Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | 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 | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{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

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

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

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Format for citations
• Standard entry layout
• A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is 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 citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Oldest tagged RFVs

• trema
  ↑
  ↓
  soothness
  superseminate
  poiuytrewq
  Hawai`ian
  pilk
  failscade
  failcascade
  accordion
  abstorted
  pantaphobia
  special
  herbert
  atheist
  Satan
  I'dn't
  nuke
  blag
  born
  flower
  uvic
  Ames
  pal up
  chromatotron
  bigfootologist
  nonkilling
  royd
  proliferation
  morning-after
  civic activity
  BeReal
  MCCE
  boot
  code vector
  spade
  slaveboy
  abarcy
  oversit
  compilation behaviour
  underfong
  dominus vobiscum
  nuces vomicae
  oes
  ponderosa
  kaparrang
  malasapsap
  virtually
  kreyk
  Dniprova
  aquan
  structural
  pyment
  VIPer
  win one's spurs
  Adessenarian
  Ainur
  dihydrohydroxyfuran
  clitwad
  🄫
  ignorantia juris non excusat
  false venus comb
  demisemihemidemisemiquaver
  away
  Hispanic panic
  pick flowers
  rontosecond
  heartburn
  Meiteilogist
  Meiteiologist
  allege
  Classical Meitei
  Classical Manipuri
  Ancient Meitei
  louk
  centimate
  Hu
  English vice
  German vice
  facingly
  concrete
  in-line
  taptastic
  helang
  shis
  Odajyan
  palpebrate
  bête de scène
  feign
  underfriction
  wray
  Romaboo
  cyberethical
  snowman hole
  whorenalist
  caput Mundi
  slur
  thunder
  to high heaven
  

April 2018

ashiyu

Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.

I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".

As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.

I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

do someone a frighten

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

nu-male

Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox ◑ 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

misdemeanorize

Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

eighthfinal

Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? -84.161.23.222 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

broderick

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The verb has passed (two cites on page and one on citations page). The noun still needs one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

mlem

Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox ◑ 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

blep

"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox ◑ 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Kevinism

I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

chud

Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).

Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

steven

stevven, steaven

RFV of everything (except the first sense, "voice", which is cited). Compare the RFV of #stevvon. Note that several of the citations are Middle English or are mentions and/or are not of this spelling.
The "that which is uttered; cry, petition, prayer" and "command" senses could possibly be combined if it would make them easier to cite (note that one of the three citations they have between them is Middle English and the other two use steauen, which has an a even if one overlooks the variation in u~v).
George Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets has a citation of "Stephen kept his steaven" which supports the "appointment" sense, although again not in this spelling.
I took all the citations from the EDD and Century that were not made-up usexes or Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This might be of interest. It's a mention of the verb stevven, and explains how it was used mid-last century (c.1947). The text reads: If the stowering <i.e. the drifting of snow> was driven along by a very strong wind or gale, it was known as stevvening; when the wind howled, it was said to stevven. Stevven indicated something loud, like a howl, but it could also mean someone shouting. A fierce blizzard was described as “Snaw that was stevvening and stowering.” If a person lost his or her temper and began to shout and wave their arms about, they were also described as stevvening, while a snowstorm being driven by a strong wind was often known as a snaw-stower or snaw-stoor. [[1]].

skot

DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

skots at Google Books (with luminance). DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

wem

AFAICT only the first noun sense survived into modern English (and it is rare and probably archaic/obsolete). All the hits I see for wemmed and other verb forms look to be Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

ledish

Ledish (and, frankly, leden/ledden and the "people" senses of lede) seem to be in the same boat as ledely (above). A Google Books search turns up various scannos, and the EDD has no entry, let alone pointers to citations, as they sometimes have. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish₂ which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the "Pertaining to people" sense to Middle English, and left ledish as an obsolete form of leadish. The tag remains, but is may no longer be needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hoang-tcheou

An obsolete transcription borrowed from French, which I only seem to see in one encyclopaedia and derivatives or plagiarised forms of it. Created by @Geographyinitiative. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the source I used to create that entry: [2]. It is written as 'Hoang-tcheou-fou' and is in the extreme northeast of Hou Koang (which is bordered in Green). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

'Hoang-tcheou-fou' also appears on this map: [3] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

muscuty

Doesn't look like an adjective, probably should be capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With GBS I get to see only a few snippets, but they strongly suggest that in collocations like “Muscuty plains” we have the attributive use of a noun. Almost all uses in these snippet views capitalize the word, but that may be due to dated conventions; I also see the common word buffalo being capitalized.  --Lambiam 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

dateliner

Not certain this is legit, at least in sense given. Equinox ◑ 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I improved the definition (the dateliner does not write just the dateline, but also the article that follows), but could only find one supporting citation. I did add and cite another meaning (the article itself). I also added two cites to the citations page for a third meaning (an investor who buys and sells based on the daily stock market reports), but did not add it because I could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL

I previously challenged LOL for "lots of love": I am personally deeply convinced that LOL never meant "lots of love" and this is similar to a backronym, where people thought it must have meant that. Let's look at the four citations: they are awful and inadequate:

• 2007: "what do you think LOL means?" (says the modern kid), "lots of love" (says the ignorant father, getting it wrong).
• 2010: "lol, dad, miscommunication", it says that the lol (laughter) was misunderstood as love instead of laughter.
• 2011: possibly acceptable but it is almost a mention rather than a usage.
• 2014: specifically (and a humorous example of) the misunderstanding of love as laughter, but the presentation suggests it's unusual and we have no proof that this cute anecdote ever happened in the real world.

