Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/January

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← December 2017 · January 2018 · February 2018 → · (current)

---

artistæ

Can someone explain to me how this is the English plural of "artist"? Does any other dict have it? Equinox ◑ 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ask @Romanophile, the creator. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an alternative plural of artist. It’s a plural of the more technical and historical artista. I have to admit that I was a bit prescriptive and wishful when I submitted that. Here are some cites. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 20:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We do still need an English entry for artista if you wanna do the honours. Equinox ◑ 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bahuvrihi

We have several words that are in categories under Category:Bahuvrihi compounds by language. But we don't seem to have a definition for this word. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Yeah, we do; but bahuvrihi is written lower-case. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

periot

A 19th century balance scale

It would be fascinating to have some reference to how on Earth the periot was weighed, in practice. Depending a bit on which country's grain you start with, 1/9600 of it is around an eighth of the Planck mass; a 1 periot drop of water has diameter less than a quarter mm. Reasonable readers might doubt the practicality of measuring such a small mass (of gemstone) with any semblance of accuracy, using equipment available to 18th century jewellers (IIUC, that's roughly where this unit dates from). The blanc, a 24th part of a periot, even more so. Eddy, 84.215.7.210 13:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• See Arithmetic on WikipediaWikipedia , Lever on WikipediaWikipedia , Weighing_scale on WikipediaWikipedia , and image. I assume that some of the techniques involved trial-and-error, lever arms, weighing multiple "periots", and using groups of weights, between which the difference was equal to the expected weight (eg. a 50 periot weight and 20 and 25 periot weights would allow measurement of 5 periots on an unlevered balance and 1 periot on a 5:1 levered balance. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I am familiar with beam balances and the tricks one can do with them. However, we're dealing with under 7 microgrammes here; I cannot help but wonder how precisely anyone ever measured a periot using such balances (much less the blanc, at about two sevenths of a microgramme). Doing so in a cold room, for example (as just one potential confounding effect), would involve a hazard of error due to condensation on the metal of the scales; it would be easy to fail to notice a thin layer, along a beam's length, whose mass could be significant relative to that of a quarter-mm droplet of water. During swapping of the masses between pans, to check a weighing, such condensation might well flow along the beam, confounding precision. I guess my curiosity is more about the practicalities of how 18th century jewellers dealt with such absurdly tiny masses. One might also wonder whether anyone could actually see a gem so small. Eddy, 84.215.7.210 21:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

broad-winged

Should we have an entry for this word, which is apparently only found in broad-winged hawk? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Presumably not, because a dictionary lists lexical items, not phrases. "Broad-winged" means "having broad wings", just "short-legged", "high-nosed", "lumpy-elbowed" and so on mean the obvious things. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: You're probably right. We do have entries for short-legged and high-nosed, though. The latter has the justification of being idiomatic, but the former apparently isn't.

@DCDuring, should we pass some rule about this? I know from Talk:big-dicked that you weren't too keen on including them all, and I think a fair many words in CAT:English parasynthetic adjectives don't really have idiomatic senses. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to think that common sense, unaided by an explicit rule, would exclude bat-winged, swept-winged, and broad-winged and big-dicked, limp-dicked, large-dicked, and small-dicked. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

aphasia

I am a bit dubious sometimes where a term is described as being from Ancient Greek when ἀφασία (aphasía) may be a coining in Modern Greek. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can stop being dubious, because the word is genuine Ancient Greek (which I found out by looking it up in Liddell and Scott's dictionary online, just as you could have). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There was an Ancient Greek word aphasia but the word entered English in its medical sense through French ([1]), around 1865. DTLHS (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know of Liddell & Scott anyway, not being a Greek scholar. I think I'll just use the latter part of the etymology. DonnanZ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Crusade

Could a Japanese-language editor take a look at the Japanese translation here? It seems wrong. In Chinese at least 十字軍 refers to the forces themselves, not the military campaign. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the meaning is exactly the same in Japanese as in Chinese. The problem is that there is no "word" for "Crusade", other than saying "an expedition by the crusaders" (十字軍の遠征); the word for "crusader [army]" is more basic. I don't know what is supposed to happen here; removing the translation is not helpful, but adding a Japanese entry for a phrase is also dubious. (Fundamentally, there is a problem with this "translations" notion: it assumes that all languages have the same division into semantic units, and this is not true.) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really. We add sum-of-parts translations all the time, we just make sure the units are linked individually, as opposed to pointing to one (red-link) entry. If the Japanese is the same as the Chinese, then 十字軍 would apppear to be a mistranslation. A "crusade" is not an army. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If a trans is SOP, link like this: "Japanese: {{t|ja|[[十字軍]][[の]][[遠征]]|tr=じゅうじぐんのえんせい, jūjigun no ensei}}", resulting in this: "Japanese: 十字軍の遠征 (じゅうじぐんのえんせい, jūjigun no ensei)". -84.161.37.103 18:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

evenly

Etymology at evenly is not right. A separate etymology needs to be made to fit an adjective sense (if it's attested) from OE efenlīċ. Also look at the PGmc source *ebnalīkaz that shows Eng. evenly as a descendant. Anglish4699 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the etymology to show OE efenlīċe. Anglish4699 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Swedish döma

