Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/July

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← June 2020 · July 2020 · August 2020 → · (current)

---

Adjective: predicative leftover vs attributive left over

left over reads:

Use left over after a verb, in a predicate phrase. When directly before a noun, use leftover. 

Is this a general productive pattern? Otherwise, any reference for this usage note? --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems correct to this American raised in the Northeast. I would say "The food is left over from last night" or "These are leftovers from last night" but "I ate the leftover food." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK to a transpondian as well. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Content Removal Request

Discussion moved to Talk:niggerfucker.

The same request has already been posted on the above talk page. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

vial vs. phial

I heard an American woman on the radio saying "vial", whereas I would say "phial". Oxford doesn't help here, but I would like to know which spelling (and pronunciation) is more common in the States. DonnanZ (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My native-speaker intuition says vial is more common, and b.g.c ngrams agrees. However, ngrams also says that vial has been more common in British English as well since about the 1970s. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm surprised by the British results though. DonnanZ (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

implex and pedigree collapse

Are these actually synonyms (as listed)? Implex defines itself as "a genealogical coefficient of a given genealogical tree; defined as the difference between the number of theoretical ancestors of a person and the number of his/her real ones in a given generation." Pedigree collapse, on the other hand, seems to refer to (and is defined as) not a coefficient, but the phenomenon of having n slots in one's family tree filled by <n people. The definitions do not sound synonymous, although they both pertain to the same topic area, and I see a book saying "a coefficient of inbreeding can be calculated for an individual as a measure of the amount of pedigree collapse within that individual's genealogy" as if the coefficient and the pedigree collapse are indeed distinct. - -sche (discuss) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In accord with common usage, I would expect a coefficient to be a multiplier, perhaps derived as a ratio of two numbers, not their difference. Such a coefficient (or difference) might be a measure of "pedigree collapse", just as kg is a measure of mass without kg being a synonym of mass. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Pedia has w:Coefficient of relationship (presumably a measure) and w:Consanguinity (a phenomenon), which are almost certainly closely related to the terms under discussion. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Take the shilling

In the usage example given, these people aren't actually joining the military, are they? They're just accepting defense contracts, right? Esszet (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I added the quote fairly recently. No, not defence contracts, and no, they're not joining the military. What Christian Wolmar was saying is that some people in the rail industry previously employed by private companies are now government employees (having figuratively taken the shilling, a coin that no longer exists anyway) and thus no longer have the ability to contradict the government. That's my interpretation. DonnanZ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Londra, Londres

Why is there an r in these? That doesn’t correspond to the original Latin form at all. Did it derive from an intermediate form suffixed with -arius or something? —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I speculate that it comes from an earlier /n/, changed to /r/ to make a better onset cluster, just as the /r/ sounds in hombre and nombre do. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

bias: reason(s) for doubling the last consonant before inflectional endings

Forms such as concussed or discusses may lead people to wrongly double the final consonant of focus ―at least that's the only reason I have come up with.

Yet, I cannot come up with a potential explanation of why people wrongly write biassed or the plural biasses. --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A lot of words end in -sses, e.g. basses, tosses, hisses. Easy mistake for anyone who doesn't think carefully about why words are spelled a certain way, and just memorises individual spellings. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: that's definitely unlikely because bias is both two syllables long ending only in one -s, and the first syllable even presents a diphthong, so different from bass, toss or hiss --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubling a final consonant even after an unstressed vowel is not unknown in English. With l, it's the preferred spelling in en-GB (cancelled, travelled) and is widespread in en-US as well, though American editors and proofreaders will usually change such spellings to canceled and traveled. With other consonants it's less clearcut, but worshipped and kidnapped are both common enough. For this reason, I don't find it hard to understand the reason for the misspelling biasses at all. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's for phonological reasons. "Focused" might otherwise be assumed to rhyme with "fused" – similarly "biases" should not rhyme with, for example, "phases". The issue is that words ending in -e which take an inflected -s or -d are indistinguishable from those ending in a consonant which take an inflected -es, -ed – but the pronunciation can be different. Ƿidsiþ 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ƿidsiþ: no English aliasses though --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can find that spelling in Google Books, so some people use it. I would guess that it's not as productively integrated into English morphological/orthographic patterns as some of the others, but, really, I think you're trying too hard to make everything fit into a system of rules. There are always exceptions, and you can never explain everything. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

dice: (uncountable, formerly countable, cooking)

Hower its entry in the American Heritage Dict reads

DICE: 2. pl. dice(s) (used with a pl. verb) Small cubes of food]

Which entry is correct?

