Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:21, 27 August 2020

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

Shortcut:
WT:RFVN

This page is for entries in any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/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

March 2017

pollus

As mentioned in the Tea room, this seems to be a dead end: it's said to be an adjective, and to be an alternative form of polus. The only problem is that there's no adjective sense at polus, nor can I find a likely candidate in Lewis & Short at Perseus. There is pollulus, but that's an alternative form of polulus, a diminutive of polus. We thus have an entry and a complete set of inflected forms, but no definition and no examples of usage. Is this a complete figment of User:SemperBlotto's imagination, or is there a real word out there somewhere?

By the way, I tried searching for this, but there are scannos that mistake just about any letter with a vertical stroke for one or more ls. If it helps any, SB was apparently working on taxonomic names from User:Pengo/Latin/Most wanted at the time he created this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a cockup. If nobody can dind anything, I'll delete it all. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that DMBLS, "The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources", contains "pollus v. 1 pola, 3 polus, 3 pullus". So it might be a British Mediaeval Latin spelling. -84.161.4.231 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary has "polla, fusca" (possibly a mentioning) where "polla" could be ML for pulla (from pullus).
Thus pollus could be an alt form of pullus instead of polus. Alternatively the POS of pollus could be wrong and then it could be an alt form of a noun. -84.161.43.111 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Compounds with quis

quisquam

For the feminine quaequam and the plural.
Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis.

Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely).
Maybe note that the conjunction quamquam which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word.
Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's quispiam where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam.
Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [....] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...] Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [....] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.] [...] Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...] Quisquam has no plural. [...] [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.] Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table.
The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men").
The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text.
The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
- Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
  "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and w:en:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error.
  "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:".
  So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct.
- Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like isthic for istic? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
- The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
- The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: quamquam) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
  F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)."
  After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word.
With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

	substantivally		adjectivally
	sg.		sg.
	m./f.	n.	m.	f.	n.
nom.	quisquam	quidquam/quicquam	quisquam	quisquam / [quaequam]	quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
gen.	cujusquam (cuiusquam, or cûiusquam by Allen's and Greenough's notation instead of a misleading cūiusquam to denote the "consonant i")		cujusquam (cuiusquam etc.)
dat.	cuiquam		cuiquam
acc.	quemquam [quenquam]	quidquam/quicquam	quemquam [quenquam]	[quemquam / quamquam] [ [quenquam] / [quanquam] ]	quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
abl.	quōquam also quīquam	quōquam	quōquam also quīquam	[quōquam / quāquam]	quōquam

BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun quispiam attested?
-80.133.125.36 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quisquis

RFV for:

feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

Rationale and notes:

Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis#Usage notes). There could be other cites - but are there any?
As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition.
There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition.
- If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
- There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā.

References:

See quisquis for some citations and notes.
Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
"In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō.
Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine.
Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective."
- Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...]
Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...]
44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt. Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv.
[....]
[...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275).
[...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45."
Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites].
The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv.
44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.]
[....]
[...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites].
[...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]."
- So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
(a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8;
(b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159;
(c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.;
(d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.).
Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work.
For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl.
There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition.
As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition.
F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].".
So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority."

From what I've seen, there could be three forms:

substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis#Usage notes)
adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

-80.133.100.252 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In short it is verification request for certain forms (see "For the feminine quaequam and the plural" and "RFV for [...]"). For the verification procress everything else such as references and citations can be ignored.
Discussions could then arise, if citations are found: Are the citations correct, or doubtful, from old editions or the like? Do the citations contain a selfstanding pronoun or what in English is also termed adjective (as in demonstrative adjective, indefinite adjective) or determiner (as in demonstrative determiner)? Additional problems do arise because of this BP proposal. Treating Old Latin and other Latin as different languages means that Plautus (as in quisquam#Citations, mecum#Adverb, illic#Pronoun) doesn't attest anything for the other Latin. -91.6.199.79 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very late reply, but doesn't quamquam also mean "although"? Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some Latin adjectives

RFV for the ablative singular and the genitive plural or neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural to determine the declension of some adjectives (abl. sg. -ī or -e, gen. pl. -ium or -um, neuter pl. -ia or -a).
Notes:

It could be that the declensions is unknown or that wt's declension is wrong. Well, in Medieval or New Latin some more forms could be attested, but then there should be a note and then it could be that there are multiple forms.
Just BTW as defence in advance: Knowing how wiktionary creates inflected forms, and seeing what grammarians write or grammars state, it's justified to question multiple entries with doubtful inflected forms.

References:

Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
"121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] The following have regularly -e:—caeles, compos, [†dēses], dīves, hospes, particeps, pauper, prīnceps, sōspes, superstes. [...]"
b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:¹—
1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
2. Sometimes, in poetry, in participles in -ns: as, silentum concilium, a council of the silent shades (Aen. vi. 432). [...] d. Vetus (gen. -ĕris) and pūbes (gen. -ĕris) regularly have -e in the ablative singular, -a in the nominative and accusative plural, and -um in the genitive plural. For ūber, see § 119 [note: there is ūber, abl. sg. ūberī, gen. pl. ūberum, neuter plural ūbera, and the note "An ablative in -e is very rare."; but there is also vetus with abl. sg. "vetere (-ī)"]. [...]
122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. [...] Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
¹ Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."
- Stating that sōstes has abl. sg. -e, but not stating that it has gen. pl. -um could mean that the gen. pl. is -ium or unattested. If it is -ium, there could be more declensions than just abl. sg. -ī, gen. pl. -ium (like i-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e, gen. pl. -um (like consonant-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e or -ī, gen. pl. -ium (poetically sometimes -um) (participles, with forms depending on the way of usage). In fact, with ūber, abl. sg. -ī (very rare -e), gen. pl. -um, neuter plural -a A&G have another declension form.
21st century grammars (Pons, Klett, Duden and others) mention the following adjectives with abl. -e and gen. pl. -um: vetus, dīves, pauper, prīnceps, compos, superstes, sōspes, particeps, although many grammars just mention a few of them.
William Smith & Theophilus D. Hall, The student's Latin grammar. A grammar of the Latin language, 2nd edition, London, 1867, p. 18 had this: "The following Adjectives have [Ablative Singular in] ĕ only: paupĕr, pūbēs, dēsĕs, compŏs, impŏs, caelebs, princeps and sŭperstĕs."
Just BTW: An 18th century grammar noted that several adjectives, such as "ales, bipes, bicolor, cicur, compos, concolor, degener, deses, dives, impos, inops, immemor, memor, locuples, paper, particeps, praeceps, redux, superstes, sospes, teres, anceps, biceps, triceps &c." don't have a neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural, which would mean that e.g. *sospitia or *sospita is unattested (or was so centuries ago, or at least was uncommon or proscribed). An 19th century grammar mentioned something similar; namely that some adjectives such as "vigil, memor, compos, impos, pauper, dives, sospes, superstes, redux, supplex, particeps, princeps" are often used of persons, thus are often used in masculine and feminine gender, although they are sometimes also with neuters, but it's avoided to use them in the neuter plural cases in -a; for example one can say numen nemor, but not numina memora. So it could be more complicated to attest or verify the correct declension of caelebs or sospes for example.

-80.133.100.252 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sospes

See A&G cited above, and compare with superstes.

particeps

See A&G cited above.

Georges: "particeps, cipis, Abl. cipe"

princeps

See A&G cited above, and compare with particeps.

deses

See A&G cited above.

caeles

See A&G cited above.

L&S mentions this example: "sub caelite mensa, Paul. Nol. Carm. 24, 9 al.", though it is Late Latin.

Also RFV for the nominative singular as L&S states "but not found in nom. sing.", as Gaffiot states "(inus. au nominatif)" and as Georges states "Nomin. caeles nicht nachweisbar." (nom. [sg.] caeles not attestable).
BTW: A&G mention defective adjectives too. From the defectives A&G mention, exlex and seminex/semineci here are mentioned without any note, while primoris has one.

caelebs

Compare: caelebs#Citations
Though it's an poetic example with abl. sg. caelibe (used out of metrical reasons?).

Also: GBS has results with caelibum like "[...] vt inprimis de Collegiis caelibum virginum ita constituatur [...]" (with should be: of the unmarried virgins), but for caelibium there is only one GBS result found thrice (in "[...] quam Senior Augustus post Julius rogationes incitandis caelibium poenis & augendo aerario sanxerat [...]") and that could be something else.

pubes

See A&G cited above.

Compare: Talk:pubes#Latin

www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/ gives some more results with puberum, and some with pubere and puberi, but none with puberium or puberia or pubera.

impubes

Compare with pubes.

Note: Pliny might have impubium but that would be a form of impubis and not of impubes (gen. pl. impuberum or impuberium?)

redux

L&S: "rĕdux (rēdux, Plaut. Rud. 4, 2, 4; id. Capt. 5, 1, 2), dŭcis (abl. reduce, Liv. 21, 50: reduci, Ov. H. 6, 1), adj."
Lewis: "redux ducis （abl. reduce; poet. also reducī, O.)"
Georges: "Abl. Sing. bei Dichtern auch reduci"

This implies that the abl. sg. is usually reduce and poetically (out of metrical reasons?) also reducī. The questioned plural forms however could be unattested (in ancient Latin).

supplex

See A&G cited above, for gen. pl.
L&S: "supplex (subpl-), ĭcis (abl. supplĭci, but also -ĭce freq. in dactyl. and anap. verse [...] As subst.: supplex , ĭcis, m."
Lewis: "supplex (subpl-) icis （abl. icī or ice; gen plur. -icum, rarely -icium), adj. [...] As subst m."
Georges: "supplex, plicis, Abl. gew. supplice, doch auch supplicī, Genet. Plur. supplicum u. (selten) supplicium"

This could mean that the adjective has both forms. However, this is more complicated as the dictionaries maybe don't properly differ between the inflection of the adj. and the subst., and it get's more complicated as there is also a noun supplicium.
Gen. pl. supplicum for the subst. should be attested (Cic. Mur. 4, 9: "repudiatio supplicum"). supplice and supplici for the adj. should be attested too (see supplex). Though as for now, supplice could be a poetic form (out of metrical reasons?). How about the gen. pl. or neuter pl. of the adj.?

uber

For the doubtful plural forms.

A&G has abl. sg. -ī, "very rare" -e, gen. pl. -um, neuter pl. -a
Dictionaries have abl. sg. -ī and one reference or cite with -e, but often they don't mention the doubftul plural forms.
Note that there is a also a noun uber which also has gen. sg. uberis, so just attesting the word forms uberum or ubera, doesn't mean anything.

May 2017

camus

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L&S: "Perh. a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)." Maybe that's the source for it, and maybe in another dictionary it's without the "Perh.", or maybe it's coming from L&S but with ignoring the "Perh." which should abbreviate "Perhaps". -84.161.7.226 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Perh." means perhaps in L&S.