If anyone can find a LOL that is unambiguously love and not laughter and isn't in some kind of humorous misunderstanding context, I will buy them a beer (or whatever cheap thing they like) on PayPal. I think this is an urban myth. Prove me wrong, bitches. Equinox ◑ 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally am SURE that LOL meant "lots of love" because I personally remember it doing so, and know plenty of other old fogies like myself who also remember it doing so. It feels like a violation to be told my past and my memories are bogus. I doubt we will ever find evidence on Google to support this meaning, and even if I can find a bunch of old letters to support it, how do I bring them in as evidence on Wictionary? Kiwima (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, no offence meant, and even if you aren't "CFI-compliant" your memories matter because this stuff will go to the talk page, and may be proven by future, better people than ourselves. I still really want to see proof of this. If you actually have letters with LOL used that way that would be really important and interesting even if we can only stick 'em on the Talk or Citations page, and I'm sure you can cut out any part that would be too personal. Thanks for your help. Equinox ◑ 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no question that some people have THOUGHT that LOL meant "lots of love", and even used it thus. Famously former British Prime Minister David Cameron did so (see e.g [4]). By the way, I see no need for you to call us "bitches". It is unpleasant. 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I, too, recollect LoL/LOL as being part of the handwritten closing I put on greeting cards. I guess it's obsolete now because the other use is so dominant. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Acronym Finder and AbbreviationZ both include "lots of love" and "little old lady" among their definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In most of the stuff you get on Google Books for "LOL" + "lots of love" this usage is framed as a misunderstanding. [5] [6] Usenet seems more promising, though. [7] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If you ask anyone over 60 what LOL meant at the end of a letter, they will tell you it was a common abbreviation for "lots of love". It has been totally eclipsed now by laugh out loud, and doesn't really make it into permanently archived sources, but I still think this one was common enough to get in by common usage. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely generational. Certainly was "lots of love" when I was sending greeting cards to relatives. If three of us find some old greeting cards with LOL and upload the images to Commons, would that be good attestation? DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any old letters to prove this (got rid of them when I emigrated), but it was such COMMON USAGE!!!!! DCDuring clearly remembers it as well. Part of the reason I feel so strongly that this one should be included is because of all the current reactions to older people who interpret this as lots of love. They are not finding a completely unfamiliar acronym and making a wild (incorrect) guess rather than trying to find out what it means, they are being misled by their own past experience because it used to mean lots of love, which is a much more reasonable mistake. Kiwima (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If we could establish a likely period for usage there are publications which include many personal correspondences (e.g. soldiers writing home). I agree that this will be a hard one to track down, but perhaps not impossible. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no doubt that LOL was commonly used for "lots of love" at the end of a letter, similar to how XOXOXO is used today (that is not at all to say that "XOXOXO" is some recent invention), because, although that was a bit before my time, I have a large family, and they (a large number of them under sixty [although I would note that there is a saying {albeit one that has begun to no longer been true ever since the advent of the blasted social media age that we now unfortunately live in} in my state that means in a nutshell "that which begins in California/out West, and is not readily apparent {in other words, not a common trend or fad}, takes roughly ten years before it comes to {MY STATE}", which I suppose makes perfect sense considering that California is on the polar side of the country from where I live--even the northernmost parts of California are notably below where my area is on a map. In any case, I bring this up because the saying in question also indicates a broader point, I feel, that much of that which begins and much of that which fizzles out in another part of the country {outside of the Northeast} has historically taken much longer to begin or to fizzle out where I live]) recall and have told me in the past (many years ago) precisely what User:DCDuring and User:Kiwima recollect. Was this, perhaps, less common in the United Kingdom than it was in North America (I'm not suggesting that it was specific to a particular area or anything like that, I'm just wondering if it was more common in one than in the other)? Because I have a pretty strong feeling that if I were to go at this very moment and ask the kind elderly woman who lives right next door to me if there was another way of indicating what "XOXOXO" indicates at the end of a letter, she would tell me that "LOL" or "lots of love" has served that purpose. Even if I do end up taking the time to find clear evidence of that fact, though, I would decline Equinox's (probably unserious) offer, as I am a staunch teetotaller-- always have been and always will be. Tharthan (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've tried search Google Books, restricting the title to include "letters" or "correspondence", with time period 1800-2000. No joy. DCDuring (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem really. On the one hand I can imagine the frustration of Kiwi et al (as though I had to defend a word like autofire after the accidental burning of all 1980s video game magazines); on the other hand I don't think we should ever make exceptions to attestation rules just because we like our editors and they're probably right. What if it's a massive hoax that only comes to light 50 years later? boo. Equinox ◑ 02:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the cites in the entry, I'd dismiss the first (2002), but the others seem to meet our standards. The fact that there is difference between what older users and younger users mean and understand by LoL warrants a dated label. I fail to understand how evidence of misunderstanding isn't relevant attestation. I agree that it is mentiony, but it is substantive, in-the-wild mentioning that we are seeing. I think we should be happy to find some attestation for such a common misunderstanding, especially involving intra-familial communications, often involving children. It would be interesting to determine whether the "lots of love" meaning predated widespread use of greeting cards. I think not, but I'm not sure how we could find out. DCDuring (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the association with greeting cards is just from your particular experience. In my experience, it was commonly used in thank you letters. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The OED Third Edition has the new entry (March 2011) with cites from 1989 for the laughing sense, but makes no mention of the love sense. That's not to say that they might not find an instance of older usage in the future, but previous editions had no entry. I never used it in any of my thank you letters. Dbfirs 15:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

auriphrygia

Looks more like Latin. DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• But auriphrygiate is English according to the OED. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, it looks like English, but all I can find are mentions. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

harmonometer

DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions (It appears in a lot of dictionaries). I did manage to find two quotes, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

axonotrophy

Appears in 1 paper. "Axonotrophic" is much more common. DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a second. The two quotes are on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

regenerome

DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

synkaryophyte

DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

polarpolymer

Only scannos where the two words have run together. Equinox ◑ 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Google scholar has a number of hits that are hidden behind the paywall, so they are impossible for me to verify. However, this hyphenates the term at a line break, meaning it is either polarpolymer or polar-polymer. Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

somniloquaciously

Found 1 use. DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

fedora

Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory) A self-important or obnoxious pseudointellectual."

I've tried to find attestation on Google groups (UseNet portion), but it is hard to exclude all the hits for the Fedora software. I don't know what positive collocations would generate hits for the sense above. (OTOH, neckbeard looks attestable in more-or-less the sense in the entry.) DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching for it on Groups and Books together with other words like "neckbeard(s)", "MRA(s)", "angry", "misogynistic", "gross", and "m'lady". I only found a few books which, although clearly using it to refer to hats worn by such people, were still using it to mean the hats, not the people. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus as the adder, perhaps they know of some usage. Wouldn't shock me if this was used as a meronym, but I have never seen such. - TheDaveRoss 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I have seen this, just not anywhere durable: search twitter for "of fedoras who" for some examples. (That phrase nets nothing on Google Groups or Books, sadly, and "fedoras who" nets only chaff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it is used, given that at least three veteran contributors have fairly specific views on its meaning, but terms not in other dictionaries really need some attestation. We can't just favor terms from whatever subcultures we may be part of. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

All I've been able to find: page 6. page 10 (mention). I don't think the definition is quite right though, in my experience a "fedora" is an obnoxious, typically misogynist, male new atheist, brony or MRA (maybe a PUA or incel). Being a pseudointellectual would be relatively accidental to that, some don't seem to wear it to look intellectual but simply to look like a manly movie star. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

grammarism

RFV-sense "(neologism, slang) A neologism formed by grammatical rules." It would help to have examples of the kind of word this is intended to describe.
Searching for the plural, and excluding scannos and typos of "grammarians" and instances of "bad grammarisms" which are properly parsed as "[bad grammar]-isms", I think there are enough hits to suggest there is some countable meaning like "a form consistent with the grammar (or even spelling?) of a language or dialect" (one book refers to "such terms as Baryte, colour, mollusc and other typical British 'grammarisms'"), but not this. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The American author of the quoted passage, taken from a book review of the book Rocks, Minerals & Fossils of the World, confuses spelling with grammar. Notwithstanding the scare quotes, I think this too should be parsed like “[British grammar]-isms”.  --Lambiam 17:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

gelicolous

DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Found only 2 cites. Not even sure they are independent (may be by same author). DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

forlese

Rfv-senses:

1 (transitive, obsolete) To lose entirely or completely.

2 (transitive, obsolete) To destroy, kill.

4 (transitive, obsolete) To bereave, deprive.

Are these attestable in modern English, even EME? If not, they might do better as Middle English. It wouldn't hurt to have three citations for the unchallenged 3rd definition "abandon". DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

oxynosema

DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

recc

To recommend (informal). Cites given are reccing and recced, so might easily be for rec (a more intuitive spelling to me). Equinox ◑ 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

CMNF

Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ninja cop

All the Google Books results are for literal cops that are ninjas 104.226.7.82 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can be found on the Web though, e.g. [8]. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

gossock

A remarkably specific word from @Sigehelmus. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well there's 3 attestations, I'm honestly in a bit of a physical pain today and totally exhausted so if you could help cleanup the article in general I would really appreciate it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All three are mentioning the word, not using it. Equinox ◑ 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, they do not genuinely attest the very specific meaning. It might as well mean “a gaunt, red-haired inhabitant of Kirkcudbrightshire”, or simply “an attendant” – how could one tell?  --Lambiam 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, @Equinox, @Lambiam just saw this again sorry, I honestly just copied the definition from Cumbric language. I don't know anything further beyond that.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also see these two links: [9] [10] The second claims gossock is a synonym of "Creenie"; the definition is unclear but seems to refer to immigrants from a part of Ulster facing Galloway. I have no idea what to think.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There are attestations in the plural, but they're capitalized. It also can be found as gossok in the Scottish National Dictionary. I'm wondering whether we're dealing with mentions in English of an obsolete Scots word. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And according to the entry in the Scottish National Dictionary it is a slur, like for instance boonga and coonass. At the very least, that should be noted.  --Lambiam 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice find! Hmm, this is perplexing. I am looking further, I wonder if there are any people alive in the area who still use or at least know of the term. And considering the cultural context I would be very surprised if it was used in any way but tongue-in-cheek. Edit: @Lambiam I double down on my last sentence considering that. But is this an insult that has been used sincerely in the past century? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz this dialect dictionary attests "gossok" as possibly obsolete, applied "in derision" to an "old type" of inhabitant of Galloway: [11] and this book attests the term was "still current" in 19th century and synonymous with capitalized Kreenie/Creenie: [12] --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the Scottish National Dictionary, you'll notice that it cites the same dialect dictionary as its source. I don't think Wright considered Scots as distinct from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh the old debate. Should it be relisted as Scots only or both languages? And what should be the proper definition(s)? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

coon

"(US, racial slur, neologism) A black person who disagrees with left-wing politics." Equinox ◑ 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Poked around on Reddit a bit and it seems that this may be used specifically by black people to criticise other black people. If so, might need a usage note. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess this relates to this verb sense of coon: “(African-American Vernacular, of an African-American) To play the dated stereotype of a black fool for an audience, particularly including Caucasians”. The person doing this is “playing the coon”, and I bet the noun “coon” in this sense is used in the black community to refer to black people who are seen to be playing the coon. The supposed neologism is likely an obvious extension to black people lending support to what is perceived as dominant white policies that objectively oppress black people. I think “racial slur” is a mislabelling – as is “African American Vernacular English” in the label for the verb sense.  --Lambiam 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

So a sort of synonym for Uncle Tom? Equinox ◑ 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Kinda, but more nasty, like calling someone a “sellout” is more nasty than accusing them of “playing along”. At least, that is my guess; I’m far from an authority on the use of the term.  --Lambiam 14:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My uninformed impression is similar. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion suggests that the definition is over-specific (and also, possibly not recent/'neologism'). - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

scorpion spider

Definition: Synonym of pseudoscorpion.