Secondly, apparently die is also used to refer to the game of dice; otherwise, what does ahdictionary refer to by

DIE
1. pl. dice
b. dice (used with a sing. verb) A game of chance using dice.

--Backinstadiums (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

my sides

Is this worth an entry? People say it if they are (claiming to be) laughing hard, i.e. something is side-splitting. On the other hand I suppose you could say "ouch! my finger!" or "my head!" when you hurt yourself, so maybe it is SoP? Equinox ◑ 19:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

English: (plural) The people of England; Englishmen and Englishwomen

Since English meaning "the natives or inhabitants of England collectively" it is uncountable, the current definition "Englishmen and Englishwomen" is misleading.

Secondly, its usage note reads: "The people as a collective noun require the definite article "the" or a demonstrative adjective", but isn't there a term covering both the and demonstrative adjectives? Still, the potential use of a demonstrative adjective here is not deictic, which should also be emphasized. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

For your second point: example for demonstrative adjective: "those English next door". Equinox ◑ 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

For your first point: it is not uncountable, but plural. "The English are coming" (not "is"). Equinox ◑ 19:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: please check I edited my second point. According to the CambridgeGEL, *two English is not gramatically correct, so what would that imply if it's not uncountability? --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Two English" sounds (only) about as wrong to me as "two Chinese", and indeed I can find a few books saying things like "we were a small army, six Americans, one Canadian, two English and several Hollanders." and "bring the sailmakers aboard. Not the Japans—only the two English and the Spaniard." Anyway, it seems like many words are in this category / this is a general phenomenon, like "those Irish", "the poor are", "the deaf are", but not normally "two poor are". - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Six foot tall; a herd of elephant: special use of the singular in certain syntactic contexts

CambridgeGEL, page 1588 reads

In a herd of elephant it is arguable that the construction involves not a base plural, but a special use of the singular in certain syntactic contexts (comparable to the six foot tall construction).

What are that "special use" and those "syntactic contexts" the author refers to? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bare genitive

Page 1595 of the CambridgeGEL reads

In writing the bare genetive has the form of an apostrophe at the end of the word: dogs’. In speech it has no realisation at all [...]; an optional bare genitive is found in certain types of proper names, where it is more likely in writing than in speech.

It's obligatory with plural nouns ending in s, regular or irregular. Nouns like species which have identical singular and plural forms with final s take it in the singular as well as the plural, and in writing this will apply to nouns like chassis too.

The bare genitive is the only possibility in fixed phrases with sake : for convenience’ sake has a spoken /s/ but not written s.

As is clear, there are several contradictions in this page.

According to the text, the singular species (ˈspiːʃiːz —some speakers pronounce the singular with -ɪz, the plural with -iːz) also takes a bare genitive, species', unlike the example given by the author in the same page quiz's (which follows the usual rule). Therefore, one would never know whether species' refers to the singular or plural.

Furthermore, chassis' for both the singular /ˈʃæsi/ and plural /ˈʃæsiz/; why not the usual rule for the singular one chassis's /ˈʃæsiz/?

Must bare genetives be divided into spoken and written forms?

What are the characteristics that would define the bare genetive as distinct form other type(s)? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Underwear terms

Just wondering if there's an issue here or if I'm making a sandwich of a nothingburger: I suspect that some of User:BlackAdvisor's edits are POV-pushing. For instance, I argued that keeping the line "[...]chiefly worn by women" at G-string does not exclude male users – it's just how reality is, if we look at manufacturing and sales. I took a step back in order to avoid an edit war, but it still kind of bugs me – in my world, terms like "chiefly", "mainly" and "mostly" don't exclude any given group of people. Don't we miss an important aspect if we strip senses from these kinds of facts? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gender neutrality and keeping senses as unbiased as possible, but I just can't wrap my head around what BlackAdvisor is trying to achieve with several of their edits.