Dictionaries:

L&S: "Perh. [= perhaps] a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)."
L w/o S: "a curb, used as an instrument of torture: civīs tradere camo, H. dub. [= doubtful]"
Gaffiot: "carcan : *Acc. Tr. 302."
Georges: "Strafwerkzeug für Sklaven u. Verbrecher, Acc. tr. 302. Hor. sat. 1, 6, 39."

Based on this it should rather be a yoke (frame around the neck) than a necklace (jewelry worn around the neck).
As for Horatius, it does depend on the edition and camo could be less common than Cadmo.

The works mentioned by the dictionaries:

Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Noni Marcelli compendiosa doctrina. Emendavit et adnotavit Lucianus Mueller. Pars I, Leipzig, 1888, p. 295f.:
Collus masculino Accius Epigonis:
quid césso ire ad eam? em, praésto est camo† collúm gravem.

16 Epigonis Me; epigono C. – 17 equidem illud camo idem quod κάμπτω olim putaveram. sed ne sic quidem sententia satis facilis et commoda. vulgo ita explicatur, ut camus sit κημός, et significet, quod exemplo caret, vinculum collare. propius a vero existimo catellae (cf. pg. 199 l. catellae) vocabulum latere et hausta quaedam, quibus octon. iamb. impleretur, ut puta: quid césso ire ad eam? eam praéstost. et catélla (ablat.) habet collúm gravem. nam interdum in hoc metro caesuram neglegi notum. illa quin de Eriphyla dicta esse videantur non intercedo. at pessime puto factum, quod Epigonos Accii eandem cum Eriphyla habuit fabulam Ribbeckius duasque res diversissimas Thebarum expugnationem et Eriphylae caedem una tragoedia contineri existimavit.
Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Nonii Marcelli de conpendiosa doctrina libros XX onionsianis copiis usus edidit Wallace M. Lindsay. Volumen I. LL. I–III, argumentum, indicem siglorum et praefationem continens, Leipzig, 1903, p. 294:
Collus masculino Accius Epigonis (302):
. quid cesso ire ád eam? em, praesto ést: camo collúm gravem.

16 epigono (etiam F³)
Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae, Leipzig, 1852, p. 148 (L. Attius [= Lucius Accius], Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302):
Iám quid cesso ire ád eam? en praesto est: én camo collúm grauem!

302 iam om. libri em praesto est camo libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae. Secundis curis. Volumen I., Leipzig, 1871, p. LV and p. 176 (L. Attius, Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302) (similary at wikisource):
[p. VII and IX] PRAEFATIO
[...] eis
ADNOTATIONUM COROLLARIUM
quod infra sequitur contexui.

[p. XLIX] Attium et debebam et volebam ACCIVM scribere. Nam hoc fuisse poetae nostri nomen fidem facit cum frequentia, immo constantia huius potissimum scripturae in testimoniis, tum Pisaurensium titulorum auctoritas, ubi A c c i i apparent, maximi illa momenti, si probabiliter statuitur Accianum (nam sic apud Hieronymum dicitur) fundum, qui iuxta Pisaurum fuit, a patre poetae colono possessum et filio traditum fuisse. [...]

[p. LV] V. 302 violentius Buechelerus eiecto camo ad senarii modos constrinxit:
quid césso ire ad eam? em praésto est : em (vel iam) collúm grauem.

[p. 176] [Séd] quid cesso ire ád eam? em praesto est: cámo [uide] collúm grauem!

302 sed om. libri em praesto est, om. uide, libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satirae = Sermones, liber I. In: Horace Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica with an English translation by H. Rushton Fairclough, 1942, p. 78f. (similary at wikisource and thelatinlibrary):
"tune, Syri, Damae aut Dionysi filius, audes
deicere de saxo civis aut tradere Cadmo?"
"Do you, the son of a Syrus, a Dama, a Dionysius,^d dare to fling from the rock^e or to hand over to Cadmus citizens of Rome?"

^d These are common slave-names.

^e i.e. the Tarpeian rock from which criminals were sometimes thrown by order of a tribune. Cadmus was a public executioner.

-80.133.123.15 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an edition with English translation, Attius/Accius' "camo" is interpreted as necklace or neckband. So there are (a) Horatius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device) or "Cadmo" (proper noun) and (b) Attius/Accius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device or a necklace or neck-band). It's doubtful, but should be cited. -84.161.32.202 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuam

Latin phrases purportedly meaning “everlasting” or “permanent”. I’m most sceptical, however, about the usage note included under ad perpetuum, viz.:

The words ad perpetuum or ad perpetuam rei memoriam were normally placed at the end of the salutation on Roman documents to convey the meaning that the documents were trustworthy and permanent.

I didn’t see anything about that in the usual lexicographic places (see perpetuus#References). The phrases in perpetuō (ablative) and in perpetuum (accusative) are well attested (elsewhere), but nowhere do I see mentioned a phrase with ad and any form of perpetuus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=%22ad+perpetuam%22&k=Bibliothek has many mentionings of "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" or "ad perpetuam memoriam". www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/A/Bulle+%5B1%5D could imply that "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" appears in Medieval documents. As the pope lives in Rome and as it is "Roman Catholic Church" the quoted "Roman documents" could be correct, but vague or misleading. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magni_aestimamus.jpg (said to be a bull from 2011 by wikipedia) has "Benedictus Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam." and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_Quo_Primum_tempore.JPG (said to be a bull) has "Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam" at the top.
www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Key%C3%9Fler,+Johann+Georg/Neueste+Reisen+durch+Deutschland,+B%C3%B6hmen,+Ungarn,+die+Schweiz,+Italien+und+Lothringen/Erste+Abtheilung/51.+Schreiben?hl=ad+perpetuum cites a text with "ad perpetuum" in it. Maybe it is a British Medieval or New Latin form of "in perpetuum"? -84.161.13.81 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deinde scriptum

RFV for this supposedly idiomatic Latin phrases defined as:

"in place of a signature", "the same" (referring to a signature written above on the page, typically following a P.S.)

I haven’t been able to find it in L&S, du Cange, Elementary Lewis, Niermeyer, or the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be NL and not CL, so it would be missing in L&S and OLD. w:de:Liste lateinischer Abkürzungen, w:de:DS and w:de:Postskriptum mention it, but that's not a reliable source and could be a German abbreviation. Talk:deinde scriptum gives another etymology, but in English, German, Latin that would be unlikely. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

คทากร

AFAIK, we mostly use ดรัมเมเยอร์ for drum major. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"คทากร" is in wide use, as in "จุฬาฯ คทากร"; see further results from Google also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Octahedron80, do you agree with that assertion? @หมวดซาโต้, could you add citations to the page?__Gamren (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

The Slavic Latin contributions of 89.172.183.48

All of the contributions of this anon seem pretty shady to me, or at least under wrong title. @Metaknowledge, could you take a gander? —John C5

Also everything under Special:Contributions/89.172.170.90. —John C5 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem to be medieval Latin renderings of Serbo-Croatian names, and particularly of medieval Croatian/Pannonian rulers. Many of them could definitely be attested (at least from quotes in secondary sources), but some are plainly erroneous (“Muucimir” is just a misreading of Muncimir). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affected Latin entries:

Domosol, Muntimer, Muucimir (Muncimir?), Suinnimir, Zuonimir -- all of these require a clean-up (nominative with no -us as in the header or with -us as in the inflection section?)
Budimero, Sunimiro, Uuonomiro, Uuonomyro, Wonomyro -- all of these require a clean-up (nominative with -o as in the header or no -o as in the inflection section?)
Svanimerus, Svannimerus, Tamislaus, Tamisclaus, Terpimerus, Tripimirus, Yllicus

Additionally all these entries might miss a label like {{lb|la|Medieval Latin}}, {{lb|la|New Latin}} or {{lb|la|Medieval Latin|New Latin}}.

As headers and inflection do not fit:

The names ending in -o could be nominatives or be inflected forms, e.g. Budimero as nominative or as dative/ablative of Budimerus (gen. Budimeri) or maybe of Budimer (gen. Budimeri).
Names ending with mer or mir could have any of the following declensions: a) indeclinable, b) 3rd declension wih gen in -is, c) 2nd declension with gen. in -i and maybe with dropping of e in mer or i in mir similar to e.g. Maeander, gen. Maeandri.

As for vowel length as inflection templates add macra on the ending:
dunno. Maybe after comparing Slave names lengths can be assumed. But before comparison is done, it could be better to give everything without macra.

As for specific names:

Muntimerus (Muncimirus) does exist. Muncimir could barely exist (there appears to be a document from 892 (DCCCXCII) containing this name, and two other usages which might relate to that document). Muntimer might be wrong (correct inflection table, but entry and head missing -us). Muntimirus, Muncimerus could exist too, but that's another thing.
By the way: Muntimerus was created by 89.172.168.75 who added a few more Slave names in -us.
Budimerus does exist. Created entry Budimero probably just is the dative/ablative of it. Budimer in the inflection section might be wrong.
Terpimerus could barely exist (the gen. Terpimeri can be found). Tripimirus might be inexistent.