Everywhere I look, I see this as a synonym of sun spider, which is another type of scorpion-like arachnid. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I found it on several different blogs, so it would seem to be an informal name for pseudoscorpion. NBC News also called it such [13], though with a hyphen, unlike the blogs.

The Phrynus genus, Amblypygi order (whip spiders), and Pedipalpida order (false spiders) also seems to be called scorpion-spider. (which are also not Solifugae order (sun spiders))

-- 70.51.201.106 22:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I got my wires crossed on the sun spider part, I probably should have said whip spider. By the way, the correct way to refer to taxonomic names and ranks is rank first, then name: "The genus Phrynus, in the order Amblypygi" (not Pedipalpida, which is obsolete, and overlaps with Amblypygi). As for blogs, those mean absolutely nothing when it comes to our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Though, on further examination of the Google Books searches I was looking at originally, there are a number of references to Galeodes, which is in the Solifugae, and even some true spiders, such as Platyoides in the family Trochanteriidae. All of which is beside the point: there are zero references to Pseudoscorpions as "scorpion spiders". If you had done any kind of search, you would have had to wade through pages and pages of references to other orders of arachnids as scorpion spiders without seeing anything using "scorpion spider" as a name for pseudoscorpions. I still haven't found one after going through an unrestricted Google search that should have pulled in all of your blogs. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

tumbarumba

DTLHS (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any hits that fit the definition searching for "a tumbarumba" or "tumbarumbas" on Books, News, Scholar, and Groups. DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some citations (which are sadly more "mention" than "use") that hopefully help to verify that the term does indeed exist. -Stelio (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2010, Bill Casselman, Where a Dobdob Meets a Dikdik: A Word Lover's Guide to the Weirdest, Wackiest, and Wonkiest Lexical Gems, Adams Media, chapter 5:

  In Australia, tmesis is popularly called tumbarumba. Tmetic infixation is common in Australian street talk.

• 2012, Ethan Ham, Net Works: Case Studies in Web Art and Design, page 113, "Tumbarumba":

  The poem, in turn, popularized tumbarumba as a synonym for tmesis—the inserting of one word in the midst of another word or phrase.

• 2017, Mario Brdar, Metonymy and Word-Formation: Their Interactions and Complementation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, page 18:

  In addition to these two types, there is a similar phenomenon invariably called tumbarumba or expletive infixation, illustrated in: ¶ (11) a. kanga-bloody-roo ¶ b. abso-blooming-lutely ¶ c. abso-bloody-lutely ¶ d. guaran-damn-tee

Mentions, not uses. Canonicalization (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

hypocapnically

DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Adverbs are so hard to cite! Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

hade

RFV of etymologies 1 and 2 ("person", "sex", "order, rank", "state, condition", and "to ordain, consecrate"). Etymology 3, the mining/slope-related senses, I have just cited. Btw "biological" is a weird context label. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the header of RFV pages, requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium. We have a template {{rfv-etymology}} for this purpose.  --Lambiam 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Etymologies 1 & 2 should be Middle English or rather Scots, and obsolete. Leasnam (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity: I mean I am RFVing all the senses in the etymology 1 section, and all the senses in the etymology 2 section. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

hele

heal

RFV of the "hide"- and "conceal"-related senses. I don't like to RFV things without making a more rigorous search than I had time to make in this case (sorry), but I did make a cursory search which turned up nothing, and Century calls hele "a Middle English form". For hele, the EDD suggests the usexes "it heles in well", "it heles in badly" (about corn/seeds that can be covered over well in a furrow, or can't), but these don't turn up any hits. "Holen" (listed as a past tense form) seems to only exist as a dialectal, eye dialectal or pronunciation-respelled form of "holdin'". The EDD might have enough citations to attest at least one sense at the spelling heal. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A look at the Middle English Dictionary shows that helen₂ (“to hide; conceal”) was used right up to the end of the Middle English period, and it also shows some citations at and beyond 1500: 1500, Theyre gownys be sett with plytys fele, To schortt yt ys theyre kneys to hele.; 1500, Clothes of sylke ye shalle haue..Fayre townes and castelles to hell In your hede.; 1525, Þe yonger kynge henry..the lyddernysse that he hadde I-thoght to hys fadyr nold no lenger hellen. (though this looks much older, it is clearly given as 1525). Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

cornly

The given citation does not make much sense to me. I was not able to locate the work for further context. DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It can be viewed (in part) here [[14]]. Leasnam (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

THere is another here [[15]], however this looks like a mistype for comly (i.e. comely) Leasnam (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That in the sole citation it appears in quotes is highly suggestive that it is a nonce. DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Shall I speedy ? Leasnam (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

capac

The current quote is from a television show, so I am not sure whether the spelling of the word can be attested -- is a published script available? There is a lot of noise to sift through for this one, and I imagine that if it is used it is far more often spoken, so good luck. - TheDaveRoss 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Wouldn't the pronunciation mean the plural is spelt capaces instead of capacs? Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The word spec as informal short for specification is pronounced /spɛk/, not /spɛs/, and its plural is specs.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is one occurrence in a book: [16]. I think, though, that in this case it is an abbreviation, usually written as capac. and easily attested in that form, but here with the final full stop omitted; if the author had been asked to reading this text aloud, they would probably have pronounced it as /kəˈpæsɪti/.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

goblina

I was tempted to just delete this, but I'm not that good at searching the places outside of Google Books (lots of scannos for "goblins", a chimpanzee named by Jane Goodall, names of characters in works of fiction, and a number of hits in other languages) and Google Groups (one hit in the description of a non-Usenet group) where this might be found. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would you be tempted to delete it when I specially flagged it as internet slang, something you can't find from written books? It's a word I have seen being used in sites like 4chan, Reddit and YouTube for years. Go-Chlodio (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read our Criteria for inclusion. For better or for worse, websites like 4chan, Reddit and YouTube aren't valid evidence of usage, especially in view of all the "Let's make up a word and fool everyone into thinking it's real" games that have been played in the past. Our rules are far from perfect, but they're the rules. At any rate, I wasn't able to find anything at all that matched the definition, which made me suspicious- but there are others who are far better at looking for such things, so I brought it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you rfving both senses? There's two senses there, and I'd like to also rfv the "female goblin" sense, as well as the "ugly woman" sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The "female goblin" sense was added after I posted this. If there had been two senses, I would have used {{rfd-sense}}. I see no reason not to include both in the rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

scibile

When it does appear in English it's in the context of discussing other Latin works. DTLHS (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the uses are almost always italicized (or else between quote signs), typographical clues that these uses are code-switching. Additionally, the plural used appears to be the Latin plural form scibilia, not scibiles. I think we need an entry scibilis.  --Lambiam 20:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If the English-style plural scibiles exists then that's convincing. Equinox ◑ 22:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I added a number of cites to the citations page. Only one uses scibile without italics or scare quotes, which, as DTLHS points out, could indicate code-switching, but which might also simply call attention to the fact that the term is used with a very specific meaning (as philosophical jargon). I also added some cites to show that if we are going to include this as a noun, we should probably also consider adding it as an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

glark

To guess a word's meaning from context. One of the Jargon File/"hacker" words, which are rarely or never found in use outside of that document. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We have two cites on the citations page. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

TERFdom

Not durably archived? Equinox ◑ 15:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books or Scholar; poking around another archive of academic papers all I saw were scannos of "-ter (FDOM)". There are two hits in one newspaper that Issuu has digitized, which are this article and a later reader response which quotes its title (so, not independent):

• 2018 July 11, Alex Zaragoza, "No Time for TERFdom", in the San Diego CityBeat, page 8:

  [But] do one better than Chiamamanda Ngozi Adichie—whose speech was sampled for that song and who was called out for TERFDom and transphobia—and move that logic beyond the sexes.

