely no evidence of that. The phrase "Mexican pool hall" occurs in many books, but clearly means a pool-hall owned and/or frequented by Mexicans, not an establishment for the playing of "Mexican pool" in any sense.)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ozone

Rfv-sense: (informally but erroneously) Fresh air, especially that breathed at the seaside and smelling of seaweed. Tagged but not listed, a bit of a strange one. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. The OED has " Also colloq.: fresh, invigorating air." and also " fig. Something fresh or invigorating." SemperBlotto 12:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds ok to me; the definition needs to be a bit better, such as no 'smelling of seaweed'. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compact Oxford shows it as UK informal. I'm not familiar with the sense in the US currently. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word has been used in this sense of fresh or invigorating (seaside air) in the UK since 1865. The OED has three cites spanning 127 years. I'm sure we can find many more, but our entry does need attention. We should blame the error on the Victorians who confused ozone with dimethyl sulfide! There's a completely different US slangy usage. Dbfirs 11:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations (of each sense). SemperBlotto 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All of those citations seem to me to indicate a belief that the beaches smell of actual ozone. Certainly the author of the 1998 cite means literal ozone, else his statement would make no sense, and the 2004 and 2007 cites talk about the smell of ozone plus other seaside smells. Maybe the sense should tagged "by confusion" or something? —Ruakh_TALK 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

come of

Rfv-sense. "To happen to." I don't get it. That's not what it means, surely? When you say "What came of that plan to...?" it means "what came from, what resulted from". This is our (deprecated template usage) of, sense 3.1, and is also used with other verbs. Or am I missing something here. Ƿidsiþ 06:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta, Macmillan, and Collins, among current OneLook dictionaries, have an entry for this, but with the meaning "result from". There is also an obsolete sense "descend from" and as synonym/contraction of become of.

What should come of the entry? We could add all of the other senses, submit it to RfD, and see what comes of the discussion. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you interpret:

Whatever came of you and me? / America's new bride to be / Don't worry baby I'm safe and sound / Down in the dungeon just Peaches 'n' me

? — Pingku^dimmi 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the "become of" sense. Whether it really "is" NISoP as come + of, I don't know, but I find common verbs like "come", "get", "make", "have", and "take" and prepositions, both in their more grammaticized senses, to be very hard to combine appropriately to yield the meaning of combinations I routinely use. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watchlisted

Rfv-sense: Adjective. Just seems to be use of the passive voice. I'd prefer to nominate it at RFD as rfd-redundant, but the trend is to list them here. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find evidence of adjectival usage on books, scholar, news, or groups. (too|very watchlisted; more watchlisted than; [become] watchlisted) DCDuring TALK 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obviously adjectival. To watchlist something is to add it to your watchlist, but if something is watchlisted, that means it's currently on your watchlist. (Stative/resultative passives are very common in English, but they're not the same as the regular eventive passives.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lucrabilitate

"Lucrabilitate" isn't a commonly accepted term in Romanian!

It does not exist in DEX and even if the word circulates on the web, it just doesn't convey any real meaning. The correct Romanian equivalent for "workability" is practicabilitate.

The same critique can be applied to lucrabil (the correct term in Romanian is practicabil; lucrabil is an absurd construction).

Just because suffixes can be added, doesn't imply that they should!

--Robbie SWE 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the suffix should be added, it's whether it is added. google scholar:"lucrabilitate" suggests that it's appeared in the Revista de Chimie and the Revista Romana de Materiale, and google books:"lucrabilitate" suggests that it's appeared in a few other periodicals as well. That said, if you're confident that this term is nonstandard, you can tag it as such by adding {{nonstandard|lang=ro}} to the start of the definition. —Ruakh_TALK 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

remerged

Just looks like a typo to me. SemperBlotto 11:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though being pedantic we should move the sense to remerge then rfv that, as if remerge does exist, nobody can deny that remerged is the past of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly has currency in the sense of "to join together after having been separated" ((deprecated template usage) re- + (deprecated template usage) merge), and it also looks to have some currency as a misspelling of (deprecated template usage) reemerge (e.g. "When he remerged from the back room after turning on the hot water, he held a large wrench in his hand." Probably worth an RFV to determine the commonality. - [The]DaveRoss 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

rfv sense x2 (that is, both of them). I can find one good, no nonsense citation for the first sense. My second citation probably isn't valid as it doesn't convey meaning, and that's it. Those are the only two citations I can get from Google Books, Scholar and Groups (Usenet). If you can do better, more power to you. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, for some reason on Google Grous it will only let me see the first ten results, with no 'next' button. This may explain it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the new rule at Groups. You can specify up to 100 (on each individual search only, I think). I don't think Google gets much advertising revenue from groups searches. Are there usenet-specific search tools readily available? DCDuring TALK 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. (The two senses really need to be merged, so I didn't bother finding three cites for each.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't know why Google Groups no longer has the pagination links, but you can still manually edit the URL to specify start=100 and so on. (And even if not, you could use num=100 to see the first hundred results instead of just the first ten. The "Advanced Search" interface still offers that feature.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QQ

The remaining sense (the other one already failed rfv) gets no hits at groups. -- Prince Kassad 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest that it has that usage, as well as the sense (deprecated template usage) cry about it or (deprecated template usage) boo hoo, as well as a verb sense (deprecated template usage) whine, (deprecated template usage) complain or (deprecated template usage) cry. Finding durable cites for these senses will be all kinds of difficult, but finding evidence of widespread usage is a single google blogs, groups or web search away. - [The]DaveRoss 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mora

Rfv-sense: as a Spanish noun meaning “mole” (in the sense of “dark spot on the skin”). The second-oldest tagged RFV, but seemingly never listed. —Ruakh_TALK 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sense added by Nadando (very experienced Spanish editor) tagged by Hippietrail (not so experienced). I'll bet it's valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two citations. In retrospect, both could possibly mean 'mulberry'. It says in the form of a […] so I suppose cells in the form of a mole is more likely, but in the form of a mulberry is not impossible either. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, both are mulberries. One is describing Mott cells, which in English are also called "morular cells" because they look like mulberries, and the other is translating an English text with the word "mulberry". BTW, is it supposed to be common knowledge what mulberries look like? Because I had no idea until I checked Wikipedia just now. —Ruakh_TALK 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I knew where I got "mole" from... I can't find anything that related to skin that isn't "looks like a mulberry" or equivalent. Nadando 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything, either. google books:"tenía un lunar" and "un lunar en" and "un lunar sobre" get plenty of relevant hits, but google books:"tenía una mora" and "una mora en" and "una mora sobre" don't seem to get any. (But admittedly, my Spanish is not great, and it takes me some effort to scan the page looking for hits in a desired sense. It's quite possible that I missed some.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Spanish Wiktionary. DAVilla 09:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

西語

Rfv-sense: "Western language; Western language study". One of the oldest tagged RFVs, but apparently never listed here. The tag was added with an edit summary that asks if it's "really in use or just a guess based on the kanjis?" —Ruakh_TALK 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This term is certainly showing up with the same two meanings in my Japanese-only copy of Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Shinsou-ban (Japanese Big Dictionary, Revised Edition) from 1988. My dictionary doesn't give any sample sentences or I'd add them to the term's page, but I'd say it's verified. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not rely on a term's being in a dictionary (listed in a dictionary. Used in the dictionary is fine) for attestation.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What counts, then? Googling about shows lots of use on the Japanese web (a cursory look shows the term used mostly to mean Spanish, showing up quite often on university course listings like this web page or this PDF), and a good bit too in Chinese (which I cannot read as fluently). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best citations are from printed books (not self-published), printed (not self-published) periodicals, and academic journals (print or not). Also generally accepted are Usenet postings archived by Google and e-books (not self-published), and self-published books (e-, if available on Google, or print). Citations must show the word used, not just mentioned (as it is in a dictionary), although people have argued that a good source, like an academic journal, which notes that others use the term is also okay; certainly a work that quotes an interviewee (e.g.) is fine even though that's technically mention rather than use. (I think that pretty much sums up the way we've been doing things lately. Others may differ.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around further, the only use I can find of 西語 in the sense of "western languages" is in Chinese; every Japanese online mention I've looked at means "Spanish". The wording in the Shogakukan listing makes me think the editors there were thinking more of an abbreviation of 西洋語学 or 西洋言語 to 西語, rather than a bog-standard term unto itself:

2 （「西」は「西洋」の略）西洋の言語。また、その語学。

Even so, I cannot find any Japanese use that matches this, despite applying some fun Google-fu. I thus have no objection if anyone wants to remove the second definition on the 西語 page. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese it means 1) (= 西班牙語) Spanish; 2) Western language(s). Same in Japanese. [103][104] Wjcd 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki

Rfv-sense: Adjective. Looks like use of the noun. The noun is definitely attestable, the verb too, I think, but just barely based on Usenet cites. Have added a Google Book citation to the verb for good measure. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be interested to see cites for the noun. There is a noun sense that I'm familiar with ("= interwiki link"), but our current noun sense ("The structure, space or network of links between wikis") seems like tosh. If that can't be cited, then by default it makes sense to treat "interwiki" as an adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, though I think the plural 'interwikis' gets enough hits, none of them which seem to be verb forms. Oh and see User:Mglovesfun/to do if you're wondering where these nominations come from. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I think the plural 'interwikis' gets enough hits": I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. I acknowledged that there is a noun sense, but I contend that it's short for "interwiki link", and therefore contest the notion that "interwiki link" is using the noun "interwiki" attributively (since that would be circular and redundant: it implies that "interwiki link" means "interwiki-link link", which means "interwiki-link–link link", and so on). —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I hadn't actually read the noun sense as I just assumed it said interwiki link. The adjective (or noun used attributively) is much easier to cite than the noun used countably, but IMO it is a noun. Perhaps that's an RFD issue rather than RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, we can leave it here for a month to see if anyone provides really compelling adjectival cites, then move it if no one does. RFD discussions, for whatever reason, don't seem to be very conducive to evidence-gathering, nor very responsive to such evidence as is gathered. —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

like a train

Rfv-sense: Quickly, speedily.

I am skeptical about usage in this sense. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the given cite doesn't really support the sense, could also be "following a track", "with great force", any metaphor based on attributes of a train. - [The]DaveRoss 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"start like a train" is used a lot to mean "start quickly" as in "Manchester United started like a train, and were 2 - 0 after 20 minutes". I am doubting myself a bit, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trains don't start quickly, so, by the misnomer principle, that would make it idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously, I heard this on TV (Match of the Day) less than an hour after turning off the computer. I'm not sure that many definition is 100% accurate, but it does exist, doesn't it? And yes I remember having an argument with a trainspotter on the matter that trains actually start very slowly. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the sense you are referring to is (deprecated template usage) unstoppable or (deprecated template usage) forceful? I would describe a team which goes up 2-0 quickly as both of those things and trains also have both of those attributes. I have never heard the expression so this is just an idle thought. - [The]DaveRoss 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited I think. I think it might be British only, I will try and bug Equinox when I next see him online. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDR's suggestion seems to fit the cites. Does it fit the colloquial usage too? DCDuring TALK 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this isn't as common as I thought; maybe RFD it as a not-very-common simile. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bloody well

Rfv-sense added by WF: "resolutely". The cite given doesn't match that (as the speaker wasn't saying he resolutely would blow himself up but rather was resolutely saying he'd blow himself up (I assume).) I suspect this is speedy-deletable.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The synonymous damn well/damned well appears as a run-in at "damn" or "damned" in MWOnline, AHD Idioms, and RHU. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nice catch Dennis, your defn is much better than Romanb's. I'd say delete the original defn but keep the quotes. --DStirke 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the entire expression is really an idiom. There are a large number of adverbial intensifiers (See Category:English intensifiers and Category:English degree adverbs) that can take the place of bloody, damned, and damn. Examples include fucking and various attentuations thereof, jolly, precious, etc. This is yet another case where perhaps the entry should be a redirect to either well#Adverb or to some kind of construction-grammar appendix. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I added (deprecated template usage) goddamned well as a bit of a joke. ((deprecated template usage) goddamn well is another.) I think they're pretty SOPpy. Equinox ◑ 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could apparently find a WT:COALMINE justification for these. "Damnwell", "damnedwell", ""fuckingwell", "jollywell", and "bloodywell" would be so citable without going to groups AFAICT. "jollywell" would make it under the well-known work rule (Finnegans Wake) as well. "goddamwell would be citable with help from Groups. None of these represent more than a trifling frequency of usage relative to the open spelled compounds. It is left as an exercise for readers of this page to determine whether the interests of Wiktionary are best served by adding the entries or changing policy. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COALMINE was coming to mind recently when I ran across rednosed. I think it would better to just indicate at the word that the version with spaces is more common; i.e. define goddamwell as rare spelling of goddam well.--Prosfilaes 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other sense by the way so it should be rfv not rfv-sense. I don't think it means resolutely, isn't it just sort of an emphatic adverb? A bit like fucking (I fucking will, you fucking should) but a lot less vulgar. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Drive

Cite to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i播放器

123abc entry. No obvious results on books or groups. -- Prince Kassad 17:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin alpha

Really? -- Prince Kassad 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. Unicode labels U+0251 ɑ as Latin alpha. Citing it is going to be hard; I'll need to see if there's a use in the Unicode Standard, the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, perhaps Geoffrey & Pullum (though I'll probably have to ILL that, and it's not worth it), etc. But it is real.

Google Groups turns up "Look at the n shaped Eng (Ŋ) used in Africa vs the N shaped on use in Scandinavia, the Azeri schwa or African turned E (Ə) vs. the other turned E (Ǝ), the n shaped N with long right leg (Ƞ) used in Lakota, the Latin alpha (ɑ/Ɑ) used in Africa, the r with tail (ɽ) shaped

capital R with tail (Ɽ) vs. that capital R shaped, and other historical letters." which would be great if it were in a newsgroup.--Prosfilaes 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cariad

Cariad isn't an english word, at most it is used by Welsh speakers who are code-switching.

If it's used in English, and a word meaning darling strikes me as one likely to get dropped in English, then it's English.--Prosfilaes 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to find citations that aren't using italics (i.e. emphasising a foreign borrowing). Equinox ◑ 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo it's borrowed, but still English in my book. DAVilla 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now has three citations in English language sentences. SemperBlotto 19:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this one doesn't support a claim of English: "The master's waiting to hear you ask after your little cariad (sweetheart)." Equinox ◑ 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does the Thomas quote. See Equinox's comment above in reply to Prosfilaes.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two Usenet quotes, one showcasing the plural.--Prosfilaes 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

malt-o-meal

We have three separate senses: "a hot breakfast cereal or porridge made with farina (ground wheat) or semolina"; "semolina pudding"; "cream of wheat". But from what I can see (Google Books, Wikipedia) this is a specific capitalised brand name referring to one specific manufactured cereal product. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it may have become genericized. I suggest using the CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 23:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.I.

The A.I. I know best is "artificial intelligence" and neither of these I can find on Books as having superficial dots after the respective letters (cf. AI). TeleComNasSprVen 02:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your best-known sense is recorded at our AI entry. The form A.I. is (or used to be) most common for the sense given in that entry. It is still used in some documents such as [105], [106] and [107] Dbfirs 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

genetics

rfv-sense: Template:biology The genetic makeup of a specific individual or species. See: genes. Tagged by Dictabeard (talk • contribs), to be honest it looks ok to me, but three citations would be good. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see people saying "I'm fat because of my genetics", meaning "... because of my genetic makeup". SemperBlotto 11:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
google books:"because of his genetics", this would seem to pass on that alone. BTW etymology is missing a step or two - it's not directly from Ancient Greek, I think it's via French and Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, and loads more cites available. And thanks Ruakh. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

webfooted-gecko

Attributive form. The phrase "webfooted gecko" only seems to appear four times in Google Books and once on Usenet, never hyphenated. Equinox ◑ 18:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hehenonomoheji

Seems even less well attested than (deprecated template usage) henohenomoheji, which failed RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 23:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not attested. Delete. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

presume

Rfv-sense: "To give some evidence of." The example sentence is Paw prints in the snow presume a visit from next door's cat. This sense isn't in the OED and I don't recognise it. Ƿidsiþ 07:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example is a literary trick that I don't know how to name specifically. It's the person viewing the prints who's making the presumption. DAVilla 09:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps hypallage, though our definition seems to be only of a subset of the general phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...but the issue is whether (deprecated template usage) presume is actually used this way in the wild. Ƿidsiþ 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, some scholarly articles suggest that "hypallage" is a productive lexical process, like metonymy, metaphor, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

make use

Can anyone find usage of forms of "make use" in the sense of "use" that are not of "make use of"? I have found an instance of "make use out of" at COCA. Also from transcribed speech at COCA: "You may have such a number of them as you should think fit to make use upon this account.", which looks to me like a mistake, based on the occurrence of "of them" earlier in the sentence. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, google books:"made use and abuse of" gets three distinct relevant hits. They are using "make use of", of course, but the coordination obscures that. But since you've obviously already noticed and disregarded cases of P-stranding ("of which we made use") and cases of interposed adverbials ("made use from time to time of"), I guess you're not going to find coordination any more convincing?

I guess I'm not sure what you're wanting, exactly. Are you saying this entry should be deleted, because we already cover the idiom at [[make use of]]? Or are you just saying that the context tag "usually with of" should be changed to simply "with of"?

—Ruakh_TALK 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails this, it should be deleted, I think. It clearly is not an RfD matter; it is empirical. I would not be in the least surprised to find dated, archaic, or obsolete usage of make use in approximately this sense with other prepositions. Also, the possible existence of dialectal and informal synonyms for "of" ("a", "uv", "out of", "outa") gives me some pause. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence "It clearly is not an RfD matter; it is empirical" aptly sums up the problem with RFD discussions. RFD voters should take facts into account, but for some reason many don't. But you can't solve that problem by bringing questions here that are manifestly not RFV matters. There is no policy that says that [[make use]] should be deleted unless (deprecated template usage) make use is used citeably without an (deprecated template usage) of-headed complement.

That said: If you want, we can leave this here for a month, and if no one produces the cites you're looking for, you can move to RFD with facts in hand. (I'll vote keep or redirect in that case, BTW.) Alternatively, you can list this at RFD now, with a vote along the lines of "Move to RFV, and delete unless citations without (deprecated template usage) of-headed complements are produced". If other voters share your view, then we can bring this back to RFV with a much clearer mandate.

—Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, it would benefit from citations, especially of the type I've mentioned. Perhaps the optimal sequence is to do what may be deemed cheap (talk is cheap, after all) and uncertain before doing what is not as cheap (getting citations). Alternatively, the sequence is to provide citations that provide focus for whatever subsequent discussion is required. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about google books:"made use thereof"?

By searching for "made use on", I did find one intransitive use, one directly-construed use, and one use construed with on, but I'm inclined to view these all as errors.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm starting to think that maybe (deprecated template usage) make use of is SOP: one can also say "make much use of", "make a great deal of use of", "make good use of", etc.; and also "use was made of" and so on. I'm not suggesting that we delete it, but it's hard to judge whether "of" is essential to the idiom, given that there doesn't seem to be an idiom here at all. —Ruakh_TALK 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of problem bedevils many other entries of the form [V NP Prep] and also many of those in Category:English predicates. Some of them might be considered, like this, prototypes of constructions. A few OneLook dictionaries have this (MWOnline, RHU, AHD Idioms, McGraw-Hill). I don't think that alternative forms accommodate the variation. Usage notes? DCDuring TALK 01:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

get the better of

Rfv-sense: to influence heavily; to tend to control or persuade. I am unfamiliar with this sense, except possibly as included in the two other senses. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would more like "to trick" or "to con". I think there is substantial authority for this meaning, and I don't think it falls under the senses of "overwhelming" or "having an advantage over". bd2412 T 20:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sense substantial authority? The challenged one or the one yet to be added? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking of the challenged sense as a poorly worded attempt to enunciate the sense I was discussing. bd2412 T 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I detect overlap but vastly prefer your sense. I'm still not sure your proposed sense is more than "especially" to one or both of the other senses. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

call

Rfv-sense: A work shift which requires one to be available when requested (see on call). Was first listed at WT:RFC#call without reply. So I've listed it here. I know you can be on call, but I don't know if such a shift is called a call. Sounds totally weird. Any other dictionaries list this? As it might be hard to cite because of the numerous other meanings of 'call'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet the contributor is thinking of the use of "call" in "call shift" or "on-call shift". "Call shift" seems to possibly merit an entry, but I doubt that there are many uses of "call" in the RfV'ed sense. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some cites. google books:"night of call" has a few dozen more. In my experience it's uncountable, so you wouldn't refer to a shift as a call, but rather, simply as "call". In other respects it sometimes blurs with other senses of "call"; for example, it's frequently used with the verb "take" in a way that seems more reminiscent of "take a call" than "take a shift" (in that you can readily say "while taking plastic surgery call", for example, whereas ?"while taking the night shift" is a bit awkward). And one cite (which I didn't add) even used it with the verb "answer" (though that one I think might be an error or idiom blend, because otherwise it doesn't match my understanding of how call works; but my experience is both limited and strictly secondhand, so I really can't say for sure). —Ruakh_TALK 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the first attestation of this in 1978 make call shift (c. 1990) SoP? DCDuring TALK 23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard theatre workers who must built sets say "I have a work call tomorrow" about as often as "I have work call tomorrow". I think these [108] [109] may be examples of "a call" and this [110] may be an example of "calls". - -sche 08:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

result

Rfv-sense: (UK) An exclamation of joy. While I've heard something like "Results! Finally!" the singular "result" doesn't seem that common. A search on google books:"result!" appears to confirm this. TeleComNasSprVen 23:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagged above this sense "The decision or determination of a court, council or deliberative assembly; a resolve; a decree." Which IMO isn't an RFV case, it's just redundant to the senses above. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any tips for searching for interjection use? I'd like to try searching for "Result!", but I don't know if Google lets us do that. refuckingsult gets a couple dozen raw googles, suggesting result could be a valid interjection. --Plowman 07:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See COCA and BNC at BYU, where the search syntax allows searches of the corpora for punctuation and offers other advantages. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me (in the singular, on its own). But finding usage would be a nightmare. SemperBlotto 08:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What noun couldn't be used as an interjection in the appropriate context? Wouldn't we want to reserve the interjection PoS to terms that have no other PoS, have a shift in meaning when used as an interjection, or are pure expressions of emotion? (There may be other justifications.) DCDuring TALK 10:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally unfamiliar with this sense. Is yay result's one b.g.c. hit relevant? —Ruakh_TALK 12:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semper's right, it is used colloquially in the UK. It's sort of ellipsis for "good result" or "great result". I think it could be considered a noun, like "fail!" or "nightmare!" Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What may distinguish "result!" from "nightmare!" or "fail!" is that it takes a neutral term and selects only the positive valence meaning, if that is indeed how it is used. That might be considered to meet the shift-in-meaning criterion I posit. The other two intrinsically have negative valence, I think, thereby not meeting such criterion, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though the noun (deprecated template usage) result does have a specifically positive sense (our sense #2). I think someone would be surprised if you said that someone is "getting results" and it turned out you didn't mean positive ones. —Ruakh_TALK 13:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exclamation would be understood by most in the UK (though it is relatively recent in origin, I think). The meaning is "that was a favourable result" with associated emotion of excitement and glee, and it carries much more meaning than "nightmare!" or "fail!" Dbfirs 09:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do seem to have one genuine use so far. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

laser light plane

[Laser Light Plane]