-84.161.43.2 12:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Could you help attest some of these? I looked for Domosol and its variant Domosolus and couldn't find any hits outside of Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Muucimir as a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, these look like the work of BrunoMed (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), who was blocked several times for mass-adding entries via scripts from word lists that they obviously hadn't checked. Look for repetition of the same wording in multiple entries, even when it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz Thanks. I think that Domosol comes from this list: [1] The text is in Croatian so I'm not really sure what it says but it's pretty questionable as an attestation so I'm going to delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

実見子

Japanese given name. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does come up in Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22実見子さん%22), and it's listed in ENAMDICT (http://gengo.com/wwwjdic/cgi-data/wwwjdic?2MUEmimiko), which might be what motivated the creation of our entry. As for how cromulent or prevalent this name might be, I have no real information beyond the limited number of googits (only 7). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr, suzukaze-c: I am confused, as I see 21 results at google books:"実見子". Are there not three good uses there? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge: google:"実見子の" is so scanty that I have to wonder if those are actually scannos, especially since preview of the actual pages is not possible. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

google:"実見子さん" produces more hits than 実見子の. Not many, but a few more. FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it looks like a real name, I don't think there is a strong case for the name being a common one, Among the few online examples I found, many seem to refer to a single individual living in Yamaguchi. (Different sources, thus less chance that it is the result of scanno, I believe.) [2][3][4] Whym (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is certainly well-formed as a name, and there are occurrences on e.g. social media sites (Whym has shown some examples), but I wouldn't want to violate the privacy of some random individual just to verify that their given name exists. I don't know of any famous or newsworthy individuals, nor of any fictional characters with this name. I searched a newspaper database but didn't find anyone. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

French demonyms

User @SemperBlotto has been mass-importing entries from French Wiktionary with, by his own admission, no checking of whether these words are actually verifiable. I decided to check a few of these, and (unsurprisingly) have been unable to verify the vast majority of them, particularly the demonyms for tiny communes, hence bringing them here. Note that these all have entries on fr.wikt, where the criteria for eligibility are far less stringent than ours. The (non-exhaustive) list is as follows; for brevity I have not written here the inflected (feminine/plural) forms, but I have also not been able to verify those so they are inlcuded too:

I've just started with the ones beginning with Y to see how this goes down. Big Dom 06:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this miniproject is as follows:- I noticed that a new user (Shiro1998 (talk • contribs)) was systematically added the plural forms of French nouns that we did not have (he seemed to be harvesting them from French Wiktionary). I didn't think this was very useful so started to add the missing singulars. While doing this I noticed that our French friends had very many French nouns (and adjectives &c) that we did not have - so started adding them. These included the above demonyms. My thinking went along the lines that, for a language such as French or Italian, we don't have to check the existance of all the conjugated forms of a verb, adjective etc., so I applied the same logic to the regularly-formed demonyms of French placenames. Some of these places are very small and the chances of the demonym appearing in print are slim - maybe in a local newspaper or a parish magazine, though these are unlikely to be archived. I assume that you are not complaining that any of these are actually incorrect, just that we can't prove that they are correct. My gut feeling is to keep them, and add any more that appear on the French Wiktionary or Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. I'm not saying these don't exist, but that they aren't used (in durably archived media, at least), which does seem to preclude them from having entries as per our inclusion criteria. I personally think we would be better served tidying up and citing our existing entries than creating unverifiable new ones, but if there's a consensus that such entries are allowed to remain, I'm not going to kick up a fuss. Big Dom 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These should definitely not be kept if they are not attested sufficiently. You did the right thing.__Gamren (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not sufficiently attested. – Barytonesis

September 2017

untriti

@Mulder1982 Where did you encounter this?__Gamren (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where I got it from originally but to confirm I googled it and found that it is the word for one hundred. A website called LearnGreenlandic even has hundredi as a synonym. Mulder1982 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links please? I agree that hundredi exists ([5], [6]), but I cannot find untriti, in its bare form, in the Atuagagdliutit archives, nor in sermitsiaq.ag. Katersat gives untritilik ([7]), but that, I can also not find. However, there are lots of words like untritilinni, untritilippassuarni, untritilikkaat, untritilinnik etc. in the timarit.is archive, so it cannot be complete rubbish. When supplied with some of these words, the Oqaasileriffik word analyser suggests untriteq as root, but that word gives no useful results at all.__Gamren (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one link: untriti I'm trying to find more but I'm having the same "issue" that you do: that seems to be mainly found in compounds. It makes me wonder if it's possibly an from an older batch of loanwords, but this is just me speculating. Mulder1982 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

溚

Rfv for senses "(Cantonese) to get wet by rain" and "(Cantonese) to drip" and pronunciation dap6. Dokurrat (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dap6 is used for both these senses. The problem might be whether 溚 is used for dap6. The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters cites Parker Po-fei Huang's Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese for this. I also found it in 陈慧英's 广州话的“噉”和“咁”. Also see this discussion. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

𠹌

Rfv for Cantonese. Dokurrat (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dokurrat: The definitions come from the Unihan Database, which got their definitions from "The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters". Here are the sources cited in the article:

lan2 (variant of 𨶙): 洪興仔 #21 殺入筲箕灣
lang1 (used in 𠮩𠹌/溜𠹌): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4; 粵語書寫問題研究項目
lang3 (used in 半𠹌𠼰): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4 (I would pronounce this as lang1.)
nang3 (join, link, connect): A Study of Cantonese Words (Zeng Zifan), 粵語書寫問題研究項目

— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: So, If my understanding is right, all pronunciations have passed rfv; sense "variant of 𨶙" has passed rfv. And sense "uncommon, rare" is not verified (yet). Dokurrat (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV is generally not used for pronunciations. "Variant of 𨶙" doesn't pass RFV technically; see WT:ATTEST. "Uncommon, rare" is the definition for 𠮩𠹌/溜𠹌; it's not used by itself, so there should be a {{zh-only}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-verk

I'm not sure what to do with this. It appears in Norwegian Wiktionary, yet it's not a recognised suffix in the Bokmålsordboka or Nynorskordboka [8]. DonnanZ (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think -verk can be considered a suffix in Norwegian; it rather appears to be the second component in a compound? The fact that "verk" exists as a simplex in the same meaning as the proposed suffix seems to make it a suffixoid at best. Interestingly though, Wiktionary does have an entry for English -work. Morgengave (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -work is a recognised suffix, whereas -works isn't, which is why it's now an RFD. Norwegian Bokmål verk (and Norwegian Nynorsk verk) is a word with two meanings and two genders, and I prefer to list derived terms there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The senses given at verk already exist at verk. However, perhaps -verk has one or both of the senses of Danish -værk that DDO gives?

Also, DWDS gives, for German -werk: bezeichnet mehrere zusammengehörende oder gleichartige Gegenstände "denotes several objects that are similar or that belong together", which it calls "not productive".__Gamren (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up “-værk” in Den Danske Ordbog. That's interesting. I wonder is it's an error of omission by the Norwegian dictionaries, who knows? I quite often find words in the DDO which don't appear in the Norwegian ones, yet they are definitely used in Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

㊀

㈠

-- Dokurrat (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

㊁, ㊂, ㊃, ㊄, ㊅, ㊐, ㈡, ㈢, ㈣, ㈤, ㈥, ㈰

Chinese section. -- Dokurrat (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am who added these symbols. Have you ever seen them in Chinese newspapers? I have. They also used in some publishings. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Octahedron80: I'm not sure if the weekday meanings of these symbols are inherent or just a SoP of ring and character. If these meanings have survived Rfv, we may need to add weekday senses to un-ringed characters too, I think. Dokurrat (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of characters in brackets are attested [9][10]--Zcreator (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Octahedron80 Most people type it out as three characters, e.g. （一）, and rarely use the ligature character. Also, I haven't seen the usage with the ring. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

湯桶読み & 重箱読み

(deprecated template usage) 湯桶読み lists three-kanji compounds, not just two like the definition claims. It's not an ideal source, so please provide with better ones. ばかFumiko￥^talk 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daijirin specifically defines these reading patterns as applying to two-character compounds (「漢字二字でできている熟語」 → "compounds formed of two characters"). C.f. Daijirin entry for 湯桶読み, Daijirin entry for 重箱読み. However, Shogakukan adds a note that these labels can be used more broadly for any single compound term (for 重箱読み: 「また、広く、一語の漢字熟語を音訓まぜて読むことにもいう。」 → "Also, broadly, used to describe readings of single-term kanji compounds read with a mixture of on-kun.").

Notably, the example terms with three kanji listed in the JA WP articles for ja:w:湯桶読み and ja:w:重箱読み all appear to be instances of an existing two-kanji compound read with on or kun and either prefixed or suffixed with another term with the opposite reading pattern. Some cases are what I would consider a multi-word term, like 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, “fixed-width font”) or 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, “hand grenade”), and as multi-word terms, these would not be either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).

(The 等幅 (tōhaba, “fixed-width”) portion of 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, “fixed-width font”) is itself read with the 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) pattern, but the entire term 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, “fixed-width font”) cannot be considered as either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) -- especially so given the inclusion of borrowed katakana term フォント (fonto, “font”), which by very definition cannot be either on or kun).

However, some of the example terms include rendaku, indicating that these three-kanji compounds could be considered as integral words and not multi-word terms, such as 冬景色 (fuyu-geshiki, “winter view, winter scene”) or 雪化粧 (yuki-geshō, “snow covering; to be covered in snow”), and as such, the reading patterns for these could be considered as 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).

I will rework the 湯桶読み and 重箱読み entries to clarify the definitions and to add usage notes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, most sources you frequently cite also make faulty claims, such as a Portuguese term as *Olanda, so I would take them with a huge grain of salt, and if I spoke Japanese, I would seek something, well, more linguistic than some dictionaries that might favor prescriptiveness over descriptiveness, or be outdated and therefore not reflect the true current status of the language (which they do seem like they do and are). Second, the way you divide words into smaller parts seems arbitrary; I've read a romanization guideline that would do very differently based on kanji count, but then with various exceptions. It doesn't help that Japanese doesn't use spaces to separate words, so it's very tricky to determine whether a morpheme is free or bound, whether it should be separated from other parts with spaces or not. I've been following a way that more or less resembles that guideline I've read (based on kanji count), factoring word-medially only processes such as rendaku or renjo. ばかFumiko￥^talk 19:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for better sources than Wikipedia. I provided several widely published monolingual Japanese dictionaries: Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Daijirin, Daijisen, and Shinmeikai.

As you note, these sources sometimes include mistakes. Importantly, mistakes such as the derivation of Japanese オランダ (Oranda, “Holland”) arise from misunderstandings of non-Japanese languages. These sources are quite solid when it comes to describing the Japanese language itself.

By your own self-description, you don't read Japanese. I'm not sure how you'd be qualified to judge the quality of monolingual Japanese resources.

Regarding romanization and word chunking, you're correct that rendaku and renjō are both important factors to consider. However, in the absence of these, I'm not sure how kanji count would factor into things, unless one is combining a simple count of kanji with an awareness of the underlying vocabulary. Probably most kanji-spelled integral terms are two characters in length. However, some are three characters long (天婦羅 (tenpura, “tempura”)), and some are only one character long (目 (me, “eye”)). In 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, “hand grenade”), for instance, it helps to know that 手 (te, “hand”) is an independent term, and 榴弾 (ryūdan, “explosive round, explosive shell”) is an independent term, but that *手榴 (*teryū, literally “hand + pomegranate”) is not a term. With this knowledge, we can tell that this is a compound of 手 (te) and 榴弾 (ryūdan). This compound exhibits no sandhi (rendaku or renjō), the two portions have different reading types, the two portions are also used as independent terms, and the semantics are also clear as the two concepts put together as “hand” + “explosive shell / grenade”. Given all of these factors, it makes sense to render this in romaji with the space as two separate terms.