Could someone please check my attempt to fix the usage notes? --Espoo (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's OK, it really needs looking at by a Swedish speaker. It's similar to Norwegian Nynorsk døma and Norwegian Bokmål dømme, but a double m is used in the latter case. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Just made a minor adjustment, otherwise some mighty good changes @Espoo. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

yuppie

This can be an adjective right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, but it can be used attributively, such as yuppie flu. DonnanZ (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well "hippie" can act as an adjective, so I don't see why not. "That place is so yuppie." etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I know that would make it meet our test for adjectivity, but so many nouns can, in context, be used that way and demonstratively are, at least on the Web. Do we want to memorialize all such durably attested usage? I am not sure that there is a way to objectively distinguish the usages I find lexically adjectival from those I do not. If there isn't than our existing tests of adjectivity must prevail. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

life's a bitch

A red link I found at c'est la vie. An idiom? DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Such a common term, but some of us don't think it inclusion-worthy (except possibly as a usage example for the right definition at [[bitch]], ie "Something unforgiving and unpleasant", possibly reworded). Isn't that a bitch? DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder who entered life's a bitch and then you die? I found more red links at life and bitch and decided to do something about it. DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

busyness and busy-ness

Is there a reason we distinguish these? And I'm not sure I agree with the "without achieving much" part of the definition at busy-ness. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a little evidence for the "without achieving much" part in the first few pages of Goole Book Search results:

"The work culture in many organizations emphasize being busy as in busy-ness rather than effectiveness."

"BUSY-NESS. If you're not careful, you can spend all day spinning your wheels and have little time left over to actually get anything worthwhile achieved."

"Before we know it, we are stressed, aged, "busy-ness" junkies who fill even our vacations with meaningless tasks."

Of course, this isn't any evidence that "busyness" is not use the same way. Mihia (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition should probably be modified to say "without necessarily achieving much." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right; or maybe there should be two definitions, one for the "useful" busy-ness and one for the futile sort. Mihia (talk)

go

At go there is the following usage note:

• The verb to go has two different present participles (like many other English verbs), e.g., going and goand. The form goand is now obsolete outside a few (rural) dialects where it is considered archaic.

I don't believe that the first sentence is particularly helpfully worded, but I'm not sure how best to fix it. Is it saying that many English verbs have an archaic or dialect participle form -and, e.g. seeand for seeing, or doand for doing, etc.? When it says "e.g.", which seems rather vague and confusing, does it mean that there are alterative spellings/forms of goand? Mihia (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Is goand attestable in either Middle or Modern English? If it is attestable in Modern English, it could be on the inflection line with some qualifier. If in ME, then that is where it belongs. If neither, we can delete the usage note. DCDuring (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The reference in the entry for goand is to Scots goande. We are usually pretty specific as to spelling (except in Middle English) and treat Scots as a separate language. DCDuring (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe e.g. and i.e. were confused and it was meant to mean "There are two participles, namely going and goand"?

I wasn't able to find the cite in goand with google books. The Scots reference however has "Ane thristie manne … goande by ane tauerne; Q. Kennedy Oratioune 18.". google doesn't have it either but "goande by ane taverne" (by Quintine Kennedy but in a book with works of John Knox (?)) can be found. I'd assume that someone changed the Scots quote to make it more English or "normalized" it in some way... -84.161.37.76 01:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Note was added by User:Mountebank1 [2], who habitually adds some rather strange bits of dialect. Equinox ◑ 03:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that whilst the suffix -and was productive, that is from God knows how long ago until the early 17th century, every English verb, in the Northern dialects at least, had the present participle which ended in -and and/or -ing. However, -and was completely replaced by -ing at the end of the Middle English period in the Southern dialects, and there aren't enough written works in the Midlands dialects to be able to tell when the suffix -and fell out of usage over there. I heard people use this suffix only when they were reading literary works or when they were trying to sound "archaic". Mountebank1 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I meant to sayː

• The verb to go has two different present participles (like many other English verbs). One of them is goand and the other one is going. Goand is now obsolete, except for a few rural dialects where it is considered archaic, nota bene, these days, it is almost never used in common speech. Mountebank1 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mountebank1: but doesn't that usage note properly belong at -and, rather than at go ? Leasnam (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know where it belongs... Mountebank1 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If I may be critical again about the new wording above, the information that "the form goand is now obsolete ..." is not sufficient in my opinion to make clear that all the alternative present participles are obsolete or dialect, and that for 99.99% of all practical applications there is actually only one present participle for each verb. Also, "e.g." is still wrong. It doesn't logically work within the structure of that sentence as it is written. Mihia (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mihi, Mihia: Thoo art full richt, it ne wurkes non. Joost ne wurkes... Mountebank1 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I ne knowe hu tae wird it anie bettir than this. Mountebank1 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, I do not think that there is anyone out there who might find it reasonable to use the word goand instead of going, especially since "goand" was never used to form the continuous present or the continuous past... But like I said, I do not think that I can reword it any better than this, so if any of you feel like you can do a better job, then go ahead. Take a whack at it. Mountebank1 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This is my suggestion:

• Like other English verbs, the verb go once had an alternative present participle formed with the suffix -and, i.e. goand. Goand is now obsolete, having been replaced by going, except in a few rural dialects in Scotland and Northern England, where it is considered archaic. Even in such dialects it is never used to form the continuous tenses. These examples are from ### which dialect? ###:

  Goand snell athwart the houf, hoo hent 'im be the swyr. (Going swiftly across the churchyard, she grabbed him by the neck.)

  Goand oot of the holt, she saw a woundor baist. (Going out of the woods, she saw a magical creature.)