Another problematic edit was labelling undershorts as "dated" – in what capacity is the term dated? If it's usage, then it's obviously wrong – just Google it and you can buy hundreds of them on several websites. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Some edits looked problematic to me too. Equinox ◑ 11:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pointless translations

It has been brought to my attention after being invited to participate in a discussion in the German Wiktionary and a follow-up debate in Teestube, that we might have a similar problem here.

I was surprised to find out that we too have, what I perceive to be, an issue in our translations of various languages, e.g. someone has added limba albaneză as a translation in Romanian for the language Albanian – albaneză is the direct translation and perfectly sufficient in all instances where one is referring to the language. Adding limba is only for disambiguation purposes, commonly used in Wikipedia but not necessary in everyday speech. Finnish, Estonian, Georgian, Romansch and Lithuanian are also listed as having these kinds of translations and I for one can't understand to what avail – these collocations are common in most languages and why on earth do we have them in some translation sections, or, for that matter, why do we single out just some languages? I mean, why didn't someone add langue albanaise (FR), lingua albanese (IT) albanische Sprache (DE), lengua albanesa (ES), língua albanesa (PT), albanska språket (SV) or Albanian language as a synonym in the English section of that entry, if we are to be consistent? These collocations are utterly pointless and do not help anyone looking, because at the end of the day we're dealing with tautologies. I'm inclined to delete instances where the Romanian translations look like this, but I'd appreciate input from other users. PS: I'm aware that there might be languages where this construction is obligatory to express this notion – I'm only motivated to edit in languages where I know that it isn't the case. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Xanadu

As Wyang mentioned on Xanadu's talk page, we are missing the figurative sense of this word. We only have the literal sense. Other dictionaries have a figurative sense of something akin to "an idealised, exotic place of great contentment and beauty". Tharthan (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BUMP Tharthan (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tharthan I have a classy quote for that Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Is a murderer always male?

The Finnish Wiktionary says that English murderer is means a male murderer, and the translation at murhaaja also implies so (and thus that the word murderess must be used of female people who murder). However, the page murderer itself does not say that a female person who commits a murder isn't a murderer. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not. See numerous search results for "she was a murderer". DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Murderess" is quite dated, in my experience. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

In any case, Mölli-Möllerö, "murderer" is perfectly legitimate in reference to either a man or a woman. Tharthan (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be acceptable to add murderess as a second definition for a translation from a foreign word of female gender, but murderer would always be considered correct. It's not like actor vs. actress or waiter vs. waitress. The female forms of those words are in common use and many people will expect you to use the correct one. On the other hand, some will insist that only the masculine (unmarked, linguistics sense) form should be used. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, as a subjective note, I seem to be hearing actor used more and more as a non-gendered term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Some news sources have adopted style guides banning actress. The Guardian, for example[1]. You'll also be seeing Black instead of black more often as a racial classification thanks to recent style guide changes. These choices are among the many little ways people use language to signal social and political attitudes. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems still uncommon in Dutch to use acteur in a non-gendered fashion instead of actrice, but I can see how that could change. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

semi-charmed

Was recently WOTD, so I guess it got through an evaluation, but I'm curious why isn't it sum-of-parts. Mihia (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Because it's a single word; semi- is a prefix, not a separate word so as to make this a hyphenated compound. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, is that how it's meant to work? Even though "semi-" can be added to almost any adjective? Mihia (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

-ing can be added to absolutely any verb, but going, sleeping, and staying aren't SOP either. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

But those aren't hyphenated. Personally I think that even solid words are easily capable of being SoP, e.g. cannabislike, but that opens up a new can of worms. The difference with hyphens is that the component boundary is clearly delineated, as clearly as if it were a space. Mihia (talk)

Possibly WT:COALMINE applies? Equinox ◑ 18:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

*groan* excuse me while I go and kick the cat. Mihia (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• For issue arising, see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/July#Treatment_of_hyphenated_prefixes_and_suffixes. Mihia (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

get old

There is a sense "tiresome" on old, but I can't think of any way to use it without "get". Can anyone else? If not, I think we should create get old? Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you can say something "is old" rather than "is getting old". It sort of implies that the activity isn't merely starting to get tiresome, it's already reached that level. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We had this conversation in 2018: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/February#to_get_old. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some cites. Would it be entirely controversial create get old and immediately delete it again with links to existing discussions left as a the reason, to prevent future conversations? Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have redirected that page to old, to prevent this discussion coming up yet again ;) Equinox ◑ 21:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