If you have a link to that romanization guideline, I'd be interested in reading it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eirikr (except for the romaji part, I think, but I'm not sure how romaji is relevant to this RFV discussion). —suzukaze (t・c) 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

黒鳥

Rfv-sense "(literally) a black-feathered bird". —suzukaze (t・c) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, C.f. Daijisen and Daijirin entries, stating 「羽毛の黒い鳥」／「羽の黒い鳥」. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Attested:

烏のようなる黒鳥が — 日本伝承童謡集成, vol. 2, 1974
雪が降る中ヒマラヤ杉に黒鳥が止まり — 横浜市立大学論叢: 人文科学系列, vol. 40, 1989
ちょうどそこへ雌の黒鳥が飛んで来た。 — ゲセル・ハーン物語: モンゴル英雄叙事詩, 1993

— TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

アキンボ

adjective: akimbo —suzukaze (t・c) 23:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely. google:"腕がアキンボ" gets one hit. google:"アキンボで" gets 2,070 ostensible hits, collapsing to 97 when paging through. However, the usage seems weird, and the meaning doesn't seem to be what our entry says. For example, one post is talking about a video game glitch, stating 「アキンボで走るときに」 (akinbo de hashiru toki ni, “when running akimbo”). That sounds super weird to me, and makes me think that this アキンボ is not just a borrowing from English akimbo. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Yahoo answer pretty much explains it. It is apparently a borrowing from English akimbo, but its usage seems to be limited in the context of FPS games. Searching "アキンボ" on Japanese Wikipedia also confirms this. Nardog (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nardog. The usage does appear to be more along the lines of "with pistols in both hands at the ready", similar to 二丁拳銃 (nichō kenjū, literally “two pistols”). For others here, the Yahoo link above describes how the term appears to be purely a gaming term, and pretty much exclusive to the Call of Duty first-person-shooter game. The poster there theorizes that the term came into vogue because of the game, and from a misunderstanding that "hands on one's hips" was more about gunslingers ready to draw their guns, and from there to having pistols in both hands.

It's clear the アキンボ (akinbo) entry needs reworking. I have other duties keeping me busy today, and possibly for the rest of the week, so I won't be tackling that soon. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 23:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

𫶬

"Cantonese: virtuous". —suzukaze (t・c) 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This character has previously drawn my interest. The definition suggests this character may be - if it fits the attestation criteria - a (very unorthodox) variant of 賢. But I has little resources. Hope someone can investigate into this and figure out what's the story. Dokurrat (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is based on 汉语方言大词典, which cites 木鱼书《蔡伯喈琵琶记》: “蔡公醒后长吁气，叫声~媳好伤心。” I wonder if there are any other 木鱼书 that has this character. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Шахла

Шахля

Russian given names. Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by User:Recruos. Шахла́ (Šaxlá) spelling is citeable. It's just a transliteration of a name. I suggested the nominator to withdraw RFV. Ша́хля (Šáxlja) is a variant, harder to cite and, IMHO, the stress is wrong but with foreign names, the stress is not well-established. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

-theca

Is this productive? The five examples provided are direct borrowings from Greek, not Latin coinages. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German terms ending with -thek should be from Latin and Greek or be rather recent creations like Videothek and Spielothek. The entries in Category:French words suffixed with -thèque might be rather recent creations too (though zoothèque might be older). Similary, Latin terms in -theca might be borrowings or be very recent formations difficult to attest as contemporary Latin is a LDL. yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2013/05/24/nuntii-latini (Finish Nuntii Latini, not durably archived) doesn't have anything ending in -theca or -thēca. In scientific Latin zootheca ([11] - cp. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], Oxford Dictionaries: zootheca) can be found. Would this single word be enough to attest a Latin suffix? -84.161.37.160 23:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: -isma. -84.161.54.72 13:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

コピペ

Rfv-sense "plagiarism". —suzukaze (t・c) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common to see コピペ in reference to a plagiarism that is literally copied from a source, and not uncommon in reference related phenomena such as Rogeting. Example: [17]. Cnilep (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems verified to me: there are currently three quotations attested across five years. More could be added, but does anyone think that is necessary? Cnilep (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

あき as reading of 商

I know that 商 read as しょう can mean “a business, a seller of goods”, and that the verb 商う (あきなう) means “to deal in, to sell”. But is the character ever read as あき, and does it then mean “the trade of goods”? Cnilep (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 商人 (あきんど, あきうど, あきゅうど, あきびと, しょうにん; "merchant") and 商物 (あきもの, "goods"), but that's probably it.[18] In both words the character indeed seems to denote business or trade. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnilep -- In 商う (akinau, “to do business”), the 商 character covers the akina- portion. However, etymologically, the root is aki plus suffix -nau, and the root appears to be what is reflected in these other terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

復審

Seems to be the wrong traditional form of 複審. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zcreator: True. Do you think there are any differences between 復審 and 複審 in terms of meaning? (In Cantonese, they would be pronounced differently.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct form, and 複審 is a wrong form, which must be verified ([19], [20]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TAKASUGI Shinji: (This is a really late response.) I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on. Guoyu Cidian only has 複審. It seems like both 復審 and 複審 are valid from the google hits, but there might be some differences in meaning. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lomocso

@Carl Francis marked this for speedy deletion, claiming that it is not actually Tagalog and not the correct spelling. I see use of this as a Filipino surname, and I'm not sure why @TagaSanPedroAko would be wrong about their native language, so I've brought it here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge

a It's Lumocso, not Lomocso and it's Cebuano. b The guy is just making stuff up as he goes along (see: Licuanan). c The guy is practically claiming every Filipino surname as Tagalog just because it's in forebears.io (see: Alterado, Magdayao and Bayot). He even made up an etymology for Alterado, claiming it's Spanish when his main reference, forebears.io, doesn't even have stats on Alterado in Spain.

@Carl Francis I have been out of WT for weeks, since I left for Canada, but I am pulled in to this thread by the arguments you point. So, let me answer your arguments you are pointing on this issue, since you pinged me in while I am away from WT:

There is really a surname Lomocso (as I see it on one name I found in the news) , and Lumocso would be the main form, not the only correct form. Just mark Lomocso as an alternative form, and nothing else, so we do not inflame this argument.
What do you mean of me creating out stuff? Yes, Licuanan also occur on the Tagalog regions because of migration, and that is not a reason to make it up as it is Tagalog. It is of Chinese origin, not Cebuano, and I have the sources to find their etymology. Don't push the argument they are Cebuano because it is common on its speakers. It is just associated with it, but not always, because there would be many families with that surname outside the Cebuano/Visayan regions, and not all of them would have their ancestors traced back to those.
Claiming every surnames to be Tagalog is because they can be encountered in the Tagalog regions, particularly Metro Manila, and not just for because they are found in the Forebears surname database. I used Forebears for the stats for the surname as an approach I started after I found many Filipino surnames being listed in English already, through admin TheDaveRoss, who added many surnames in English based on 2010 US Census stats for a million surnames collected in the US. But, I now reduced my activity in adding surnames, and concentrated on the Tagalog vocabulary. And you are even claiming several Cebuano surnames of Spanish-language origin taken from the 1849 Catálog alfabético de apellidos to be native Cebuano. Alterado would have derived from Spanish (from a word that is not typically taken as a surname, but become so under the 1849 colonial edict on surnames for Filipinos), but not from Spain. You are free to remove the Tagalog entry of it, until I can prove it also exists in Tagalog. Please drop the argument that I mark every Filipino surname as Tagalog, as I changed my approach there: add only a Tagalog entry of a surname from any Philippine language if I can only prove it has also existed in the Tagalog regions, through migration of people who carried them. "Bayot" and "Magdayao" are, yes, Cebuano in origin, but that is not a reason to have it also in Tagalog.

I know you are a prolific contributor on Cebuano vocabulary, but let this thread be solved properly, without having to give further arguments that may worsen this..-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

硇#Japanese

Listed in WWWJDIC (c.f. http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1MMC%E7%A1%87), but I cannot find any evidence of use in Japanese. The purported Google hits that I looked into at google:"硇は" all appeared to be scannos. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that a query for "硇は" would bring up anything since it's not a stand-alone word... Daijisen includes 硇砂 (oddly, a search for "硇砂" doesn't bring it up). —suzukaze (t・c) 04:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This webpage appears to be a digitalization of an old book that mentions 硇砂. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you suzukaze. I should have searched for google:"硇" "は" instead.

It appears that this character only shows up in Japanese in the term 硇砂 (dōsha, “sal ammoniac, ammonium chloride”), which appears to be an obsolete synonym for modern 塩化アンモニウム (enka anmoniumu).

I haven't seen any evidence for the nyō reading listed in WWWJDIC and KANJIDIC (see also https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%A1%87). Can anyone tell, is this a dictionary-only reading? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Ng̃

Only found on Wiktionary. I can confirm this is used, but I don't have reliable sources to prove it, due to its nature being a physically handwritten abbreviation. ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely common... especially in handwritten name lists and notes. I would have taken plenty of pictures to show this usage if I knew this was to be nominated for RFV, but... Wyang (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are difficulties in typesetting "g̃", finding cites might be hard.

It's not the same form, but I think this book uses "Ng.": Tên tác giả: Ng. [...] —suzukaze (t・c) 00:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[...] của NG. VĂN TRUNG —suzukaze (t・c) 00:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some searching and although I found plenty on social media sites, I couldn't find any published books.

May 2018

まじ卍

A hot word, tagged as being older than a year, with no definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a report that it became popular to use the manji (卍) in Japan's youth recently. There's even a manji gesture which consists of crossing your arms in some manner. The included Wikipedia article says it's a symbol for hype and basically means 'awesome', but I can't read the details. First reference (Kotobank) on Wikipedia says it's a compound of 'まじ' (really) and '卍' (cool) and got some media attention. I think kotobank.jp was used as an acceptable source for verification here before, but I don't know our policies. I added a definition at 卍. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two examples of slang usage in online advertisements. The examples are about two years apart, so I don't think it is a hot word. There is also a lot of mention on the web or in magazines explaining the usage. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ポケットモンスター

Rfv-sense "a Pocket Monster". —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, what's in question, this is clearly in widespread use. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Korn If so, please add some cites so the RFV can be closed. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally the name of the franchise, it's on every single product. Again, I don't understand what exactly is in question about it that has to be verified by the cites. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly in widespread use, but what about WT:CFI#Fictional universes/Wiktionary:CFI#Brand names? --Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

熨斗

RFV for reading utsuto. Included in ja.wiktionary. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sure can't find any support for this reading.

I find this spelling in both Weblio (in various sources) and [https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%86%A8%E6%96%97-112174 Kotobank (also multiple sources), but other than the JA Wiktionary included in Weblio's hits, no one lists any reading except のし (noshi).

Weblio has nothing at all for うつと (utsuto), and only the unrelated adverb for うっと (utto). Likewise, Kotobank has nothing for うつと (utsuto) and only the adverb for うっと (utto).