The current text says "Northern dialects", which I think may be confusing to readers around the world. I have assumed it means northern Britain. It would be good to mention the particular dialect that the example sentences come from. Mihia (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Highland dialects. The suffix -and is almost never used outside the Highlands. I don't know about Orkney, though. And if I had to guess, I would say that it survived there, to this day, via the oral tradition (which is now all but dead). So, I am not even sure that anyone uses it in the Highlands any more, most certianly not the young people. And I haven't been to Scotland myself for a very long time... although I still sometimes hear the suffix -and used in my dreams (if that helps anything). Mountebank1 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • And by the way, goand is not really an alternative form of going, because goand and going had kind of different roles, so I don't think it is all that correct to call it an alternative form. Goand was used to form dangling participles (at least on some occasions) and going was used to form the continuous tenses. The suffix -and was used to impart a sense of archaism. It basically served as a stylistic device. Mountebank1 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

    So, you are saying that goand is not something that is currently being used to communicate what is communicated by going, but someone might run across it. That is, there is no particularly good reason for the entry for go to prominently support encoding into goand, though there is a reason to have an entry for goand for decoding. That is, goand does not belong on the inflection line at go#Verb though there might be reason to include it as a related (derived?) term. DCDuring (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder too whether there is anything special or different about the use of goand, in terms of either historical development or present usage, compared to the use of the -and suffix generally. If the suffix is used (or not used) in the same way with numerous verbs, then, if we include this information at go, should we not also logically include it for numerous other verbs, and would that be making too much of it? Perhaps, as suggested above, the detail should be explained only at -and. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You can still run across words like goand at events like this, or maybe at school or at churches that use the Scottish bible.

When I was attending Catholic school in the Highlands we often read old Scottish poems from the 15th and 16th centuries in which the suffix -and figured prominently. I also occasionally heard very old people (80 to 85 years old) use the suffix -and for the sense of archaism that it provided. And that was in the late 70s. And when I was in my late teens (in the early 80s) I spent some time with a traveling preacher who sometimes used the suffix -and when he was reading the bible (this suffix appears in the Scots bible). Mountebank1 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mihia, Mihia: Historically, -and was occasionally used to form the continuous tenses, but that sort of usage was very rare. It was mostly used to form dangling participles and adjectives. For exampleː

• And when Jesus came into the house of the prince, and saw mistrals and the people makand noise, He said: Go ye away; for the damsel is not dead, but sleeps. And they scorned him. And when the folk was put out, He went in, and held her hand, and said: Rise, damsel; (and) the damsel rose.

• Fyftie thousand fightand men; a burnand brand; a falland star, a criand child, a falland case (an incident) etc.

• Cupid, with his fairy dart,
• did pierce him so out through the heart,
• So all that night he did but morned;
• Sometime sat up, and sometime turned.
• Sighand and with many (a) gant and groan,
• To fair Venus makand his moan:
• Sayand, Lady, what may this mean?
• I was a free man late yestreen:
• And now a captive bound and thrall
• For one that I think flower of all

By the way, here's an example for seeand from Murdock Nisbet's translation of the New Testamentː "And the Pharoe, seeand that, had called him, said within himself, sayand: If this were a prophet, he should wit who and what manner (of) woman it were that touches him; for she is a sinful woman." Mountebank1 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand whether there is something special about go that means we should explain the usage detail at go and not explain it at many other verbs, or whether we should (in theory) explain it at numerous verbs, or whether it should just be explained at -and. Mihia (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that we should just create entries for the present participles formed with -and. Mountebank1 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

And no, there is nothing special about go. I think that most of this stuff should be included at -and. Mountebank1 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• A question in my mind is: "Where should goand appear on the go page?". Goand and go are obviously to be linked. The link from goand to go is obvious. The definition line contains a link to go

  Inflection line gives it too much prominence.

  Usage notes isn't appropriate because there is nothing to distinguish go from many other Germanic English verbs in his regard.

  Derived terms is not where we put inflections.

  Related terms is not really for inflections either.

  See also seems like an evasion.

  The Conjugation box seems like a good place, but only in this case, not for the general case of -and participles.

  Thus I return to the inflection line for the general case. Perhaps a show-hide bar to make it clear that the hidden contert is of less-than-primary importance. It is a shame that the bar takes up so much space. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  Goand should go in the same place on the page [[go]] where other archaic forms like goest and goeth go: not there at all. Links don't always have to be reciprocal, and this is good example of a time when they shouldn't be. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know, maybe we shouldn't even put goand in the entry for go. Mountebank1 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no need for it to be there Leasnam (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ullans

This Scots entry shows English Ulster Scots as a synonym, not a translation. Translingual entries often have a similar problem with English related and derived terms and synonyms. Don't we have to follow the logic of our separation of every languages from English and Translingual? DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what Scots is or how it should be attested. I have created a separate English entry however. DTLHS (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Scots on Wikipedia.Wikipedia (language code: sco) is considered a separate language. Is Ullans attestable in English? DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Among OneLook references only Wiktionary and WP have entries for Ullans. Nor does Century 1911. Ie, none of the English-language dictionaries have the term, at least until you added the English L2. OED? DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither OED[3] nor DSL[4] have it; attestable through Google Books though[5]. --Droigheann (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I've gleaned, Ullans isn't really a Scots word at all, having been made up recently by an Ulster language society to differentiate what is spoken in Ulster from Lallans. Though Lallans seems to be both English and Scots, Ullans seems to be just English, at least by our standard of attestation. DCDuring (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I know that it has a Wikipedia article. I should have said, I don't know what it is on Wiktionary. And yes it's easily attestable as English. DTLHS (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