Caps? Plural exists? SemperBlotto 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Plural exists, so definition as "a technique" is probably not the right approach. Might be SoP if there are other light planes not counting aircraft. DAVilla 09:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. The definition comes from the referenced document, and is there mostly associated with the initialism "LLP," which is at one point expanded as "Laser Light Plane." Thereafter, "LLP" is used throughout to refer to a particular method (an implementation of a multi-touch technology) that is characterised by its employment of a "laser light plane" - a beam of laser light passed through a "line lens" so that it expands into a planar area. My interpretation, as gleaned from the document, is thus that the term "laser light plane" is SoP, but that a different meaning may be associated with the capitalised term and the initialism. In any case, the latter is a hypothesis that can be put to verification. — Pingku^dimmi 13:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aliquot

Almost certainly attributive use of the noun, though the noun sense we have is purportedly limited to chemistry. Other dictionaries have a noun. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a 1794 citation. I put it in the adjective section (where it might belong if that section should exist), but it is doubtless also an attributive use. It is in the sense of the physics of music. — Pingku^dimmi 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my thinking on this kind of thing has been to rigidly synchronic. It would appear that the adjective came first and the noun followed. Thus, for some portion of the time this word was used in English, the adjective existed without the noun. That it does not appear in predicate position (often, ever?) or as a comparative or modified by "too" or "very" doesn't change that. Also, the noun and the adjective seem to differ a bit semantically. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X

The first twenty hits at google books:"mac os x" -intitle:mac -intitle:apple -apple fail the brand-names criteria, after which I stopped looking.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OS/2

The first twenty hits at google books:"os/2" -"operating system" -intitle:os failed the brand-names criteria, after which I stopped looking.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Driver Model

The first twenty hits at google books:"Windows Driver Model" -intitle:windows -microsoft failed the brand-names criteria, after which I stopped looking.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Media Video

The first twenty hits at google books:"Windows Media Video" -intitle:windows -microsoft failed the brand-names criteria, after which I stopped looking.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

social democracy

Rfv-sense: "Theory and practice of the transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means; increasingly replaced in usage by democratic socialism." Sounds unlikely that "social democracy" would mean "transition" of any kind. I think the first definition says it all: "A moderate political philosophy that aims to achieve socialistic goals within capitalist society such as by means of a strong welfare state and regulation of private industry." --Hekaheka 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mail

Rfv-senses: both adjective forms seem to be attributive uses of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DateTime

I think this needs usage outside of programming languages, seeing as we consider these "not English". -- Prince Kassad 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find uses in English, e.g. This method returns a DateTime representing the first day of the month represented by the instance it is called on. (http://iridescence.no/post/A-Set-of-Useful-Extension-Methods-for-DateTime.aspx) or Convert a UNIX timestamp to a datetime with MySQL (http://www.electrictoolbox.com/mysql-unix-timestamp-to-datetime/). These sentences are written in English, not in a programming language. Lmaltier 16:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Java Virtual Machine

Needs to meet brand name criteria methinks. -- Prince Kassad 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble Pak

Now this is trademarked, so it definitely needs to meet brand name criteria. -- Prince Kassad 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

air code

Really? -- Prince Kassad 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An ancient Wonderfoolism. Deleted SemperBlotto 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mubarak

Tagged but not listed. Nadando 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleted as protologism. No chance this'd pass. -- Prince Kassad 22:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hooper

Rfv-sense: "Supporter and/or member of Shamrock Rovers football club". Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rationalization hamster

Seems like a clear protologism. Blowfish 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sees some use online, but I can only find one durably archived cite (which I've now added to Citations:rationalization hamster). If this does happen to pass, which I rather doubt, I think an RFC is in order. The phrase has a mostly sexist POV, but we should find a way to define it that distances ourselves from that POV. Also, the phrase seems to be figurative, in that many uses treat it as an actual hamster (e.g., speaking of how fast it's running), and/or refer to it simply as a "hamster" after first introducing the concept. Our definition ignores that, making the expression seem more like an opaque idiom than like the metaphor it really is. —Ruakh_TALK 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prebendary

Rfv-sense

Adjective (non-comparable) — citation given looks like an attributive use. — Pingku^dimmi 10:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one to search for, because like many nouns denoting positions, it can be used anarthrously as a predicative complement (as in "he became prebendary"), so almost the only clear-cut uses would be either graded ("very prebendary", "X is more prebendary than Y is"), or else predicative with a plural or inanimate predicand. I haven't found any examples of the former; I'm not sure yet about the latter. Also, some attributive uses can be judged to be adjective uses based on semantics, but that's tricky. Still, I'll give it a shot.

By the way, we seem to be missing a completely different non-comparable adjective sense, meaning something like "of or pertaining to a prebend", but with some sort of extended sense of "prebend" that other dictionaries are missing. (We do have a sense "Political patronage employment", which is in the right direction, but it still doesn't seem to quite fit.) I've added an {{rfdef|lang=en}}, with some cites.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've had a stab at a sense to do with corruption (also at prebendal). Is it what you had in mind? — Pingku^dimmi 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

frottage

Verb: To rub a drawing implement (eg. a pencil, crayon or charcoal) over a piece of paper placed upon a textured surface in order to create a mottled or patterned area.

I didn't find frottaging or frottaged at bgc. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ginger

ginger#Etymology 2 Verb: To treat with care.

Presumably associated with gingerly, but not with ginger up or with "to add ginger to". DCDuring TALK 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several b.g.c. cites that I think demonstrate verb uses related to (deprecated template usage) gingerly. They don't actually match our current def: three seem to mean roughly "gingerly go" or "gingerly make (one's way)", one seems to mean "gingerly insert" or "gingerly put"; and one I took to mean "gingerly handle", though on reflection I now think it's probably just a typo for "finger". I'd be fine with removing that one. —Ruakh_TALK 03:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be something similar to (deprecated template usage) antimeria at work, especially given the divergence of meanings. Perhaps "act gingerly", with a "literary" context. DCDuring TALK 11:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except the possible typo (1964), User:Ruakh's citations are good, and his and User:DCDuring's ideas for improving the definition are good. Once the definition has been reworded (based on the quotations in the entry, I suggest "to move gingerly"), this will have been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vobla

"a Russian word for a fish called the Caspian roach"

Could be, but proving it .... Would use to show approximate Russian pronunciation count as usage or mention? I think mention. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think use to show approximate Russian pronunciation would probably be mention of the Russian word, though I'd have to see an example of what you mean. Regardless, the word does see plenty of use in English contexts. I'll see about adding some cites. —Ruakh_TALK 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. The definition could use work, though. Writers do typically treat it as a loanword, but nowise does (deprecated template usage) vobla mean "a Russian word […] ". —Ruakh_TALK 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Mglovesfun (talk • contribs) has fixed the definition. —Ruakh_TALK 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-icity

There seems to be a dispute on whether this really is a formative English suffix. Most terms seem to be either -ic + -ity, or directly borrowed from a foreign language. Cites would be helpful in determining whether this really exists. -- Prince Kassad 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't let the spelling deceive you: the fact that /-ɪk/ + /-ɪti/ = /-ɪsɪti/ should be documented at [[-icity]], no matter how sum-of-orthographic-parts it might be. (It should also be documented at [[-ity]], and maybe also at [[-ic]], but the ones don't preclude the other.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's dangerous ground isn't it? We deleted -cede a few months ago on the grounds it didn't exist, but you can still pronounce it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With (deprecated template usage) -cede the complaint seems to have been that it doesn't form words in English, and doesn't even really have an expressible meaning in English. With (deprecated template usage) -icity, however, nom says that it does form words in English, by adding (deprecated template usage) -ity to words in (deprecated template usage) -ic. My point is that that's misleading: (deprecated template usage) -ic + (deprecated template usage) -ity = (deprecated template usage) -icity looks reasonable, until you try pronouncing the three forms and realize that that's not how it works. —Ruakh_TALK 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think this might be attestable anyway, but I don't think we should keep it whether citable or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the stem pronunciation alteration evidence in favor of keeping this? It seems to me that many suffixations may be accompanied by pronunciation changes to the stem, ranging from altered stress, through vowel changes and orthographic changes (eg, consonant doubling), to consonant pronunciation changes. It seems reasonably clear that the previous existence of an adjective ending in "ic" is required for the vast majority of the formations ending in "icity".

As it stands the entry is deceptive implying productivity that may not be warranted. It is relatively easy to populate a "related terms" or, worse, "derived terms" section by copying from OneLook all words ending in "icity". The value that Wiktionary should offer is making the distinction between actual derivation and coincidental spelling similarity. I would suggest a comparison of the current entry for -arian and earlier versions that did not exclude Tocharian and centenarian from the small number of legitimate formations.

It seems to me that this a clear case of the desirability [licensed by "desirable"] of a hard redirect, this time to the legitimate suffix -ity, unless there is actual evidence of derivativations directly from -icity. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that many suffixes entail pronunciation changes in the stem; in fact, (deprecated template usage) -ity itself induces a stress shift, together with associated vowel changes. But there's no general rule that it changes a preceding /k/ to a /s/; that's a specific property of -ic + -ity → -icity. —Ruakh_TALK 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find examples of words that end in Citations:-icity that do not end in -ic. - -sche 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read some months ago a book on morphology that made the point that the best evidence that an affix was productive in a period was the existence of a number of unattested (possibly unattestable), but intelligible words in that period. It seems dumb that the criteria we seem to apply (three attested derivatives) would lead us to exclude currently productive affixes. What number of recent formations others would find convincing? Perhaps 6-10? Nine total cites for unattestable formations would arguably be the citation equivalent of three attestable formations.

-icity might well meet that standard. COCA and OneLook have searches that support wildcards. OneLook search captures words that don't seem to be included in normal search. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think there are a lot of problems with the "it's not an affix unless there are citeable words that can only be explained by its having been added directly, in Modern English, to an pre-existing stem" approach. I guess the idea is that affix entries aren't actually worthwhile in and of themselves, but rather are only useful insofar as other entries' etymology sections can link to them? But personally I think that affix entries are worthwhile in and of themselves, and am getting rather annoyed with the frequent attempts to enforce the contrary view by making demands at WT:RFV that aren't actually supported by any policies. —Ruakh_TALK 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was arguing in favor of those without attestable derivatives, but with evidence of a derivation process. Without some kind of evidence how would one know that an affix is not a figment of one's imagination? DCDuring TALK 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were describing one problem with it. My complaint is that there are a whole raft of problems with it, not just one. As for evidence — I think evidence is great. I just think there's more than one kind of evidence. You'll notice that my "keep" vote was based on evidence: -icity has a specific pronunciation that's not explainable as just -ic + -ity. —Ruakh_TALK 03:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the fact that adding "-ity" to a word ending in "ic" convert the hard "c" to soft "c" by itself make "-icity" a morphological unit? Does the fact that "frolic" becomes "frolicking" make "-king" either a suffix or an inflectional ending? DCDuring TALK 05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That principle is what my objection is based on. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "word ending in 'ic'": You mean "word ending in (deprecated template usage) -ic". Re: "morphological unit": Did I use that term? Re: "-king": It means we should have an entry for the sum of the two parts, i.e. [[frolicking]]. Which we do have, so I'm not sure why you're objecting. —Ruakh_TALK 12:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An argument analogous to yours would justify an entry for -king. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see it. Please make the argument. —Ruakh_TALK 14:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note ci- is almost always pronounced /si/ in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint with -icity is the same as the one for -cede. The whole RFV is asking does this form words in English. Your argument seems to be we should keep it regardless of attestation because the pronunciation is interesting - which I strongly dispute. I don't like the idea of keeping things whether they are attested or not - it rather defeats the object of having a page dedicated to verification. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:-icity would seem to justify a pass anyway. Almost any non-Romance word that can be attested suffixed with -icity would probably justify a keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Your argument seems to be we should keep it regardless of attestation because the pronunciation is interesting": Not at all. My argument has two parts: (1) it's obviously incredibly well attested, as everyone knows who speaks English, and as the nominator acknowledged; and (2) we should keep it because the pronunciation shows that it's not SOP. Because of quirks of this spelling system, it looks SOP, but looks, as we know, can be deceiving. English does not have any sort of regular alternation between /s/ and /k/. It happens (due to the history of the Romance languages) that in this spelling system, both sounds are sometimes represented <c>, with rules for when that's possible and when it's not (e.g., <ci> is (almost?) never pronounced /kɪ/), but that shouldn't trick us into thinking there's some underlying archiphoneme /C/ that's sometimes realized as /s/ and sometimes as /k/. —Ruakh_TALK 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator says nothing of the kind here, by my reading.

AFAICT, arguments for inclusion could be:

that -icity is or has been productive (diachrionic) or
that we keep any combination of morphemes that people might imagine as being productive because they are "really" reinventing the terms that end in "icity" rather than pulling them whole from their mental lexicon (synchronic).

I advocate the diachronic line and would prefer that we only accept such evidence. I am not sure what would constitute evidence along the synchronic line that would be sufficient and effectively available to us. I suppose that the mere fact that someone creates an entry for -icity constitutes evidence that at least one person views it as meaningful morphological unit in their idiolect. Perhaps such evidence is sufficient. Or we could have native speakers, or experts, or anyone so willing express themselves on the topic, followed by a vote. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator says that "Most terms seem to be either -ic + -ity, or […] ". This statement clearly presupposes that there are words in (deprecated template usage) -icity.

Your two arguments for inclusion form a false dilemma. They both assume that a suffix should only be included if it's productive, and differ only in the evidence required to demonstrate productivity. I reject the assumption, so lie outside of your evidence spectrum.

At heart, I think y'all are making a sum-of-parts argument ("this is just -ic + -ity") couched as an attestation argument ("we need to attest this as something other than just -ic + -ity"). I, however, am not bothered by the fact that this is formed from -ic + -ity, any more than I'm bothered by the fact that (deprecated template usage) hot dog is formed from (deprecated template usage) hot + (deprecated template usage) dog.

If there is community consensus for your view, and we can objectively codify it, then we can start using WT:RFV to enforce it. But so far these WT:RFV listings make it seem like y'all are trying to bluff your way past a lack of demonstrated consensus.

—Ruakh_TALK 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. PK acknowledged a possibility, which may account for why he brought the matter for verification. AFAICT the nom statement does not acknowledge a fact.

What is an affix if it is not or has not been productive?

I acknowledge that I didn't make explicit allowance for the completely evidence-free approach.

I understand that there is a Mexican proverb to the effect that one "makes a path by walking it". I think that's what we're doing. Are we ready for the dynamite and earth-movers? DCDuring TALK 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "What is an affix if it is not or has not been productive?": An affix.

Re: "I acknowledge that I didn't make explicit allowance for the completely evidence-free approach": You're indenting it as though it's in reply to my comment, but it actually seems to be studiously avoiding replying to my comment. ;-)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An affix is a morpheme that is involved in affixation. Affixation would seem to be a process that is either part of the history of a language/dialect/etc as a whole (diachronic) or of an individual's learning and use of a language (sychronic). I don't see other real-world possibilities. Do you?

You haven't advanced a rationale for why the phonetic phenomenon should be counted as evidence. Is there one?

I have tried to answer your points as they apply to my arguments as best I can. What have I missed? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I think that "Spanishicity", "Frenchicity", "Dublinicity" and "Parisicity" support "-icity" as different from "-ic"+"-ity", because there is no word "Frenchic" (though misscans of "Frenchie"), "Spanishic", "Dublinic". - -sche 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed; but, playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm not sure how you would show that. Even if Dublinic weren't otherwise attested (it actually is, but apparently not durably archived), that wouldn't necessarily mean this wasn't {Dublinic}ity. If we prefer to see the /k/-to-/s/ transformation as belonging to -ity, as DCDuring apparently does, or to the following , as Mglovesfun apparently does, then a nonce occurrence of -icity could just as well be seen as a nonce occurrence of -ic together with a nonce occurrence of -ity. Analogously: if a word that ends in -hood exists only in plural, should we conclude that -hoods is not just -hood + -s? This is why I think quote-unquote "attestation" is the wrong approach. Certainly we shouldn't include affixes that literally aren't attested, but nearly every affix that's ever been listed on this page is actually in clearly widespread use. —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That is the kind of evidence that would probably satisfy Ingo Plag, the author of Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation (Topics in English Linguistics, 28) (1999). I read his Word Formation in English. I have no idea what he would actually say about our discussion or about "-icity", but all the novel formations fit into his suggestion that forms not found in any dictionaries are the best evidence for productivity of affixes. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I agree with Ruakh that "-icity" should be an entry (or, if it were unattested, at least a redirect to -ity or -ic), so that in that entry (respectively in -ity) the pronunciation can be explained. I also agree with DCDuring that "whoever says A must say B" and if "-icity" should be an entry, then "-king" should also be an entry — or at least a redirect to -ing or -ic, so that in the entry the phenomenon "traffic" → "trafficking" can be explained. I understand Ruakh's point that nonce "Spanishicity" could be only nonce "Spanishic+ity" instead of "Spanish-icity", but I think the 1985 example is then good, because its "Germanicity" is distinctly difficult to interpret as "Germanic-ity". - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my opinions in a few respects: (1) I'd be pretty O.K. with "-icity" being a redirect to "-ity". I think I'd prefer a full entry, but I'm not sure; and anyway I'd accept a redirect if that's more palatable to the editors who don't want an entry. (2) I'm actually not strongly opposed to having an entry for "-king", but I nonetheless see it as completely different and unrelated to the question of "-icity". I actually don't even begin to see the connection. "-king" isn't part of English per se, only an artifact of English orthography; what's happening is that the sound /k/ is being spelled <c> in some forms and <ck> in others. This gives the illusion that "-king" is an inflectional ending, but it's just an illusion. By contrast, "-icity" is a well-attested combination of two affixes, clearly an actual part of the language (whether or not you're willing to describe it as an "affix"), and the question is whether this part of the language warrants its own entry. My reason for saying it does is that it has a unique and unpredictable pronunciation. (As Mglovesfun says, the pronunciation happens to be apparent from the spelling; but it's not a general property of English that affixes are immutable strings of letters whose pronunciations are determined by spelling. If it were, the gerund-participles of "panic" and "hop" and "hope" would be "panicing" with an /s/, "hoping" with an /oʊ/, and "hopeing" with your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references to the entry -icity. Also, I suggest, that whether we have -icity or -king or neither, we should have notes about -icity (pronunciation) and -king (added k) at -ic (note about pronunciation and k) and at -ity (note about pronunciation) and at -ing (note about k). - -sche 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

⑨

Tagged but not listed. Conrad.Irwin 21:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a bit - I have not the faintest idea what it means? I'd be happy to delete the entry and start again as a Translingual symbol. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleted as an obvious protologism. -- Prince Kassad 16:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atari 2600

This one was speedily deleted once, but I think it merits some discussion and probably to be kept, like certain other well-known names of consoles. The entry in question is defined as a brand of video game consoles (thus a specific entity), and also as any console of that brand (thus a noun, with a plural: one Atari 2600, two Ataris 2600). Both senses are hyponyms of senses of Atari. --Daniel. 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is so specific about Atari 2600 that it should be kept? --Hekaheka 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pronk

Music genre. progressive punk. Terrible definition. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only usable google books:pronk + music result is the one already in the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition "a specific style of punk music" could be read as meaning that any specific style of punk music is "pronk"/"a pronk". Is this an uncapitalized proper noun? DCDuring TALK 21:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uilleann

Does this actually mean anything (especially capitalised)? SemperBlotto 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC) p.s. We already have uilleann pipes[reply]

(1)If we have uilleann pipes then obviously it is an adjective. I don't see how you can in good faith ask if the word "actually" does "mean anything" when you yourself verify that it is a type and category which applies to pipes. I don't see the point of any further verification that the word does actually mean anything but I will invite you to be more specific about what you believe should be verified. (a) Doesn't that therefore moot the verification Template? (b)What constitutes "resolution"? Agreement of SemperBlotto? (c) What is the deadline on this putatively pending deletion? (d) What is the venue for the arbitration? (e)i. Is the deletion appealable? ii.To whom? iii.Why is that information included in the template? (f) Why is this thread not located on the discussion page of the word proposed for heightened scrutiny? (2)At minimum, the deletion threat should be withdrawn give 1, above, but I suppose one might reduce the entry to "a type of bagpipe". I don't see the value in that, but that appears to be the maximum remedy that can in good case be applied since the preumptive template-posting editor offers no refutation of the word's adjectival status. Indeed, offers an example of its use in a two word compound. (3) Maybe it should be lower case, I don't have a problem with that. Please note that whether or not a word does "actually mean" anything, capitalization does not intensify paucity of meaning. Hence, I don't understand the parenthetical secondary question. Thank you for your interest in the quality of wiktionary. Please see my requests for comment linked from my UserPage. Geofferybard 21:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "If we have uilleann pipes then obviously it is an adjective", "the preumptive template-posting editor offers no refutation of the word's adjectival status. Indeed, offers an example of its use in a two word compound": Note that plenty of words besides adjectives are used in attributive position. In particular, nouns are commonly used this way: in "high school principal", "high school" is a noun. See Wiktionary:English adjectives for some guidance on identifying adjectives.

Re: "I don't see how you can in good faith ask if the word 'actually' does 'mean anything' […] ": Well, if you read the current entry, you'll see that it doesn't mention whether the word actually means anything! It only gives etymological information.

Re: "What constitutes 'resolution'?": If and when there is consensus that the entry demonstrates that the word meets our criteria for inclusion, it will be resolved as "RFV passed". Conversely, if a long period goes by without such being demonstrated, it will be resolved as "RFV failed" and deleted.