The JA Wikipedia article only lists the のし (noshi) reading for Japanese, mentioning:

なお、漢語「熨斗」は「ウット」とも読み、「熨（熱でしわをのばす）」＋「斗（ひしゃく）」、即ち、昔のアイロンである火熨斗（ひのし）を指す。

Note that this says 漢(●)語(●)「熨斗」は, indicating that this is (the Japanese rendering of) the Chinese term. Compare modern Min Nan reading ut-táu. I suspect that the JA Wiktionary editor was confused by this, as also suggested by their apparent misspelling of the kana -- the JA WP says ウット (utto), whereas the JA WT says ウツト (utsuto), and the editor of our Japaneses entry must have followed suit.

If we can find any evidence for this term actually used in JA with the utto reading, we should clarify the sense, as this seems restricted to JA contexts talking about ZH culture and language, where this reading refers to the iron used to press clothing. Our senses for the noshi reading are lacking, both at the Japanese 熨斗 entry and at the linked English noshi entry. Modern JA noshi is either short for 火熨斗 (hinoshi, “traditional clothing iron”, literally “fire + pressing, smoothing”), or refers to a kind of origami, sometimes even just a printed picture or stamp of the origami pattern, or in extremely abbreviated instances even just the two hiragana spelling out のし (noshi), as explained in more detail at the JA WP article. The dried abalone is generally omitted in modern usage, which isn't clear from either our JA or EN entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Vietnamese ヌ

I find it odd that Vietnamese writers would make use of a specifically Japanese phonetic glyph with a value of nu as the typographic equivalent of the " ditto mark.

I suspect that the intended glyph is not the Japanese katakana character ヌ (nu, Unicode hex value 30CC), but rather the graphically similar Chinese (and thus Vietnamese chữ Nôm) character 又 (“again, as well”, Unicode hex value 53C8). In fact, the Japanese phonetic katakana character originally derived from a shorthand version of 奴 (used phonetically to represent nu), which includes the 又 glyph as its right-hand portion.

Our entry at ヌ cites a website that appears to be volunteer-based data of uncertain provenance. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation's online lookup tool has no entry for ヌ (Ux30CC), but it does have an entry for 又 (Ux53C8). Could someone check other sources and confirm?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The website in question says 又 has a pronunciation of lại, and you can find several instances of ヌ pronounced lại on the same site. It is very likely to be a confusion of the two by their shapes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional information. The chunom.org website is the one cited at the ヌ#Vietnamese entry, and the data there is of unclear provenance. I cannot tell if this is a reliable and trustworthy source, or instead something that might be error-prone in a manner similar to Jisho.org. (That might be what you were suggesting, that chunom.org is error-prone?)

If, ultimately, the Ux30CC glyph is actually in use in electronic Vietnamese chữ Nôm texts, then we should probably have an entry. If instead electronic texts only use Ux53C8, ヌ#Vietnamese should probably go away.

Are there any other electronic Vietnamese sources, or even ideally published works, that use glyph ヌ (Ux30CC) interchangeably with 又 (Ux53C8)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reduced form of 又 ("again"), used as an iteration mark in Vietnamese Chu Nom, e.g. 喑ヌ (ầm ầm), 猪ヌ (chưa chưa), 赤ヌ (xích xích), 紅ヌ (hồng hồng). Lại means “again”. Listing it on ヌ is probably using the wrong codepoint, but then I'm not sure where this should belong. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to use U+30CC and U+31F4 interchangeably, which suggests there is no officially assigned code point. I prefer moving the information to 又 with a soft redirect at ヌ, until the official code point is given in Unicode. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even Chunom.org's main entry is the U+314F one (又), while their U+30CC entry is pretty minimal.

In the absence of any Vietnamese editor input, I second Shinji's suggestion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji: I checked the links provided by Wyang and the character ヌ is indeed attested in Vietnamese texts published from 1909 to 1940. The only problem is that it shouldn't be using the same codepoint that is meant for katakana. I don't think this character is unifiable with 又 (the glyph forms are different) so I checked the proposed charts for CJK Extension G and H as well as CJK Extension B,C,D,E,F but this character is not there. I propose moving the entry over to ⿻㇇丶 (See Category:Terms containing unencoded characters for other terms that are not yet encoded). KevinUp (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that using the katakana codepoint is less troublesome, in the same vein as how Cyrillic codepoints are used for some tones in the old Zhuang Latin script. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinUp, any chance that's a scanno kind of problem? I highly doubt that the original texts from 1909–1940 were using any codepoints at all. :) And thinking through how such texts became digitized, scanning + OCR comes to mind as a likely approach. And if the OCR engine weren't configured quite right, that might be how ヌ (Ux30CC) crept in where some graphical variant of 又 (Ux53C8) might have been the glyph actually used in the dead-tree texts.

An idea, anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: I don't think Vietnamese texts can be digitized using OCR because many Nôm characters are still unencoded in Unicode. I think the Katakana character was chosen because no other character is available to represent that glyph (the links contain actual images of the text). For now, we could just keep the entry under ヌ#Vietnamese until it is encoded by Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinUp: interesting re: digitizing.

For completeness' sake, I see that there is also ㄡ (U+3121), visually identical to Japanese ヌ (Ux30CC) in some fonts, and more explicitly derived from 又 (yòu) (U+53C8). However, the Nôm lookup tool doesn't have U+3121 either, only U+53C8. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, Suzukaze-c: I checked the images at chunom.org and noticed that there is another variation of this character where the 丶 dot does not extend beyond the bottom stroke of ㇇. Since this character is not a katakana or Zhuyin letter, it shouldn't be using any of these two codepoints. I think it would be better to move this entry to ⿻㇇丶 which can also represent the second variation of this glyph. KevinUp (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinUp, thank you for the additional research. I wonder how much of this variation is due to differences in scribal handwriting? On the page for the ngày ngày example, for instance, I note several irregularities in other characters as well.

Agreed that our Vietnamese entry for this should probably be moved. One concern, however, is how would users find ⿻㇇丶 when searching? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

平仮名

Rfv-sense "(as opposed to complex kanji) simple". —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of such a sense, nor are Obunsha, Kenkyusha, or Shogakukan dictionaries. Possibly a misunderstanding of (something like) this from 大辞泉: 「ひらがな（平仮名）。仮名の一。漢字の草体から作られた草仮名（そうがな）をさらに簡略化したもの。」 (Hiragana. A type of kana. Derived from sōgana cursive-style kanji and further simplified.) Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The strange thing is that it was added here by @Bendono, who seems to have made a lot of great edits. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that. No offense intended, but you need better dictionaries. Those single volume dictionaries are aimed at everyday life and leave out far more than they actually include. You can confirm this sense in 日本国語大辞典--which even includes citations--that I will quote:

②（漢字のむずかしいことに対して）わかりやすいこと。率直な、または、平易な表現。

＊洒落本・古今三通伝（1782）「魯国のやぢおの曰く（の給ひ）しを平がなにかけば」

＊洒落本・金錦三調伝（1783）「いやならいやとひらかなで」 Bendono (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the quotes and usage, I might suggest an edit to the gloss given of just “simple”: perhaps “simple terms” would better convey the sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr So does this pass RFV? I can't judge if the citations are valid; if they are, they should be at the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnemosientje, I'll be honest and say I haven't done a thorough survey of historical works to double-check. However, cursorily, I'd judge that this passes RFV, albeit as a rare sense that may be archaic or obsolete in modern usage. The entry excerpted by Bendono above is partially viewable online here (I say "partially" as the second quote in the entry dated to 1783 isn't included in the Kotobank version, probably due to Bendono having a later edition of the dictionary). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

ウィークリー

Rfv-sense "adverb: weekly" —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm stuck on the opposite thought -- how is this a "noun"? Same for マンスリー (mansurī). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a noun, it often refers to a periodical published once a week: 朝日ウィークリー, 日経ウィークリー, 毎日ウィークリー (oxymoron notwithstanding) etc. I think it's also used as a truncated form of ウィークリー・マンション, a room rented by the week.

"Adverb" is such a heterodox category that I'm having trouble thinking of a clear test for Japanese adverb-ness. Some sources that use standard European labels (e.g. Breen) call ウィークリー an adverb, but I'm not sure if that's because it's borrowed from an English adverb, or based on some analysis of Japanese.

I did find this, which feels adverb-y:

ウィークリーにするという前提(ぜんてい)でスタートせよと。

Wīkurī ni suru toiu zentei de sutāto seyo to.

We should start with the assumption that it is weekly.

I'm not 100% convinced it's an adverb, but neither am I convinced it is not. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't an adverb in Japanese mean that it's used independently without a particle, like 結局? Nardog (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it is only a noun in Japanese. You can say ウィークリーで行う but never *ウィークリー行う. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see some usage as a -na adjective. It looks like the grammar for this term may currently be in flux. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gisterjaar

Only 64 hits on Google, I never heard this word before. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgengave, who made the entry. I can find some use on one Belgian blog, but otherwise only scannos. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While not common, there seems to be a slowly increasing use of the word:

(1998, NRC Handelsblad): Nu vier regels uit de Ballade van de dames uit vroeger tijd met de bekende slotregel, die trouwens bij Chaucer al te lezen viel over de sneeuwen van gisterjaar. [21]
(2015, Nieuwpoort Nieuws): Foto’s Van gisterjaar: Marktstraat in Nieuwpoort en het trieste waargebeurde verhaal van Peter ‘ Petje de Kortn’ Provoost. [22]
(2018, Autofans press release): Aan de éne kant heb je het Opel van gisterjaar met GM-invloeden, aan de andere kant het Opel van morgen onder Franse PSA-vleugels. [23] Morgengave (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

aagiaq

It's in Katersat (which refers to Erik Fleischer and Ordbogeraq), and in this, but not in DAKA, and I can't find usages. However, DAKA has nassuk, which I can attest here (DAKA defines it as gevir, which means "pair of antlers" as well as tak, but the news article clearly uses it in the "single antler" sense). I have refrained from relying on the first two sources exclusively, because there seem to be many unattested words, like these words for different variants of red. I'm not confident they're reliable, even though they come from respectable sources.__Gamren (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this probably doesn't matter, but this book talks of an Inupiaq word aaġiaq (“valley, pass”), and this book refers to someone named Aagiaq.__Gamren (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe mentions are enough to attest LDLs, no? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

経

Rfv-sense: "a just or proper reason".

Apparently this rfv tag was added by User:Poketalker in May 2018, but discussion was not started here. (Apologies if I missed the discussion or misread the history.) I'm not familiar with such a sense, and couldn't readily find it in a quick skim of my dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this up; it's exclusive to Daijirin:

正しい筋道。正しい道理。

Roughly "the correct/right method or reason". Do you or anyone else have a better translation? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The KDJ has the following two senses under the kyō reading, from which I could see the development of the sense in Daijirin:

3　一般的に、教訓、教化など教えを記した書。また、単に書物。

Generally, a text describing a moral, enlightenment, or teaching. Or, any document.