highfather

Is it really proper to mark this entry as "nonstandard"? Why not just "rare"? Tharthan (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If I used highfather in a school English paper about religion or patriarchs, I doubt it would be marked "wrong", so it doesn't seem to be the same kind of non-standard that quicklier or boughten are Leasnam (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I note that 2 of 4 citations are for "high father" with a space, which seems rather different. (A "grand father" is a father who is grand; a "black bird" is any bird that is black.) Okay, there are cases like "high priest"/"highpriest" but I am suspicious of this Wiktionary narrative that unusual Anglo-Saxonesque forms are of equal ranking with the equivalent Adj+Noun phrases; the latter are quite possibly of independent modern formation. Equinox ◑ 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So how do we determine whether this is a legitimate "Anglish" term à la those coined by Michael of Northgate, Barnes and Hollander, or just a latter-day affectation? Because I am sick of seeing the latter around. As much as I love using Germanic terms over post-Old English Latinisms when I have the choice, we ought not to be peddling around false terms. Tharthan (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Dan Michel of Northgate is irrelevant to this discussion since he wrote in Middle English, not modern. As for Barnes and Hollander, their terms are no more or less "legitimate" than anyone else's; "Anglish" is always just an affectation. CFI still applies: if a term is used at least 3 times in durably archived sources, by multiple authors over the span of more than 1 year, we include it. Otherwise we don't. Back to the original point, however, I agree that {{lb|en|rare}} rather than {{lb|en|nonstandard}} is probably the correct label here. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Were inkhorn terms not affectations in their own time? I fail to see how (at least a mild form of) "Anglish" is any worse. If one more or less sticks to already coined terms and terms coined by authors fairly published, what is wrong with that? But anyway, if no one objects, I'll change the label. Tharthan (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that highfather really qualifies as an "Anglish" term anyway, not any more than the words I, you, me, the, meaning, follow, house are "Anglish"...highfather is a word that's always been in our language, just like those others just mentioned. It's just "English". To me, a purely "Anglish" term is like waterstuff or uncleftish...Leasnam (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

会する

Hello, I recently noticed that the entry for 「会する」 has broken conjugation, the kana and rōmaji sections are fine, but the kanji versions erroneously repeat the 「する」 part for every form. I tried fixing it, but I cannot correct it. --AstroVulpes (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if I'm seeing something different to you. I see nothing obviously amiss. Could you quote exactly what you see for one specific entry that you think is wrong? Mihia (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@AstroVulpes, Mihia: Fixed. This is a topic for WT:GP, not the Tea room :). This is how -suru verbs are now handled. I missed when it was agreed that the verbs is in this group stopped displaying "suru" in the transliteration, though. It doesn't make sense to display "会する" in the headword but show only "かい" and "kai" without the "する/suru" part. IMO, it should be "かいする, kai suru", as it always has been! I noticed it some time ago but never raised it. @Erikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang: was there a discussion about it? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the conjugation of する is not included, then surely there is no conjugation at all, and no point in having a conjugation table? Wouldn't every entry simply read 会/かい/kai? Perhaps I am missing the point somehow. Mihia (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mihia: I meant that "する" is not included in the headword but it is in the conjugation table, which is working as expected. Yes, I think you're missing the point. The suru part is the only one that gets conjugated: shi, sure, shiyō. You can have a look at the conjugation table at する (suru). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the suru part is the only one that gets conjugated. That is why I don't understand how it ever could have been suggested that it should be omitted. But, if it's all working correctly then I won't worry about it any more! Mihia (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. Fixing the stuffed ping: @Eirikr.Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I see 会するする… The same problem as in User talk:Haplology#Fun with Template:ja-suru. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang: I can see it too now! What happened? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I've got it... suru verbs are supposed to be at the entry name without suru: 会, not 会する. — Eru·tuon 02:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah no in this case. There must be an entry for 会する because 会 is not a noun but a kanji. See User talk:Eirikr/Archive 2011-2012#鼻汗. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by changing the headword template. Modelled on 愛(あい)する (aisuru, “to love”), which also has an entry title with する. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Actually, I modified Module:ja-headword, and {{ja-suru}} should work fine now. — Eru·tuon 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Erutuon:: OK, thanks. As long as verbs with or without する in the title work, I'm happy with your solution. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I did test a verb without する too, and it looked fine. — Eru·tuon 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Erutuon: A certain set of single-kanji terms + する are analyzed as inseparable. For instance, 愛する (aisuru) conjugates differently from what one would expect for 愛 (ai) + する (suru): the negative form is 愛さない (aisanai), not *愛しない (*ai shinai). There is also a potential form, 愛せる (aiseru), which for a separable verb would instead be *愛できる (*ai dekiru). I am not familiar with the 会する (kaisuru) verb itself, but my references list this as following the same inseparable-verb pattern. HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Are you certain that the negative of 愛する is 愛さない? Would that not be the negative of 愛す? Mihia (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't get the ping...

@Mihia: It appears you're correct, and also that this verb is a bit irregular. I had learned somewhere along the way that the negative should always be 愛さない, but it appears that 愛しない is also valid. Digging deeper now, the term 愛する is classed as a サ行変格活用 (sa-gyou henkaku katsuyō, “"S"-row irregular conjugation”), with considerable overlap between the expected patterns for -する and -す. See more at the Japanese WP article on サ行変格活用, with a specific section for the verb 愛する.