Your tone, by the way, is needlessly adversarial. This isn't a "deletion threat", it's a request that the entry's contents be verified.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for verification isn't a 'debate', it's about evidence. Fancy words win you nothing here. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

semenancy

I can't really face plowing through some of the links this turns up, but certainly there's nothing on google books or google news. Ƿidsiþ 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. SB had even less patience than I did. Ƿidsiþ 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider adding it to our bad jokes page - but I can never remember what it is called. SemperBlotto 11:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have created WT:BJ shortcut, as "bad jokes". --Dan Polansky 12:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't anyone going to notify me of deleting a word I added? An explanation would be appreciated too. --BrightBlackHeaven 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't exist". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes it does. Just ask Google. I wasn't aware of the policy on protologisms, I'm new here, so, sorry. The two words I was trying to add (chemognosticism and semenancy) were used in a Wikipedia article (chaos magic) and I thought people would find definitions of these words useful. (The "bad joke" comment above was out of line.) --BrightBlackHeaven 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI#Attestation, and you're right, they were good jokes. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. And I don't mind if anyone thinks semenancy itself is a joke, I didn't even know what it was before I googled it, I'm saying it's not a bad (or good) joke to imply that this word exists, since it does. --BrightBlackHeaven 12:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that it does imply that the word exists - we cannot tell you what to think. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chance this could pass based on Google Groups alone. Restored, it does seem to mean *something*. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Does that mean "chemognostic" could pass too since it has earlier (since 1997) mentions on Google Groups? --BrightBlackHeaven 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but chemognostic has never existed. Maybe you mistyped it, I dunno. Chemognosis would pass IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first made an article for chemognosticism since that was the word used on the wikipedia article, but chemognosis seems to be the word that's used the most, on the internet at least. As far as I understand right now, -gnosis is the gnosis itself, and -gnosticism is the practice of achieving said gnosis, wouldn't they both need to be defined if at least one of them passes the inclusion criteria? Plus chemognostic, the person. --BrightBlackHeaven 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any word will pass RfV if you provide evidence a) that it is actually used in the real world, b) that it actually means what the definition says. SemperBlotto 15:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I wouldn't know how to prove it besides saying "google it". :/ How would I add any proof in the article?~~ Oh, hold on, I'm actually reading the text on top of this page now. --BrightBlackHeaven 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to review your policies re citations and post later, but I assure you this esoteric term has been widely used for at least the last century in various sex magick traditions. Crowley uses the term in White Stains I believe - certainly he refers to the practice repeatedly.Thelema23 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the Hathi or Google Books OCR is correct. Neither White Stains or any of the other 11 books HathiTrust has show hits for semenancy.--Prosfilaes 06:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citify

The intransitive senses. "Paris citified", "he citified after moving there"? Equinox ◑ 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations added, using the present participle. Are these convincing? — Pingku^dimmi 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any cites for "citified" in this sense (or the other intransitive sense) either, but I don't know that such an absence should warrant deletion. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

broaderscale

The hits I've seen look like scannos for "broader scale" or "broader-scale". DCDuring TALK 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spaciology

I see only one usable quote on google books- not enough to formulate a definition. Nadando 19:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart

Two alleged senses. No hits at google books:+"breitbarted|breitbarting" and only one lowercase at google groups:+"breitbarted|breitbarting" (not sure of its meaning there).—msh210℠ (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be amazed if this passed, the Big Society is such a new idea, to think that the name of someone who runs a related website's surname has entered the general lexicon sounds very unlikely. For anyone who's not British, see w:Premiership of David Cameron. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an attack page to be honest. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be confused about something; I don't think there's any significant connection between BigGovernment.com (an American web-site) and the Big Society (a British policy idea). But yes, I think it's more or less an attack page, and SemperBlotto was right to delete it: Such entries should be held to a higher standard of accuracy and verification, and this one didn't cut the mustard. —Ruakh_TALK 19:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I screwed up. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh. Deleted SemperBlotto 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brass

Rfv-sense X 3:

Made of brass.
[not challenged] of the colour of brass.
(UK slang) Bad, annoying.
Related to brass instruments.

Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be attributive use of the noun. I am just unfamiliar with the UK slang sense. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is not just attributive. Though we're reaching the point where WT:GLOSS needs to define attributive as "adjective-like, without being an adjective". —Ruakh_TALK 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've probably passed that point. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*

Done —Ruakh_TALK 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand your point. For sense 1, in the uses "That nozzle is brass" and "That is the brass nozzle.", both uses seem more easily interpreted be of the noun than of an adjective. It is most convincing to me that a word is a true adjective when it can be modified by "more" (with "than"), "too", or "very", has a meaning shift. Use following "seem", "become", and "make" doesn't seem to discriminate between mass nouns like brass and possible adjectives like brass. "Brass" fails the "enough" test also, I think: "The nozzle is brass enough to meet the spec." doesn't seem right, in contrast to "The nozzle is corrosion-resistant enough to meet spec." DCDuring TALK 23:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not about the word (deprecated template usage) brass, but about the word (deprecated template usage) attributive, which is a useful technical term with a specific relevant meaning. I think we should try to use it accurately, rather than brandishing it like a fetish whenever we want to say that a noun isn't also an adjective. I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion about whether a given cite demonstrates adjective-ness without recourse to the real meanings of words like "attributive" and "adjective". For some reason you're very punctilious about the latter, but very libertine about the former. —Ruakh_TALK 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which use of the word "attributive"? I don't think that uses of "brass" in most senses where "brass" is predicate are uses of an adjective; I believe they are uses of the noun. Therefore I believe that purported uses of "brass" semantically like sense 1 are all uses of the noun. Our code for this kind of thing focuses on the common attributive use of a word whose syntactic class is in question. Do you have an alternative shorthand tag for this? DCDuring TALK 03:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Which use of the word 'attributive'?": You wrote that "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be attributive use of the noun" (emphasis mine). Hence my reply that sense 1 is not just attributive.

Re: "Do you have an alternative shorthand tag for this?": Well, despite what I wrote at WT:GLOSS#A, I'm not actually 100% sure exactly what you mean by the word "attributive". In this case you could have just said "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be use of the noun", but presumably you included the word "attributive" because there was something you meant to convey with it. Maybe "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be adjective-like use of the noun"? Or "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be adjective-like,-not-adjective use of the noun"? (In the latter case, I suppose we could call it "ALNA".)

That said, it might be a bit premature to be resorting to "code" and "shorthand" regardless, given that different words have different considerations, and I imagine that most editors are not very clear yet on what those considerations are. For example, if we started seeing cites like "the door is car" and "the door became car" and so on, that would be good evidence that car as in "car door" has become an adjective for some people; but cites like "the door is brass" and "the door became brass" and so on are not. Why? Because the relevant sense of "car" is countable and the relevant sense of "brass" is not. This is fairly easy to understand and fairly easy to explain — provided we actually bother to explain it, rather than hiding like hermit crabs inside our unintelligible shorthand.

—Ruakh_TALK 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been crabby here, but how did you know I was an hermit?

re: "attributive". I have inferred from the entries that seem to have PoS sections for both nouns and adjectives that contributors ascribe adjectivity to those words if they occur in pre-head position in a noun phrase. That is the "attributive" position for adjectives. Nouns can also occur in that position, usually in "attributive use" (but sometimes as a complement of the head per CGEL). ("Attributive use of noun(s)|noun phrase(s)" is not exactly a rare collocation. Nor is "attributive" noun.) I don't want to have to explain the whole thing (not that I could, anyway), whenever this comes up - which is often. That is one reason why we have Wiktionary:English adjectives. Perhaps we should have a template that facilitated linkage to pages that explained all this, including controversy, and our operational practice. I found this book passage congenial. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we're still talking at cross-purposes. I think the word "attributive" is useful. "Attributive use of noun" is useful. "Attributive noun" is useful. All of these are great, and useful, and relevant, and we should keep using them in these discussions. My complaint is with using them wrong. You said that the sense "Template:not comparable Made of brass" is "attributive use of the noun"; but by "attributive" it doesn't seem that you meant "attributive", because you're obviously perfectly aware this sense also occurs regularly in predicative use. I just don't get it. Are you assuming that the contributor considered this an adjective because of "brass doorknob" and not because of "doorknob is brass"? If so, that would explain our miscommunication: I'm not making that assumption. It didn't even occur to me until now.
Re: Wiktionary:English adjectives: Can I be bold with that page?
—Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is attributive use of the noun that apparently causes contributors to create the PoS section and add senses to it. If there were clear predicative use of the adjective, there wouldn't be an issue. When a noun PoS exists, predicative use is often ambiguous at best. If the predicative sense were to exist then there is a prima facie case that the sense should be included in the adjective PoS. I am asserting that the sense is that of the noun, which language users normally and naturally often construe as "made of" in the case of mass nouns. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edit summary ("I am not willing to concede that the sense actually exists in predicate use"): I don't get it. Are you saying that "the doorknob is brass" is an attributive use of the word "brass"? Or are you saying said clause means something other than "the doorknob is made of brass"? Or what? —Ruakh_TALK 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that "the doorknob is brass" is predicative use of a sense of brass#Noun that can be construed as "made of brass". Further, I assert that unless it can be shown that there is some use (attributive or predicative) of brass#Adjective in the sense "made of brass" that is gradable, we should not have such a sense for the adjective. I felt that to say that the sense "is" "made of brass" concedes the point that is in question. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your first two sentences: I agree. (At least, pending evidence to the contrary.) Re: your third sentence: O.K., I half-understand that. But it seems like you're willing to acknowledge that it's "made of brass" when it's attributive, and you only start quibbling when it's predicative. (Your initial comment said that the sense "seem[s] to be attributive use of the noun", and your recent edit summary refused to concede that "the sense actually exists in predicate use". It seems like you should refuse to concede that the sense actually exists, period, even as "attributive use of the noun". It's just a misclassification of some of the noun's uses.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be more risk to leaving behind a bad soundbyte (a sentence or phrase) than an inconsistent paragraph-long or multiparagraph-long argument, let alone some inconsistency across multiple discussions. Short-attention-span discussions and debates seem to be the rule, especially lately. Now that I think of other times, maybe that isn't so bad. Sh! DCDuring TALK 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books search results for "brassest" do not mean "most made of brass" — but "made of brass" is probably absolute. I have added three quotations to the citations page. - -sche 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A very brass band" is used, apparently a pun on meanings [3] and [4]. - -sche 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we try to avoid wordplay usage in attestation, but maybe some think we should accept it. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should count wordplay, but looking through the hits at google books:"a very brass band" (thanks, -sche!), I don't see much evidence that it's wordplay, aside from its pressing an attributive noun into service as an adjective, which I think we more or less have to ignore (else our reasoning would be perfectly circular). If three adjective cites are enough to demonstrate adjectivity, then I think it would be valid to take three of those (though obviously it would be preferable to add three cites with more internal variety). —Ruakh_TALK 00:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one provides another collocation in sense 1. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added quotations of "very brass band" to the entry. To which meaning do they belong, [3] or [4]? The word seems to be used in another meaning on Usenet, something like "brazen, impudent". I have added four quotations to Citations:brass. - -sche 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RR's

RReally? SemperBlotto 22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good use of WT:BRAND, as do the similar following terms. DCDuring TALK 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EB's

Does this really meet our CFI? SemperBlotto 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edge

Rfv-sense noun - rock-climbing. Looks like it might be a verb, but is difficult to check. SemperBlotto 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rainbow

Three newly-added senses: "(US) (American countercultural/contemporary.) Mellow, laid back, peaceful; (US) (American countercultural/contemporary.)Non-racist; (US) (American countercultural/contemporary.)Racially or ethnically blended." Also remember they need to show adjectival use and not just attributive! Equinox ◑ 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third one sounds ok to me, as in "rainbow culture". The second one sounds like a closely related sense, the first one, no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at google books:"rainbow community" and google books:"rainbow society" this would pass. I think a better definition would be multicultural and/or ethnically varied (or multi-ethnic?). There seem to be a LGBT sense as well, such as 'In Taipei, gay and lesbian entrepreneurs have joined together to form a "rainbow community."'[111]. Poker sense is ok, though I don't know the poker noun sense above it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original use of this in the US was explicitly multi-racial, multi-(skin)-colored, as in "white", "black", "brown", "red", and "yellow". I would find it hard to imagine applying the term to say "multicultural" China. DCDuring TALK 03:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many of any of the senses of "rainbow" are used as true adjectives? Most dictionaries don't have an adjective entry. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since rainbow doesn't mean "a non-racist" or "a member of the LGBT community", it can't be attributive use of a noun that doesn't exist. Compare with #interwiki above. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see how and when the meaning evolved to become more generalized from multiracial to diverse to any specific flavor of diverse. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whale-path

Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find quotations of Citations:whale-road. One is a translation of Beowulf, one is a reference to the Seafarer but not a quotation of it, one uses it in a Norse context, one is non-Norse. I do not know about whale-path. - -sche 09:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I found one translation of the Seafarer, one reference to Beowulf and one use in a Norse context. It could use an etymology like word-hoard. - -sche 09:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks OK now. SemperBlotto 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spruce

Rfv-senses:

Made of the wood of the spruce.
Being from a spruce tree.

Originally at RFD, moved here as adjectival use is a matter of attestation. Usually. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what counts as an adjective in English. In Swedish we make compounds for things like "spruce table" (of the wood) and "spruce cone" (from the tree). But anyway, these examples are easy enough to find on the web, just like "pine" table/cone and "oak" table/leaf. --LA2 19:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:English adjectives gives a bit of guidance. Compounds like you mention aren't (necessarily) using the word as an adjective; you can't say *"this cone is spruce", for example, as you'd expect to be able to if "spruce cone" simply meant "cone that is spruce" (with "spruce" meaning "from a spruce tree"). —Ruakh_TALK 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But can you say "this table is oak"? And is that guiding the fact that oak is listed as an adjective? --LA2 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like the discussion about some of the senses of brass#Adjective at #brass. OneLook dictionaries don't have adjective senses for these. I'll bet the OED doesn't either (but only at even money). DCDuring TALK 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LA2: Your questions make me think that you're taking "oak" and "pine" to be confirmed adjectives, and asking how "spruce" is different? (Am I right?) If so, I should clarify that I'm not sure that "oak" and "pine" are adjectives, either (at least in the relevant senses). —Ruakh_TALK 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm asking. I have no real clue what counts as an adjective in English. Why is expired listed as an adjective, but exposed just as a verb form? Why is oak listed as an adjective, if spruce doesn't qualify? --LA2 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons IMO

There are as yet 'unofficial' tests at WT:English adjectives that some words will meet and someone won't
We're inconsistent on everything due to several reasons, like lack of contributors, personal opinion, etc.

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Alone

Recent internet meme, won't find citations spanning three years. Nadando 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the kind of thing we should have anyway? It's a specific name of a character. It's like having the names of toys or pop stars. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nadando, preferably after checking attestability, and hopefully undelete eventually per Wiktionary's bureucracy.

Equinox, Forever Alone is actually just a drawing; it's simply a two-dimensional work like Mona Lisa. Both Forever Alone and Mona Lisa, however, can be rationalized into fictional characters and possibly defined as so, if we can find citations such as in this hypothetical joke: "Mona Lisa, the Vitruvian Man and the Statue of Liberty go to a bar..." --Daniel. 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being in a joke helps, and I don't think Mona Lisa (a specific named item, in this case a painting, without generic meaning) belongs in a dictionary. (Ignoring the generic noun sense, which I haven't come across personally and only just noticed in the entry.) Equinox ◑ 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

populi vox

In US politics apparently. Ƿidsiþ 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator requested speedy deletion. Striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

public comment

Looks like sum of parts to me. Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something to this, but I don't think I can find cites for the definitions given. I have added three cites to the entry but they don't really fit any of the definitions. Current sense 4 seems to be SoP, included in "literal" sense 1. I don't think that "public comment" is used to mean a type of "opportunity" (sense 2) or a type of "written document" (sense 3). "Public comment" is either countable or uncountable. It is (a) comment that may be made to and received by an official body about a matter of public concern, such as a law, regulation, or action, actual or proposed. It seems to have a special legal status in forming a permissible basis for an official decision, at least fictively. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legal definition is a part of notice and comment rulemaking. In the U.S., there are numerous Federal Register provisions governing various agencies that require the agencies to have a period for public comment on any proposed rules. Consider:

Before conducting a licensing hearing, the Board must hold at least one public input hearing at which witnesses may testify and the opportunity for public comment is afforded. Id § 1205(b).
Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Decker, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 398 (3d Cir. Pa. Jan. 7, 2011)

Note that this relates to a Pennsylvania state law requiring public comment, Pennsylvania Race Horse and Gaming Act, 4 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1205(b)(4), which states that "the board shall establish a public comment period during which time members of the public may address the board regarding the application, license or proposed structural redesign". Compare this to the following from a case absolving a judge from misconduct charges stemming from a joke the judge made during a speech:

So far as can be discerned from the complaint, the joke was not racist, sexist or otherwise invidious; it was not reported in the press or the subject of any significant public comment.
In re Judicial Misconduct, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2108 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011)

The kind of "public comment" referred to in the first case, conforming to a statutorily mandated opportunity for members of the public to comment in a prescribed time, place, and manner on pending agency rules, is very different from the kind referred to in the second case, which merely reflects that "the public" has chosen to discuss an issue. bd2412 T 15:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot substitute a phrase headed by "opportunity" or "period" or "document" into the citations you have provided. It is this question of wording that has led to my objections to the definitions given. There is something idiomatic here, but our definitions don't meet the substitutability desideratum for definitions. Are we forced to resort to {{non-gloss definition}}? DCDuring TALK 16:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading, there are two idiomatic senses of "public comment", one being a prescribed period and means by which members of the public can submit their opinions about a proposed piece of legislation; and the other being a general expression of public sentiment about something. bd2412 T 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeesh

"Expressing exasperation, patience subject to persistent and unreasonable challenge." Is quite plausible, but the current citation doesn't really tell us anything. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. The formulation could be tweaked. - -sche 02:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. DCDuring TALK 03:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! RFV passed. DAVilla 06:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porygon

Fictional species. --Yair rand (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that "It evolves into Porygon2 when traded while holding an Up-Grade, which evolves into Porygon-Z when traded holding a Dubious Disc." Perhaps that should go in the usage notes... ;) — Pingku^dimmi 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, if people create and attest Porygon, Porygon2 and Porygon-Z as nouns defined as members of certain Pokémon species, then it would be natural to link between each other as their "evolutions". However, "It evolves into Porygon2 when traded while holding an Up-Grade, which evolves into Porygon-Z when traded holding a Dubious Disc." does not fit usage notes. It would be roughly like detailing the biological changes from a baby to an adult; or, in context of fiction, detailing how a human changes into a werewolf, a vampire or a zombie. --Daniel. 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. What was I thinking! Such encyclopaedic notes are sometimes put on the discussion page. — Pingku^dimmi 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spectrum typology

Any takers? SemperBlotto 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The users two other entries phrasal typology and rhetorical device could use some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

Rfv-sense: "(comics} Famous Disney's dog." No citations at present to support WT:FICTION, or WT:BRAND or that usage actual presumes Disney connection. "Famous dog" should be easy, based on cites that meet WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some definition line that merely pointed to Wikipedia might work. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

full

Rfv-sense: poker, a full house. Citation might be difficult because of the numerous other meanings, but I've been watching poker on TV and to some extent playing for about five years, and I've never heard it called "a full". I was actually trying to find what sense we had to cover things like "aces full" and "queens full". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isaric

Nothing obvious in Google book search. Not in the OED. SemperBlotto 10:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Aramaic word and root can be verified in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, as well as in the Syriac Online Entry Search. The etymology provided is valid and substantiated. -Anonymous User 5:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but nobody's disputing the etymology, just the existence in English with these meanings. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strikingthrough

Previous discussion: Talk:strikingthrough.

This had four cites. I was able to find three of them; all three actually used "striking through", so I've removed them from the entry. (Confirmatory URLs are in the edit history.) I couldn't find the fourth one, and am not inclined to credit it any further than the other three, especially since, with all respect to the citer, that quotation's metadata suggest a bit of shoddiness. (For example, the "New York State Federation of Chapters" in question must be the New York State Federation of Chapters of the Council for Exceptional Children.) So as far as I'm concerned, we need three cites that demonstrably use this form. When it comes right down to it, a typed-up quotation in an entry is hearsay, not evidence. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 14:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups has this one. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Did you mean strikethrough? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the subject line, viz. "track changes set to underline for insertion but strikingthrough". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brachyology

"A figure of speech that is an abbreviated expression, for example, the omission of "good" in "good morning."

Rhetorical terms are not used consistently, but I haven't found use in this sense. Compare brachylogia, defined at Silva Rhetoricae as "The absence of conjunctions between single words. Compare asyndeton. The effect of brachylogia is a broken, hurried delivery.". Both senses may be correct. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In OED online the main entry is brachylogy, brachyology being an alternative form. Encyclopedia of Identity defines brachyology as the "intentional shortening of spoken or written statements where full understanding is still assumed." — Pingku^dimmi 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bennett in his New Latin Grammar gives as a defining example (of 'brachylogy'):

ut ager sine cultura fructuosus esse non potest, sic sine doctrina animus.

as a field cannot be productive without cultivation, so the mind (cannot be productive) without learning.

He also identifies zeugma and compendiary comparison as varieties. — Pingku^dimmi 10:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder when the last time is that someone used the word in these senses. So many rhetorical terms seem to have fallen into disuse. I think I have found a source that has all the senses of this and all of its hyponyms. It will not be so easy to find usable citations for all the meanings. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

syntexis

Rfv-senses emaciation and wasp SemperBlotto 08:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"emaciation" sense appears in a medical dictionary. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I've found it now. SemperBlotto 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syntexis

I split this entry from syntexis. There does appear to be a one-species genus, a type of sawfly or woodwasp. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK too. SemperBlotto 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz

Only found in wordlists. -- Prince Kassad 14:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to de-Wikipedia article it was nominated as one of the ten "words of the year" in 1999 by the Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache (Society for German language). I checked the pages of the society, and they really did that. There's no explanation, but probably as an example of a monster word produced by the legislative bureaucracy. Judging by the web pages the society appears a serious one. The other nominations for 1999 were words that were new and became commmon knowledge at that time, such as Kosovokrieg and Euroland. It also appears that the state of Meclenburg-Vorpommern has actually approved this statute in 2000, the full title being Gesetz zur Übertragung der Aufgaben für die Überwachung der Rinderkennzeichnung und Rindfleischetikettierung (Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz - RkReÜAÜG M-V). The minister who presented the statute to the state parliament reportedly apologized for mögliche Überlänge (possible overlength) of the statute title. --Hekaheka 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a word used in an official text. I would propose to add a criterion in CFI: words attested in official texts or with an official use are systematically includable, even if we cannot find them attested elsewhere. This would be a useful rule. An example: there are at least two streets in France named vionnet (e.g. vionnet de l'Eglise). It's difficult to find other uses, but it should be enough to include this word. The etymology is clear. Lmaltier 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the word: it's famous, and it would be a pity to delete the page. There are some English words included here, although never really used, but included because they are famous. Lmaltier 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's an official text? Surely it's a text that considers itself officially. "Official" isn't an objective term, far from it, it's entirely subjective. A text is official if you consider it to be, otherwise, it isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean words used by local, national or international territorial administrative bodies. Lmaltier 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, that idea was in the past proposed (so that yottalumen etc. could be included) and rejected. - -sche 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some quotations of vionnet. No quotations of Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, however. - -sche 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put the German linguistic novelty put a suitably titled appendix and have an Template:only-in direct to it's section thereof if it isn't attestable in actual use. DCDuring TALK 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. In contrast to English, where Dutchman is considered a word because it is unspaced, too many German "words" (in the sense of LackingSpacesCharacterStrings) are not truly German words, idiomatic and requiring entries here. DAVilla 06:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baidouska

Encyclopedic definition, almost certainly not attestable in its excruciating detail. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I object to the notion that the facts in a definition must be "attestable". No such requirement is described in WT:CFI, and I don't think such a requirement is tenable. Our definitions shouldn't be encyclopedic, but "attestability" is not the reason. (I should create a template for this comment.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason definitions shouldn't be encyclopedic? How can a contributor tell whether a contribution is encyclopedic? What fact-based standard is there about definitions? There seems to be no internal compass that enables most contributors to distinguish encyclopedic from non-encyclopedic content.