4　（経文を読む意から）仏事を行なうこと。経供養をすること。

(From the sense of reading the sutras) Holding a Buddhist service. Performing Buddhist rites.

Under the kei reading then, the KDJ lists a very similar sense to the one in Daijirin:

1　正しいすじみち。正しい道理。のり。つね。

Correct logic. Correct reasoning. Rule. Custom.

Sense 4.1 at Chinese 經／经 isn't too far off. And considering the underlying original sense of this character, warp threads, as in something that runs consistently and regularly through, the "correct reason" sense is not unreasonable (ha!). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ᡩᠣᡵᡤᡳ ᠪᠠᡳᡨᠠ ᠪᡝ ᡠᡥᡝᡵᡳ ᡴᠠᡩᠠᠯᠠᡵᠠ ᠶᠠᠮᡠᠨ

I'm wondering about this word's existence. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:C073:2829:9837:FE1B 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Imperial Household Department. Also (deprecated template usage) 內務府. Google depends on OCS for Manchu script, so you'll probably have to search using the transliteration. You could probably find it in Paul Georg von Mollendorf's "Essay on Manchu Literature" in Journal of China Branch of R. A. S., Shanghai, vol. xxiv (1890), p. 1-45. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

नोटबंदी

Attempted removal of {{hot word}} without any citations, let alone spanning a year. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This word was seen in the category Hot words older than a year, so I removed that template from the word's page, as it was written on the Category's page that this category should be empty.
- Also, this word came into common usage when Indian PM announced demonetization of 500 & 1000 rupee currency notes, on 8th Nov 2016. So, yes, it has been over a year.
- Nonetheless, the word was always in existence, as earlier too demonetization had taken place in 1970s.
- Entire news is filled with this word. You just have to Google नोटबंदी, and you'll thousands and thousands of news articles on this word, both in domestic and international media. Most recent example I can quote now is this BBC Hindi report here dated 30th August 2018.
- Also on there is Hindi Wikipedia [page] on that incident, in which this word comes frequently.
— This unsigned comment was added by JainismWikipedian (talk • contribs) at 00:46, 1 September 2018.

September 2018

Cimbrice

While Citations:Cimbrice & Talk:Cimbrice#meaning show that the term has a 2nd sense, I don't see any evidence that it refers to Cimbrians as modern German people.
On the contrary, I see reasons why it should be something else:

de:w:Zimbrisch#Dokumentation: "1602 [...] ältestes Buch in zimbrischer Sprache" & "machte der deutsche Kosmograph Anton Friedrich Büsching 1769 die Zimbern im deutschen Sprachraum bekannt" (Der Teutschen Sprach Ehren-Krantz from 1644 is older than the latter)
Abraham Peter Cronholm's Forn-nordiska minnen has: "Francico mich, mik, mih, vel Cimbrico mig [...] Cambrico þig, vel Franco-Theotisco thich, thigh, thih" & "sumus, estis, sunt, Cimbrice erum, erud, eru". "Francico mich, mik, mih" looks like it refers to German (OHG, OLG, maybe including OD) - and mig and þig as well es erum, erud, eru (also cp. eruð and vera) could refer to Icelandic or some other Norse German language.
PS: Cronholm's is based on Georgius Hickesius' older work ([24]).
"Danis Cymbrisq; [Danis Cymbrisque] est Blydemanet [...]" and -maanet (from Der Teutschen Sprach Ehren-Krantz) could refer to some Norse German language (cp. måned: "From Old Danish .. ma(a)net ..."), LG (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/mēnōþs#Descendants: "Middle Low German: mānet"), Low or South Low Franconian ("Middle Dutch: mānet, maent").

-84.161.26.64 21:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as long as we're having an RFV, it'd be good/necessary to have some examples of the first sense (relating to the Cimbri) in use as opposed to mentions in dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, with the help of Antiquitatum Danicarum sermones XVL, which seems to use Cimbrica and Cimbria, etc, in senses that refers to the same group as the 1620, 1705 and other citations of Cimbrice, I may have worked it out: the book has sections on Cimbria & Scandinavia populosissime terra and other things and contains such lines as "Omnibus notissimum est totum Germanica faecundissimae tractum praecipue geminas illas aqvilonis, maximasq.; peninsulas, Cimbriam & Scandinaviam innumeris & fortissimis hominibus, omni exuberasse tempore." This suggests that it may be referring to the people who inhabit the Cimbric/Cimbrian Peninsula (Jutland), i.e. the Jutes or the Danes. (Although the Cimbri are said to be from Jutland, the 1620 and 1705 uses are providing clearly Germanic words not ascribable to the Cimbri.) - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, google books:"Cimbrians" "Jutland" and related searches suggest that Cimbrian may be citable with this sense in English. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georges: "Adv. Cimbricē, zimbrisch, loqui, Ps. Quint. decl. 3, 13."

L&S: "Adv.: Cimbrĭcē, in the manner of the Cimbrians: loqui, Quint. Decl. 3, 13."

Similar in many other dictionaries (e.g. Scheller-Lünemann-Georges, Dutch Georges-Schneither, Freund, Frenchy Freund, English Freund-Riddle, English Freund-Andrews, Leverett, White). For the source ([Pseudo-]Quintilianus, Declamationes) compare w:Declamation#History and w:Quintilian#Works.

In an older edition from 1549 and in an edition from 1905 (US): "... an Cimbrice loquendum sit."

Here it's quoted without caps.

Another usage with should refer to the ancient German people: [25].

BTW: Some other usages of Cimbrica, Cimbricae, Cimbrici (Cimbricus): by Paul Fleming -84.161.26.64 08:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the original second sense, "in the manner or language of the Cimbrians, a Germanic people who inhabit northern Italy and speak a Bavarian language", and added a sense for the Cimbrian-Peninsula-related citations above. It's possible that if there aren't more citations, the senses should be merged, although if there were enough citations to keep them separate that would been useful. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Latin sense is now properly cited: Citations:Cimbrice#pertaining to the Cimbri.
[26]: "JÓTSKR, adj., Cimbricus, Danicus (Jótar): jótskir menn Cimbri, Ý. 35. [cp. jyde and it's etymology]. The source also has "Cimbr. = Cimbrice." and uses it at least once (mis-OCR-ed as "Сітbr": [27]). It does at least hint that Cimbric- could refer the people of Jutland.
That could also fit with the 1705 source (Hickesius). While gnog might be non-Norse-German in origin, it could be a borrowing from German (be it High or Low German), or alternatively Cimbric could be more northern Low German (as spoken in Northern Schleswig) or some unprecise umbrella-term. The 1620 source has Cimbric Tormaanet [= March], Faremaanet [= April], Schlachtemaanet [= November]. Other sources for the name for April: [28]: "alt Dänisch, Faremaanet", [29] "die Dänen Faremaanet", [30] which gives 2 sources for it, "Hadr. jurii nomenclator" and "Halthauss, in Cal." (Christianus Gottlob Haltausius, Calendarium medii aevi praecipue germanicum in quo [...], "Aprilis ... Cymbrice Faremaanet ... Dns Fabricius in Menolog. p. 144 ait: Faremanet ..." [31] ~> Jo. Albertus Fabricius, Menologium, sive Libellus de Mensibus, [...], "Danorum. ... 4. Aprilis Faremanet ..." [32]). So it could be from a language of the people of Jutland too.
Younger senses, if there are multiple senses (like maybe Jutlandish, Danish, Northern Low German), maybe should be merged, but it shouldn't be merged with the older sense.

-84.161.38.239 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ウォールフラワー

—Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 06:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this suffice? google books:"ウォールフラワー"

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This seems much more commonly to refer to Erysimum sp. (at least before the film came out). The "awkward person" usages I found were almost all in reference to the Stephen Chbosky young adult novel or the film adapted from it. Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

実相 -- Jitsusō reading

An anon has apparently been going through ENAMDICT and adding entries here. ENAMDICT is available via Jim Breen's WWWJDIC, which is a decent source, but I'm not sure of the data provenance.

Can anyone confirm that this reading Jitsusō actually exists in the wild? Outside of ENAMDICT and one other online JA-JA name dictionary, I can only find the expected Jissō. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four online dictionaries giving the romanization Jitsusou (next to Jissou): [33], [34], [35], [36]. Not exactly in the wild, though. --Lambiam 00:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the legwork. It looks like this might be a dictionary-only reading. Going through the links,

Jisho.org is notable for its unreliability, and lists JMnedict among its sources, which I understand sources from ENAMDICT, the same as Breen's website.
The entry at Weblio for the Jitsusō reading is also from JMnedict, which I understand sources from ENAMDICT, the same as Breen's website.
Kanshūdō doesn't have any source information.
Oriental Outpost sources from EDICT, whence also ENAMDICT.

Curious if anyone bumps into someone with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get several Californian hits for different but apparently related people with the middle name “Jitsuso” combined with the surname “Yamada”. --Lambiam 08:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's useful suggestive evidence, but we're lacking any kanji in these cases, so it's hard to confirm if this reading matches this spelling. Unfortunately, expanding the search to include the kanji results in zero hits. :(

An interesting possibility is that this is an instance of "Ellis Island-ic", where a name has undergone transformation during the process of immigration to the US. In older kana orthographies, the small "tsu" character っ used to indicate geminate consonants (as in the expected kana spelling じっそう (jissō) for this kanji compound) was not always written smaller. I wonder if it was reinterpreted as regular つ (tsu) instead, but perhaps only outside of Japan? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a blogger with the handle "真如実相", but that seems more likely to be Shinyo Jissō (roughly, Mr. True Nature). Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xochih-

This "combining form" is only found in one word (xochihcualli), and it's not clear that it should be divided into xochih-cualli rather than xoch-ihcualli. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned entry at xochihcualli gives cualli as "something good" and offers tlacualli as a comparison. However, the latter entry's etymology, itself a bit of a mess, derives cualli as cua (“to eat”) + -lli (presumably a nominalizing suffix, though we have no entry for this). Meanwhile, the etym at derived term xochihcualcuahuitl (“edible fruit tree”) glosses xochihcualli as "edible fruit"", apparently corroborating the "eat" sense underlying cualli.