Is there any easy place to search print copies of British papers? - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

...which I see has already been added, along with a questionably-durable Mary Sue article. Looks like this probably isn't includable now, but might be in several years. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

opotherapeutically

DTLHS (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I only managed to find one. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

all-as-one

Could not find anything for "an all-as-one" or "the all-as-one" phrases in Google Books. The adverb, being hyphenated, seems particularly unlikely. Equinox ◑ 23:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

the two online news cites i found [17] [18] both didn't use that verbiage before the word, so maybe we should try with different search terms to get more results. --Habst (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The adjective is cited. The adverb is not. While it is easy to find instances of an adverbial use of "all as one" (without hyphens), I can't find it with hyphens. Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

acerata

Possibly Latin and not English. Also doesn't have a totally convincing definition. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While the supporting quotation defines “acerata” as “sharpened”, its author re-defines it as “with steeled points” in a later version of the same text, also putting the term between scare quotes. Apparently he was himself unsure of the meaning of this term, which – judging from the surrounding text – he found in old texts dating back to the reign of Edward III, that is, 1327–1377. So that would make it Middle English anyway. I wonder if there is a relation with the word serrated, like an illiterate misspelling of “a serrated [arrowhead]” such as referred to here and offered for sale here.  --Lambiam 01:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Added a request for deletion. —Piparsveinn (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

anopsology

DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page, but everything else I find looks more like a mention than a use. Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

spotted dog

Rfv-sense: Lycaon pictus. Like ornate wolf, has only appeared in lists of alternative names, never in sentences of the kind "the foo does bar". --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I found and added one citation. In addition, I found this, which is simply an image caption. Kiwima (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I would think that an image caption counts, though we often say use should be in 'running text'. Unfortunately Google won't let me see it. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The captions of surrounding entries do not inspire confidence that they are intended to serve as lexical designations for the animals depicted:

Jackal → Misunderstood

Cheetah → Record breaker

Hunting dog → Spotted dog

Serval → Acrobatic cat

Civet → Pungent

 --Lambiam 10:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In light of what you show that Google concealed, I agree that the caption is not of the term in the challenged meaning. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The image shows a Lycaon pictus specimen, though; judging from the image L. pictus lupinus, even as the book is about Southern Africa.  --Lambiam 20:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

censually

DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are citations of "inter-censually". DTLHS (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but not "intercensually", because they treat "censually" as a word. Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not in the opinion of one censor of citations. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there are great advantages for Wiktionary from considering hyphens to be word separators in English. The proliferation of entries for hyphenated terms could be systematically brought to an end with no reduction of meaningful semantic content.

In the case of inter-sensually it is interesting to note that there are no Google Books hits for intercensually (There are two at Scholar.) DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see inter-censually as evidence for censually. The construction might be inter-censual + -ly for one thing. Equinox ◑ 20:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Then we only have one cite. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

heave

Rfv-sense: broken wind in horses --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

heaves seems a lot more common for this. (We have it there, too, with a clearer definition: "A disease of horses characterized by coughing and difficult breathing.") Equinox ◑ 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The singular form may be seen in attributive use, as in “heave line”.  --Lambiam 08:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This challenge came from perennial troll Wonderfool. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't apply our usual standards but since (as I showed) heaves has the meaning, it's clearly not some random made-up sense we'd delete. Well at least we could do see also heaves at heave, blah blah. Equinox ◑ 22:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

forswink

DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If we consider the language of Edmund Spenser (early) Modern English, then this is one use: [19].  --Lambiam 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

f8

Tagged by Special:Contributions/2600:1000:b100:697a:65a3:cbbb:f084:1882 but not listed. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Should we have an entry for f/8 and all the other common f-numbers? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

snaughle

Given citation is the only one on GB2600:1000:B119:704C:AB:BBA5:283D:7AA9 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

insipid

Sense “cloyingly sweet or sentimental”.  --Lambiam 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not see how the cites support this specific sense. It is easy to find cites in which something is said to have a “dull brown colour”, yet this will not support the sense “lustreless brown” for dull.  --Lambiam 10:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Do they strike you as supporting any of the other senses? They certainly do not mean flavourless. Neither do they seem to mean bland and colourless. I might go for trite, (other than the taste of liquorice quote, which I cannot honestly see as meaning anything other than cloyingly sweet.) Kiwima (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Of the four cites, perhaps the first is not good support, IMO. The two uses in a series of near synonyms (synonymia in rhetoric) seem good. And it is hard to argue that treacle could be insipid in any of the other senses. DCDuring (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought the authors could mean flat, lacking character or definition, boring, vacuous, dull, bland, characterless. The synonyms fatuous and trite offered for this sense also have no sense of being cloying.  --Lambiam 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would just delete those purported synonyms of the sense under challenge. I was only interested in the use of insipid in parallel to "cloying" and "syrup-sweet". It is very hard for me to accept any of the other terms as semantically appropriate in conjunction with "cloying" and "syrup-sweet". I am surprised that insipid has taken on this meaning in any usage, but the evidence seems sufficient to me. DCDuring (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised, too. I read those usages as meaning "without flavour sufficient to gratify the palate" or possibly "wanting the qualities which excite interest or emotion; uninteresting, lifeless, dull, flat." (OED definitions.) I think these are good descriptions of some of the liquorice I've eaten. Dbfirs 09:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

With apologies for coming in rather late, I'm going to re-open this to add to the discussion: if we had been presented with these citations without someone having added "cloyingly sweet" as a sense to the entry, what would lead us to deduce that this is what the citations meant? Is there something e.g. in the word's etymology or in other dictionaries that to suggest it has such a meaning? Or is this a case where, a sense having been made up, ambiguous citations can be found which could support it — but, as Dbfirs says, could also just be using the usual sense? (I see the sense was added all the way back in 2007, by one of our best editors, so I'm optimistic, but still questioning.) The idea that something could not be "insipid"-as-in-flavorless if it is "cloying, syrup-sweet" (as in the 2007 cite), or "insipid, cloying, the taste of liquorice" or "insipid treacle", and that therefore "insipid" in these citations must mean something other than flavorless, is rebuttable: I can find a book referring to "flavorless sweet frosting", one referring to a "flavorless sweet taste", several referring to google books:"flavorless syrup" and even "sweet, flavorless syrup" (and "creamy, flavorless syrup"). - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I was a newbie in 2007, could have been wrong then, and could be wrong now. Maybe the cites aren't unambiguous. I don't know what cites or arguments can resolve this. Can we find cites that indicate that flavor is sometimes used in a way that requires more than one of the simple things our five/four kinds of taste buds (sweet, sour, salty, bitter, umami) can detect? DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I can find cites for "flavorless/flavourless sugar/salt". DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that (all our citations of "flavourless" syrups, sugars and salts) establishes that the citations previously offered do not in fact rule out the usual meaning (either "flavorless" or "lacking character"), and I don't see anything in them to suggest the novel meaning, and I find similar citations where "insipid" is likewise used near e.g. "cloying" but where further context shows that the usual meaning is meant. Consider:

• 1994, The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore: Poems (→ISBN), page 21:

  The charges of banality, irritating obviousness and insipid, cloying rhetoric made against the translations by him (as well as by others with his approval) are too well known to reiterate.

• 2006, Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture (→ISBN):

  Our music is often insipid, cloying, and romantic. We sing pop-style love songs to Jesus, confessing our undying love for him in the same way that pop idols sing to a boyfriend or girlfriend. Where is the danger? Where is the responsibility?