If we wish to create a class of entries that are permitted to be encyclopedic or simply not bother with the distinction, we may of course do so. We will need to have some additional standards for enforcing a level of quality control on our entries. Are we just to accept references from "authorities"? Will there be any limit on the types of entries for which references will be accepted? Would references have more or less force than attestation? DCDuring TALK 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am echoing Ruakh: 'I object to the notion that the facts in a definition must be "attestable". No such requirement is described in WT:CFI, and I don't think such a requirement is tenable.' --Dan Polansky 08:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of attesting senses is well established. We regularly amend senses to fit the citations provided. What seems new is applying attestation to proper nouns. That in turn follows from the breaching of barriers against inclusion of entries that have little prospect for anything but encyclopedic content and contributors who seem to lack the cultural knowledge to produce usage-based definitions intuitively. I don't really trust anyone's intuitive definitions of any term, but some contributors seem to have no ability to produce a definition without copying. If no dictionary has the term, they seem to have recourse to encyclopedias for the definitions. But an encyclopedia is not a long-form dictionary. It is its own thing with its own standards, in which considerations of ordinary usage do not loom large.

I never understood why there was not a practice of trying to infer from usage what people actually meant by proper nouns. The effort to find what "Lassie" actually means when used shows that there is a set of attributes which seem to be invoked by the use of "Lassie", but that many characteristics need to be explicitly repeated. Relying on external sources for definitions has not proven a major problem for most older true dictionary entries, as Webster 1913 and Century provide copyright-free sources and other online lemming-sources provide a way of pointing out missing senses. Newer words usually require attestation to allow inference of meaning. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just proper nouns; as I mentioned before, the same thing applies to, say, (deprecated template usage) goose. More generally, there are many words where usage seems to be guided by something like ostensive understanding (it's a duck because it looks and walks and quacks like a duck, and I know what a duck looks and walks and quacks like because I've seen other ducks, and I know that those were ducks because . . . ; she's Ibo because she speaks Ibo and belongs to the Ibo ethnic group, and the Ibo ethnic group consists of people who are Ibo, and Ibo is the language they speak, and I know that the language is Ibo because . . .), and I simply don't think it's possible to capture that sort of understanding in a dictionary definition without resorting to factual information.

By the way, relatedly, I think we should always keep reality in mind when writing definitions, even if reality has no bearing on usage. Many English speakers have believed that dragons were real, and that belief affected their usage of the term; but we would do our readers a disservice if we included a definition of (deprecated template usage) dragon written from that perspective.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I am an advocate and practitioner of ostensive definitions: pictures, drawings, examples (rhetorical figures), and even sound files. Are they encyclopedic? Even if they are, they seem to correspond closely to the idea that a word often has a central concrete representative.

But verbal definitions necessarily place a great reliance on the selection by the definition writer of salient features to include in the definition. I cannot think of a better way to find out what features of the referent of a word are most saliently evoked by its use than by an attestation process. We routinely do this for words other than proper nouns, unless we are just lazily copying other dictionaries' definitions.

For many words we have only technical definitions of terms that clearly are normally used without knowledge of the elements of the definitions we provide. The average golfer using a golf club with a "titanium shaft" is completely unaware of virtually all of the components of the definition we provide: "a chemical element, atomic number 22; it is a strong, corrosion-resistant transition metal, used to make light alloys for aircraft etc." It is not merely a problem of length. The problem begins with the choice of the word "element" rather than, say, "material" or "metal". I have no objection to having a definition such as ours in the context {{chemistry}}. But the folks who name products are far ahead of us in understanding what such words actually mean to normal people ("hi-tech", high-performance, high-status). We could do worse than pay attention to such usage in preparing definitions. ::::I would suggest that "titanium" needs a first definition something like "A strong metal used in demanding aerospace, marine, medical, and sports applications." The second definition can be something more like what we have.

Almost all definitions of basic technical terms should have a general non-technical definition reflecting actual usage. Something similar would apply to a term like "goose", whose first sense should not include its taxon. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The average golfer using a golf club with a 'titanium shaft' is completely unaware of virtually all of the components of the definition we provide": Well, so what? If I say "titanium" and you say "titanium" we're still talking about the same thing, and using the same word in the same sense, even if one of us knows more about titanium than the other. A golfer who speaks of his golf club's "titanium shaft" doesn't just mean that the shaft is made of a strong metal with certain other users, he means that it's made of the strong metal that chemists and materials scientists refer to as "titanium". If you give him a club with a titanium shaft and one with an adamantium shaft and he finds no golfing-relevant difference between the two, his reaction will be, "wow, adamantium is just as good as titanium!", not "O.K., so 'adamantium' means 'titanium'". (That's a cool thing about words: we can use them to store information that we don't even have. I can use "titanium" coherently and meaningfully to mean "whatever it is that 'titanium' means". But it'd be a crappy dictionary that tried to define it that way!)
Overall, I think you're making a great point, but I think you're taking it too far, and — if I may speak relevantly for a moment — our current CFI still don't demand three cites for each aspect of a definition, even if you convinced me that they should.
—Ruakh_TALK 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against there being a "technical" definition. I object to its having no usage context. I believe that your position requires a great deal more acceptance of authority than one that is based more on attestation.

In the case of Baidouska, I have added an external video link so as to provide another ostensive definition, in addition to the WP article linke. Combined these links make something far better IMHO than a definition based on what one person thinks salient that is short enough for a dictionary.

I have brought this item here for attestation for a few reasons:

just in case someone could actually show that there is attestation in some context.
to illustrate what is meant by encyclopedic in a definition.
to discourage contributors from abdicating the task of making usage-based English definitions.
to defend the proper role of a dictionary relative to an encyclopedia.
to justify in advance the editing of encyclopedic entries into dictionary entries.

I am greatly relieved that I do not need to bring each encyclopedic definition to RfV.

Citations:Lassie is a complement to this discussion, illustrating IMO problems with many of the citations that might be used to justify encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need multiple definitions that mean the same thing. If the set of creatures signified as "goose" in common usage is equivalent to the set of creatures signified by the taxon, then we should use the taxon. Moreover, define goose without including its taxon. Give me a definition of goose that completely specifies the creature in such a way that it's clear that swans and ducks aren't geese, and isn't encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Pocket provides: "a fairly large web-footed long-necked migratory bird." Encarta provides: "long-necked water bird: a large waterfowl with a long neck and webbed feet, noted for its seasonal migrations and distinctive honking sound. Geese resemble swans but have shorter necks. Subfamily Anserinae. I admire the three-level Encarta approach: 1., the bold terse lead, 2., the longer, ordinary-English definition, and 3., the link to the world of taxons. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo Ruakh again. What I would add is perhaps this: A quotation serving as an attestation of a use of a term is typically silent on the details of what the term means precisely because it already presupposes that the reader knows the term. A sentence that does not presuppose the previous knowledge of the term typically explains the term, and is thereby qualified as a mention of the term, and thus a poor quotation for attestation purposes. Quotations attesting details of the meanings of terms can probably be found for many terms, but these would be mention quotations, a set disjuct with the set that we normally accept. --Dan Polansky 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the last two sentences and, voila, it's no longer an encyclopedic definition. ---> Tooironic 05:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, but the existence of more than one sentence or more than 40 words in a definition is not necessary for a definition to be encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No real opinion, but the Wikipedia article is Paidushko_horo, and w:Special:WhatLinksHere/Paidushko_horo doesn't even list this in the redirects, suggesting our title is either wrong, or a less common form. The translations seem to "support" this too. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as cleaned up. Or was it actually verification that is needed? DAVilla 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking, yes, three citations please. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Mglovesfun I would like to see citations. I see only two in Usenet and only one in Google Books that could be acceptable. - -sche 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking. I don't think that the English terms attestably bears the meaning relating to the beat. What the dance is and what the word means are the essence of the distinction between encyclopedic and lexicographic, especially at a truly descriptive dictionary as we claim to be. If we want to claim that, because some people (trained musicians ?) attestably use the translations of the word as having the meaning of having a certain beat, the English word has that meaning to general users of a dictionary, we can do so. But I believe that we are eliminating distinctions among languages and among usage contexts within languages. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific portion of the definition that needs attestation (or simple deletion) is: "done to a 5-beat meter, divided into "quick-slow" units of two and three beats." If English attestation is found, the attestation source may provide a clue about usage context of a definition with such a component. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what the dance is is part of the definition. Our definitions should make it clear how something differs from similar somethings--"A folk dance of Bulgaria and Macedonia" is a lousy definition because it doesn't give you any way to distinguish between this folk dance and others. It's like defining communism as "an economic theory".--Prosfilaes 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  But the words that create the discrimination should be intelligible to a general reader and not require a paragraph. In the case of Wiktionary, we have multiple means of providing a user with a means of gaining a more direct experience of the definiendum: a photo or drawing, a sound file, a link to WP (and/or other sister projects), references, and links to external sites. In this case, I believe that the YouTube video I added is vastly superior in breadth of reach and specificity to the wordy definition and even the WP article. I don't think a still picture is much help and couldn't find a sound or image file at Commons.
  
  As for communism, I don't think our definition at sense 1 is especially good at distinguishing communism from the ideology of the British Labor Party in the '50s, a distinction that seemed very important to users of the word at the time. It might be an adequate definition for a dictionary, but it does not succeed in making the distinctions that would ideally be made. I think this is a problem of any usefully short definition that reflects actual usage. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem with a photograph or video is that it doesn't express the range of the subject. We can illustrate Chihuahua with the same picture as dog definition 1 and dog definition 2. The same creature might fit all three definitions, but the meaning of those definitions is quite different. Moreover, words are the only medium that can reach the blind and deaf and even deaf-blind.
  
  communism is its own bear, like any other word that has been used and abused as a political football over the years. But we still need definitions that separate it from capitalism and feudalism, as users are generally agreed it's separate from those things, and definitions that briefly explain its relation to socalism.--Prosfilaes 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem of diverse natural kinds can be addressed by galleries and by single photos suggesting the range of possibilities. The latter is quite easily found for dogs. In any event users don't expect perfect knowledge from a dictionary or even an encyclopedia. I always expect users to select the appropriate medium for their capabilities. I have nothing against providing technical definitions and links to WP. If such definitions would provide a means for the differently abled to get a deeper understanding of "titanium" or "dog" or "Baidouska", then so much the better. But it should not be necessary for standard-configuration humans to have had a Physics or Chemistry class to get some basic idea of what titanium is, as "element" presupposes IMO.
  
  In my discussion of communism, I was just trying to work with the example you provided. Why don't you take a run at improving our definition of communism so it exemplifies the kind of differentiation that verbal dictionary definitions can achieve. At least we would then have one better definition.
  Do we have that many users that don't know what an element is? Provide a link to element, then; it's certainly a simpler word and easier to explain then metal.--Prosfilaes 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Very few people have any direct experience of titanium in the real world except as the metal. They experience titanium dioxide as a pigment. To insist on the superior reality of the technical view seems to be a new technocratic form of prescriptivism. "Metal" may hard to explain because it is not a new-fangled artificial concept, but one that has existed for a long time and has intuitive meaning relating to the tactile and other qualities that people experience. That some materials that chemists call metals don't have some these qualities and that metals don't have those qualities in all environments does not diminish the linguistic reality that metal has a principally non-technical meaning in the language. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirov

Rfv-sense X 2:

a small village in Adygea, Russia
a town in Armenia

Normal English attestation, usage not mention, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

give a damn

Rfv-sense for the meaning of "to look after". Is this really distinct from the first sense? bd2412 T 19:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD or delete outright - no, it isn't. Usex is clearly for sense #1. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not attestable as a distinct sense, I see no reason to go to RFD. I just wasn't sure that there might not be some real evidence of a separate use. bd2412 T 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disney

Rfv-sense X 4. Various entities connected with the corporate entity. I believe each needs to be separately attested under WT:BRAND, but in any event, attested. There is a missing sense of the same type without the very specific entities that, I think, may be more easily attested under WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baer

Did this Limburgish word really mean "dog" in the past? I have not found references. - -sche 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Limburgish Wiktionary apparently lists it, too (but doesn't note it being obsolete). --JorisvS 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sunyata

"Sunyata" is used in philosophy and theology discussions particularly East - West dialogue. Apparently someone deleted it and cited a general article on Criteria for Inclusion, almost none of which was pertinent. Without further specification, it seems that the concern was

"Note:# Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry)."

The word sunyata, like karma and nirvana (from which it is linked), is used in English discussion, albeit not as widely. In other words, it is like, if not spaghetti, certainly it is like rigatoni.

Procedural, if one or more editors believe sunyata does not meet CFI, I would request a seven day minimum RFD discussion thread, thank you. Geof Bard 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not RFD; this is RFV; and the proof is in the pudding. If you want the senses to stay, provide 3 proper citations for each.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what this is and is not. Thank you. Maybe I should have posted this as a request for comments in the Tea Room since I apparently have the burden of providing the verifications. Didn't think there would be any harm asking others to contribute verifications. Since when are deletions just made arbitrarily without notice and without the seven day discussion, anyway? I am being patient with the process here, which violates it's own practice as well as its own posted rules. If sunyata should be deleted, so should alfredo and nirvana. All I ask is the seven days of discussion rather than deletion-without-notice. Geof Bard 19:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI" part of his deletion summary was not really the reason for deletion; it was that it had a Sanskrit language header but it was in Latin script. It should be okay now.

When administrators delete a page, they have the option of selecting the reason from a drop-down list of reasons. As a result, sometimes the reasons are unclear or vague when they don't think that hard as to which reason really applies. It happens that there's nothing in CFI about using the wrong script, but he probably assumed there was somewhere. I've done that myself on occasion. In this case, he added an extra note in the deletion summary so that's how you can know the problem.

If you're ever unsure why an entry was deleted, you can always ask an administrator such as me (or better still the deleting administrator) for clarification. If you still think that it was deleted in error, you can post on WT:BP or a similar forum.

—Internoob (Disc•Cont)18:59, 26 February 2011 reposted from UserTalk by third party

1 (UTC)

RFV ~~Annuled~~ Withdrawn by Original Requesting Editor RENEWED by New Requesting Editor User:Ruakh The entry existed unchallenged under an alternate spelling (shunyata and no third party requested verification. Administrator Internoob, who presumably can see the deleted entry, stated the issue "was that it had a Sanskrit language header but was in Latin script". That same admin stated "it should be ok now." That language substantially closes the RFV, if it had been valid in the first place. However, it was based upon the erroneous presumption that the deletion was for other reasons. Additionally, six citations have been placed on the sunyata entry, three for each sense. (Note, this is not a closure-by-Non-Admin, it is a revocation by the Requster. . Geof Bard 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No annulments granted once the RfV has been consummated by discussion, except to especially generous cash donors to WMF. The citations do not all seem to be from durably archived sources. The definitions appear tendentious as well, not necessarily corresponding to, say, newspaper usage of the term. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV's are sometimes annuled by request; but only if no-one objects; if someone does, they can simply add back the rfv tag and start again. The more I read this debate, the less I understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This started when SemperBlotto deleted the entry sunyata because it had a Sanskrit header and was written in Latin script. Then Geof added it again and inquired here and on my talk page (at almost the same time) as to why it was deleted without discussion. I see that he has reposted what I said on my talk page above and I stand by that. It should be alright assuming that it is attestable, which I have no reason to doubt that it is. [112] —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah I appreciate all the comments. Problem - deleted pages not visible to non-admins, so we have to guess what was deleted and why, specifically. I thought by the time I wrote sunyata I had learned from Bodhipathapradīpa but not sure. Just going by what the deletion citation was, it looked like a matter of demonstrating English usage. But after citing six, and I don't see that they are necessarily so non "durable", I noticed the same word shunyata which, like most words, does not have citations. So, whatever people want to do but if anyone serious thinks it is rfd please template it thanks. Geof Bard 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Ruakh renewed the RFV? I think that this edit was only a notice to readers that this discussion existed on this page. Did he say somewhere else that he wanted to? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I hereby say so. The entry is a total mess, and valid, formatted, linkified quotations will help determine which parts of the entry need to be fixed and which parts need to be axed. (They will also help with the fixing of the former parts.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Ruakh actually does some of the work not just whining but with five quotations, surely some of them are "valid", as compared to zero quotations at shunyata. What is the big deal about this particular entry, there are hundreds of thousands of entries which are not nearly as well documented - for instance karma, which only has one example quote, not a citation; nothingness, no quotes, no citations; Zeit: no quotes, no citations. Geof Bard 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Anyone can RFV any entry. (2) Surely some of them are valid doesn't cut it. All of the citations should follow CFI and be appropriately formatted. (3) Generally citations will not be demanded for words that can obviously meet CFI. Karma, nothingness, Zeit, all are words that probably have a hundred thousand possible valid citations. RFVing them won't do any good. For this entry, it's not obvious without cites that it will pass CFI, at least to me, and even if it does, there's a question of whether all the definitions do, and whether all definitions are clearly distinct.--Prosfilaes 02:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hand-egg

This doesn't appear to be a real word or definition. There are no mentions of it's use. 184.97.225.195 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hyphenated hits on Google Books or Google Groups. —Ruakh_TALK 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the word used with that definition a few times in normal conversation. So I can confirm it is real. But it was spelled handegg with no hyphen then. —CodeCa t 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only written mention I could find was an editorial from the New York Times. [113] The term appears to be just used in online culture. I'm not sure of Wiktionary policies on inclusion but I assumed it was not a repository for internet culture and neologisms. 184.97.225.195 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the NYT cite is mention not use. DAVilla 06:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move the content to handegg. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cetera paribus

L2 header Latin, but categorized as English phrase. I would think it an uncommon misspelling/misconstruction of ceteris paribus in English and probably just an error in Classical Latin. I have no idea about its possible standing in Vulgar Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a simple mistake by an English speaker mixing up "et cetera" with "ceteris paribus". I suggest moving this to RFD. —An gr 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hickster

Does this make any sense to anyone? SemperBlotto 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[comment removed due to copyright violation]

That's kinda what I got out of it--someone trying to fit in pretentiously or awkwardly, a wanna-be, poser. Does it carry any pejorative connotation? Leasnam 20:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dàirich

Can't seem to find this in any dictionary, though I did find (and add) (deprecated template usage) dàir, the supposed etymon of this. embryomystic 22:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Śūnyatā

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watutso

Tagged by a new user but not listed. Watutsi seems to be okay, the other three forms don't seem to be attested on Google Books at all, so we'll need other sources. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wellness

Italian only: tagged but not listed. Google Books suggests this might pass, but it's very rare indeed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see only a very recent and very rare use of the word, limited to a few company names (health centers, spas, etc) and "creative" commercial communications; the word "benessere" is the litteral correspondent to the English word. I wouldn't say the word is used in Italian. --Fantasma 19:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is modern. It has made it to [114] SemperBlotto 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added four citations for "la wellness"; "il wellness" actually gets more hits though many of them seem to refer to company names. It's very rare as either masculine or feminine, but seems to be attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abduction

Rfv-sense X 3.

(computing) The process of inference to the best explanation; abductive reasoning.
Determining the best or most plausible of many possible explanations for a set of facts
(education) The process used in getting students to see disciplinary regularity through the use of metaphor.

We have a sense for the logic context that seems valid: A syllogism or form of argument in which the major is evident, but the minor is only probable.

The three RfVed senses have no citations, the first two seeming possibly included in the logic sense above, the education sense seems tendentious, possibly a copy of an ad hoc definition in a monograph or text. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/s

Do we allow HTML tags and other syntax to be part of our dictionary? (test rendered as test) If so, should they be verified as being in common use, and how should they be used? At the end, the beginning, or the middle of a clause or statement? And is this the correct entry to use, or should it be relegated to the unsupported titles appendix instead, where it can use the < and > tags in the title? TeleComNasSprVen 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry looks really wrong; if it were actually in use and attestable as such we'd keep it, but I can't imagine it's the case. HTML isn't considered to be any 'language' so it doesn't meet CFI, but it's claiming to be humorous use (in English) of faux-HTML. But... nah. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Web page listed in the entry's References section, the pagetitle is correct (sans angle brackets). This is not an HTML tag, but something (if our entry — and said Web page — is correct) people use to tag their sentences to indicate sarcasm online. (Compare, though the analogies are imperfect, (deprecated template usage) quote used to tag a quotation, and (deprecated template usage) :-) used to tag something lighthearted.) It is English and carries meaning, so seems to be inclusible if verifiable.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the same for strikethroughs (as in "I did not mean to say that"). TeleComNasSprVen 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be in NS:0 if it's an unsupported title. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it, as long as it's used in running English text. DAVilla 06:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MW

Rfv-sense: Initialism (linguistics) Merriam-Webster. Even here, MediaWiki is more widely spoken of as the MW initialism than the other dictionary is. So I doubt anyone using MW to refer to Merriam-Webster. It doesn't gain any prominence as an entry/initialism in our dictionary over something like the w:New Oxford American Dictionary for example. TeleComNasSprVen 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to format these citations now, but here are three: [115], [116] (by, yes, that Ben Zimmer), and [117]. (The first of those three is also by a person whose name and other info we know (which I mention because I've seen someone here say he doesn't like pseudonymous Usenet posts as cites (though I've never seen anyone say he doesn't like pseudonymous books)).)—msh210℠ (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

語感

Original contributor does not list proficiency in Japanese or Korean, and no references are cited. -- A-cai 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search gives pretty much what you wanted for the verification: [118] [119]. What's the point of this request? Doubting the ability of others without providing some evidence of it is not the way to go. 129.78.32.22 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to cite it. Anyone? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ŝpruci

I'm seeing a couple transitive uses in Google News, but nothing to indicate that there's a different transitive meaning, or even that those uses aren't simple mistakes. I put one in an HTML comment, since I didn't think it supported the sense. Furthermore the current example sentence implies a far more specialized usage then the definition offers.--Prosfilaes 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comeuppance

Rfv-sense: "An outcome which is justly deserved (good or bad)."

Easily attestable, except that the definition states the outcome may be good or bad. Is it ever used in the "good" sense? Note this is a wotd nomination. — Pingku^dimmi 10:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never seen it used in a "good" way. The OED agrees, but says that its synonym is (deprecated template usage) deserts (which can be good or bad). So it's a definite maybe. SemperBlotto 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "[hope] for his|etc coomeuppance" and only got quotes like:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2972: Parameter 1 is required.

Searches for "good|better|best comeuppance" yield a sense of "good|better|best" that means something like "thorough".