FWIW:

• 15,800 hits at google books:"愛さない"
• 6,050 hits at google books:"愛しない"
• 430,000 hits at google:"愛さない"
• 12,300 hits at google:"愛しない"

@Shinji, can you supply any native-speaker wisdom on this one? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

愛する, as well as 会する, has a new conjugation pattern. Traditionally it is explained by the two verbs 愛する and 愛す, but it is difficult to imagin a speaker switching two verbs according to tense and mood. It is rather reasonable to think the two conjugations have been merged:

	愛する	愛す	Merged
Nonpast	愛する	?愛す	愛する
Past	愛した	愛した	愛した
Negative	?愛しない	愛さない	愛さない
Conditional	愛すれば	愛せば	愛せば 愛すれば
Imperative	*愛しろ 愛せよ	愛せ	愛せ
Volitional	?愛しよう	愛そう	愛そう
Potential	*愛せられる	愛せる	愛せる

My intuition is that there is only one verb. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of Hungarian halaszt

What does the etymology of halaszt mean? There is no reference to the hal- part. Would someone expand it or otherwise make it make sense?

Ok. Crom daba (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

scrit

I'm not sure where to post this. Scrit uses the English header, but is probably Middle English; the last quotation in the OED is from 1450. — Eru·tuon 00:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

“scrit”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. calls it Middle English. Our documentation makes 1500 the division point between Middle and Modern English. There is a case for the division to be somewhat earlier, marked by the later works printed by William Caxton (d. 1491). I'd go with Middle English. DCDuring (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've visualized Caxton setting up his press in England and upon the first stamp a wave passing through England where the power of the printed word changed the language mid-discussion from Middle English to Modern English. But "the later works"? That's hopelessly fussy for a line drawn in a continuum. 1500 is a nice round number as good as any.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thesaurus:manbulge

Can we rename this (not sure to what)? The current title is not only inappropriately slangy for a thesaurus headword, it is also rare, not found in Google Books at all. Equinox ◑ 14:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the most common term for it though Leasnam (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you know?! Equinox ◑ 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Everyone I know refers to it as such. I hear it all the time. It may not be encountered much in print, but that's the term people use for it in speech. Show anyone a pic of a man's bulgy crotch area and ask them what this is, and they'll say "manbulge" lol Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(I wonder what you talk about all day.) If you asked me I'd scratch my head and say "um, 'package' I guess." —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not gonna go and ask random people what they think about a picture of a man's bulging crotch because I will be arrested and put on a list. But yeah unfortunately I don't know any better name for this. I am slightly biased because the creator was (I am pretty sure) "Pass a Method", who had a brief flurry of trying to edit all penis/trousers articles to get his word into it. I don't like us supporting this by apathetic default. Equinox ◑ 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Does a thesaurus title have to be a word, or could it be a gloss? DTLHS (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

All those thesaurus titles which are SoP are not words in that sense, so yes, the title can be a gloss. Else it would mean that compounds are allowed while words with a prepositional phrase or a relative sentence aren’t. Palaestrator verborum ^{sis loquier 🗣} 03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I would prefer a silly "Thesaurus:man's bulging crotch" over the current one, because, while I have nothing at all against slang, slang is colourful and carries implications. Thesaurus headwords should be neutral, even if that means we get a little biological about the dick in the pants. We have Thesaurus:drunk, not Thesaurus:pissed. Equinox ◑ 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Since when is manbulge slangy ? I don't see it as slang. It's a crude concept, but the word is spot on. "Man's bulging crotch" is okay too, but unnecessary (too verbose and very British-sounding). Maybe manbulge sounds too North American ? Otherwise, it sounds just fine IMO. I mean, we do have cameltoe as well don't we ? [[6]] Leasnam (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, seems pretty slangy to me... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thesaurus:cameltoe was also created by a "Pass a Method" sock as one of his mad campaigns (you only see about 10% of what he did, because the huge amount of egregious shit was deleted by hard-working admins, not just me); and I would equally prefer a non-childish term to group those thesaurus items. Equinox ◑ 04:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

From my experience, I would guess that at least half of all English entries deleted through rfv in the past few years can be traced to Pass a Method, the Sky UK Japanese/Magic vandal (though Japanese got the brunt of it) and the Greek Pseudo-Intellectual IP. WF, Fête and Luciferwildcat/Gtroy did a lot of damage in years past, but they've been almost quiet in recent years (WF, please take that as a compliment, not a challenge...). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Is X slang?" is probably arguable, but my personal benchmark (for slang, colloquial or informal) tends to be "if I were writing an academic paper that had to be submitted to a journal, could I use this word without quote marks or italics?". Manbulge is a no-no. Equinox ◑ 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

綱

Does this character have a Chinese meaning "program"? Dokurrat (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

男色

The current definition of 男色 doesn't seem quite right. In the quotation, 男色 looks to be the object of 親, so I'm not sure if it could mean "homosexual sex". @Wyang, Dokurrat, Tooironic, any ideas on the definition? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not? 親 (roughly, "to be familiar with") + 男色 ("male homosexual sex"). ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the rfdef sense is supposed to represent... There are two senses for this IMO: "(1) masculine charms; man's beauty; (2) lust for man; sexual intercourse with a man (or men)". Compare 女色. Wyang (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: I think Dokurrat added a rfdef because the current definition doesn't match what's in Hanyu Da Cidian. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

does size matter?

Should we add a sense to girth? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends what that sense is? DTLHS (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Penis circumference. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

drive letter

User:Zcreator just made this, but it's completely incomprehensible. —Rua (mew) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the wording used by the Wikipedia article linked from that page.... I added a context label (which I see you just fixed for me, thanks) and a link to volume, which clarifies it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The "PC" wording is a bit strange. Certainly Windows mobile has drive letters too, while Linux on a PC does not. It's OS dependent, not hardware-dependent. —Rua (mew) 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I know very little about this sort of thing, but I would tend to agree. SemperBlotto made that edit, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to MS-DOS or Windows. There's other operating systems, according to Wikipedia; OS/2 is obvious, I think we can avoid mentioning all the MS-DOS/Windows clones, and there's a few archaic systems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO should delete as SoP. It's like "part number". Equinox ◑ 15:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

despite that + subordinate clause?