least#Etymology_2 as a prepositional phrase

Calling this a "phrase" seems awkward; is it really not some other part of speech? See also Talk:least where Equinox raises another possible issue with this section (ety 2). - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This solves the need to repeat all PoS from at least, if it substitutes all of them, but also leaves me uncertain about that, as is. It hardly deserves it's own ety section, if the ety line could go as definition under the first--that brings up the question of PoS again. Neither variant would really save me speculation about '?t'least' ~ Ger. nicht zuletzt "at least; (last but) not least" (not "not the least", nor "not at last"). Euinox implies lest, which occured to me too. Without cites it's useless anyhow. The phrase at least has only one PoS header to date, so the bare least would be a preposition in that view. Preposition can run under Ety-1's adverb header, the waste basket of PoS. 109.41.0.27 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is only one PoS at at least: Prepositional phrase. Leastways, I can imagine this used adverbially, but not at the moment as an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

run

There are some problems with the categorisation of the verb run, especially with the grouping labelled "(social) To carry out an activity." In my view "To carry out an activity" is too all-encompassing to be useful, and I have no idea what "social" is supposed to mean. I don't understand on what principle this group is presently constituted. I have made several attempts at redefining it and/or redistributing the elements, but I have not been able to arrive at anything that I find satisfactory for the article overall. I'm noting this here in case anyone else feels like having a go. Mihia (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe it was @-sche who inserted that dummy definition to work around some 'features' of wikitext to make the grouping of the definitions under it more apparent. Many dictionaries (See MWOnline) group definitions without having a definition under which the members of the group are placed. I don't think anyone loved the idea, but no one could suggest a practical alternative, as subsenses seem very useful to make entries for highly polysemic words like run more comprehensible. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The contributor was actually User:ReidAA, no longer active, in this diff. User:-sche has worked magic on similar entries. DCDuring (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I see no point in grouping subsenses unless one can identify and express some sort of broad or overarching definition. Mihia (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I use subsenses where they let specific iterations of some basic meaning be grouped, but I think things should only be made subsenses if there is an intelligible "supersense" (for lack of a better word). If the desire is simply to group similar/ related/ connected senses that don't share a basic meaning, they can just be ordered in a row. In this case, we might make "to participate in a race" (electorial or foot- or motor-...) a supersense for several of those subsenses, and "to present or be presented in media" as one if we wanna group those senses, but I'm definitely not seeing "smuggle guns" and "be a candidate for mayor" as subsenses of one unified supersense. - -sche (discuss) 08:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

hog

There's a quote request for "A rough, flat scrubbing broom for scrubbing a ship's bottom under water".

I just ran into "I would not consider a ship unseaworthy because she had a hog. There is no danger to life in sailing in a hogged ship. I have sailed in vessels having a 2-ft. hog in the keel. The keel has been straightened by being filled in underneath."

This is something else I guess? It's a nautical term, though. Verb sense 4 seems related, but here we have a noun. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be a ship that's hogged. Perhaps noun is missing. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Added noun. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

argon and unwork are doublets of each other?

Is that correct? What does it mean to say so? How does it help readers? Equinox ◑ 00:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not what a doublet is. Removed. DTLHS (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This is rather far-fetched, but both constituent parts (a-/un- and ergon/work) are indeed doublets. PUC – 10:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

幾度 / 何度

Hello, I don't think these entries are pronouns. Opencooper (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Opencooper, what's your thought then on the classification of English how many as a pronoun? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr Hmm, seems I was mistaken in what counts as a pronoun. Thanks for the link. Opencooper (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

deshrub

I translated the Spanish verb rochar (Limpiar el terreno de matas antes de sembrarlo.), as deshrub, but then lol'ed as that's not really a word. Is there a word for this in English? --Dada por viva (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How about brushcutting? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

brushclearing also seems to have some currency. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a specific English translation of the Chinese word 互文

The term 互文 in the context of rhetoric and narratology refers to a suprasegmental feature where texts from neighbouring segments are understood to be inseparable. Chiefly, the subjects should "share" their respective predicates with each other in some way across segments. A frequently quoted example is

將軍百戰死，壯士十年歸。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
将军百战死，壮士十年归。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: c. Nanbeichao–Tang eras, anonymous, Ballad of Mulan (《木蘭詩》)

Jiāngjūn bǎizhàn sǐ, zhuàngshì shínián guī. [Pinyin]

[Translation intentionally left out; see below.]