My expectation is that it is almost exclusively negative, with the exceptions based on error or meant in humor. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most OneLook dictionaries have it as exclusively negative. Many have "deserts" as exclusively or usually negative. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we handle this? In the definition, in the usage notes, or perhaps both? — Pingku^dimmi 09:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Not having seen a single instance of usage with a positive outcome, I am not inclined to credit the more weaselly definitions that have a "usually" or "especially". BTW, the etymology is from (deprecated template usage) come up (before a judge), rarely a positive experience. This needs to get citations of any negative-outcome usage over the next four weeks. If it is scheduled for WOTD before then, it should be removed. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

viâ

English alternative spelling of via. Two more citations needed. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three, though this passes as "clearly widespread use" IMO. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done, but I don't really see why this needed to be an RFV, considering how many thousands of hits Google Books got on this, and how clear it was that at least many of them were in this sense. (Possibly all, but I didn't check.)--Prosfilaes 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the original scanned pages, the first and third of the cites have the headword in italics, which we don't consider as valid English attestation of such a spelling. I couldn't get access to the second citation via the link. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (now reordered) second cite has Lignes de Normandie (England viâ Dieppe or Le Havre), which means it didn't put viâ into italics to mark it as foreign.--Prosfilaes 00:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems dated, UK, AFAICT. Perhaps it was widespread there once. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cleverality

We need cites for this. DCDuring TALK 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband soon gets tired of "too much cleverality."[120] It was real cleverality in the callant.[121] Sheridan might be clever; yes, Sheridan was clever — scamps often are — but Johnson hadn'ta spark of cleverality in him.[122] What exactly is behind this taking to RFV words that can be trivially cited by Google Books?--Prosfilaes 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't nail down a date or author for the quote attributed to Bronte. Which edition of Gaiskell's biography? Was it from a leter to or from Nussey? It seems to be second or third hand. Anyway, I have other cites. It is cited to my satisfaction. DCDuring TALK 04:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hyperochality

The entry contains one cite for hyperocality. I can find no other cites for either spellling. The one cite is not from a well-known work AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

juror#Italian

Non-existent word. The translation of juror in Italian is (deprecated template usage) giurato. See also User_talk:Msh210#it_juror. Balabiot 08:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by a very infrequent user who has no babel boxes. Basically, it's wrong. SemperBlotto 09:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it:google books:"il juror" does actually get 24 hits in Italian, many of these are for "Juror", but weirdly, it might actually pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All those seem to be mis-indexing of furor (apocopic form of (deprecated template usage) furore). SemperBlotto 19:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

farrant

Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing a bunch of mentions and even some uses for a "handsome, neat, orderly" and even "good" sense (for farrantly (current redlink) more, but also possibly sufficiently many for farrant or especially the older farande), but none for the RFVed sense of "short, brief".—msh210℠ (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a Surrey slang, but perhaps only in recent usage (4 years or so), what is the Wiktionary stance on that kind of thing? Maybe better as an Urban Dictionary entry?

Needs written attestation. Sometimes local words like this are only ever spoken, and we can't document that. Wiktionary is a written project. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

triquarter

Nothing obvious on Google book search. Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 17:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've assembled some citations but it looks like a word that has been repeatedly nonced. No way the definitions can be supported based on what I've found. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphenated citations currently on the citations page (except perhaps the last of them) seem clearly to mean "three-quarter", "of three quarters". If all these people thought they were coining words, you'd think some of them would put it in quotation marks or add "if you will" or something, which none of them did (in the quoted passages). I think they're good cites (not for the RFVed spelling, though).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesha

Per User talk:Amit6#Nepalia, Pakistania, Bangladesha et al.. Cannot find any use in Latin, I did try to Vatican website and it too has no hits at all for Bangladesha, Bangladeshae or Bangladesham. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB have added one citation each for Pakistania and Nepalia. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mak su

English: a dish. I see three Web hits for "eat mak su", all of which capitalize it as Mak Su. There are other senses on bgc, whihc makes it a little hard to search for. (They may well be transliterations, though.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vranyo

In the google books hits that I've seen so far this transcription of a Russian word appears in italics and/or preceded or immediately followed with an explanation. That wouldn't seem to indicate that it is part of the English lexicon. If the Russian entry has the transcription, then users would find the meaning anyway. DCDuring TALK 03:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI says “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” is a great quote. Policy does not support your demand for an explanationless quotation.--Prosfilaes 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand, well sit actually, corrected. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not italicized, though....—msh210℠ (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iPSC

SC doesn't exist as an initialism for stem cell (as purported in this entry), so this should be more difficult to find attestation for, if the attempt is at all possible. TeleComNasSprVen 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try? Google scholar results are easy to find 65.95.15.144 05:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wonder if we should include Google Scholar as an attestable source in our Searchable external archives index. TeleComNasSprVen 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a medical/biology topic, there's always PubMed 65.95.15.144 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should prefer attestation that is not behind a pay wall. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medline is free, I think. And comprises journal and proceedings articles only, I think.—msh210℠ (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

synthobolic

Appears to be entirely Protologisms material. Not a single gbooks hit. TeleComNasSprVen 05:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a commercial product (capitalised). Deleted SemperBlotto 08:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch

Rfv-sense

The largest city in the South Island of New Zealand (named after the town in England).

The Wikipedia entry does not say that it is named after the town in England, nor does the this New Zealand tourism website. Is this accurate? 65.95.15.144 15:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be controversial - see [123]. SemperBlotto 16:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's etymology anyway, just remove it and close the rfv, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Ruakh_TALK 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two main NZ sources for the city's etymology ("Wise's New Zealand Guide" and A.W.Reed's "Placenames of New Zealand") both state that it is not named for the English town. According to Reed, the city's founder, John Robert Godley, named it after Christ's Church College, his Oxford University alma mater. According to Reed: In a letter to his father three years later, Godley wrote: "I hope that my old college is grateful to me for naming the future capital after it." Wise's Directory also claims that the city is named after the Oxford college. 203.184.2.36 11:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (User:Grutness, not logged in) 203.184.2.36 11:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

au four

French adverb meaning "baked". To be honest, I think it's just a complete error, but I've decided to list it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"lasagne au four" == "lasagna al forno" == "baked lasagna" == oven-cooked lasagna

"pâtes au four" == "pasta al forno" == "baked pasta" == oven-cooked pasta

"pomme de terre au four" == "baked potato" == oven-cooked potato

"dinde au four" == "roast turkey"

I don't know, I've seen it used that way... 'cooked in an oven' as equivalent to 'baked'.

65.95.15.144 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the error? Do you mean it should be Adjective? Anyway, this is very usual, and I think this is a set phrase for this cooking mode. Lmaltier 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this means cooked in an oven (rather than on a hob or grill). So adjective sense is (deprecated template usage) baked, adverb sense is in the (deprecated template usage) oven. SemperBlotto 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps SoP, but I don't plan on nominating at RFD as it's too marginal. Striking, clear widespread use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qex

From rfc. No idea what this is, and no obvious cites in b.g.c. -- Prince Kassad 10:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hx

A strong contender for "words only in dictionaries". -- Prince Kassad 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"with a hx of" suffices handily. I assume the sense needs a Template:medicine tag.—msh210℠ (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited and tagged. - -sche 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hostis humani generis

Legal. Only one citation of this not in italics. Might be valid. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this request should be dismissed on the grounds that the use of italics does not detract from the phrase's being used in English text. When italics uses are included, the phrase is easy to attest in English texts by searching in Google books. See also #ejusdem generis below. As said, let us dismiss this nomination and get to real work that increases the value of Wiktionary to its users. --Dan Polansky 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second Dan Polansky's admonition here. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ejusdem generis

Needs citations of use in English (no italics, no quotation marks). DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual rule about italics and quotation marks. You can use italics for things like crème brûlée as it's a foreign phrase, but it's still English in the sense 'used in English'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to start blurring the distinction between use and mention, we can. I thought we didn't want to. I don't want to. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the use of italics doesn't mean the phrase is only mentioned, not used. Surely this is an example of "ejusdem generis" being used in English. In the following paragraph, personal names and even the words May and July are italicized. —An gr 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem sure to me.

Also, what part of speech does the phrase assume? Our definition defines it as a noun, a "rule", which would possibly make it English if it is so used. Is it common or proper?

But the example in the link you provided seems to deploy the italicized phrase borrowing its grammar from Latin: as if it were a prepositional phrase serving as an adjective (though it might also be deployed as if an adverb). DCDuring TALK 16:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do agree, though, that it's clearly a use and not a mention? (I'm not dismissing your other concerns, but given your earlier comment, I'd like to be clear on whether we need to keep arguing about that point or not. :-P ) —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotations that appear to use the phrase, requiring the reader to know what the phrase means in order to understand the quotations: [124], [125], [126], [127]. There are two quotations that do not even use italics: [128], [129]. The phrase "ceteris paribus" is often used in italics, but it is still used rather than mentioned; the use of italics has nothing to do with the use-mention distinction; and it is a phrase that Wiktionary should better define as one that is used in English, albeit a foreign one. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself: the use of italics has something to do with use-mention distions, as italics is often used in English instead of quotations marks. So instead of '"sun" is a word', you can write 'sun is a word'. But I do not think that the practice of putting Latin phrases in italics indicates that they are used in quotation marks, as it were; but even if they were, the italicized Latin phrases are still being used rather than mentioned. --Dan Polansky 10:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An additional issue: Whether or not we allow an English entry for (deprecated template usage) ejusdem generis, we can't have Latin entry at that page title, either — Wiktionary:About Latin#Prefer spellings with I; do not use J requires (deprecated template usage) eiusdem generis. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the later Latins (Medieval, Ecclesistical, New) use "j" and "u"?

Is "English" the right L2 for such terms rather than "Translingual"? I would think that many expressions in legal and medical Latin similarly are used in more than one European language. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DCDuring above "If we want to start blurring the distinction between use and mention, we can". Are you suggesting that de facto (as an example) when italicized isn't English, but used with no italics, it is? Use of italics can demonstrate a non-English word/term, but it's not the only way to use italics. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me is that it is a stretch to call these English. The italicization is an indication. The expressions are used in English text as if they were idioms. They do require lookup for most users. They may not be idiomatic in Latin. Should we call these Translingual based on use in multiple European languages or Latin if only in English? I really don't see why they have to be considered English. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they may not be idiomatic, or even grammatical, in Latin? When a monolingual speaker uses a phrase in his native language, then there's a good argument that it's in his native tongue, especially if it has a set meaning, and isn't a quote. It's quite likely the meaning of this in Latin, if it has one, is not nearly as limited and formal as its meaning in English.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some legal and medical Latin may actually be Translingual (more or less European). The meanings may be sufficiently shared in that community even if not idiomatic in Latin.

@DCDuring: Yeah, that bothers me, too, though not to such an extent that I would want the ==English== entries removed. But it would be nice if they had some sort of context tag, something to clearly mark them as foreign. Would that make the entries more palatable to you? The OED used to do something like that; it used a symbol (viz. ‖), but of course we always prefer textual tags for things. (In its key, the OED glosses that symbol as "not naturalized, alien". (alien) is not very clear IMHO, but (not naturalized) might work. What do you think?) —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might work for me, but how about ordinary users? Garner's Modern American Usage has some pertinent observations in its short article on italics. "[W]hen that [naturalization] happens, the terms are written in ordinary roman type." The article concludes: "A good dictionary usually provides guidance on which terms should be italicized." Would "not naturalized" be better than "usually italicized"?

I was thinking that medical and legal Latin might have merited Translingual treatment. But the problem of presentation of not-yet-naturalized terms is more general. I think it is much more noticeable for multiword terms, which are common in legal Latin. Such multiword terms seem to often resist naturalization. DCDuring TALK 01:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translingual and pronunciation: One reason for not having these phrases as translingual is that their pronunciation varies with language. Placing a tag "often italicized" or "always italicized" somewhere to the entry, whether on the definition line or into a usage note, seems worthwhile. --Dan Polansky 09:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When, as and if we actually have differing pronunciation for these usually written terms we should definitely accommodate such. In the meantime why bother? DCDuring TALK 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If at least two languages use the phrase, then there will be at least two pronunciations at some point. If only English uses the phrase, then filing the phrase under the head of "English" seems just right. I don't understand why you bother to try to get deleted this phrase via RFV, a phrase that is often used in English: I get 102,000 Google web hits and 62,400 Google books hits for the phrase when the search is constrained to "English". Your introducing statement "Needs citations of use in English" showed no sign of hesitation as if you were proceeding as a matter of routine or common practice, which really is not the case. --Dan Polansky 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought that this might perhaps not be attestable except in italics, which indicates either that a term has not been naturalized as English or that it is being mentioned not used. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

à propos de bottes

English expression? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, google books:"à propos de bottes you|are|am|is|there|the" has four hits, two of which are uses, both italicized. A better search along the same lines may yield more results, of course.—msh210℠ (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more citations, courtesy of gutenberg.org. — Pingku^dimmi 11:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the cites are italicized. I thought that italics for such an expression means that it is not English. Thus, this is presumably French, possibly dated, archaic, obsolete, or even ungrammatical in French. I had looked and found only italic/quotation-mark usage in English. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to "I thought that italics for such an expression means that it is not English". I don't think it's quite that simple; italics are used for loanwords/loan phrases in English, but that's not enough to say that these terms aren't English. WT:CFI says "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." which could be the case whether the term is italicized or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (with Mglovesfun). —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@msh210: Simply dropping the leading "à" produces many more hits: google books:"propos de bottes you|are|am|is|there|the". Google Books is diacritickally incompetent. By the way, google books:"and|or|but a propos de bottes" also gets a few dozen hits (though it only catches instances where Google Books treated "à" as "a", as opposed to as "à" or as "d" or as "u" or as something else entirely). —Ruakh_TALK 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Mglovesfun. Italics ou quotes are often used when the author cannot find the word in his dictionary, but a word is used when it is used, whatever the typography. Of course, it's English: it's valid French, and the sense used in English seems to also exist in French, but I've never heard it nor read it. Lmaltier 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I've never heard it nor read it": For the record, I'd never heard it in English, either. It seems to be dated or archaic in both languages. —Ruakh_TALK 21:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

salty water

Tagged but not listed, apparently. -- Prince Kassad 09:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From web site "Not Alone"[130]: Usually made as a clear liquid or a light-colored powder that the user mixes with water, alcohol or soda, GHB's identity is easily masked. At night clubs and raves, partiers often carry the drug around in Visine bottles or simple water bottles like the one from which Shortridge drank the day he died. The drug hasn't been dubbed salty water for nothing. Anya says, "It looks just like water. It's scary." --Hekaheka 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabasco sauce

What is this? If it is a brand name, it should be proper noun, shouldn't it? What is really the brand name here? Is it "Tabasco sauce" or "Tabasco"? Is there a common noun "tabasco sauce"? --Hekaheka 14:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is it's a genericized trademark, though I don't have any strong feelings about whether it should be capitalized in that usage. I can certainly imagine saying "Please pass the Tabasco sauce" to a friend I'm eating dinner with, even if the sauce in question is not Tabasco™ brand pepper sauce made by the McIlhenny Company of Avery Island, Louisiana. —An gr 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With "here" I suppose you mean RfV, not Wiktionary. It's here basically because we need to verify whether "Tabasco sauce" is a noun or a proper noun, or both. Current POS is "Noun", but the definition appears to be for "Proper noun". If it is a common noun, current definition looks more like an etymology.--Hekaheka 21:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Tabasco is a brand name, Tabasco sauce cannot be called a proper noun... Lmaltier 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? DCDuring TALK 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the difference between a common noun and a proper noun is related to the sense. The POS must be the same in Tabasco sauce, béchamel and gravy. Lmaltier 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of the relationship between the difference and the sense? Is the POS the same for "Ron" and "my brother-in-law", which are semantically identical and both hyponyms of "man", just as Tabasco and bechamel are hyponyms of sauce? DCDuring TALK 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at proper noun. Lmaltier 06:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I was hoping to be able to develop criteria to add to Appendix:English_proper_nouns#Proper_noun_as_Part_of_Speech_in_Wiktionary or insert in Wiktionary:English proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 12:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new version of the entry based on the assumption that "Tabasco sauce" is a common noun. The "official" way to write the brand name seems to be "TABASCO® Sauce". --Hekaheka 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it's capitalized in promotional material (including on product labels) does not mean that that's the official spelling of the brand name.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but I have the impression that brand names are almost always in all-caps. eBay, for example, has [a trademark on http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:q1ifp1.4.32 EBAY], not on "eBay"; but its user agreement and privacy policy and so on, which amount to user-facing legal documents, all use "eBay". So in the general case, I don't think there's any such thing as an "official" capitalization, one way or the other. —Ruakh_TALK 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. According to company's own web site [131] the trade mark is TABASCO®. Thus "Tabasco sauce" must be a common noun and the definition should be something else than "A trademark of..." --Hekaheka 21:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Tabasco, brand name of a sauce. Even if the manufacturer never calls it that, people do. Tabasco sauce doesn't meet the idiomaticity requirement, I don't think.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tabasco sauce" should be deleted then? --Hekaheka 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Tabasco sauce isn't a "sauce" of "tabasco". ---> Tooironic 13:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rödeln

Rfv-sense: to jack off. Actually I haven't heard of any of these senses, but de.wikt has the first one, whereas this one is nowhere to be found. -- Prince Kassad 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

epizootic

In addition to the medical sense, the entry has "(dialect, humorous) A disease or ailment."

In what dialect is "epizootic" used humorously? Rspeer 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the rural Southern and Midwestern United States, people spoke/speak of /ðə ɛpɪˈzu(ː)dɪks/, written "the epizootics" or "the epizoodics". I heard it never without the article nor without the "s" (in speech and text), but it was treated as singular, probably by analogy to "the flu" etc. Those using it of humans seemed to be aware that it was nonstandard and had properly something to do with animals, but I doubt if they knew, that the proper pronunciation was a syllable longer. Collocations were "he had the epizootics" (he was sick, he had some disease), "she got the epizootics", "don't go out in the rain dressed like that, you'll catch the epizootics" (you'll catch a cold or other illness, you'll get sick). The use is at least a hundred years old. I have added a few quotations from literature. I would say "sometimes humorous". - -sche 03:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now I know. Thanks. Rspeer 05:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche 04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— This unsigned comment was added by Rspeer (talk • contribs) at 17:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ψυχή

Are there modern (not 19-th century) dictionaries listing "breath" as a meaning of ψυχή? LSJ does not give it as a meaning and in fact argues against it. Conversely, Woodhouse's English-Greek dictionary: a vocabulary of the Attic language does not list ψυχή as a possible translation of "breath". --Lambiam 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the question for RfV; the question is, did people, in Ancient Greek written sources, use ψυχή for breath, and can we find those attestations?--Prosfilaes 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded; we normally only allow primary sources. Rarely for poorly attested languages we will allow dictionary use "in good faith". The problem is, I don't know who can verify this; certainly not me. It would be a shame for this to fail merely because we have nobody to even attempt to cite it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some texts and some references. If we delete the meaning "breath" at the end of this RFV, the references mentioning it will be sufficient in the entry. - -sche 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited existing senses and added senses. I have not found proof for "breath" (literal/casual, not life-breath) nor two senses which I have now added RFVsense to: "the conscious self, as the seat of emotions, desires" and "{{philosophy}} the universal spirit". I may find proof of the first one soon (let both sit here a month). - -sche 04:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lanner

I have added a quotation to Jawjah/Jawjuh — from 1867! I can however not find quotations of Lanner. - -sche 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hov

Does this word exist in English outside of Urban Dictionary? Rspeer 06:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pompatus

English. "One who is pompous". The term was used in a Steve Miller song in the phrase "pompatus of love". In some sense the song is a "well-known work". But as with all such hapax legomena, it is quite unclear what the actual meaning of the term is. The entry contains one other apparently valid use. I moved a mention to citations. As I read the history, this seems to have failed RfV, but not been deleted. As it only needs one citation and there has even been a movie with the title "Pompatus of Love", I am offering it for reconsideration here. (The low-grossing movie involves four guys sitting in a bar trying to determine the meaning of the "pompatus of love" from the song.) DCDuring TALK 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three citations, but I'm not confident that any two of the three support the same sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the pop music world, Gangster of Love might be a well-known work. It is almost certainly better known by more people than, say, Finnegan's Wake: For example, more people can recite parts of it. There are two competing theories about the meaning of the word, which are comparable to the authority- and etymology-based "meanings" assigned to other words dependent on the "well-known work" exception to normal attestation. Relying on such eisegeses of a small number of "experts" for meaning seems contrary to what Wiktionary tries to do. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

𐌿𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃

Neologism? -- Prince Kassad 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This word is attested a few times, you can see it on Wikisource: [132] The dative ulbandau is attested twice and the genitive ulbandaus once. —CodeCa t 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it consensus that if the infinitive is never attested, it is not used as the lemma form? Of course the dative and genitive forms should have entries though. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's some reason to doubt that this is the nominative singular, I don't see why it shouldn't host the entry (though we should probably indicate exactly which forms are and are not attested). —Ruakh_TALK 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My uncertain take is the following. The lemma, which for this Gothic word happens to be the infinitive form, does not really stand for the infinitive form but for the whole word as a pack of inflected forms. If enough inflected forms are attested, it should be the infinitive that hosts the word, per its being the lemma. I once had a talk with Atelaes on Ancient Greek, in which I understood he way saying the same thing. --Dan Polansky 09:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominative singular is not attested, but the two forms that are attested are such that there is no other possible nominative singular form according to Gothic grammar. There is only one declension in Gothic where the dative has -au and the genitive has -aus, and that is the u-stem declension which has a nominative singular in -us. —CodeCa t 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any access to the original Gothic script? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. [133] is virtually the entire set of Gothic text in existence. [134] has a couple pages that aren't part of the Bible. It's Latin script, as everything besides the original manuscripts and Wiktionary is Latin script; I don't believe the texts have ever been printed in the Gothic script.--Prosfilaes 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

belieber

English, eye dialect of believer. Not seeing it in the first coupla pages at google books:belieber the.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following link finds 4 or 5 uses in English (but are they typos? I don't know): http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=belieber&num=10&lr=lang_en#q=%22belieber%22&hl=fr&lr=lang_en&tbs=bks:1,lr:lang_1en&ei=v552Tb-lPIet8AOd74CgDA&start=0&sa=N&fp=a8df42124514675e Lmaltier 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems comparable to mas'r. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now tri-cited. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Striking as passed.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GROLIES

There is a mention at [135], initial Google Book search shows only hits for grolies (Dutch, I assume). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFN

Normal for Norfolk. Same source as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GLM

Good looking mum. Same source as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UBI

No hits for google books:"got an|a ubi on|to" or same on ggc. As this is by our new friend Polaisz, who's been adding a lot of these, that's the extent of my effort.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that he's an old friend. SemperBlotto 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bieber

I dispute people naming their children after Justin Bieber. (Justin, however, is a common name.) TeleComNasSprVen 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says surname, not given name. I think three citations would be pathetically easy to find. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. The entry doesn't claim, and has never claimed, that people name their children after Justin Bieber; so you can dispute that hypothetical claim all you want, but not on this page. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deep sleep

Rfv-sense: (fiction) Artificially induced hibernation in humans for the purpose of long-distance travel. Does WT:FICTION apply? This is presumably not the same as either an SoP sense or a medical sense. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why WT:FICTION would be a concern; the cites I'm finding are from very different, and very marginal, science fiction universes.--Prosfilaes 05:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited; none of the universes bear any relation, and the last is at least nominally not fictional.--Prosfilaes 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

witcher

Rfv-sense "with you". Eminently plausible, but I'm not seeing it.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the collocations "go(ing) witcher", "talk(ing) witcher", "come witcher" and "coming witcher" and I found no relevant quotations. I tried "do witcher", but did not sieve the many quotations of "dowitcher". - -sche 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One hit with "I'm witcher". — Pingku^dimmi 09:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be alternative form of witcha, if it is even attestable? DCDuring TALK 13:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another; "on witcher". (Although this is actually "with your.") — Pingku^dimmi 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damned facts. I suppose, both witcher and witcha could be either "with your" or "with you", but I'd guess more often "with you" for witcha and "with your" for witcher. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Etymology section for "with your", with cites. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an instance of a contraction of "which are". — Pingku^dimmi 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Black

Needs to meet WT:FICTION.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sisterfucker

"(India, vulgar, offensive) A member of an upper caste, particularly a Brahmin." Ultimateria 03:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three citations now given seem to verify its existence, but not this sense in particular. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a definition to match the quotations. That definition is cited, the original definition is not. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bov

Sounds made-up. This is identical to the Urban Dictionary entry, which incidentally is the only relevant Google hit I can get for this meaning. Rspeer 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh. Supposed to be an adjective, but the definition is that of a verb. SemperBlotto 08:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no usable content. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just going to go ahead and remove that section now. Rspeer 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no complaint about that action in this case, but in general an RFV case lasts at least a month.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poppysmic

This is actually linked to from User:Brian0918/Hotlist/P6, but the eight Google Book hits seem to be 'mentions' not 'uses'. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, it's a nonce word (from Ulysses) - related to the Latin (deprecated template usage) poppysma. SemperBlotto 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The James Joyce stuff calls on the issues brought up at WT:BP#Newspeak. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

educocide

From RfD. Most cites listed are mere mentions. -- Prince Kassad 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing cites entered by a user apparently with same name as cited author. I can't find any durably archived cites at our usual sources. There is a Scholar cite by the same author, but it doesn't seem durably archived. "Educacide", though not necessarily with the same meaning, gets some hits. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fifamigo

From RfD. fifamigi was also nominated, but it seems to be cited already so I didn't include it here. -- Prince Kassad 09:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like fifamigi, it's not thick on the ground, but soc.culture.esperanto held three cites from unique authors and threads.--Prosfilaes 22:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You like X, don't you Squidward?