Is this

• a) in use and correct;
• b) in use but proscribed; ("despite the fact that")
• c) not in use?

I'm hoping for b): it'd be an accurate translation of malgré que. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't say "despite that." You can say "despite the fact that," but it's not proscribed as far as I'm aware. I can't think of anything that perfectly fits what you want. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered although? Although it's not quite as strong in expressing the opposition between the main and subordinate clauses, it might fit your need. DCDuring (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Do you mean it's not used at all? Or that it's used, but prescriptively incorrect? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring: although is okay, but it won't capture the fact that malgré que is a proscribed construction. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for an English expression that is proscribed in a way that parallels the way a French expression is proscribed? This seems like a fool's errand to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree that it's a fool's errand! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought that despite that was fine. I've used it before. But my speech is probably weird. — Eru·tuon 21:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Ahah, it's this message of yours that prompted my question! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In the message that you cite, as I read it, there is a missing comma after that. I think that is an anaphoric reference to a prior sentence. DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree: the meaning, as I see it, is: "Although I'm an Ancient Greek enthusiast [and I'd prefer using the first person singular], if a form has to be chosen, I'd support the third person.". I'd say that your analysis is true for most of the occurrences of "despite that" we can find in Wiktionary, though: [7] --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We have the opportunity to ask the author. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, @Per utramque cavernam is right. I meant [despite [that I'm ...]], not [despite that] [I'm ...]. — Eru·tuon 22:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

哩哩啦啦

The page shows a Cantonese pronunciation. Is this word used in Cantonese? @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Wyang. Dokurrat (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And 哩哩囉囉 / 哩哩羅羅, which also make me wonder. Dokurrat (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the first one, but the second one seems vaguely familiar to me as li1 li1 lo1 lo1 (I could be wrong). —suzukaze (t・c) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Cantonese does have li1 li1 laa1 laa1, but it has a Cantonese-specific meaning: careless. There is also li4 li4 laa4 laa4, meaning "swiftly". Not sure about li1 li1 lo4 lo4. Wyang (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

li1 li1 lo4 lo4 doesn't sound colloquial to me; I'd go with li1 li1 lo1 lo1, but I'm not sure if it's actually used in Cantonese. For 哩哩啦啦, apart from li1 li1 laa1 laa1 and li4 li4 laa4 laa4, I've also heard of li4 li1 laa4 laa4 for the second sense. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

all's Contraction of all as

Yet all as does not have an entry of its own. Some reference(s) of its use would be clarifying --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, in the entry all's the two words are linked separately: it's a contraction of [[all]] [[as]], with as being sense 9: "(now England, US, regional) Functioning as a relative conjunction; that". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

antonym of free of charge

Do we have an entry that can serve or already serves as a translation hub? I'd like to add payant and платный (platnyj) to it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

When you find one, you can add kostenpflichtig to it too. I notice that both kostenpflichtig and пла́тный (plátnyj)}} are glossed as "chargeable", but chargeable itself doesn't seem to have the exact meaning "not free of charge". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The SoP expression for + sale is the most natural way for me to say it. As is often the case I can't find the appropriate definition of for which MWOnline has as its first "1 a —used as a function word to indicate purpose. a grant for studying medicine. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Our closest definition is: "In order to obtain or acquire." That wording doesn't work too well for for sale or They put the baby up for adoption or The tree stump was suitable for sitting.. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to the French or Russian terms, but German kostenpflichtig isn't quite "for sale" either. It basically means "that must be paid for". A sign warning car owners that their vehicles may be towed away at owner's expense might say that the cars will be kostenpflichtig abgeschleppt. When you buy something online in Germany, the last button you click to finalize the purchase is required by German law to say "kostenpflichtig bestellen", i.e. "order while recognizing that you are committing yourself to pay". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for Russian either, but I agree with Angr: I wouldn't translate payant by for sale either (that would be à vendre). When you ask "Is it for sale?", the answer you expect is either "Yes, it's for sale" or "No, it's not for sale", not really "No, it's free". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would expect a possible response to be No, take one. or No, it's a floor model/demo.. This comes up with things like free (advertiser-paid) newspapers or better-quality sales brochures near a cash register. For free, a near-antonym of for sale, is close to synonymous with free of charge, at no charge. DCDuring (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja, DCDuring: What about paid (as in paid service)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think of paid as having to do with past payments, not future ones, though context could make it work as you want it to. But we don't want our definitions, usage notes, etc to depend much on context for correct understanding. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There are contexts where paid could work, but not all of them. I think we simply have to accept that English has no obvious adjective that means "subject to payment". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

+ Greek πληρωτέος (plirotéos) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There's always nonfree. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've put the translations there. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Consider paid, e.g. a paid service. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

hundred-year-old

Redirected to -year-old, and I'm not sure whether I'm reopening a can of worms by suggesting that this (in the case of a person) is a synonym of centenarian, and a note won't do any harm. DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like us to have entries for ALL n-year-olds, both as adjectives and as nouns. Even if only as translation targets (for e.g. Italian). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing odd with having SoP terms as synonyms of idiomatic terms. Just do something like {{syn|en|[[hundred]][[-year-old]]}}. Crom daba (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you use that instead of {{synonym of|centenarian}}? A redirect to -year-old would still be needed though for other senses.