I think the translations, also being called banal, are being alleged to be colourless, not "sweet"; similarly, I think the Christian music is being alleged to lack character (danger! responsibility!), not to be "cloying" (some could argue "cloying" could also work given the comparison to love songs, but I think it's the word "cloying" in the sentence which conveys that, not the word "insipid", which seems to connote "vacuous, lacking character" like it usually does). IOW I think the RFVed sense doesn't exist and the citations offered in support of it are only using the regular sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

double entente

An anon created this page. I only find this as Double Entente (cf. Triple Alliance) or to be a misspelling of double entendre Leasnam (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not English. It may be part of a French phrase. Wikipedia (the English one) states that the phrase double entendre is “a corruption of the authentic French expression à double entente ("double meaning")”. That three-word expression is proper French, and means “with a double meaning”; it is listed as an adverbial phrase in this online dictionary and also has an entry in the French Wikipedia, where it is classified as an adjectival phrase.  --Lambiam 19:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I could find no evidence for the supplied defintion, but there is evidence for a synonym or near-synonym of double entendre. I added a number of cites to the citations page that use the phrase without italics or scare quotes, which could be taken as evidence that the author considered it English. Particularly convincing, perhaps, are the quotes which use the plural ("double ententes") which would not be correct french. Kiwima (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations have now been added. But none of them relate to the definition given, rather to "double entendre". SemperBlotto (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Two that relate to the first sense: [20] (tongue-in-cheek); [21].  --Lambiam 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

play

Ethology sense, "defined" only by this unattributed phrase in quotation marks: "Repeated, incompletely functional behavior differing from more serious versions ..., and initiated voluntarily when ... in a low-stress setting." Since our first two defs already deal with human play and animal play I think this is redundant; at the very least it needs a rewrite. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

See the talk page for where it came from. It strikes me as an attempt to codify a concept rather than describe usage. The talk about how one author took 30 pages to arrive at this definition, while another took 60 pages to arrive at theirs tells me that this isn't something that anyone has in their mind when they use the word in running text or speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

prequirement

Scannos again I think. (Remember, if you do super-hard work and verify this by scraping three from the bottom of the barrel, it's your responsibility to mark it as rare or nonstandard.) Equinox ◑ 09:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

scraped from the bottom of the barrel --Habst (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of your cites seem to be by Indian/Asian authors, probably NNES, and I would consider this a simple typo or error. "Uncommon" is as much as I can hope for I suppose. Equinox ◑ 20:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

it definitely isn't a typo in the random sense (because there aren't attestations for e.g. qrequirement, wrequirement, rrequirement, etc.) and i would disagree with the prescriptive characterization of "error" for something that occurs often enough independently. finding cites for this word was just like finding them for any other word, i thought the phrasing "scraped from the bottom of the barrel" was funny but also kind of contradictory, because if you have to scrape cites from the bottom of a barrel then the word shouldn't be on wiktionary anyways. evidently that wasn't the case with prerequirement or clustersize. --Habst (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone should check if the word occurs multiple times in the cited works (evidence that it's intentional) or if "requirement" is otherwise the spelling used (suggesting "prequirement" is a one-off typo). Also, bear in mind that we have the option of labels like {{lb|en|chiefly|NNES}} for Category:Non-native speakers' English. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Unstruck: following up on my comment, I see that the first citation (copied and pasted complete with OCR error "cmo" for cm³) only uses "prequirement" once (p. 32) and "prequirements" never (when I put the word in quotation marks to ensure only matches for that exact spelling turn up), whereas it uses "requirement(s)" at least six times (including on pp. 25, 52, 44, 83, 87), suggesting the one occurence of "pre-" is a typo, not a use of some word meaning "prerequisite requirement". Likewise, the second citation, which has other {{sic}}-requiring errors even within the sentence of it which is quoted, uses "prequirement" only once vs "requirement(s)" 44 times, even more strongly showing the one-off error to be just that, a one-off typing error. Ditto for all of the other citations. (This reminds me of the RFV of the use of they as a demonstrative article the: some users put forth books where the was used a hundred times and typoed as they once, but those didn't verify the sense, we needed works that used it consistently or in contexts that made clear it wasn't a typo.) - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

centroscopy

DTLHS (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I only managed to find one cite for this (plus a mention or two). There is, however, another meaning, which is treatment by centroscope. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

hysterocystic

DTLHS (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

elk

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#elk.

Sense 1 is currently: "(originally) Any large species of deer such as red deer, moose or wapiti." I can't find sources to suggest this is true. OED, Lexico and the other Wiktionary articles for words related to elk do not support this. It's also not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The original use for elk seems to be the current European use of the term, referring to what North Americans call a moose. Mclay1 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Since this requires verification of usage, it really belongs here (I know you were told rfd, but that was an error).

I also have my doubts about whether the second definition is distinct from the third, and whether the accompanying usage note means anything, but first things first. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am very reluctant to rely much on the WP article or Wiktionary articles which don't even give a nod to what Mammals of the World calls . If the taxonomy is a bit controversial, then we really need to work hard on the vernacular names and not necessarily lean on the taxonomic names for our definitions. DCDuring (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really feel qualified to make sense of this, but Tule Elk and Elk and Elk Hunting provide some breakdowns of Elk species that don't seem to correspond that well with our definitions. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And their definitions don't correspond well with those of the subspecies of Cervus elaphus in Mammal Species of the World^[22] at Bucknell. (See comments, which indicate how unsettled the taxonomy is.). DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

anxitie

When was it used? Is it really not just an early spelling of anxiety? DTLHS (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not in Century 1911 nor in Middle English corpus at Univ of Michigan. DCDuring (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Early Modern English (but not Middle English oddly). I found some cites [[23]], [[24]], and a gloss [[25]] Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Found the plural in more recent usage (India) [[26]] Leasnam (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV reopened. The 20th century Indian usage is distinct from this RFV and is clearly just an alternative spelling. DTLHS (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

swole

Seeking verification of the noun sense: (prison slang) Synonym of spread (“food improvised by inmates”). Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

beresque

Entered to mean berserk. Any takers? google books:"beresque", google groups:"beresque", “beresque”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. does not look promising. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

According to The Dinkum Dictionary, “‘Beresque’ for berserk is a similar but more recent joke which has proved popular”. That popularity may mostly be confined to Australian English. Google Groups gives more than 10 uses, ranging from 1999 to 2007, but no Google Book uses except for one in a self-published book.  --Lambiam 09:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Are these quotations from Usenet? From Google groups, only Usenet is considered to be durably archived, from what I remember. (For some reason, the Google groups search does not work for me.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The groups are alt.english.usage, alt.fan.jennicam, alt.support.trauma-ptsd, aus.culture.gothic, aus.hi-fi, aus.radio.amateur.misc, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage, microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser, rec.audio.tubes, rec.puzzles.crosswords, soc.culture.jewish and uk.politics.misc. I think most or all are Usenet groups, but don’t know what would distinguish non-Usenet groups from Usenet groups.  --Lambiam 20:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

twirty

All I could find was the term "twirty-something", which would be a noun. Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

twerties

Everything I found was a scanno for "twenties", except for one quote that I think refers to the two-decade period. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

twerty

A set of "age range" entries by the same user. I think they might not meet CFI, but some (or even all) might scrape through. They need further cleanup too, since the adjective definitions seem likely to be inaccurate, and they are not marked as slang or informal but presumably must be. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

solar reject

Person whose home is unsuitable for solar power. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

ploppy

"(Britain, puerile) Relating to excrement." Equinox ◑ 16:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite, but it could just as easily go with the previous sense (limp and heavy). Kiwima (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

headwark

Noun, sense 1. Tharthan (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions. this looks like a use to me, this is a bit iffy. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

bellywark

For the adjective. Tharthan (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

rex-patriate

A repeat expatriate. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a kind of dinosaur that has left its community? Tharthan (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

yeave-ho

Verb: pull forcefully. There is no yeave-hoes, hoing or hoed at all in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

adjace

US slang for adjacent, from a certain podcast...? It says "usually used in a negative sense"; I can't tell whether that means we usually say something is not "adjace" something else, or whether the word is derogatory in some way. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

forgetful

Sense 2: forgettable. This has one citation ("Nor has Dalua part or mention in the antique legend. Like other ancient things, this divinity hath come secretly upon us in a forgetful time, new and strange and terrible, though his unremembered shadow crossed our way when first we set out on our long travel, in the youth of the world"). I don't think it means forgettable. A "forgetful time" is more likely to be an age when people have forgotten something from the past, i.e. closer to sense 1, unable to remember things. (There is, though, some shade of distinction from being habitually forgetful [where did I put my keys?].) Equinox ◑ 13:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you’re right – the “unremembered shadow” is the shadow that this amnesic age has forgotten all about.  --Lambiam 19:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

electrosensible

DTLHS (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added one citation, but mostly, it looks like it is used as an adjective (which I also added). Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

thousand crêpe cake

DTLHS (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I can find several cites stating that this is the translation of "Gâteau Mille Crêpes", but nothing that actually uses the phrase. Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ochlophilia