Any takers? Nothing obvious on Google book search. SemperBlotto 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently originates in SpongeBob SquarePants. 86.184.132.79 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad entry title too, should be you like something, don't you Squidward. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a bad entry. Chuck it. TeleComNasSprVen 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity IRA

From RfD. Needs citations that meet the company name CFI. -- Prince Kassad 00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to meet the company name CFI. It's not a company, it's a terrorist organisation.--Dmol 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applying such a standard is a sensible approach to avoiding encyclopedic content in a dictionary. Political party names, like brands and company names, are similar in potential for spam as well as encyclopedic content. Not-for-profit spam seems as bad as any other kind to me. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV is not a place where you should be pushing your yet another deletionist invention. You have BP and RFD for the purpose. The term exists; there is nothing to attest. --Dan Polansky 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong to RFV: This is not a company name, and even if it were, there is no voted-on regulation for company names. The RFV question "is this attestable" is clearly "yes". You may try to push it through RFD, where you can vote "delete". --Dan Polansky 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say this too often, but I agree with Dan Polansky. Brand name of who? Company name? How is this a brand name more than say, Dublin or Belfast? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Polansky, you are clearly not familiar with our CFI. Please read Wiktionary:CFI#Company_names. -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this says is "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested.". It says nothing about terrorist groups and the like. SemperBlotto 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Kassad, I know of the unvoted-on paragraph on company names. What I have written still holds: "... there is no voted-on regulation for company names." --Dan Polansky 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals mentions the Red Cross, which is the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations (if I'm not mistaken). So we have the name of a company noninclusible, and the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations inclusible. This seems to fall in between those, though closer to the being the name of a company, as the abbreviated official name of an organization. (Technically, a company, in one sense of company, but I'm not sure whether that's the sense meant in the CFI.) If it comes to a show of hands, I say to exclude it per the company-name rule, based on the two points that (a) it technically is a company and (b) even if that's not the sense of company meant in the CFI, an organization is similar enough to a company to be governed by the same rule.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Company names is not terribly well phrased, but I take it to mean that company names aren't included, period. (More precisely, I think it's saying that if a company name is also a family name, then that's included; and if a company name is also a common word, then that's included. So we include (deprecated template usage) Disney as a surname, and (deprecated template usage) fox as a common noun, but we don't include them as company names.) Therefore, the statement that it "Needs citations that meet the company name CFI" seems like another way of saying "Needs to be deleted after a month", because there simply is no such thing as a citation that meets the company name CFI. Right? It would be like listing a word here as "Needs citations that meet the protologism CFI", or "Needs citations that meet the NISOP CFI." —Ruakh_TALK 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no principled reason for treating this encyclopedic organization differently than any other. bd2412 T 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bescheiden

Rfv-sense: German verb, (law or administration) to notify, to inform. I'm totally not familiar with this word as a verb. Google seems to return some hits, but not with this meaning. -- Prince Kassad 17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yippie

Rfv-sense: A person who straddles yuppie and hippie mentality or lifestyle.

This seems like a re-interpretation of the term. I am skeptical. If attestable, the purported definition seems to suggest a separate etymology. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blend of yuppie and hippie, I assume. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

intervarsity

Rfv-sense: a school or college team. Tagged but not listed. -- Prince Kassad 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the original version it makes more sense, BTW I thought varsity was US only, I'd never heard the word till I saw it on a US TV show. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this is only an adjective in the UK (and often hyphenated). SemperBlotto 08:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's total tosh, but if it does exist it ought to be pretty easy to find (an intervarsity, intervarsities). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations seem to support a sense for "an intervarsity competition". Unless the intervarsity in question is a team that only exists once a year. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

schentsch

Much to my surprise, this doesn't seem to be used at all. It's at RfV on de.wiktionary as well. -- Prince Kassad 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nub

Rfv-sense http://www.luckymojo.com/tkclitoris.html

Never heard of it; what about "Refers to someone with strange qualities." Sounds at best informal, at worst total tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clitoris sense cited. I removed the vulgar; maybe I'm wrong, but the cites I see came off as euphemistic at best, and no more vulgar than clitoris at worst.--Prosfilaes 23:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rmv

This isn't even any common, or at least I've never seen this used. -- Prince Kassad 09:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it in the past; conversely I've listed it at User:Mglovesfun/to do in "to verify". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cher

Colloquial NZ. Unsupported by citation or authority. DCDuring TALK 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

erupt

Rfv-sense: vomit. Uncited, not in OneLook dictionaries AFAICT. Not even in Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mass

Rfv-sense: adjective. Just attributive use of noun. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other dictionaries (Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster) have it as an adjective, and you've presented no evidence that it's a noun. —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May as well just cite it, though, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. DCDuring has been abusing this page for a long time, and I'm sick of it. I'm not really opposed to his listing this sort of question here — RFD or the Tea room might be better, but whatever — but I reject his pretense that these are real RFV questions, and I see no reason to spend time citing something when lack of citations is not the problem and is not even an issue. —Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is with the entry/PoS/sense at RfV, AFAIK. The specific definition at mass#Adjective seems particularly suspect. Perhaps if there were better senses.... DCDuring TALK 18:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense in question is cl early widespread use. Actual RFV questions take the form "Does this word/sense exist?", and the burden of proof is on the person answering "yes"; but you're asking the question, "Is this word an adjective?", which is not an actual RFV question. I'm not really opposed to your listing that question at RFV (rather than at RFD or the Tea room), but the forum doesn't change the question, and doesn't shift the burden of proof.

I have presented evidence that the word is an adjective. (Actually, I think the sense is used in too narrow a range of constructions for any POS assignment to be strongly justified, but since it only occurs in attributive use, and that's a core function of adjectives rather than of nouns, I think ===Adjective=== is the best header. And clearly other dictionaries agree.) If you want to have an intelligent discussion about the subject, then you need to present some sort of argument. And no, "the burden of proof is on you" is not an argument.

—Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. This is a matter of interpreted fact, not fact-free debate and vote. Nor is it just a matter of idle Tea Room discussion.

But, I had not realized there was so much pent-up anger on this matter.

On the substance, I thought that we were trying to avoid having needless duplication between adjective and noun senses caused by the erroneous failure to make sure that the purported adjective senses were not merely attributive use. If that is not our objective, I didn't get the e-mail. I have been fascinated by the number of instances in which purported adjectives don't seem to meet normal grammatical tests for adjectivity. If grammatical tests don't matter, I'd love to understand why.

On this word in particular, I reacted to the sole sense that appears in the adjective PoS, which I found in none of the dictionaries I looked at. My reckoning is that in the course of attempting to cite the sense given, we (possibly me) would find which senses actually are sustainable and whether they are or are not included in noun senses. I also note that the sole comprehensive semi-modern dictionary from which one could simply copy definitions without copyvio, Websters 1913, does not have any adjective PoS. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "This is a matter of interpreted fact": You're saying that this is an RFV matter because RFD and the Tea room have pervasive problems: RFD discussions ignore facts, Tea-room discussions sit idle. These are valid concerns, and I share them, but they don't make this an RFV issue.

Re: "I had not realized there was so much pent-up anger on this matter": Not very pent up: I've expressed my anger several times before. I guess the Internet isn't the best medium for conveying rage. :-P (Which, all in all, is probably a good thing. You're a diligent and thoughtful contributor, with reasonable and valuable viewpoints, and I guess I should be happy that, on the rare cases when I'm annoyed with you, you can't tell.)

Re: "On the substance, […] ": I do agree with the general notion that plenty of nouns, perhaps the majority, see attributive use, and that this does not, in itself, justify an ===Adjective=== section for each one of them. But there are plenty of times that an ===Adjective=== section is clearly required. You obviously agree with me, for example, that an ===Adjective=== section is clearly required once it starts meeting normal grammatical tests for adjectivity; to this I would add that an ===Adjective=== section is generally required when it stops meeting normal grammatical tests for nounity. I don't see how any of our noun senses really explains the hits at google:"mass murder of"; and if someone added a noun sense that did really explain it, I would wonder what evidence they had that it's a noun. I think that if a word or sense is found only in attributive use, then ===Adjective=== should probably be the default POS. (I see that the World English Dictionary -slash- Collins gives this sense under ===Modifier===, presumably recognizing its limited distribution, but we don't use that POS, and I think we're fine without it.) The lexical categories are all fuzzy: there are words that are clearly nouns, and there are words that are clearly adjectives, and so on, but there are also words that don't fit so nicely, and RFV does not provide an objective means of handling them.

You speak of removing duplication between adjective and noun sections, but removing an adjective section doesn't remove duplication unless the noun section already covered the sense in question. And if it does, then WT:BOLD and {{rfd-redundant}} work as well as {{rfv-sense}}.

On the specific word, this is not a reply to any part of your comment, but rather than making it a separate comment, I'll tack it on here: This word doesn't "feel" like an attributive noun to me. For one thing, attributive nouns are generally stressed, and this word is not; hypothetically speaking, we can distinguish "MASS measurement" (measurement of mass, attrib. n.) from "mass MEASurement" (measurement writ large, IMHO attrib. adj.).

—Ruakh_TALK 21:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense given in the entry is the one I was focused on. I will confess to sometimes not paying sufficient attention to the "distinct sense" rationale for inclusion. That is, in part, because I have gotten so used to adjective senses revealing themselves as attributive use of the associated noun. In this case most of the probable true adjective senses are descended from the plural-only noun, as in "the masses are revolting." As of 1913 or so, that didn't merit inclusion in Websters. As a direct result of that exclusion, we do not have a noun sense covering said sense at mass#Etymology 2 (noun). It is at masses, but should be mentioned at mass as well.

If that sense were a singular form, I bet that the use of "mass" in attributive position would be semantically indistinguishable. I am not willing to force users to go through such mental gymnastics, of course, as must be the case for the dictionaries that have the adjective as a distinct PoS. But, AFAICT, those dictionaries have adjective senses that are apparently derived from the meaning about the mass of people (and possibly other animate beings or mobile things).

The variety of problems with mass#Etymology 2 is why I don't like to tackle these old MW-based entries, preferring to work on some area where there is less need to undo, to reword, to redistribute uses among senses, all to shoe-horn in one or two senses in entries that are rarely used, except by translators. And sometimes the translators complain about repartitioning because of the consequences for the translation tables. I miss the en-N contributors who were willing to tackle these and appreciate Widsith's work. I wish I had the skills and courage. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two noun senses for mass#Etymology 2. The RfVed sense seems to include attributive use of sense 1 and sense 2 of the noun. I don't think that sense is semantically distinct, used in predicate position, used in a comparative, or otherwise graded. But I could be wrong. MW has two main senses, four or arguably five total senses for the adjective. I am not sure that I believe that all of them are true adjectives, but some probably are. I just don't know which. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your noun senses are good, and relevant — thanks for adding them — but not quite on target IMHO; I repeat my example of google:"mass murder of", where it's unclear to me what relationship the noun "mass" would have to "murder". The "of" there is intentional on my part: in bare "mass murder", we could interpret "mass" as playing the semantic role of patient, but in "mass murder of ____", it is ____ that fills that role. BTW, to forestall the possible objection that "mass murder" is an idiom, and therefore not necessarily representative of any specific sense of "mass", I'll preemptively link to google:"mass deletion of" (where, again, the patient slot is ocupado) and google:"mass exodus of" (where the agent slot is). And I think examples like google:"mass indiscriminate" (with another adjective interposed between "mass" and its modificand) also argue against interpretation as a nominal.

By the way, on the general topic: the CGEL has a whole section dedicated to attributive-only adjectives (adjectives like "mere", where you can say "a mere child" but not "the child is mere"): chapter 6, §4.1, pp. 553–559. Note that plenty of the ones it mentions are also nouns in closely related senses (total disarray, the extreme end, past students, a military expert, a certain winner [in the sense of "sure"]), and it points out that a lot of them don't accept modification by (e.g.) very. Honestly, I don't know what criteria the CGEL is using to rule out the possibility of their being attributive nouns — with "a military expert" it even points out that (deprecated template usage) military functions similarly to the noun (deprecated template usage) safety in "a safety expert" — but it's obvious that it isn't using Wiktionary:English adjectives to decide.

—Ruakh_TALK 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are arguing against a position that I do not hold. To clarify I have made the RfV an RfV-sense.

As to the noun senses, I did what I could. I am reasonably sure that the main valid senses of mass#adjective have to do with people ("the masses"), not with the other senses of mass#Noun. This is in contrast with our sole sense which doesn't have any such restriction. Looking at BNC (COCA not responding at the moment) the collocations that don't have to do with "the masses" are relatively few: "mass storage", "mass spectrometer/ry", "body mass index", "mass balance" (appears in Encarta, WP, and technical glossaries), "mass privatization", "mass stranding" (of whales), and a whole series from the physical sciences ("balance", "curve", "density", "loss", "ratio"). I view "mass privatization" and "mass stranding" as generalizations from the putative "people" senses.

I have added all of our entries that are derived from mass. I have added all of them at the noun, though some are almost certainly from the still-missing true adjective senses. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(deprecated template usage) mere and (deprecated template usage) certain are not nouns, so they are of little relevance. As for the others, (deprecated template usage) extreme, (deprecated template usage) total, (deprecated template usage) past and (deprecated template usage) military were all adjectives long before they were ever used as nouns, and so it's perfectly natural to read them as adjectives in these positions. Furthermore all can be used predicatively (the reaction was extreme, her surprise was total, his bearing was military). None of these things are true of (deprecated template usage) mass: there is simply no reason to believe it is an adjective. Ƿidsiþ 10:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are of infinite relevance. The senses in question are found only in attributive position, and do not accept modification (with the possible exception of "extreme": "at the very extreme end" sounds awkward to me, but not wrong). They do not demonstrate that the CGEL would consider this sense of "mass", specifically, to be an adjective, but they demonstrate that DCDuring's arguments simply do not justify treating "I think this is attributive use of the noun" as a matter for RFV, with the sense getting "RFV failed" unless someone presents cites. No one has presented objective, correct criteria for evaluating whether a given sense is an adjective. You've provided decent ad-hoc arguments for several words (all of which seem to boil down either to "they don't have any unambiguous noun senses" or to "they also have unambiguous adjective senses"), but if forced to prove it using the criteria in Wiktionary:English adjectives, you could not do so for the specified senses. —Ruakh_TALK 11:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You invoked (deprecated template usage) mere (presumably) to show that some adjectives only appear attributively, but I don't dispute that. What I was considering was how to tell whether a word is an attributive noun or an adjective, and since (deprecated template usage) mere is never a noun, the question doesn't arise. My arguments are historical. Yes, there are adjectives which only appear attributively, but this is generally a development – you can find old citations for (deprecated template usage) mere, for example, like "Earthly happiness [...] is neuer meere and vnmixed". On the other hand, it is not usual for a new adjective to spring into being already restricted by various positioning constraints. In the other examples you gave, the words were all primarily (by which I currently mean ‘in a historical sense’) adjectival, and so it is very natural to read them as adjectives in attributive position. But with (deprecated template usage) mass you have a word which only appears attributively AND cannot be qualified AND which historically has only ever been a noun....basically what I'm saying is that there's simply no need to posit the existence of a brand-new adjective for a situation like this, which is already covered by the attributive noun. Ƿidsiþ 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You invoked (deprecated template usage) mere (presumably) to show that some adjectives only appear attributively": Well, not really. I mainly invoked "mere" to explain what is meant by "attributive-only adjectives". (In the real world, the term "attributive-only adjectives" is semantically transparent, but among Wiktionarians the term "attributive" has sprouted some by-senses, so I thought it best to clarify.) IIRC, DCDuring owns a copy of the CGEL, so my goal was to direct him to a relevant section that I thought might interest him, and I invoked "mere" to explain what the section was.
Re: "since (deprecated template usage) mere is never a noun, the question doesn't arise": Sure it does! Under an approach whereby adjective status must be proved by three can't-be-a-noun cites — an approach that DCDuring and others have advocated (usually implicitly, but sometimes outright) — "it's never a noun" would not be good enough. I suppose that we would simply delete the entire [[mere]] entry until someone produced either three clearly nominal cites or three clearly adjectival ones. :-P
Simply put, you're misunderstanding the purpose of my whole paragraph there. That paragraph was not arguing "'mass' is an adjective". It was arguing "a policy of demanding non-attributive cites is a non-starter".
—Ruakh_TALK 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, perhaps we should move to RFD then. Ƿidsiþ 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mass — AEL

Re: "DCDuring has been abusing this page for a long time, and I'm sick of it." Seconded.

Now to the substance. The sense requested for attestation is this: "Involving a large quantity, or a large number". Phrases that seems to come under this sense include "mass extinction", "mass migration", "mass demonstrations" (mentioned by MWO and Encarta in their adjective senses), and "mass communication" (mentioned by AHD in its adjective sense). The attestability of these phrases is out of question; what remains to be decided is whether the use of "mass" in these phrases is really an adjectival one. I do not know how to decide this, but I vote keep per authorities, until there is a convincing argument that the authorities are wrong. Dictionaries that have at least one adjectival sense of "mass" include MWO[136], Encarta[137], AHD[138], and Collins[139]; see also OneLook search[140]. --Dan Polansky 09:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with DCD a hundred percent and I don't see any evidence that this is an adjective. You cannot say "these extinctions were mass" or "the murderer was mass" or "it was a very mass demonstration". If it is an adjective, it is certainly one which only appears in very specific positions where it looks suspiciously like a noun. And if we're quoting authorities, the OED doesn't recognise it as an adjective, and they just revised the entry last year. Ƿidsiþ 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED doesn't recognize it as an adjective, but it does have an entire section called "Compounds", with one sense defined as “In attrib. use, with the sense ‘relating to, involving, or affecting large numbers, or the majority, of people or things’ (examples of which are very common in 20th-cent. use)” and other senses exemplified by large numbers of individually defined compounds; so the OED doesn't "agree with DCD a hundred percent" (since, recall, DCDuring thinks our objective is "to avoid having needless duplication between adjective and noun senses", whereas the OED dedicates two-thirds of its entry to detailed "needless duplication"). I mean, obviously you can cite the OED as a source without agreeing with it in every detail, but it bears noting. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 10:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agnostic on duplication, but the debate at hand seems to be about whether this is an adjective or not (it isn't). As you know, many thousands of nouns have "compounds" sections in the OED (since English nouns forms compounds very easily), so that is no reason to think of it as anything but a noun. Ƿidsiþ 10:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "the debate at hand seems to be about whether this is an adjective or not": There are a few debates at hand, so if you want to agree with someone on only one of them, you should be explicit! Debates we seem to be having include (1) whether "mass" is ever an adjective (DCDuring, myself, and most dictionaries, including Oxford Dictionaries Online, feel that it is; you and the OED Online feel that it's not); (2) whether there is an adjective sense of "mass" that means "Involving a large quantity, or a large number" (DCDuring feels that there is not; I feel that there probably is — even if that's not the best definition for it; most other dictionaries seem to feel that there is — Oxford Dictionaries Online, for example, has the adjective "relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things" — though one can always argue about whether sense X in one dictionary is the same as sense Y in another; you and the OED Online obviously feel that there is not); (3) more generally, how to determine whether a given noun is also an adjective; and (4) whether RFV is the right forum to determine the part of speech of a given sense. —Ruakh_TALK 11:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, I should probably scale that down to 60 percent. I agree with him that the sense in question is not adjectival, but I disagree that adjectival senses exist at all. Ƿidsiþ 13:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does 'feel' like a true adjective, albeit an uncomparable one. I'll see if I can find some citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three senses to mass#Adjective. Two seem clearly semantically distinct from the noun senses ("total", and "on a large scale"). The other sense is semantically related to masses, not mass, if such a distinction can be made. From a user perspective, the difference between mass#Etymology 2 (noun) and masses may be important enough to merit including the sense.