A literal reading would have been

Generals, after hundreds of battles, are killed; warriors, after a decade's fighting, return.

However, with 互文 it is understood to mean

Among generals and warriors, many are killed after a decade of countless of battles, but some of them survive and return.

On smaller scales one may find

暮去朝來顏色故。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
暮去朝来颜色故。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: 816, Bai Juyi, Ballad of the Pipa Player (《琵琶行》)

Mùqù zhāolái yánsè gù. [Pinyin]

[Translation intentionally left out; see below.]

Literal:

Evenings go; mornings come; my countenance becomes old.

With 互文

Evenings and mornings come and go; my countenance becomes old.

One could have explain 互文 thus as "reciprocal reading of syntactically parallel text", etc. But I sense that there must be one super precise translation of this term in English (probably derived from Ancient Greek roots). Suggestions? Thanks! --Frigoris (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind, but you might want to browse the en:Rhetoric category in hope of getting lucky. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Vox Sciurorum. On second thought, such phenomenon kind of straddles grammar and rhetoric. --Frigoris (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts: the characteristic of the examples can be summarised as:

Where A, B, A', B' is displayed textually,

There A, A', B, B' is meant.

This has some similarity to a chiastic construct, but not the same (the parity is different). --Frigoris (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have attempted a definition at 互文. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, examples on the entry may be superior than finding a word for it. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, thanks! Of course a precise and brief translation would be preferable. But if that isn't practical, a precise yet slightly wordy one would be good, too. --Frigoris (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

wansta, hasta

Taking into account the definitions of wansta, hasta, namely Third-person singular simple present indicative form, the entries of wanna/hafta shouldn't reads just "(informal) Represents a contracted pronunciation of want/have to", respectively --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would define them as pronunciation spellings of wants to and has to rather than conjugations. And I'm getting the urge to reread Riddley Walker. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

false hope, false hopes

Worth an entry? {{R:Cambridge}} has one. PUC – 10:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

more than ever

Worth an entry? PUC – 10:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

deejay : acronym

Is deejay an acronym (as opposed to the abbreviation DJ)? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would call it a pronunciation spelling of DJ. DCDuring (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

HQs : plural of the abbreviation of “headquarters”

According to the CambridgeGEL, headquarters has the same singular and plural form, but HQs is the plural of the abbreviation of "headquarters".

Aren't both statements contradictory? According to Wiktionary, hdqrs (plural hdqrs). Yet, does h.q. or H.Q. have a similar plural? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsure what you mean? A statement about the plural forms of Word A has little bearing on the plural forms of Word B. The term headquarters is one lexical item, with a plural form that is identical to the singular. The term HQ is a completely separate lexical item, which has a plural form that differs from the singular.

Could you restate your question? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

When HQ is pronounced as an initialism, there is no "s". When the plural is pronounced as an initialism, there is an "s". When HQ is pronounced as headquarters, HQs is also pronounced as headquarters. This is the kind of peculiar little detail that CGEL is not going to bother with.

No human language is simple enough to be completely described by any single reference work. I don't think CGEL's authors would claim otherwise. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be ornery: when you ask "Aren't both statements contradictory?", are you implying that it's possible that one statement is contradictory, but the other isn't? That question makes about as much sense as some of the questions you tend to ask here. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Censored?

On June 30 I asked if there was an opposite word for "racist" that wasn't negative? My question is legit and honest - yet it seems to have been scrubbed. I was having a conversation and stated "I like the Green Ladies on Star Trek - does that make me racist or anti-racist or philoracist or racephile? I don't know if those words even exist so I asked on Wiktionary." I honestly would like to know if there's a pleasant word I can use to say I like all colours, shapes, sized, etc. without dredging up the divisiveness of today. Censoring my query does not help anyone. If there is no such word then say so (and wonder why not). Censorship is never the answer, better ideas are. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Not censored, but misinterpreted as off-topic. @Metaknowledge thought you were asking for help in making up a new word, which is not something Wiktionary does.