DTLHS (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page - one very solid, the other a bit mention-y. Everything else I found was clearly just mentions. Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

happenis

"The emotion of being happy, joyful with or because of the size of your or one's penis." — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Can personally confirm this is a real emotion, but unsure about the word. Equinox ◑ 00:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(Ken Dodd: "I thank the Lord that I've been blessed / with more than my share of 'appiness.") LOL, the synonyms also look like pure joyous nonsense. We should probably just speedy it. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we possibly want an entry for size doesn't matter or it's not the size that matters, it's how you use it. --Mélange a trois (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

cock size, dick size, size matters, size queen. (Can you believe the first two?! I bet it's COALMINE shenanigans.) Equinox ◑ 00:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

TERF

This may be an RFD thing, but I figured I'd try RFV first. My question is about definition 2. I'm aware not everyone who gets called a "TERF" self-identifies with the specific philosophy called radical feminism, but may e.g. consider themselves just a feminist. However, (a) I'm not sure how we'd manage to find "durable" citations, unless we find citations where it refers to specific people whose ideology we can ["original"] research and somehow determine to be "non-radical-feminist", and (b) why should we conclude that such citations support a second definition "a person with views like a trans-exclusionary radical feminist" as opposed to that the users of the word are just calling those people trans-exclusionary radical feminists, saying that, self-id aside, they are trans-exclusionary radical feminists by virtue of having, as the definition admits, the views that trans-exclusionary radical feminists have?
For comparison: if I call someone (for example, a TERF! or a libertarian, or what have you) a "right-winger", does that mean "right-winger" has a second definition "a person whose views are similar to those of a right-wing person", or am I just [rightly or wrongly] calling the person and their views right-wing? - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are objective and verifiable characteristics an issue? We define prick, sense 9, as “someone (especially a man or boy) who is unpleasant, rude or annoying”. Should we do research to determine that specific people thusly labelled were indeed actually unpleasant, rude or annoying? I think the only thing that is important here is what the utterer of the label wishes to confer, not whether it is justified.  --Lambiam 09:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I would consider it a (very common) misapplication or overgeneralisation, so IMO there's only really one sense. It's also too much of a neologism to have done much forking of meaning yet (like e.g. Nazi has). Equinox ◑ 14:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen a version of the "Patrick Star's wallet" meme in discussions about this, which goes like
1: so you're a radical feminist?
2: yes
1: and you're trans-exclusionary?
2: yes
1: so you're a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist? (a TERF?)
2: what?! no, that's hate speech!!
...which, without even looking at whether 2's position is either accurate or accurately represented, helps establish that people who use the word are using it to say that TERFs are trans-exclusionary radfems.
In general, a lot of politics-related words end up being used more broadly than is accurate or sensible... compare "neoliberal". - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

leapful

Rfv-sense "a basketful".

I can find no cites to support this definition, which was imported from Webster. Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This can be found as "lepful" and "leepful" in Middle English, and we have leap as an obsolete word for "basket", from Middle English "leep"/"lepe"/"lep". I wonder if this is extrapolation from those. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

W. R. Cooper's The Wycliffe New Testament (1388): An Edition in Modern Spelling (2002), p. 37, has "And all ate and were fulfilled, and they took that that was left of relifs seven leepsful. And they that ate were four thousand of men," with leepsful glossed as "Baskets, hampers". That is, of course, a different spelling, and there's been some discussion of whether "modernizations" of Middle English works should be considered English or not, besides which it's the only occurrence I spotted. It seems like this probably didn't make it out of Middle English, except as extrapolation in dictionaries, as you say. - -sche (discuss) 03:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Webster very cheekily modernised some ME spellings (and even respelled the likes of Shakespeare), so we should probably relegate this to ME under whatever spellings are actually attested. I'm afraid I added a few of these, over-trustingly: we will iron them out over time. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

commencify

Equinox ◑ 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2017 cite looks dodgy to me. I'd say it needs two more cites. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

kink out

"To straighten a kink (such as in a hose); to make (something) straight." I can see a few uses where something becomes "kinked out of shape", but that is the opposite of this meaning, and anyway doesn't support "kink out" alone: it's "kinked" + "out of shape". Equinox ◑ 14:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To "take a kink out" would make more sense, to unkink. DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

placeful

Rfv-sense "In the appointed place"

Imported from Websters, but I cannot find evidence for this sense. Kiwima (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

pocketful

Rfv-sense: "The quantity that a pocket would typically hold."

Most dictionaries have only a definition referring to the capacity of the pocket, not its typical level of fill (as does our translation header). I've added the definition that corresponds to the translations definition. DCDuring (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

fundy

"(British slang) abbreviation of Fucked Up, Not Dead Yet". Could conceivably be military slang, like snafu, but really a noun, and really in lower case like this? Equinox ◑ 18:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

niqqa

I hate it when people use Urban Dictionary as the only source. Any reason to keep this entry? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

abitat

"(Australian) abalone habitat". I'm not sure this meets CFI standards, at least not from Google Books. Also it generally seems to be capitalised as a trademark (I don't think it's become genericised) and I see no evidence of a plural. And it seems that it may be some single specific type of abalone habitat, rather than just any (as a trademark would suggest). Equinox ◑ 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

splanchna

Any takers? Etymology needs attention if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything I find italicizes the word. I don't think it's English. Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that it's always found in a discussion of an Ancient Greek text, often cited with the Ancient Greek article, ("ta splanchna"), and usually is described as something along the lines of "the Ancient Greek word for..." I think you're right. It should go without saying, but some people don't take hints... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Our technically perfect transliteration of Classical Greek renders as splankhna not splanchna, so a search for the term using splanchna doesn't find the entry for σπλάγχνον. I hypothesize that that lack of link may be the cause of the entries. I wonder how often this kind of thing happens when users search for a Greek or other non-Latin script term they find in transliteration. DCDuring (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

splanchnon

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark.

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Mark..

There's no need for the dot at the end of this. --Pious Eterino (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Any uses I found through GBS (as supposed abbreviations of “Gospel of Mark”) were scannos, so Delete.  --Lambiam 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the dot in an abbreviation stands for omitted letters. It isn't just there for decoration. So delete. Equinox ◑ 06:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Bob Floyd, who had his original middle name “Willoughby” legally changed to the one-letter name “W”, used to “abbreviate” it as the middle initial “W.”, following the algorithm of representing an initial by taking the first letter of the name and appending a period.  --Lambiam 12:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think I also remember a name from acting/TV production that had X as the middle name (because of union laws that forbid two people from having the same name): I can certainly imagine naive computer software having a rule that says "abbreviate as first letter, then a dot" but that's really a software error more than a traditional usage that humans would employ...? Equinox ◑ 17:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Send to RfV. If it doesn't exist, then there is no need to debate whether it should. bd2412 T 14:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

acousticophilia

DTLHS (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

broke off

I can't find the slang sense of broke off or related broke apparently meaning "rich, wealthy". It isn't in OED, Green's Dictionary of Slang, or Urban Dictionary, and I didn't find it in DARE (though, perhaps it is not American?) or One Look. Also, my GBooks search for broke off + rich turned up simple past or past participle uses of various senses of break, but nothing that seems relevant. (I thought this "broke+off"+rich might be one, but it's the "match" (relationship) with the gentleman that the narrator saw broke off, not the gentleman himself.)