Procedurally, we could now split the RfVed sense into two senses: that related to things and that related to people. I would RfD-sense the "people" (and people-like things such as animals and organizations) sense and RfV-sense the "thing" sense. Would that be less abusive of the process? I really don't know how to use the processes to avoid annoying people and yet work to improve the English language sections, very many of which are obsolete in language, don't fit format (esp, citations and usexes), and have missing senses or erroneous PoS sections. If I can't tag something quickly, I am likely to forget about it. As Widsith can attest, reworking entries is time-consuming. If marking defects in entries is supposed to wait until new material is added, our bad entries will not likely ever be corrected. The more procedural hurdles are added, the more obvious the lack of procedural support for entry quality improvement. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not (primarily) saying "you can't tag this for RFV", I'm saying "you don't have to tag this for RFV". It's not an RFV question. We're not figuring out if a sense is attested, we're figuring out if it's an adjective. If you're confident that a sense is a noun, be bold and move/merge it to ===Noun===. If you're not sure, and you want other editors' input, you can tag it {{rfd-redundant}}. Or if you think it's worthwhile to look for clearly-adjectival cites to help decide, then you can tag it {{rfquote-sense}}; or, heck, you can tag it {{rfv-sense}} and start a discussion here; but by "discussion" I mean "discussion". Not "please provide three clearly-adjectival cites or else we'll declare this 'RFV failed'" — WT:CFI simply doesn't support that — and certainly not "Rfv-sense: adjective. Just attributive use of noun." That's no way to start a discussion. (BTW, the "new material" that you mention can take the form of {{rfdef|lang=en}}. If you're RFV-ing the sole sense in the a section, that implies that you think the section should be removed. That implication could be defeated by explicitly stating otherwise, but in this case your initial RFV comment seemed rather to reinforce the implication!) —Ruakh_TALK 15:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in whether the adjective sense is attestable as an adjective. RfD seems to be devoted to interpreting application of WT:CFI other than attestation. It is an attestation-free zone. The grounds for something being deemed an adjective are basically two, a grammatical one and a semantic one. There is a further possibility, historical priority of the adjective, presumably of non-negligible frequency in the appropriate senses.

The grammatical grounds are that, even if the sense of an adjective is basically indistinguishable from a corresponding noun sense, it merits a sense in an adjective section if it behaves as an adjective in some way that another part of speech does not. As all (virtually all?) nouns can be used attributively, the other behaviors are crucial for the distinction. This requires evidence of the same basic sort as is required for general attestation.
The semantic one is that, even if use is only attributive, if the sense cannot be readily construed as a sense of the noun, the sense merits inclusion in an adjective section. This is basic attestation.
The priority grounds could be settled either by authority or attestation. In my experience the authorities are not as authoritative on dates as to be relied on.

Any one of these would be sufficient and at least one is necessary for the existence of an adjective section. Thus attestation is of the essence in cases such as this. Clearly widespread use would work if all agreed that that a given sense was clearly in widespread use as a true adjective or that the distinction between attributive use of a noun and a true adjective is not worth making. I don't think it is so "clear" in this case. And I have yet to see any evidence that other serious dictionaries do not follow similar principles for determining whether a given term is an adjective. For example, MW and AHD do not have senses of "mass" as an adjective that duplicate nounal senses. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I am interested in whether the adjective sense is attestable as an adjective": But "attestable as an adjective" is not a real thing; you've just made it up. If we're all allowed to make up a concept, label it as "attestable ______", and demand that every sense have three cites conforming to the concept, then we'll be here all day.
Re: "RfD seems to be devoted to interpreting application of WT:CFI other than attestation. It is an attestation-free zone": We're a descriptivist dictionary, we shouldn't have attestation-free zones. Every single decision we make should be consistent with the facts of usage.
We used to have documentation saying that words that failed RFV would be listed at RFD. I don't know if we ever actually did it that way, but maybe we should start. Anyone can request any sort of cites here that would convince them a word/term/sense should be kept, and other people can pipe up with their own "requirements". At the end of a month, we move the discussion to RFD, everyone can see everyone else's stated criteria, everyone can see what cites were presented for each set of criteria, and people can vote "keep" or "delete".
—Ruakh_TALK 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Attestable as an adjective" is old wine in a new bottle. It is my shorthand for the attestation of adjectival senses to establish adjectivity on any of the three grounds that have been suggested and any rational ones that might be suggested henceforth, without requiring us to, in principle, have an adjective sense line for virtually every noun sense line. The point about no-unnecessary-duplication between noun and adjective definitions is one that I have heard read explicitly on these pages and have inferred from our practice and from the entries of the dictionaries at OneLook. There is nothing new about any aspect of this.

I don't understand how one could attest to a sense of a word without at the same time attesting to its PoS when having that sense, given our entry structure. If we would want to have a different set of headings to replace the PoS headers, it might be wise to consult with our users. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't "have an adjective sense line for virtually every noun sense line". I disagree with the notion that some sort of transmogrified three-cites rule could be devised that could keep the wheat while discarding the chaff. Likewise: You and I both feel that we should allow entries for certain word-sequences, and forbid entries for others, on the basis of a concept that goes by names such as "idiomaticity". Yet somehow, miraculously, we've managed not to translate that into some sort of monstrous three-cites rule for determining whether a given sense is idiomatic. Attestation remains relevant: we won't keep a word-sequence that's unattested; and we always should (and sometimes do) examine the usage both of the word-sequence itself, and of other word-sequences that use the component words and synonyms thereof, to gather evidence for and against idiomaticity. But it's not the whole picture: at some point, as people, we need to examine and discuss the evidence and make a decision that goes beyond counting. The same applies here: we won't keep an sense that's unattested, and we always should (and sometimes do) examine the range of its uses to gather evidence for and against adjectivity. But at some point, as people, we need to examine and discuss the evidence and make a decision that goes beyond counting. —Ruakh_TALK 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no transmogrification, simply application. "I don't understand how one could attest to a sense of a word without at the same time attesting to its PoS when having that sense, given our entry structure." I simply disqualify citations that are ambiguous as to PoS, such as attributive use of senses that could be construed as either adjective or noun. This is the same practice that we follow in disqualifying senses that are ambiguous as to sense specifically.

I don't consider our treatment of idiomaticity to be a desirable model of decision-making. The tedium and conflict of the process has allowed numerous highly suspect terms. See WT:TR#Suspect compounds of mass for some examples. Any systematic effort to challenge all such terms would simply flood RfD. OTOH a really thorough-going effort along these lines might give at least one other contributor a chance to add the 2,000,000th entry. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I view the POS classification as an aspect of the definition. If someone edits [[unicorn]] to add the definition, “a won-horned mythological animal”, there are lots of questions we can examine: (1) Is that sense attested? (Yes.) (2) Is that a good definition for it? (No. Not even after fixing the misspelling of "one".) (3) Is that sense really separate from the other senses, that we already listed? (No.) Usage — attestation — is relevant to all of these questions. (In that specific case, of course, we know, even without Googling, what attestation would tell us. That's what the "rollback" link is for.) But only the first question can really be addressed by RFV. If someone wanted to list the other questions here, just to see what evidence people could find, that would be fine; but the answer to those other questions cannot be expressed as "RFV passed" or "RFV failed". I frequently have marked something as "RFV passed" and then fixed it in various ways — including changing the POS header(s) — based on what I learned during my search for cites.

Re: "I don't consider our treatment of idiomaticity to be a desirable model of decision-making": And yet, you've managed not to subvert said treatment by trying to RFV-itize it. I don't think WT:RFD works very well, either, but there are things that the RFV process simply cannot accomplish. In fact, there's really only one thing that it can accomplish. Hacking around WT:RFD's shortcomings by treating RFDs as RFVs is not going to make WT:RFD better, but it has made WT:RFV worse.

14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 20:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Would that I could see how a matter of attestation of sense-PoS was an RfD matter. Your list of questions leaves out one of the things that definitely can be attested in the overwhelming majority of cases, at least defeasibly: the PoS of a sense. Furthermore, attestation can be used to confirm the presence of each specific element of a definition. "horned", "single"-horned, "mythological", and "animal" could each be separately attested if necessary. {It is usually only in the case of our most verbose or encyclopedic definitions that this might come up.) If no sense can be attested in a given PoS, then eihter the PoS should be removed or a request for a definition added. The choice is left for the judgment of the wise ones who close these matters.

If I could figure out any sensible criteria I would very much like to use attestation for determining idiomaticity. I have used it to support or oppose claims that a given term was a "set phrase", because said claim was often made. If folks made other specific claims as to the basis of purported idiomaticity those claims could possibly be tested in some way. Folks just don't seem to like to make testable claims. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Would that I could see how a matter of attestation of sense-PoS was an RfD matter": That's a straw man. You meant to say, "Would that I could see how something that I mistakenly consider to be a matter of attestation of sense-POS was in fact an RfD matter". ;-)

Re: "Furthermore, attestation can be used to confirm the presence of each specific element of a definition. 'horned', 'single'-horned, 'mythological', and 'animal' could each be separately attested if necessary. {It is usually only in the case of our most verbose or encyclopedic definitions that this might come up.)": Yes, I've noticed that you believe this. In large measure I'm making these arguments here because I plan to start closing discussions like this one as "no action taken" after a month or so, and I'd like you to understand why, even if I don't expect to convince you. (I do not believe that your views are an application of policy, and I haven't seen evidence for consensus that they are, so I simply cannot apply your views as though policy supported them.)

Re: "I have used [attestation] to support or oppose claims that a given term was a 'set phrase', […] ": You're equivocating. As I have said repeatedly, we use, or should use, attestation for everything; but you have not used any sort of three-cites rule to reject "set phrases", because no one would claim that something unattested is a "set phrase". Which is exactly my point: obviously, just obviously, we're not going to list an adjective that's unattested, and obviously, just obviously, we will examine attestation in deciding if something is an adjective. It does not follow that we must subvert the three-cites rule in the way(s) you propose.

—Ruakh_TALK 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, for the "people" adjective sense, I've added three citations in which mass appears to be modified by an adverb. — Pingku^dimmi 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't doubt that one would. Were you looking for support for the challenged sense? Did you see anything that doesn't fit the new senses? I tested them only against the top 100 collocations at COCA and not very systematically at that. DCDuring TALK 02:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't specifically looking for senses; the fact that I found this one relatively easily might be a result of my search domain (g books) and method (somewhat haphazard), or it could just be more common. A possible candidate citation is "We failed to find such formerly mass species as Liocyma fluctuosa, Alvenius ojianus, or Yoldia seminuda," (here).

BTW, the mass in mass extinction is not quite total, or we wouldn't be here. (Of course, any extinction is total for the species involved.) — Pingku^dimmi 05:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The collocation "mass species" seems to occur in the marine biology context. I don't get what the sense of "mass" is. It seems especially common in works with Russian authors. Could it be a calque? I will add what I find to the Citations page. It is possible that "mass species" is a context-specific idiom, though it is not listed in any OneLook source and I have not come across an explicit definition in any of the texts. DCDuring TALK 09:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass species" seems to often occur with (deprecated template usage) biomass. DCDuring TALK 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great cites. I think this demonstrates that (deprecated template usage) mass is in the process of passing from an attributive noun to something interpreted as a true adjective. Still, I'm not sure the process is complete, as I would regard all of those quotations as bad English. Anyway, that is definitely grounds for having an =Adjective= section, although personally I think it's simpler to just have one definition along the lines of "pertaining to a mass of people or things". Ƿidsiþ 09:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most unabridged OneLook dictionaries have multiple senses.

I've added citations for the rfv'd sense — along the same lines as before, meaning more bad English for Widsith to marvel at! — Pingku^dimmi 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8-o Ƿidsiþ 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Convincing citations as to its having crossed the threshold even in the challenged sense. I have seen a few uses of "[be] more mass than [individual|class|segmented]" (polar oppositions). It may even soon become comparable in at least on sense. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, some writers write "masser" and "massest". - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have interleaved those citations in the definition which seems to have the most use of the comparative of all forms. I note that the 1958 sense has it in quotation marks, which is arguably insufficient for citation, though it usefully illustrates the approximate timing of a transition to adjectivity. At least that sense seems comparable, even if the forms "masser" and "massest" might not be yet be attestable for themselves.

waist-shake

From RfD. -- Prince Kassad 16:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have about 4 or 5 non-Usenet uses on Google Groups. Nothing more at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fatHa

Really? With this exact capitalization? -- Prince Kassad 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At best, it needs cleanup. It links to redirects that should either be created as full entries, or deleted as unacceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very marginal. Google Books turns up only three independent English uses: in Arabic for Dummies‎ (and Arabic Phrases for Dummies)‎, in Java Internationalization‎, and in A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic‎. All three use it, but all three treat it as transliterated Arabic (via boldface, italics, and italics, respectively). And all three are specifically talking about Arabic; it's not like using a Latin phrase in a legal context, but more like using a Latin phrase while teaching Latin class, or while discussing Latin in a linguistics class. ~~I would delete it, personally.~~ —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) last sentence struck 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) per others' comments below[reply]

fatha seems citable. I think fatHa is probably citable too. [141], [142], [143] and [144] are four Usenet hits with that capitalization. Naturally, it's going to be used when talking about Arabic, since it's an Arabic letter, but those hits don't seem to be using it as a transliteration.--Prosfilaes 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in this exact capitalisation, also fat7a, fat-ha, fat-Ha. Capital H is used to transliterate letter Template:Arab /ḥā’/ as opposed to Template:Arab /hā’/ or Template:Arab /xā’/ and also indicates that it's not read as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/ð/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. or Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/θ/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. Spellings fatha or fathah are also but are more ambiguous to Arabic learners. --Anatoli 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all know what the capital H is used for, insofar as it's used at all; but "fatha", despite its shortcomings, is many times more common than all of the alternatives put together. —Ruakh_TALK 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No question about that. So should this be moved to fatha and the rest listed as alternate spellings? (I'd like to see citations for most of those Anatoli gave; fat7a has no Google Books hits (as anything but bad OCR) and the Usenet hits were either Arabic or code switching.)--Prosfilaes 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruakh, even if fatHa is less common than fatha, it is also citable, to avoid Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/ð/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. or Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/θ/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. pronunciation, fat-ha or fat'ha forms are also used. It's OK with me if everything is moved to fatha and other forms remain as alternatives (not redirects). The form "fat7a" seems to be only used in chats and Arabic language forums where the distinction between various realisations of "h" in Arabic is important. I think User_talk:Beru7 had a different view on the usage of numbers for letters. Me and User:Stephen G. Brown had to agree with him on using number "3" to transliterate Template:Arab - the sound Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/ʕ/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. See also Wiktionary:About_Arabic, which could be revisited but by people who actually work with Arabic, you can see a few capital letters used for transliteration of Arabic. Prosfilaes, the hits you cited use "fatHa" as the transliteration. --Anatoli 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli, I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here. It's obvious that 'H' is used in transliterating Arabic; no one would suggest otherwise. What's at issue here is whether "fatHa" is an English word. So Wiktionary:About Arabic is not relevant, and the phrase "as the transliteration" in your last sentence would imply that we shouldn't count those cites as English, which I don't think is what you mean to be arguing. Also, Prosfilaes provided those links to augment his sentence, "I think fatHa is probably citable too", so obviously he already realized that they use "fatHa". And he argued that said "hits don't seem to be using it as a transliteration" (emphasis mine), so you should probably be agreeing with him! —Ruakh_TALK 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. The only issue is attestability in English. Give it a month (or two; we often do) and if it's cited as an English word, keep it. Otherwise don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it does seem to be attestable; I disagree that the three Google Book hits are mentions or purely transliterations. I'd accept those three cites; and even if I didn't, there are another four Usenet ones that appear to be independent, meaning that as long as any three of the seven are ok, this is attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all seven cites are obviously uses. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. (They're not all quite in our sense — some are referring to the vowel itself, rather than to the diacritic that denotes it — but that's easily addressed by adjusting the definition.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking time to respond. I checked some books at home. The spelling "fatha" does indeed look more like English, rather than all weird spellings I have given before but the more academic the source is, the more strange the English spelling is both for the diacritic symbol Template:Arab and for the vowel it represents, cf. spelling Qur'an and Koran. Of course, "fatha" is used more often because it looks more English but this spelling is seldom used in serious books about Arabic. As you know, "th" can be interpreted as variation combination of Arabic letters, that's why it's avoided in Arabic dictionaries or textbooks. Hans Wehr uses "fatḥa" (deprecated template usage) فتحة‎‎ and "ḍamma" (deprecated template usage) ضمة‎‎ (Damma) (for diacritic Template:Arab) and a few other grammar references and textbooks. In the books where ḥ and ḍ are not used, H and D are used. There is no single transliteration, hence theEnglish spelling can also vary. As I already said, I don't mind fatha being the main entry and some others as alternative spellings. --Anatoli 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pit-yakka

—Ruakh_TALK 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can do is some non-Usenet hits on Google Groups. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedopath

Looks like an invention. I see one possible Usenet hit, nothing on Scholar/Books.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to delete it as a protologism. SemperBlotto 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedopathy gets some Google Book hits, all in medical dictionaries and lists of interesting words AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found two. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

business

Rfv-sense: adjective. Probably the attributive use of the noun. I probably should have been bold and just deleted it, but I suppose there is a change it could be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome collocation ideas for this. I've tried the most direct approaches that are somewhat selective. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a slightly different sense. — Pingku^dimmi 10:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good definition. Good cites, I think, except for the 2010 cite. It seems to show "fully" being a clausal/verbal adverb rather an adjective-modifying adverb.

Now that the adjectivity is cited in that sense, more central usage examples or citations would be desirable, reflecting common collocations in the sense given and possibly in attributive position.

One of the disadvantage of the adjective-proving citations is that they are not very representative of overall usage. Often these adjective uses seem "wrong" to me. It can keep me from seeing that a given collocation of the word is not of attributive use of the noun rather than of the putative adjective. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the cite with one using what might be regarded a nonstandard parse/usage of business men.

Also some citations for the rfv'd sense. — Pingku^dimmi 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also look good. I like the one with business once after "a" and twice it. "Solely" and "purely" should be on a list of adjective-modifying test adverbs at Wiktionary:English adjectives, which probably could use some updating. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ordenadors

Tagged but not listed; looks really odd; plural of ordenador is ordenadores. So this would have to be an entirely separate word, which in its defence, is what it claims. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among 50 first raw Google hits there are no Spanish-language sites. Majority are Catalan. If no one provides citations that prove the contrary, I'd say delete for the Spanish section. --Hekaheka 10:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

supercompressor

Tagged but not listed; self-nomination apparently. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged def seems wrong. I have added another sense, which might be better, but would need some technical expertise to correct/verify. A more common spelling might be hyphenated. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quartzing

Tagged but not listed. Noun. I suspect the verb form (which we don't have) might be attestable, this is a separate matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzing certainly meets CFI one way or another; it could be considered only a present participle, but I think it's reasonable to call this a noun too, such as 1993: "Hence, it is expected that the Al dots were well annealed by quartzing and when they were cooled down to room temperature". Seems somewhat analogous with rowing, swimming etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maze

"A wild fancy; a confused notion." I'm not really sure what this means. Are "a wild fance" and a "confused notion" really a single definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

supercolossus

Another self nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited; more cites available if needed. Supercolossi is in fact easier to cite than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paramukta

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crusty

Rfv-sense: 'an old person'. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prisoner of war

adjective: head word and usex show prisoner-of-war. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

author

Rfv-sense: "a source of information". Looks odd. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that this is a reference to uses such as those at google books:"quotes many authors" or "some authors have argued", where "author" is used in a sort of vague, complement-free way: note that "quotes the authors of many texts" and "the authors of some texts have argued" would both be very awkward. I don't think it's totally divorced from the first sense — to quote an "author" is to quote a written source, because an author is (usually) someone who writes — but on the other hand, it is somewhat divorced from the first sense, in that to quote an "author" is to quote an author's written work, not just to quote a spoken utterance by someone who's also written something. Overall, the problem here is not so much that we have two senses instead of one, as that we have two senses instead of five or six. If we had five or six senses, each with good example sentences and citations, then this one would fit in rather nicely (with a bit of tweaking). As it is, this sense really stands out as odd, because it's the only sense that we've separated out. —Ruakh_TALK 14:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I would argue that doesn't mean that this is a meaning of the word author no more than it is a meaning for "people". I'd be happy to have more than one sense, but not this on unless it's somehow justified. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remaining

Rfv-sense: only adjective sense. I'd have said 'clear widespread use' but I wasn't bold enough to detag the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sense is in clearly widespread use, but it doesn't "feel" like an adjective to me. On the other hand, several dictionaries (including various incarnations of Cambridge, Macmillan, and Encarta) do have it as an adjective; and the attested (deprecated template usage) unremaining is apparently Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 38: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead. rather than Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 38: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead.. And I believe that EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) argued that when a participle precedes and modifies a noun, that's adjective use in and of itself, though I'm really not sure if he's right about that. I think we might as well leave it here for a month to see if anyone has any brilliant cites to call attention to; if not, then move to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

locational based marginal pricing

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some hits for this, mainly uppercase (mea culpa, see page history) but I don't understand what our definition means so I can't cited it, or only blindly. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it means marginal pricing that is based on location in a contextually sensible way. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps marginal cost pricing. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read this of locational marginal pricing. If this was to be kept it should probably be moved to locational marginal pricing which for its part appears SOP as locational + marginal pricing. I think marginal pricing would merit an entry of its own. --Hekaheka 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further notion: "locational based" appears an unhappy concoction of "locational" and "location-based". --Hekaheka 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPR

Tagged but not listed: "Social Protection Regime". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is a "Social Protection Regime"? How can I cited it without knowing what it means. Clearly three cites for SPR won't be good enough as SPR will have various other meanings. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A true initialism, especially one found in academic works, will generally get some hits along with its full form; google books:"social protection regime" "spr", for example, would find hits. But this one doesn't seem to be real; all I can find is a single online PDF. ("Social protection regime(s)" does exist, but this initialism does not seem to have any uptake.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

själv

Rfv-sense: Swedish "the self". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this Swedish noun is listed in SAOL, the current standard for spelling. I've added the reference to the entry. --LA2 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hun

Rfv-sense

{{slang|derogatory|UK|Ireland}} A Unionist. (added in this edit)
{{slang|derogatory|UK|Ireland}} A supporter of Scottish association football club Rangers F.C. (added in this edit)

The first meaning is more plausible than the second. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links on the talk page may be durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hypnopœus

Only in medical lexicons AFAICT from Google books and scholar, both spelled as hypnopoeus. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one uses the ligature; however, I agree that this is a proper candidate for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. As a separate issue, the etymology should note that (deprecated template usage) hypnopœus derives directly from (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "polytonic" is not valid. See WT:LOS.. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mistyped aboved. I had meant to type "both spelled this way and as hypnopoeus." DCDuring TALK 12:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Sigh. I suppose that term is too technical then. You can go ahead and scrap my entry; as it is apparently worthless without recorded usage, which I cannot find. 75.142.190.21 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pilcrow, but that's what the CFI require. Still, there'll be a stub in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, if that's any consolation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paranœa

Almost all hits are mentions. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "obsolete" not "archaic", but apart from that I think it's OK. Actually according to the OED this is the first recorded spelling of (deprecated template usage) paranoia. Ƿidsiþ 12:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Could you please forgive me if this sounds meagre? I have never defended my work (since I started the entry) like this before. I am not sure if you are saying that dictionary mentions are inappropriate, but surely two of these authors are important, no? ¶ Words from Greek often had the digraph οι replaced with the ligature œ; “παράνοια” has the combination of οι, thus the transliteration was written as “paranœa”. Here are some more examples of the word “paranœa”:

Firstly: William Whitney: The Century dictionary and cyclopedia Secondly: Henry Eugène de Méric: Dictionary of medical terms (French) Lastly: Robley Dunglison: Medical Lexicon

¶ Would this suffice, sir? 75.142.190.21 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they're all mentions, not uses. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(See Use-mention distinction. Ƿidsiþ 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

¶ Noted. Please pardon my ignorance. 75.142.190.21 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Actually according to the OED this is the first recorded spelling of (deprecated template usage) paranoia" any chance we can keep this in good faith? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first citation in the 3ʳᵈ ed. OED's draft revision for paranoia is a 1749 one of (deprecated template usage) paranoea, the next is from 1789 and is of (deprecated template usage) paranoiæ, and the third and fourth are from 1811 and 1842 (respectively) and are both of (deprecated template usage) paranœa; however, both its citations of (deprecated template usage) paranœa are from dictionaries. Pace the OED, I have nevertheless quint-cited it; of those five, these three are unambiguous uses. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cites look good. Seems to warrant a {{rare}}, though not as rare as all of our mostly untagged hapax legomena from well-known works. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the {{rare}} tag myself, on the grounds that it's much more common than many of our untagged rarities (as you said); nevertheless, I'll leave that judgment to you. I agree with Ƿidsiþ that this should be marked obsolete, rather than archaic; my reason is that, as the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1909] entry shows, (deprecated template usage) paranœa would be pronounced /ˌpæɹəˈniːə/, whereas everyone pronounces (deprecated template usage) paranoia as /ˌpæɹəˈnɔɪə/; therefore, (deprecated template usage) paranœa has been obsoleted by the change in pronunciation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-ïng

¶ I have suspicions that this entry should be deleted. Particularity: is it un‐desirable to include any English words that could contain diaereses, as they could be protologisms? 75.142.190.21 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many words with well-established spellings that include diaereses in English, like coördinate. That said, this spelling seems unsupported.--Prosfilaes 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doïng

-- Prince Kassad 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search at Google books suggests that there are scannos and uses in FL books about English. It would seem hard to sustain the notion that English pedants use this spelling. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of this word listed [145] in the edit comments. There are three pages of Usenet hits using this. Certainly not pedants, though.--Prosfilaes 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snobs, perhaps? I found this title in BGC: "Doïng business with Ukraïne". Spelling "doïng" is probably used here as eye-catcher as "Ukraïne" is one way to transliterate Україна into English. Other uses were in French texts where it appeared to be used as some type of phonetic spelling. Unless valid permanently archived cites are provided, delete. --Hekaheka 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best shot of the cover didn't look like it had a diaeresis. I think it's a scanno. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Even more so, delete. --Hekaheka 07:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is invalid about at least eighteen of these?: [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165] — Unless the invalidity of at least that many can be shown, this term is clearly attested. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not durably archived IMHO. (The rest are, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we have nineteen CFI-satisfying citations, yes? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it may pass the letter of the CFI, but to be honest it's pretty feeble. All of these are from newsgroups (and some seem to be from non-native speakers?). From what I can tell this has never appeared in a single printed book, even old ones. It's more like non-common misspelling, isn't it? Ƿidsiþ 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations in the entry. What are needed are either citations that support the definition given or a different definition consistent with the citations in the entry. Our preferred practice AFAICT is to allocate citations to particular definition lines. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the writers using this form in the examples above appear to be Dutch. There's also a Dutch family name "Doïng". Is this a typical Dutch spelling error? Anyway, the current definition appears to be wrong. How can this be a pedantic spelling, if no written sources mention it? --Hekaheka 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what we call it. I just wanted to oppose the bizarre notion that this spelling is unattestable. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no citations in the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do note Talk:vacuüm, which was a similar case. -- Prince Kassad 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited definitions of -ïng and doïng according to the model of vacuüm. --Hekaheka 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ῥῆνος

In particular, the descendants. It seems very unlikely that all the people of Europe would have borrowed a Greek word for a river that wasn't even near Greece. Furthermore, many online sources show that the Germanic name for the river was taken from Celtic, which makes a lot more sense. The -i- of many of the names in particular is descended from the Celtic (later Germanic) name either directly or through borrowing, since Latin/PIE -ē- becomes Celtic -ī-, but remains in Germanic. So I doubt that all of these names come from Greek, although they were probably respelled with Rh- based on it. —CodeCa t 13:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you are rfving the word itself, right? There is a template for check descendants, but I can't remember what it is. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm rfving the descendants. I'm not sure what else I should do... there is something to be 'verified' isn't there? —CodeCa t 18:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the page says

Overview: Requests for Verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources.

That's why I'd like this page to be renamed to WT:Requests for attestation as we get a fair few non-rfv requests here. FWIW I can't cite it based on Google Books alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for moving it. —CodeCa t 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neiyt

All b.g.c hits are scannos of either neigt or neige. There don't seem to be any legitimate hits. -- Prince Kassad 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears plausible to me, even if I don't find any traces of the nominative form in the net. That alone does not make it a non-word as Karelian is spoken by relatively few people in a backward part of Russia, and there's not so much of it in internet. But I found some uses of the inflected forms in quite noteworthy pieces of Finnish literature:

the nominative plural has been used by the poet Eino Leino in his popular poem "Joulun neiet":

Kulkevat korkeat neiet kolme kautta talvisen taivaan

kylvävät lahjoja ihmislasten murheeseen ja vaivaan

tekevät rikkaan rikkaammaksi, rakkaammaksi rakkaan

heittävät mieronkin mittelijälle kannikan kerjuuvakkaan.

the nominative plural and genitive singular "neien" appear several times in Kalevala, e.g. in its 24th poem:

Silloin seppo Ilmarinen koppoi neien korjahansa,

iski virkkua vitsalla, sanan virkkoi, noin nimesi:

"Jää hyvästi, järven rannat, järven rannat, pellon penkat,

kaikki mäntyset mäellä, puut pitkät petäjikössä,

tuomikko tuvan takana, katajikko kaivotiellä,

kaikki maassa marjan varret, marjan varret, heinän korret,

pajupehkot, kuusenjuuret, lepän lehvät, koivun kuoret!"

in another collection of old folk poems, "Kanteletar", the allative case is used in a poem Suomettaren synty ja kosijat" ("The birth of Finnish Maiden and her suitors") describing the creation of Finland:

Hierelevi, hautelevi,

Muna muuttui neitoseksi,

Mikä neielle nimeksi--

Sorsatarko, Suometarko?

Ei ole Sorsatar soria,

Suometar nimi soria.

These examples are from the period of "national romanticism" when the artists were seeking the roots of Finnish culture in Carelia which was regarded unspoilt by foreign influences. Therefore it's also plausible that the word should be Karelian. It's close enough to Finnish words (deprecated template usage) neitsyt and (deprecated template usage) neiti to be borrowed into some pieces of Finnish literature. It should probably be tagged "archaic", "poetic" or both but I'm quite convinced that the word exists. --Hekaheka 03:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further research revealed that this word is mentioned in the foreword to 1909 edition of Kalevala as an example of the Karelian language feature of adding -ut and -yt endings to certain words when they are used in poetry. Other examples of this form mentioned in this source: (deprecated template usage) reki > reyt, (deprecated template usage) käki > käyt, (deprecated template usage) vesi < veyt, (deprecated template usage) kivi > kivyt, (deprecated template usage) meri > meryt, (deprecated template usage) neiti > neiyt, (deprecated template usage) veli > veljyt, (deprecated template usage) lehti > lehyt, (deprecated template usage) kesä > kesyt, (deprecated template usage) päivä > päivyt, (deprecated template usage) marja > marjut, (deprecated template usage) sampo > sammut, (deprecated template usage) sydän > syämmyt etc. Many of these forms have been used in Finnish poetry, e.g. neiyt, veljyt, päivyt, kuuhut, yöhyt, immyt. At least one has entered standard Finnish: (deprecated template usage) tiehyt --Hekaheka 05:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What language is it??? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally Karelian, but also Finnish due to its use in poetry. One hundred years ago, when the poems cited above were written, Karelian was regarded as a dialect of Finnish, and many Karelian words were adopted into Finnish during the heyday of Karelianism. I noticed that it was categorized as Estonian noun and corrected that. I also added a new Finnish section. I'm not an expert in Karelian and it appears that I made a mistake above. The forms neien, neiet, neielle are not forms of neiyt but an alternative declension for the synonymous word (deprecated template usage) neiti. But the second comment beginning "Further research reveals.." is still valid. --Hekaheka 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

besonder

Googling it seems to turn up only German words, and the example sentence given is clearly using it as a verb, not an adjective. I was going to add it to Wikisaurus:surprising because I was recently working on that, but I don't want to if I'm not sure it's a real English word. It does look like it needs a German entry though. WurdSnatcher 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not English. I've added a German heading. Not the same as besonders, which is the German word that lists besonder as a related term. Maybe a German variation. Probably something someone heard, or thought they heard.--Halliburton Shill 06:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! (deprecated template usage) besondere means (deprecated template usage) special and (deprecated template usage) besonders means (deprecated template usage) especially. This doesn't seem to mean anything. SemperBlotto 08:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the stem used for the adjective inflection... but it's never used on its own. -- Prince Kassad 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undeadliness

Rfv-sense: Middle English; one citation is for vndeedlinesse, the other two seem to be modern English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other two are Middle English as published in modern works. As published, Middle English is frequently coerced into modern English spellings to make it more transparent to modern readers. [166] is another example, and I find it provocative that the first cite under the Modern English heading is a translation of the Middle English; in fact, I would claim a poor translation, since undeadliness is a calque of the Middle English. Richardson's New English Dictionary cites Wycliffe as undeedlynesse, an example of the variety of spelling for even one source.--Prosfilaes 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bush

Rfv-sense: the vulva. I thought it always referred specifically to the hair itself. If this sense is right, the vulva of a hairless woman could also be called a 'bush'. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think like you... Bush refers to the (pubic) hair and not the vagina or the vulva... --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be sure, but there may be some [here] at bgc. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK, but it probably shouldn't be a separate sense – combine them along the lines of ‘Pubic hair; loosely, the vulva’. Ƿidsiþ 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah thinking about it, I think it's ok but the two definitions overlap significantly. I'll have a look for some citations, may need a cold shower in the process. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ‘Pubic hair; loosely, the vulva’ looks OK to me. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 08:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, citations could support either sense, I agree that they overlap too much to be considered separate. Request RFV close to allow Widsith's definition to be used. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. I've merged the two senses, since that seems to be the consensus. Feel free to adjust the wording, anyone. —Ruakh_TALK 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abarbeiten

Rfv-sense x2:

to get (a ship) off or afloat.
to wear out (a tool, etc).

-- Prince Kassad 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photoheliography

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but, at a glance, looks real. I don't have time now to look for cites so will, instead, put it here for now.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the definition might be slightly off: it's "The study of photography of the sun" but I suspect should be "Photography of the sun". But cites will tell.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the definition. We have had (deprecated template usage) photoheliograph since 2006. SemperBlotto 08:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word exists of course. Here's a good definition : [167]. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 08:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discrimineren

Rfv-sense: (math) differentiate.

An anonIP who geolocates to Holland doubted this at [[WT:FEED]], [[nl:discrimineren]] (the only other wikt to have the entry, according to our and their interwiki links) does not seem to have the sense, [[w:nl:discrimineren]] does not seem to discuss math, and google:discrimineren dx does not seem to show anything relevant, so I'm bringing it here.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

woot

Rfv-sense: (UK) I agree. -- Prince Kassad 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ayo

An English slang greeting. I am unfamiliar. Distribution? Reality? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited as AAVE, apparently attestable only since 2000. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

completely

This entry contains two definitions and two examples:

In a complete manner; fully; totally; utterly.
Please completely fill in the box for your answer, using a number 2 pencil.
To the fullest extent or degree; totally.
He is completely mad.

The difference between the senses is obscure or nonexistent. Perhaps some citations would help. --Daniel. 09:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD -- Prince Kassad 09:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both definitions are just one and same. There is no noticeable nuance between them. The second def. is clearly redundant. Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is between "manner" and "extent". The first definition modifies a verb, saying how the action is done. The second modifies an adjective, and says to how that quality applies. DAVilla 14:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a thing as a "complete manner". It's true that (deprecated template usage) completely can modify a verb, as in the first example sentence, but then it indicates the extent of the action. —Ruakh_TALK 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webster 1913 had "in a complete manner". I am unsure whether or how this reflects some subtle difference from current meaning.

In current English, I think this has two distinct senses, but not exactly the ones we have. There is a sense of "to a high degree" which is synonymous with a large number of other members of Category:English degree adverbs (which does not modify verbs, I think). Another sense is what Ruakh suggests: "to the fullest extent", which retains a connection to the specific sense of (deprecated template usage) complete (which can modify verbs, but also adjectives of some kinds, such as for colors and material, and adjectives derived from past participles. Not sure about adverbs.). DCDuring TALK 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be used with adjectives that are classified as uncomparable, including, for example, completely actual. Is this another sense - perhaps something like (deprecated template usage) unquestionably or maybe in all respects? Does it show that these adjectives can in fact be comparable, if to a limited extent? Or are we to say that all these usages are in error? — Pingku^dimmi 05:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives and adverbs can be attestably gradable while not attestably comparable, like actual. If something is gradable, however, it increases the odds that it will turn out to be used comparably as well, in my experience. In fact, this search suggests that actual is comparable in some senses. This is not the first or last time that our characterization of an adjective's comparability seems inaccurate. DCDuring TALK 06:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

without predjudice

A misspelling? Gets more than 40,000 hits in Google search, but I found no dictionary results, nor do we have an entry for predjudice. Perhaps the content should be moved to without prejudice? --Hekaheka 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hits for this seem to be pre-1900, suggests it's an obsolete spelling. Whether it's also a misspelling is a bit trickier. I've created predjudice anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anacoluthon

Rfv-sense: "A sentence or other structure with no grammatical sequence; especially when deliberate, as a rhetorical device." Tagged but ot listed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better considered an RfD-redundant. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consciousness

Rfv-sense - experience. SemperBlotto 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the talk page of the user than added it. I'll be damned if I know what he/she intended to mean. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably had in mind some variation of one of the seven senses and subsenses that MWOnline has, didn't think our single sense covered it, and did the best they could. Blame falls on our not having fully defined this word, not even retaining all three Webster 1913 senses. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's Secret

WT:CFI#Company names says this needs to be attested with a meaning other than the company name. That's more or less impossible. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is for RFD. I would even vote delete, as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest. The section WT:CFI#Company names is an invention of DAVilla. Curiously enough, "Victoria's Secret" entry was created on 16 April 2007 by DAVilla. But I see that the company name just passed RFD on 10 February 2011. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one

Rfv-sense: (Internet, slang, sarcastic) Used instead of ! to amplify an exclamation, imitating n00bs who forget to press the shift key while typing exclamation points. I have seen this before, but is it in durably archived media? -- Prince Kassad 08:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Usenet.‎‎‎ —Ruakh_TALK 13:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marble

Rfv-sense: (intransitive, beef) To be interlaced with fat.

I don't think it is intransitive, if it exists as a completely conjugated verb. I suspect that marbling (noun) and marbled (adjective) may be the only forms, which makes this tedious to search for. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only know this sense as transitive - to put thin layers of fat between thicker layers of lean meat. SemperBlotto 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations of SemperBlotto's transitive sense added. A Google Books search for "beef marbles" finds no intransitive verb, but one very bizarre noun. "Beef marbled" finds more quotations of the transitive sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems impossible. To "marble" should denote a process; at the very least, something like "To become interlaced with fat". —Ruakh_TALK 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess, that "to be interlaced with fat" was an attempt at the sense used in the Business Perspectives quotation you just added. The quotation you just added seems indeed to fit better under a slightly reworded "(of beef) to become interlaced with fat" sense than under the "cause (beef) to be interlaced with fat" sense. (Put the definitions in place of the word: "Information about how an animal grades, how much it weighs, how it [causes (beef? itself?) to be interlaced with fat] and how it has converted feed helps farmers hone their growing practices" versus "Information about how an animal grades, how much it weighs, how it [is/becomes interlaced with fat] and how it has converted feed helps farmers hone their growing practices".) - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three quotations now under "(of cattle) to cause its meat to be interlaced with fat", I think only Heather Smith Thomas’ could support that sense. ("The Angus-type beef calf may [cause its own meat to be interlaced with fat] and finish quicker" almost makes sense, although I still think it means "the Angus-type beef calf may [have its meat become interlaced with fat] and finish quicker".) The Theodore Carroll Byerly is not in that sense, though — put the two definitions into it and see: "thinner animals rarely had enough excess energy in their diet to cause the meat to [cause their meat to be interlaced with fat]"? "to cause the meat to cause the meat to interlaced"? Isn't it simply "to cause the meat to [become interlaced with fat]"? - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 1978 quotation is definitely saying that the meat is marbling: it exactly matches the current definition, "(intransitive, of beef) To become interlaced with fat", of the RFV'd sense. The 2000 and 2009 cites are in a sense that might be defined as "(intransitive, of cattle) To have its beef become interlaced with fat." ("Cause" seems wrong, though. The animal isn't really causing it; it's just the topic.) Ordinarily I would say that these two cites could be merged into the RFV'd sense, with the def adjusted accordingly (something like, "(intransitive, of beef) To become interlaced with fat; said also of the cattle"), except that they seem more similar to the 1848 cite, which is transitive, and which clearly distinguishes the cattle from the beef (in that the subject refers to the former, the direct object to the latter). I think the best solution might be to create a single sense for the whole mess, and grammatical subsenses for the various configurations that assign different elements of {cattle, beef, farmer} to different elements of {subject, direct object}. (But then, would each separate configuration need to have three cites?) —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on closer examination, I saw and was about to comment that the 2000 Business Perspectives and 2009 Heather Smith Thomas quotations are about the animals, not the meat, as you pointed out in an edit summary. I will check how (if) any technical dictionaries define the verb. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intransitive usages seem quite rare. If we have require precises definition that are fully substitutable, we are apparently going to lose them. Could we finesse this by combining transitive and intransitive senses (and more significantly their citations) under ergative? Or could we combine the two possible subjects of the intransitive senses ("cattle or certain other livestock" and "the meat of cattle or certain other livestock"). It wouldn't be the end of lexicography as we hope it to be to omit the full verb senses where the attestation is so scanty. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having one ergative sense "(of animals or their meat) ..." (and leaving the existing first and second senses "cause to be streaked" respectively "be streaked") is a decent solution. Having one transitive sense "(of animals or their meat) to cause to be interlaced with fat" and one intransitive sense "(of beef) to become interlaced with fat" (with the 1912-1970-1974-1978 quotations) is also a decent solution, and because we have the quotations to support it it is perhaps better, but in that case I'm not sure what to do with the 2000 and 2009 quotations. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait a bit longer before removing any senses, though — we keep finding more quotations. Just now I found one specifically about animals. - -sche (discuss) 00:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every sense now has three or four quotations. Cited? - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the quotations are now on the citations page; the quotations I thought were most illustrating remain also in the entry. Feel free to move more quotations back into the entry — or out of it, although I think each sense should be left at least one quotation (to show how it's used). - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikidiot

Salvaged from {{delete}}ion. I see a capitalized cite (which I'll add to the cites page).—msh210℠ (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cabinessence

Definitely a song title, but searching for "his cabinessence" yields no hits on Groups or Books. But a further search may be productive.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known work"? Or is that reserved for only a special meaning of "well-known"? DCDuring TALK 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. :-) —msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abatage

This word (not the French abattage) doesn't appear in dictionaries I have referred to (Collins, SOE, online-OED) - does it exist? —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One OneLook dictionary (besides us) has it as an alternative form of (deprecated template usage) abattage, but only in the "slaughter of animals" sense. This seems like another instance of the all-too-frequent assumption by a contributor, usually completely unsupported by evidence or authority, that an English loan-word (usually a rare one) has all the meanings that it did in the source language. I have added abattage#English in one sense, added an alternative spelling sense at abatage and converted the RfV to 3 RfV-senses. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunmin Jeongeum

Korean section, Korean Google Books only has hits in English, French, and German. Test case to see if Romanized Korean is attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move

Rfv-sense: A change in strategy.

Not familiar with this sense. I am familiar with the sense of a step in a plan or strategy. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly often used in reference to changes in strategy,‎‎‎ but I think it's part of a more general sense, which we're missing, something like "a change, switch, or transition".‎‎‎ (Even the more general sense is technically covered by our very first sense, "the act of moving; a movement"; but I think "a change, switch, or transition" warrants separate coverage, while "a change in strategy" does not, unless it's used complementlessly, or otherwise in a way that the general "a change, switch, or transition" sense is not.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rare good edit conflict, as this is more or less what I was going to say. Seems valid to me, just could be broadened. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I have ever heard it as unambiguously referring to a change in strategy as opposed to a particular operationalization of a component of a strategy. A strategy is a plan. Plans change. A change in strategy is implemented (PoV of implementer) or a strategy (changed or unknown) becomes apparent (PoV of outsider). I'm perhaps unable to perceive anything other than this because of my consulting and teaching in this area. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Did you click my links? Are they not unambiguously referring to a change in strategy? —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia

We have:

Sexual or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults towards children.
A desire for overt sexual acts directed by adults towards children.
Whatever assumed manifestation of erotic feelings or desires directed towards children, for example using of child pornography, involvement in age unequal interrelationship with a child or an young person etc.

The first two seem basically the same. I can't really tell what the third is supposed to mean. FTR I did just edit the first two because they were badly written. I didn't intend to change the meaning, but it became more apparent that they were redundant. You can [see http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&oldid=11464662] what they used to look like if you want. I think the second two could just be completely removed without losing anything from the entry. WurdSnatcher 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4,744: / Line 4,744: @@
 ::I am not sure that I have ever heard it as unambiguously referring to a change in strategy as opposed to a particular operationalization of a component of a strategy. A strategy is a plan. Plans change. A change in strategy is implemented (PoV of implementer) or a strategy (changed or unknown) becomes apparent (PoV of outsider). I'm perhaps unable to perceive anything other than this because of my consulting and teaching in this area. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 ::: I'm confused. Did you click my links? Are they not unambiguously referring to a change in strategy? —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
+== pedophilia ==
+We have:
+# [[sexual|Sexual]] or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults towards [[child]]ren.
+# A desire for overt sexual acts directed by adults towards children.
+# Whatever assumed manifestation of erotic feelings or desires directed towards [[child]]ren, for example using of child pornography, involvement in age unequal interrelationship with a child or an young person etc.
+The first two seem basically the same. I can't really tell what the third is supposed to mean. FTR I did just edit the first two because they were badly written. I didn't intend to change the meaning, but it became more apparent that they were redundant. You can [see http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&oldid=11464662] what they used to look like if you want. I think the second two could just be completely removed without losing anything from the entry. [[User:WurdSnatcher|WurdSnatcher]] 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

Wiktionary:Requests for verification: difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:51, 3 April 2011

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010