I've heard racialist used to refer to someone who thinks in terms of the characteristics of different races as a whole without racial hatred. In reality, it's not much different from racism in the narrow sense- it still leads to racial discrimination, and it can progress into full-blown racial hatred very easily. In modern usage, racism usually includes both racialism and racial hatred. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in practice "racialist" (and also e.g. "race realist") is often used as a literally "eu-phemistic" (i.e., casting the concept as a positive or neutral thing) word for "racist". If one wants to say one "like[s] all colours", I'm not entirely sure why there would be a word for it, any more than there would be a word for someone who likes people of all religions, or hair colours. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell I suggest calling yourself a hippie. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If you like them all then you could presumably use nonracist... Equinox ◑ 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox It is rather suspicious though. Like calling yourself a nonrapist or nonmurderer. Buy cereal. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading this exchange the term euphemism treadmill comes to mind. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

racialism, racialist

The definitions and labels here have room for improvement, I think: I don't think the use of "racialis(t|m)" to mean "racis(t|m)" is just a dated British thing, I expect it still happens some today (as a euphemism especially in self-identification, see the section above). Also, def 1 of racialism corresponds to def 1 of racism, AFAICT, making it and def 3 of racialism redundant. (Defining racism is also tricky and may also need review; Merriam-Webster recently made headlines by tweaking their own definitions of it.) - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Democrat

I think the adjective form of Democrat, the form that liberals hate to hear because Rush Limbaugh uses it, is really a noun. You don't say "Senator Warren is Democrat". You say "Senator Warren is a Democrat". It happens that Republican is identical in noun and adjective form so you can't which form is used for "Republican Senators". I propose to delete the adjective sense and keep the essence of the usage note. Maybe, "When used attributively, ..." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Pending evidence of actually adjectival usage, I agree with you; existing usage does seem adequately explained as attributive. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But it is used in place of "Democratic": some people would say "The Democrat Party". DTLHS (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't stop it being a noun, though (like "The Independence Party" or "the secession party"). - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this ignorant form go back to Goldwater, and perhaps further back to rustic speech in parts of the South? Modern users might intend to create a distinction in their speech between "democratic" and "Democratic", but I always thought that this originated out of ignorance of grammar amongst some less educated folks. Tharthan (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I always perceived this as associated with advocacy of the notion that the "Democrat Party" was not democratic, ie, it was controlled by the party elite and institutions such as the Trilateral Commission, the Ford Foundation, etc. Since the ear doesn't recognize the difference between Democratic and democratic, speechwriters must have been trying another way to reinforce their point. DCDuring (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Compare small-c conservative! Equinox ◑ 04:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We have separate noncomparable Adjective PoS sections for many words, eg, Communist, Socialist. In most case the word rarely is used in ways that meet the tests for adjectivity. We have these Adjective PoS sections because contributors seem to be unaware of the fact that (almost?) any English noun can be used attributively and that no new semantic information is added in most of these Adjective PoS sections. DCDuring (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For "communist" and "socialist" you can of course qualify them with "very", "more ~ than", etc (at least in lowercase: finding capitalized examples could be tedious). For "democrat", whether capitalized or not, I have not seen evidence that this is possible. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that done for the capitalized forms? Is it possible to determine whether a given use is of a proper or common noun? One can stretch the use of virtually any proper noun by using more, very, too, etc., but we don't generally seem to deem that sufficient.

I'll bet I can find usage of very Democrat, though I'm not confident it would be durable archived. That doesn't mean I'd advocate keeping the Adjective PoS section. DCDuring (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

leaveism

Has anyone come across this word?

"Allied to this is the greater prevalence of 'leaveism', where employees are unable to disconnect from work because of the increased use of technology." DonnanZ (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to check Wikipedia (Leaveism), I will try to understand that... DonnanZ (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

אמן

amen

Currently אמן is listed with four interjection senses — respectively, "so be it", "surely", "truth", and "faith" — and {{attention|he|these senses seem like they belong to a noun and an adverb}}. I personally know only one definition for this word: {{n-g|Used to express agreement with what was just stated}}. I suspect that the four definitions we have are trying to get at that. (FWIW, they were all written by the same author, and later merged into the current entry.)

Also, amen is now listed with an adverb and an interjection sense — respectively, "At the end of religious prayers: so be it" and "An expression of strong agreement. Often, though dated, in the phrase 'Amen to that'" — which seem to duplicate one another.

Whadday'all think?​—msh210℠ (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)