@Leasnam, others, any citations or pointers toward such would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hrmmm, I'm not having an easy time finding written citations for this either. There is a usage in the movie White Chicks here [[27]] that uses broke in the sense of "broke-off" in "Martha Stewart broke" ( = "extremely rich") vs MC Hammer broke (= "in debt/without money"). This usage is so informal and now slightly dated that it may be difficult to cite, unless we scope song/rap lyrics. Leasnam (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

mis-sodomism

Any takers? Vanishingly few Google hits. SemperBlotto (talk)

This word is listed in several locations, including "Inkhorn's Erotonomicon" (2012) by Paul Convey. For whatever purpose, aforelisted definition is mirrored throughout a variety of online dictionaries, including variations on suffix and hyphenation (although word listing sites are dubious, dictionary sites are used as a reference for the public's expanding vocabulary). See also a comment on "Sadly, No!" (2012) by an R. Porrofatto stating the need for a discrepancy between "homophobia"/"homophobe" and "missodomism"/"missodomist". VerdantTide (talk)

We need uses, not mentions. Many "inkhorn" words are listed in dictionaries but never really used (like obscure phobias). Equinox ◑ 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

mis-sodomist

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

sodomiphilic

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ponceau

Rfv-sense: A small bridge or culvert. DTLHS (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

cosmocide

"The ultimate death of the cosmos / universe (when all the stars have run out of nuclear fuel)", this seems to be a pretty rare term, and also seems to largely be used to refer to the destruction of the Earth not the whole universe. Also, -cide usually refers to killing, not death, which is counter to the current definition. Should we amend the current definition, or add an additional one? - TheDaveRoss 12:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added two additional definitions: The destruction of the Earth, and the destruction of the universe. The original definition seems way too over-specified, and I can find no evidence for it. Kiwima (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we have to do an RfD-sense to remove the original uncited definition? DCDuring (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Not if you just wait a month. Kiwima (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

bait

"A trolling Internet publication." Hard to grasp what this means: is it a publication in the sense of a regular blog or zine, or merely any casual message or image posted in order to troll somebody? Equinox ◑ 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, not a publication. Though “trolling” is not a wrong word choice. It is when in a discussion, say a group chat, you post something only for the reaction, say problematize something in a politics chat that is a trope, a false dichotomy or the like. Then you can “not fall for this bait”, or say “this is bait”, “dodged your bait”, etc. See particularly this fish meme; KYM dates the term to 1995 even, referring to Usenet. Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, tweaked def. Equinox ◑ 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO these citations, though valid usage, are either the phrase flamebait (though spelled with a space) or the general (not Internet-specific) sense of something to entice or allure. I hardly see the point of the subsense: the context is different (Internet) but the meaning apparently is not. Equinox ◑ 17:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

zythepsary

Looking on Google Books, I see a few mentions, and two possible uses in the plural. Old Man Consequences (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find looks like mentions to me. I added what I could find. Kiwima (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

nerehonde

GBS results look Middle English, not New English. --Tybete (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

overhele

As above. --Tybete (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

myssease

As above. --Tybete (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

thereas

--Tybete (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I found plenty of cites in Middle English, but only one that could possibly be Modern. Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have usage in American legal contexts in the mid-20th century (I just did a quick search with QQ). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

slyly

--Tybete (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

love

To lust for — not to have sex with, nor to like strongly (which are both separate senses). Equinox ◑ 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

party

Rfv-sense: Adverb:

"(obsolete) Partly."

No cites, request for quote from Chaucer, ie, Middle English author. DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Still perhaps seen in a few phrases like party-coloured. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that heraldic term means "coloured differently in different parts". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Kitsushōten

Any takers? (English section) - seems unlikely. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

necronym

Rfv-sense: "The former name of a transgender person, their new name being better aligned with their gender." Is this a stand-alone sense or is it just an example of necronym being used figuratively? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's used a lot in transgender spaces by transgender people, but I've yet to see used in a publication. It is a stand-alone sense, not figurative. The term is linked to 'dead name' or 'deadname' and 'deadnaming' and is used by trans people widely. There exist many examples in 'meme' format on google image search, but it is also used a lot in private discussions. As the use widely exists but in private spaces (kept so for safety) finding it openly used is going to be difficult. — This unsigned comment was added by 67.168.1.135 (talk).

Then we have a problem - we kind of need it to be durably archived in order to keep it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

fi

Rfv-sense: Noun "Another word for to"

AFAICT, this has been take from Urban Dictionary. If it is real, it is probably an AAVE preposition. DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There's already a Jamaican Creole entry for it. It could be considered Jamaican English as well, since Jamaican English and Jamaican Creole form a continuum. --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

boyfriendish

Rfv-sense — This unsigned comment was added by Leasnam (talk • contribs).

(Unchallenged sense 1 = "characteristic of a boyfriend". Challenged sense 2 = "not quite a boyfriend yet".) Equinox ◑ 23:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ent

There are three citations, but all three are in reference to Tolkien’s Middle Earth fictional universe, and so (per WT:FICTION) do not count for attestation purposes.  --Lambiam 08:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, the common term for this creature in other fiction is treant. Do enough non-Tolkienian instances of ent exist? Tharthan (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

burr

Rfv-sense: Ety 3: A metal ring at the top of the hand-rest on a spear.

Sole quote is Malory 1485 in a different spelling (bur). DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

acapnotic

The pronunciations seem odd to me, as if the primary and secondary stresses have been reversed. (We have also have capnotic without a pronunciation.)

I have not be able to attest these pronunciations (nor any for "capnotic"). Neither word has an entry in onelook.com and the words aren't in the OED (1989 edition). It was User:Thryduulf who provided the pronunciations and I have asked them if they can provide their source. — Paul G (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't remember what source I used for this entry ~11 years ago, but it's possible it was from hearing someone speak it or from a paper dictionary I no longer own. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a request for verification of the word, @Paul G? I don't think this is the proper venue for asking about the pronunciation - perhaps the Tea Room would be better. Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like the word itself verified as well. DTLHS (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm - I find a number of texts that use acapnotic in examples of how people discern meaning from context, but not actual uses. Kiwima (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember playing this word in the game of Balderdash once. I defined it as "lacking a true stomach, as in some jawless fish". Khemehekis (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

capnotic

DTLHS (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

scope resolutor

Seems like learner error. Note resolutor is a red link. Equinox ◑ 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the entry. In addition, I found this, which means this is cited (barely). Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

pad

Etymology 3, sense 4. Tharthan (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For future generations reading talk pages, the challenged sense was: "The act of highway robbery." Equinox ◑ 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A mention found in GBooks: "'To go out upon the pad' meant to look for victims to rob, while robbery in its street form could also be known as the 'Highway Service'." (2013, Simon Hallsworth, Street Crime, p.37). Also, an old text is quoted in 2001, Gillian Spraggs, Outlaws and Highwaymen: "A year later he is in Chelmsford jail, and to save his neck, has turned informer: he has made 'a full discovery of all persones I did or doe knowe that use the pad [highway robbery]'." Equinox ◑ 15:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I see, but "to go out upon the pad" would have then initially simply been another way of saying "to go out upon the path" (compare "highwayman", "highway robbery"), whence the figurative sense that is referenced in those quotations. Both of those quotations use "the pad", and not "pad" so we probably ought to note that if this passes RfV (assuming citations can't be found that don't have pad preceded by "the"). Furthermore, can we really use an instance of "go out upon the pad" to back up the this sense of "pad" that I am challenging? Couldn't that, as I said initially, be a figurative phrase? Tharthan (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I found two possible quotes, although they are somewhat iffy:

• 1800, The Sportsman's Dictionary:

  But much more was performed by a highwayman's horse, who having committed a robbery, rode on the same day from London to York, being a hundred and fifty miles […] no horse is so beautifully shaped all over from head to croup, and he is absolutely the best stallion in the world, either for breed, for the manage, the war, the pad, hunting, or running horses; but as they are excellent, so is their price extravagant, three or four hundred pistoles being a common price for a Spanish horse.