@SemperBlotto: I generally agree with you, however in addition ninety-year-old is a synonym of nonagenarian, eighty-year-old of octagenarian, seventy-year-old of septuagenarian (my new age group). DonnanZ (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

-ous pronunciation

Should the pronunciation(s) of -ous be added? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I've added it. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: thanx. What about the alternative forms? I am not sure I know them for 100% of cases --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciation of -ious depends on what it follows, since it tends to turn t and s into /ʃ/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Montenegrin

Montenegrin now has an ISO 639 code of its own, cnr. However, since we treat it as a regional variety of Serbo-Croatian, I don't think there's anything we need to do about it besides this, is there? Terms are added to CAT:Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian by means of {{lb|sh|Montenegro}}, which doesn't use a code. Is there anything I'm forgetting, where our ad-hoc code zls-mon is being used? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No results for insource:zls-mon, so it's not being used. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I think we can probably trace or add automatically Serbo-Croatian words with letters С́, с́, З́, з́ to CAT:Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian. They are not used in other varieties. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

corruptible

What does the first cite mean? And shouldn't we split this in (at least) two senses (cf. incorruptible)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In the first cite corruptible means ‘perishable, subject to decay’, and the sense of the whole cite is roughly ‘You weren’t redeemed by means of things like silver and gold, which are not eternal.’ I’d split the senses. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

heapmeal

Is heapmeal possibly an inherited or borrowing of a Mid. English *hepmele, from OE hēapmǣlum? I couldn't find a descendant on B&T or Middle English Dictionary. They seem so close! I just don't know... Anglish4699 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We really don't see it reemerge until the early 20th century, which suggests (at least to me) that renewed interest in Old English reading was responsible, or at best renewed vigour in creating Old English-sounding words was in minor fashion. The only other mention before then is in a 19th Century dictionary where it is listed as obsolete. Personally, I would say it was created anew, and mention the OE hēapmǣlum for comparison, unless you find more evidence that writers were consciously trying to evoke the OE word, in which case stating borrowed may be used Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

IF anyone has access to OED, it would be nice to know if there are any earlier/interim uses of heapmeal Leasnam (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The OED1 is mostly public domain and can be found on the Internet Archive. It offers OE cites using hēapmǣlum or hēap-mǣlum, and then offers "1610 HOLLAND Camden's Brit. 1. 17 And thereon powre the same forth by heap-meale." (OED1, Volume 5, page 155.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent ! Thanks Leasnam (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That leaves a gap from 1000 to 1610. It's iffy. It may be a stretch, but considering how little Middle English is attested (being that the official written language in England at the time was Old French and Latin), it's quite possible that it survived through to re-emerge in EME. I've altered the Etymology some unless anyone has any objections Leasnam (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If an OE/ME etymon is attested and the phonological development from it to heapmeal is regular, I would view inheritance as the simpler explanation, and so agree with how you've rewritten the etymology. But I've added a context label "rare, largely obsolete". Century had only the 1610 citation mentioned above, and marked the word obsolete, but our 1939 citation is from within living memory (for some people), so I added that qualifier "largely". - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

guy/guys gender

(Searching through the archives on such a common word is hopeless. At least I couldn't find any recent relevant discussion)

The article on guy reads as if dated. I've seen plenty of young women calling their (all-female) gang "guys". Please update to contemporary usage. In other words, tone down the certainty. In particular, I dislike the (unsourced) discussion about pussycat dolls - I can't shake the feeling of bias / prejudice there.

But go have a look yourself. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a huge change in contemporary usage. Douglas Hofstadter had a discussion on it in one of his books, pretty similar to what we say, and I don't see much of a change. --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that our usage notes are of much help. This edit in particular seems inadequate, perhaps misleading.

Clearly the term is used in a more gender-neutral way now than it formerly was. The first two senses were apparently the only ones in the 19th century. It would be somewhat interesting to get some indication of when the word was beginning to be used in reference to mixed-gender and to all-female groups and to female individuals (very late 20th century). Though search is difficult, it is not hopeless, depending on some cleverness and persistence. Also, the gender reference question applies, I think, to both definition 3 and to definition 6. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problematic certainty there. Would you ever hear the line "The Pussycat Dolls are a bunch of guys" and not think that the speaker is claiming they're male? There's a context rule there; it's hard to see that as conveying information unless you assume that "guys"=males.

Haschak Sisters - Girls Rule The World "Someone please explain how we can find the two of you in the park pigging out, acting like a couple of guys." (About 30 seconds in.) It's clear that even to a young audience, guys is clearly male in certain contexts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective there is generally a connotation of "men", even when cultural trends lead to "male" things being allowed/default for either gender. It seems comparable to how some people assert that "dude" is gender-neutral, but "go ask a straight guy if he fucks dudes and then get back to me"; some speakers may use the word to refer to people of other genders, but some hearers will always perceive the word as gendered/gendering. Slate has an article on that. Adding references to the usage notes and rewriting them to be clearer would be good. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if it can be genderless in some contexts devoid of anything that even hints at gender/sex, but if it has a gender, that gender is always masculine. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"pick-up artist" vs. "incel"

The article incel claims the word is used primarily in the seduction community. Is this correct? The Wikipedia article never mentions the word, and the word seems to be more related to sexual frustration and hatred of women. This article in The Guardian specifically distinguishes incels from pick-up artists and men's rights activists. Jc86035 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• seduction community would be a nice expression to have in WT. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, a good part of our coverage on such terms comes from a banned user who used his/her imagination a bit too much. Cleaning this up requires knowledge of usage in places most of us never visit. It's definitely a problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As I've said here, I don't think incel is much used in the seduction community. It's a manosphere term. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think it is wise to differentiate. If you have learned from the “PUA” community to address random 100 women to get laid, you are probably an incel. One must be careful not to accept self-descriptions of such communities, some are no doubt internet marketing scams, the question is just which.