• 1829, Thomas Perronet Thompson, Catechism on the Corn Laws:

  If the manufacturers had got a duty upon home-grown corn, for the sake of increasing the quantity which should be purchased with their manufactures from abroad, the agriculturists would see clearly, that for the manufacturers to whine and say, 'Is it just, is it moral to deprive one man of his property in order to confer it upon another,' —would be like a highwayman saying the same on the destruction of his trade, and asking who was to compensate him for the capital laid out in his pad nag.

If we accept them and the text quoted in the 2001 above, this could squeak through. Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The second one is padnag, where padding is an easy pace/gait. It's not related to robbery. Equinox ◑ 01:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly relevant, though it doesn't count for CFI, is footpad, which is evidently derived from it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wyrd

English term. Any takers? The Old English term needs cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, for starters, she wouldn't be a "god of fate" but "goddess of fate" Leasnam (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

English god can be used to refer to female deities; that usage just isn't universal (i.e. for some speakers/speaker communities it isn't a option). Compare hero vs. heroine. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

For a dictionary definition, we should avoid such usage- clarity is important. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you (I'm in two minds about it myself); I was just correcting a misconception held by Leasnam (not that it really matters anyways, especially now that it's been changed) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: I am well aware of how god is used, thank you :] Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

toeprint

"An exceptionally small audit trail left by a crashed program." I think this was created by confusion from the Jargon File's entry, which defines this as a small footprint: however, footprint has two computing senses (1. physical space taken up by equipment, 2. crash audit trail) and — from my research — a computing toeprint seems to be a small #1, not a small #2. I've added that sense, which leaves this one needing citations. Equinox ◑ 00:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I found a couple of weak mentions, but no actual uses. I did add an additional meaning from genetics. Kiwima (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In the computing sense this seems to be a dictionary-only term. I have no idea what is meant by “the audit trail of a crashed program”, also used in the definition of footprint, which was taken from The Hackers Dictionary, where it is classified as IBM jargon: “rampantly unofficial jargon lists circulated within IBM’s own beleaguered hacker underground”. So already there it was copied from a list of mentions rather than based on uses. (There is a contemporary computing sense of footprints, meaning the traces left by any app or other program that has been run, not in any specific way related to program crashes.)  --Lambiam 09:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

nightfright

To quote the discussion which caused me to bring this to RfV:

 

“  "Stage fright" certainly supports your point. But otherwise a "fright" is just a single instance, not a long-term phobia. I don't think "nightfright" or "snakefright" are words that normal human beings would use; they are probably restricted to weird Anglo-Saxonists. Equinox ◑ 02:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you when it comes to "snakefright". I can see nightfright, though, if only because of the rhyme. We might want to look more into that one. I'll open an RfV for it.

［Tharthan (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)］  ”

...So does this term have enough usage that is not "Anglish" so to speak? We need two more citations, either way. Tharthan (talk 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Cited, and quite easily so. There appears to be a bird-specific usage, but I haven't separated it out (yet). Additionally, we may want to consider moving the main entry to night fright, as most of the citations are of that spellage. @Tharthan: I left a response at the discussion which caused me to bring this to RfV. Leasnam (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much, Leasnam! Tharthan (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gan

Rfv-sense: traditional abbreviation for Jiangxi province. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we ask the same question for 贛, sense 2? Or is this about the use of the abbreviation in English texts?  --Lambiam 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

above

Preposition sense 10:

Too proud to stoop to; averse to; disinclined towards; too honorable to give.

RFV subsense "too honorable to give" only. Somehow I cannot grasp what kind of thing this is referring to. Perhaps I am missing something. Mihia (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d understand it if it said, “too honorable to give a damn about” or “to give in to”.  --Lambiam 16:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just speculating: Would a usage example be something like "above offense" ⇒ "too honorable to give"? It wouldn't fit with modern usage, but perhaps something from 19th century or earlier. DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• That entire definition was produced in two edits by User:Speednat. I note that, as they worded it, the definition was not entirely right for a preposition, but was subsequently improved. I can't find any dictionary, including Webster 1828, Webster 1913, and Century 1911 that has something like "too honorable to give". "Too hono(u)rable to give" I found once: "too honorable to give countenance to such an attempt if made by another" (1826). I would just delete "; too honorable to give". DCDuring (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

to-come

Are there three cites available in Modern English? There is apparently one from Shelley's "Hellas", which would be OK if unambiguously supporting the definition [as it seems to IMHO]. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added a few. Not sure if there is any double referencing to an earlier work by Jacques Derrida, but I've tried to limit this to just one. Leasnam (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We have a separate entry for to come. It would be nice to have more context or a pagelink to determine the meaning in the to-come citations. DCDuring (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That page only has to come as an adjective. More context can be added, as I did pre-read several sentences leading up to the use in order to make sure they fit the sense. But for space's-sake I've learnt no pare the citations down just to the relevant pieces. I can go back and add more. Leasnam (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the noun citations for to come now in [[to-come]] should be in a noun PoS at [[to come]]. In the meantime, I have commented them out.

The pageurl parameter in our citation templates provides more context (all that Google provides) without taking up more screen space.

The Shelley citation seems clearly to do the with the future in general. I can't tell what definition is involved in some of the other citations, either of the to come or the to-come. What's more I find myself becoming nauseous trying. I leave the defining to those with stronger stomachs. DCDuring (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I was able to find a few new citations rather easily for the spelling "to-come" that I feel clearly mean "future". I've added these at that sense. Leasnam (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"What's more I find myself becoming nauseous trying" - I wholeheartedly agree with you there ! My head hurts after reading those. Perhaps we may be able to enlist @Equinox: who is highly skilled in making heads or tails of things ! Leasnam (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added a couple FEW more. I'm actually surprised at how easy a time I'm having at finding these, as I did not expect to find nearly this many. One TWO I've just added appears as "tocome" (2015, TL Wolf; 1870, J. Payn), no hyphen, but we don't have an English for it, so I've added tocome to the Alternative forms. Leasnam (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you create the English L2 for tocome instead of cluttering up [[to-come]] with citations that don't belong there? Why don't you add the pageurl so that I don't have to do it myself? DCDuring (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do both. Leasnam (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring: is it pageurl= or url= ? pageurl doesn't show a link, so I've used url for now Leasnam (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC) I got it. Leasnam (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you call my satanic name, Leasnam? I still often find myself annoyed by Leasnam entries that suggest that ancient long-dead words are either (i) generally current or (ii) current in some mysterious "UK/Scotland dialect". I think you need a trip to the UK. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool tool, isn't it? And thanks. DCDuring (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, very useful ! Leasnam (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

chargee

"The person on whom a charge is levied", i.e. one who gets the bill for something. It sounds plausible, but in fact this seems to have some other specific legal meaning: somebody who is granted a charge by a chargor (whatever that is). Equinox ◑ 12:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The website law.academic.ru has an archived copy of the definition of chargor in Practical Law Dictionary. Glossary of UK, US and international legal terms – no longer online in the same form – to wit, “chargor — A company or person who grants a charge or right in security in favour of some other person or company known as a chargee.” It this case the sense of “charge” is an instrument of security, e.g. a debenture, and the chargee is the holder (beneficiary) of the charge. Next to this very specific sense, I think the term can be used for anyone who has been charged with anything in any sense, like here someone who was charged with repayment (fitting the sense in our entry), or (as seen in the second definition here) someone who has been charged with a crime.  --Lambiam 14:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

cited. In addition to the two types of being charged Lambiam mentioned, I found a quote for a third, which is one who is charged to do something. Kiwima (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinazi

Seems to exist, but the definition doesn't seem correct. Most of the links in the reference section do not use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No lack of mentions but a dearth of uses. One in the comments section here. Another solid one here. Finally, in a photo caption, used in the slogan “No White Terror No Chinazi”. Both in uses and mentions I only found this as a derogatory alternative proper noun designating the People’s Republic of China, not in application to individuals.  --Lambiam 10:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

yiffable

Both senses. I only found two durable results on Google and those were already in the entry. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

wooden-coat

"A coffin." — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Three uses without hyphen: [28], [29], [30].  --Lambiam 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Those are for wooden overcoat. Here's one for wooden coat sans hyphen [[31]] Leasnam (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the page to wooden coat, and that phrase is cited Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

brennage

DTLHS (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I can find LOTS of mentions, but so far, only one use, which is on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)