To gather all those communities defined by their positions about women, a label manosphere would not be bad. Palaestrator verborum ^{sis loquier 🗣} 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen (mostly Reddit), incels, despite claiming to want a female partner, mostly hate and demonise women; they come across as those angry kids who end up doing school shootings. Whereas PUAs are more about hanging around bars etc. trying to pick up as many women as possible via slimeball tactics, since eventually statistically they have to manage to bag one! I don't think the incel approach would impress the PUA at all, so their "communities" aren't really the same. Equinox ◑ 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a short documentary on the incel community called Shy Boys: IRL that you can look at for further amusement education. Crom daba (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

unboxing

Does 'unboxing' need a separate sense to cover unboxing clips or does it fall under the existing definition? Thanks. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"removal of something from its box" seems right to me. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

«English öra»?

The entry at Ohr lists "English öra" as a cognate, together with English ear. Now I don't recall English having umlaut, and öra gives only Icelandic or Swedish. Which was meant? Maybe there is another language with öra and that's the one meant there? Or did "öra" actually exist in English at some point? MGorrone (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case it was just a typo: before the conversion to {{cog}}, it had the right label (“Swedish”) but the wrong lang code (“en”). Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV You didn't put enough tildes. I fixed it for you.

Regarding English not having umlaut, what about über, which is one of the alternative spellings listed under uber? Tharthan (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that loanword existed, let alone that it had the umlaut. I guess I should have said "outside recent loans", which "öra" is AFAIK not. MGorrone (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

smartwatch

What's with the first def? Are these even distinct? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sense 2 could cover a device that doesn't tell the time at all, and is only watch-like in being worn on the wrist (e.g. keep-fit devices) - are there such devices that don't tell time? I know nothing about gadgets. Equinox ◑ 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm just familiar with the FitBit (which does cover the time), but with the amount of circuitry in one of these, not covering the time would be silly. I can't imagine once you've got the LCD there and enough hardware to be "smart", that you wouldn't offer the time.

The Pokemon Go Plus is worn on the wrist and doesn't tell time, but I wouldn't call it "smart" or a smartwatch. The advertising copy goes with "wearable device".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

transwiki

It occurs to me that we should probably include an entry for this common wiki jargon. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we should only do so if it meets CFI, and I don't see enough actual uses of the noun on Google Books to justify that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Previously failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

transliterations

With a word like jeera, for example, which (I believe) is transliterated from an Indian dialect, do we have a way of requesting that someone add the word in its original language (and alphabet) to the listing? And do we have a Category for transliterated words? (If not, might it be worth having one?) Thanks in advance. --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Use {{rfe|lang=en}} to request an etymology of an English word. Use {{bor|en|hi|}} if the source language of an English word is known (e.g. Hindi) but not the original script or the correct spelling. Note the missing parameter after the second language code. The templates will categorise accordingly. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Philologia Sæculārēs: In any case, I think it ज़ीरा (zīrā) or जीरा (jīrā) "cumin". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Thanks very much, Atitarev. So is jeera a word from the Hindi dialect? (And if so, do we know whether or not it's shared by other Indian dialects?)

Probably a bigger issue is that (unless Wiktionary's definition of 'English' includes words not normally used in countries where English is the first language), 'jeera' isn't actually an English word. The English word is 'cumin' (same goes for methi vs 'fenugreek', saunf vs fennel, aloo vs potato). They are all transliterations. However I'm unsure of how to change them and to which dialects.--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Latin includes words not normally used in the Roman Empire, sometimes for concepts not known when there were still first-language speakers of Latin. India is a country where English is a frequent interlanguage between people with no other shared language, and however weird it may get sometimes to people in the US and UK, Indian English is still English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that Wiktionary used "English" that way. (p.s. I'm not in the US or UK)--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was more concerned about the real source language of these words getting short-changed by them being (what seemed to me) inaccurately labelled as being from another language. --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary uses English that way, because so does everyone. What else are we supposed to call the Romance-influenced Germanic language that is spoken in India? Why are American borrowings English and Indian borrowings not-English?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

When used as English words, they're not transliterations. A transliteration is when you write (for example) a Hindi word in the Latin alphabet. But if someone says "I added some methi to the aloos", they aren't speaking Hindi, they're speaking English and using Hindi loanwords. A transliteration can only be found in writing, for one thing, while a loanword can be found in speech. It doesn't make sense to say "transliteration of Hindi जीरा (jīrā)" in the etymology section of an English word. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

while we're at it - while one is at it?

Should we have that? Other dictionaries have it.

• “while (one’s) at it”, in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1996–present.
• “while you are at it” in Idioms and phrases, TheFreeDictionary.com, Huntingdon Valley, Pa.: Farlex, Inc., 2003–2024.
• “while you’re at it” (US) / “while you’re at it” (UK) in Macmillan English Dictionary.
• “while I’m/you’re etc at it” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would argue for having all the attestable contracted and uncontracted personal-pronoun(-tense?) variants as hard redirects to while one is at it. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Equinox ◑ 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Vulgar Latin Swadesh list

A few Latin words lost among an ocean of PIE... Anyone up to cleaning this up? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

deep throat

At the wikipedia article deep-throating, it's said that "the term was popularized by the 1972 pornographic film Deep Throat."

I guess that title must be construed as a noun: "<a> deep throat". But which came first then? The verb "to deepthroat", or the noun "deep-throating" from which the verb was back-formed? Is/was there a noun "a deepthroat" = "an instance of deepthroating"?

Or is it attested before 1972? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)