I know very little about Nahuatl, but simply applying logic to what we have with these entries suggests that what we have is a dog's breakfast in need of cleanup. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Italian contributions by 79.32.129.152

I'm just going to put it out there – a large portion of these contributions and translations look like SoP to me and many don't even seem to be idiomatic. Can anyone chime in cause 79.32.129.152 (talk) is currently flooding Wiktionary with new but sketchy entries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns an IP range, actually: Special:Contributions/79.32.128.0/21. Many of the added entries surely seem SOP. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mecin

(Indonesian term) - The Indonesian Wikipedia link doesn't use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some web pages in Malay using the term in their titles: [37], [38], [39]. I don’t know if these pages are specifically in Indonesian Malay. --Lambiam 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those first two links are written in Indonesian. The first link use Indonesian cyber guidance. The second link is a online mass media in Cirebon, Indonesia. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article using the term is from CNN Indonesia. And this FAQ in Indonesian also mentions mecin / micin as alternative names for MSG. --Lambiam 10:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are written in Indonesian. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jouer avec ses armes

Not an idiom in French, as far as I know, so I'd like some proof that it's lexicalised. Uses like this are few and far between, and nothing else than literary fancies, imo. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see enough Google book hits plus many more Google news hits to sustain the idea that this is idiomatic. It would appear that the verb is extracted from an idiomatic phrase or saying chacun joue avec ses armes. --Lambiam 08:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clearly lexicalized. Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

德川

Rfv-sense "(～幕府) (historical) Tokugawa shogunate". Can 德川 really be used by itself in this way? —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote where I suppose you could say 德川 is short for 德川幕府:

德川的和平盛世與儒學的興起,大大改變軍事思想及其運用。[40] In fact, that quote is from a book titled 易學對德川日本的影響, and you could argue that 德川 in the title is also short for "Tokugawa shogunate". It certainly doesn't refer to a Korean city or the generic surname Tokugawa. Richwarm88 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [41] for more examples, like in the sentence 第一阶段是德川初期（1603—1691）。 The time period makes it clear that 德川 refers to the shogunate, not any specific person. --Lambiam 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

konstrui kastelojn en aero

Esperanto. I can only find one attestation for this. In Zamenhof's Proverbaro, but seldom used. @Mx. Granger ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything besides the Proverbaro and the citation in the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found two examples with the definite article, but not sure if they count for the same entry. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@פֿינצטערניש Opinions differ, but I prefer slightly inconsistent citations over no entry at all. So I'm inclined to say this passes, though perhaps the entry should be moved. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

homlupo

Esperanto for "werewolf", it seems like it is mostly used figuratively for certain players in the game Werewolves. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find a Usenet cite and a book cite. Hathitrust has a hit on page 173 of Esperanto. v.1. Nederlandse Esperantisten-Vereniging La Estonto Estas Nia, but doesn't show context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gscheidwaschl

Only 1 result at google books (which might be a mentioning), 1 in google groups (dialectal, for example with i = I, di = you (sg., obj.)). --Brown*Toad (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one in de.sci.philosophie. The same one? I don’t get the intention of the “dialectal” parenthesis. --Lambiam 19:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

google groups gave me this by opa2013 from 05.12.13: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett?s G?schenk hab i f?r di!" (maybe this link works...). My guess would be that it's supposed to be: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett's G'schenk hab i für di!". Anyway, i (= ich, I) and di (= dich, you [singular, object]) show that it's not normal High German but dialectal (Bavarian?). The parenthesis after you specifiy which you it is. --Brown*Toad (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same message I saw. Nominative i and accusative di fit with Bavarian. --Lambiam 23:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the encoding of that text: on my computer (Mac: both Firefox 64 and Safari 11.1.2), I'm seeing placeholders for umlauted vowels, apostrophes, and other "non-ASCII" characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a difference of interpretation as to what language this is- Wiktionary doesn't require languages to have an army and a navy...

Move to Bavarian and look for references that meet CFI for that Limited-documented language. Pinging @-sche as the one who understands best how Wiktionary treats "German dialects". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz (1): I've the same problem - it looks like an error on google's/usenet's part and not on our part.

@Chuck Entz (3): google groups or usenet is an accepted source as for wt's LDL requirements. Thus the single quote could be enough to attest a Bavarian term. However, the text encoding problem could be an attestation problem. Is malformatted text acceptable? Can someone restore the text (there's a suggestion above, can someone verify or correct it)? Can someone translate it (suggestion: "Look #, a nice present have I for you" or "Look #, I have a nice present for you")? --84.161.18.20 23:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been entered in German by someone who genuinely saw it in German — I can find non-durable websites where it occurs in German [de] text — but if that's the only citation, then it seems it only meets CFI as Bavarian (although deciding between Bavarian-regional de and bar from only a very short text can be, well, like trying to decide if a single sentence is Scottish English or Scots). Since the malformatting isn't in the specific word we're trying to attest, and doesn't render the citation ambiguous or unintelligible as to meaning or language, it's tolerable, though obviously suboptimal. I would quote it with the errors intact, but we could provide a 'normalization' afterwards in brackets or something. Providing a translation is fine. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be quoted with the errors, as only that would give a correct quote. Bavarian i, di, für, hab, á, schau, Gschenk can be attested by other sources. [42] & [43] are dialectal (Bavarian?) and have nett's. -84.161.23.193 10:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

明星

Can we verify the specific sense Antares? While Antares is a bright star (the literal meaning of 明星), I see no evidence this is used in Japanese to designate specifically that star. --Lambiam 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Removed by @Eirikr in diff. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually, it seems to be moved to あかぼし. Is this verification still needed? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, Daijirin and the KDJ both list the "Antares" sense as seen here in Kotobank. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aganchado

Spanish, "hamiform, hooklike". Ultimateria (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

aganchado, aganchar are pretty rare in Spanish. I think enganchar, enganchado are synonyms. I think hooked is a good translation of aganchado, in addition to installed and, figuratively, "caused to be interested". I was not familiar with the English word hamiform and I could not find an example of aganchado online with that sense, but I think it makes sense. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to get a fair amount of Google Books results. Should it be marked as "rare"? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esperanto text messaging slang

Proposed in 2009 on this blog. Everything in this category seems to me like uncitable, except for "sal", "bv", "dk", "kvf" and "mdr". I highly doubt that we can cite pa3no, 4talo, -J, -L, -N, -X, G-, K-, M-, X-, L, M, N, V, X and Ŝ. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything for "pa3no" and its inflected forms on Usenet or Google. That someone would use a letter like "Ŝ" in text messaging slang is also implausible. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Esperanto 'ali-' correlatives

alial, aliam, aliel, alies, aliom, aliu

Aliu and alies can probably be cited; alies already seems to have two citations. The rest I'm not sure of. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC) wikified פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

厼

I couldn't find the reading of 금 (geum) on the dictionaries. Found two webcites mentioned,[44][45] it seems not to be a part of Modern Korean but Idu (吏讀) of the ancient times. I don't know how to describe this reading. --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@荒巻モロゾフ: There are many kind of theory, and it can largely divided into "금" (geum) and "곰" (gom) depending on reading ways of Idu. #1, #2 p.s. I don't suggest to see Namuwiki, because it is probably inaccurate. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

amenen

Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A small contribution on this newspaper page (see the top right corner) suggests that this form existed in Middle Dutch. --Lambiam 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That text returns verbatim in the book van Aalmoes tot Zwijntjesjager by P[ieter] H[endrik] Schröder (Erven Thomas Rap, 1980) (on p. 31; see this pdf), a selection from his (anonymous) contributions on etymology to the Haarlems Dagblad, written while Schröder was secretary-general of the Maatschappij tot Nut van 't Algemeen. --Lambiam 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ロリ

RFV of all the definitions under ロリ#Etymology 2. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sense "person with the Lolita complex" removed by User:UhhMaybe. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this etymology circular? That is, ロリ¹ is a clipping of ロリータ, while ロリ² is said to be a clipping of ロリコン. But ロリコン is a clipping of ロリータ・コンプレックス. Therefore, both come from the same source. And the meanings are certainly related (1: an attractive young girl; 2: attraction to young girls; one attracted to young girls; manga depicting attraction to young girls). This is a case of polysemy, not separate lexemes with separate etymologies. [Also – キモい！ sexualized orientalist nonsense] Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can call that two separate etymologies, even if the two are related to each other. Roriita → rori and Roriita konpurekkusu → rorikon → rori are different etymological paths, not a case of polysemy of a term with a single etymology. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me that the path you suggest is indeed the etymology. It could be, or the three senses listed could come directly from ロリータ. (Even if that is the path, I'm not entirely convinced that those are sufficiently separate, but of course it is not unreasonable for you or others to think that they are sufficiently separate.) At this point, we have neither attestation of the three senses defined, nor verification of the etymology. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ballenlikker

Dutch, defined as "an ass-kisser; a suck-up". I think that a meaning "testicle licker" or "homosexual" might be citable, but this probably isn't. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is used in the contested sense in this article. In general, finding attestations in durably archived media is not easy for vulgar terms. --Lambiam 22:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in this case it is an indication that the sense is simply uncommon. Dozens if not hundreds of Dutch vulgarities are very easy to cite in print media (google books:kankerhoer google books:paardenlul google books:kutjebef), though it is true some terms are avoided. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

bebiĉo

There's one citation from Egalecen, but unfortunately, I don't think that blog is durably archived (though some of its authors appear in durably archived works like Beletra Almanako). פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

beluliĉo

Only one citation, apparently from a Wikitrans article about a manga. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

boviĉo

Uncited. I'm only really familiar with virbovo. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bär

"only used in compounds" sounds like Bär = boar doesn't (and didn't) exist.
Note: boar and Eber have "obsolete dialectal German Bär (“boar”)" which would imply a word Bär = boar does exist,.. but with many German dialects being treated like languages at en.WT (e.g. Bavarian) it's not necessarily "German" in en.WT's strict sence... --Brown*Toad (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the formally correct thing to do is to replace the current non-gloss definition with {{only used in}} and link all the compounds that way. I've done that now. If others come to our attention and the list grows excessively long, we could consider going back to the old format and listing the compounds as derived terms. - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:only used in is for whole words only occuring in phrases, e.g. Laufenden in auf dem Laufenden. --Brown*Toad (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese compound words use it, and I suspect also entries in spaced languages, though I'm not sure how to search for examples short of just paging through all the entries it's used on. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cited as a standalone word. Most of the citations are of the "jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail)" type because it's otherwise difficult to find and be sure of instances where Bär means boar rather than bear, since they're homographic and used in the same contexts. I also found some books discussing inspections of pork which included inspections of various breeds, wild pigs, and Bären; even there, it could mean bear meat instead of wild boar meat, but given the other citations and the compound words, I think it's clear this sense existed. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

beeld (Scots)

Meaning "image, picture", this is more often mentioned (with a different etymology) as the term for a temporary shelter. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That definition can be found here [[46]] Leasnam (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scots is however a WDL, so a dictionary citation wouldn't suffice. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bye-Q

—Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

バイQ is found on Google. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hj

Entry states a Translingual abbreviation for hajji. There's no Translingual entry for hajji, so perhaps this should be moved to English. How do you go about citing Translingual entries, anyway? --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Malay (including Bahasa Indonesia) abbreviation for Haji. It is definitely not translingual. --Lambiam 17:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

chó sa-can

RFV for Vietnamese. Unable to find any Vietnamese sources on the Internet, and I have never seen the term attested in Vietnamese books published in the 21st century. The term is currently labelled "obsolete" (I added the label). But was it ever in use in the first place? (The commonly accepted name for jackal in Vietnamese is chó rừng.) --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fumiko Take Do you remember where you found this word? Asking for a response since none has been given in nearly six months. QQ gives nothing. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the creator of the entry is no longer active, but @Atitarev added sa-can as a translation of jackal. (Per this.) @PhanAnh123 removed it almost 3 years later (probably due to doubting its veracity, per this). Atitarev, where did you find this term? (Note that the debated entry was created in September 2014, before Atitarev added the translation.) Anyone can contribute? (Yes, I speak Vietnamese but I'm not so well-skilled on searching for sources.) --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

melki

Rfv-sense of "to jerk off, masturbate". Can this slang use be attested? I don't remember hearing this word before. Most of the results found in Testaro are about actual cows. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is very uncommon, but there are some results for it. [47] [48] ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Avukonthorp

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (there are several others by the same editor)[reply]

Altniederdeutsche Eigennamen aus dem neunten bis elften Jahrhundert. Zusammengestellt von Dr. Mortiz Heyne. Als Gruss an die germanistische Section der 25. deutschen Philologen-Versammlung, Halle, 1867, p. 1: "Avukon-thorp n. loc.: dat. in Aucon-|thorpe Cr. 22" with "Cr. = Index bonorum et redituum monasteriorum Werdinensis et Helmonstadensis saeculo decimo vel undecimo conscriptus. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr. Elberfeldae 1864." → Collectae ad augendam nominum propriorum Saxonicorum et Frisiorum scientiam spectantes. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr. I. Index bonorum et redituum monasteriorum Werdinensis et Helmonstadensis saeculo decimo vel undecimo conscriptus. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr., Elberfelda, 1864, p. 22: "[...] In Frilingothorpe iij dimidia uirga. In Aucon thorpe xum uirge. In UUilinghem i uirga. In UUestar husun undecimus dimidius pes. In Aldonthorpe xxx. ui peđ. [...]"

Thus:

It's "[in] Aucon thorpe", not "Avukonthorp".
It's Latin.

--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ок

Allegedly an interjection ‘expressing fear, caution or disapproval’. Guldrelokk (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. The corresponding entry on the Russian Wiktionary suggests no such sense. It seems to me that the sense can simply be given as “OK”. By the way, in the senses listed for the English interjection OK, I miss the function of process control interruption in turn-taking, serving as a request to the speaker to grant the turn to the interrupter. I don’t know how to phrase this concisely yet comprehensibly. --Lambiam 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Used in turn-taking, serving as a request to the speaker to grant the turn to the interrupter? DCDuring (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that, in conjunction with the usex, that is sufficiently clear. --Lambiam 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

竜

Korean: Need to find usages, not mentions, some dictionaries bulk-insert all variant Chinese characters, mixing simplified (Chinese or Japanese), even if they are not used in those languages. @KevinUp: Sorry, I don't need to be mean, I just don't think it's right. A dictionary mention is not enough. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found something on Google Books: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] KevinUp (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two quotations are obviously mentions and the third is Chinese, no? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Korean entry based on the Table of Hanja for Personal Names (인명용한자표), which listed this glyph as a variant form of 龍.

Yes, the first one is obviously a mention of the glyph as an alternative form of 龍. The remaining citations indicate that this glyph may be used as a proper noun for various placenames. KevinUp (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

竜

Chinese: as above (Korean). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Hanyu Da Zidian (2nd edition, page 2897) has the following citation:

含華吐豔，竜章鳳采。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
含华吐艳，竜章凤采。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: 597 AD, (deprecated template usage) 楊秀 (deprecated template usage) 《美人董氏墓誌銘》

Hán huá tù yàn, lóng zhāng fèng cǎi. [Pinyin]

(please add an English translation of this usage example)

(2) Kangxi dictionary has the following citation:

【字彙補】雲南有佴革竜地，有九山最險。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
【字汇补】云南有佴革竜地，有九山最险。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: 1666 AD, (deprecated template usage) 吳任臣 (deprecated template usage) 《字彙補》

【 Zìhuì bǔ 】 Yúnnán yǒu èr gé lóng dì, yǒu jiǔ shān zuì xiǎn. [Pinyin]

Transcription of a placename in Yunnan.

(3) More search results at Wikisource Chinese: [54]

For Chinese characters, many tend to be archaic or obsolete and lack proper citations. Fortunately this character has some. KevinUp (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will check these, thanks --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinUp: IKR? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinUp: It seems like for the first quotation from 美人董氏墓誌銘, the character is actually 𥪖 if we look at scans of the inscription like this, so I don't know if it'd be a valid citation even if it's written as 竜 in Hanyu Da Zidian. Of course, there should be more citations out there, so I'll fish for more. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sočiti

I believe that translation listed as Polish should be included as Old Polish.

I have been reading the dictionary by Derksen cited as a source. I am also a native speaker (and a linguist) and I noticed that that particular dictionary has not been proof checked by someone with better background in Polish. Thus, I checked both wsjp.pl, that is a dictionary by Polish Academia of Science (our highest authority in ant type of science and humanities), and haven't found it. Then I went to sjp.pwn, which is the biggest commercial ditionary, and none information was there, in Doroszewski's dictionary neither (that is a standard for modern Polish before 1990). Google search linked me to Old Polish dictionary https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/M._Arcta_S%C5%82ownik_Staropolski/Soczy%C4%87, where the word is still used.

evergladensis

It seems that this was added on the basis of some taxonomic names. But we don't consider taxonomic names to be Latin, do we? I'm not sure if this can be considered Latin either if that's the case. —Rua (mew) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then move it. All we lose is the declension tables. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pretending to know all the relevant policies and practices. I'm asking for clarification, and for action to be taken depending on what is needed. —Rua (mew) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been any consensus. I don't really care. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more common treatment seems to be to list such names as Latin, as seen for example for carolinensis. Like is done for that lemma, I think names for which the use is confined to taxonomy should be labelled “(botany, zoology, New Latin)” (with appropriate adjustments to the list of branches of biology – for evergladensis including mycology). Personally, I feel that including a declension table is over the top, though. --Lambiam 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My own thoughts is that they should be listed as Latin (without macrons &c), labelled as "New Latin", and that declension tables should be include only if any of the feminine and/or neuter, plural &c forms are also used (they're not in this case). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:iroquoianus, Talk:albifrons + WT:CFI are quite clear: The term has to be attested in Latin to be Latin.

@Lambiam: 1. carolinensis or Carolinensis can be found and possibly attested in Latin ([55], [56], [57]), though its sense might be different (compare karolinisch, carolinisch, Karl, Carl, and also see [58]: "acus Carolinensis, Karlsbader Insektennadel"). 2. People ignoring WT:CFI and (other) vandals don't change the rules because they ignore them.

--Brown*Toad (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not immediately see which clause from CFI applies here, but I have no problem with the L2 being changed to “Translingual”. I just reported on what appeared to be a commonly taken approach, based on inspecting a small sample of the most common epithets. If Carolinensis can be attested in Latin, it probably has a different etymology, being from Carolus without a detour through the Carolinas. --Lambiam 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most plausible ways to get Latin attestation for specific epithets like this are through Catholic Church Latin (many placename adjectives) or from scientific Latin taxonomic descriptions (mostly 19th century and earlier). This term, unlike caroliniensis or carolinianus, is not likely to be found in such sources. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: "including a term if it is attested" and "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning" - of course a Latin term has to be attested in Latin, with a use in a Latin media.
Trying to attest Latin with random non-Latin usages is the same as trying to attest English *handy (“mobile phone”) with usages of Handy or *footing (“jogging”) with footing.
And that doesn't work out.

@DCDuring: Church Latin doesn't attest taxonomic terms regarding labels and biological stuff like "Discovered in or native to [region]" as in magellanicus,
and Church Latin more often capitalises adjectives while in non-Latin biological texts it's more often uncapitalised.

--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

哈

Rfv-sense: Sentence-final particle softening the request. @Geographyinitiative — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure have seen it discussed in fluff news articles this way, used in WeChat this way many times, and was also taught that it was used this way at least twice in Wuhan. Not as a real laugh, but kind of like a "ha" qingsheng at the end. Signals a flavor of authoritativeness. But this usage is apparently unknown in Taiwan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://baike.baidu.com/item/语气词单音节吧、罢、呗、啵、的、价、家、啦、来、唻、了、嘞、哩、咧、咯、啰、喽、吗、嘛、嚜、么（麽）、哪、呢、呐、否、呵、哈、不、兮、般、则、连、罗、给、噻、哉、呸、

http://www.doc88.com/p-785476701486.html <--- https://wenku.baidu.com/view/b3b4f3ae31b765ce04081479.html https://www.wjx.cn/jq/30654194.aspx --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

小女

Rfv-sense: "little girl" — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t “little woman/girl” be a literal sense (and thus SOP)? --Lambiam 06:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. If it is a verifiable sense, I'd say we should still keep it since 女 is kind of a bound morpheme in Mandarin. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung I disagree that 女 being a "bound morpheme" affects the outcome of this verification discussion in any way. Here we have articles for phrases such as 小刀, 大桥/大橋, and 小孩子, and the latter parts of each of them make sense in independent contexts. This whole discussion does not make sense. If anything, we should be nominating the types of phrases I've listed instead of phrases like 小女. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWarrior9919: The "bound morpheme" thing is addressing Lambiam's concern of whether the entry should exist (which would be dealt with at WT:RFDN). That is not an issue, which means the verification process should continue for the definition "little girl". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱh₂d-

This "root" has no e in it, which makes it suspicious. IEW is 60 years old and thus not adequate as a source, and the Wiktionary page name doesn't match the form given in IEW anyway. —Rua (mew) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua, this should just be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 13:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar I added De Vaan as a more trustworthy source, but it's still somewhat dubious that there are no full grades anywhere. —Rua (mew) 13:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua: I deleted the PII forms because those were all impossible. Now we're just left with the Latin and a couple dubious extra-Latin forms. --{{victar|talk}} 14:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua, Victar: I don't know about this particular root, but *bʰuh₂- is one root that doesn't seem to have had a full grade, so it wouldn't be without precedent. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: Like I said, I'm more concerned with the lack of indubious cognates outside of Latin, which is grounds enough for deletion. --{{victar|talk}} 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the IE cognates of Skt. √śad ("fall, fall out, fall off; collapse; decay, wither, perish")? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: Hölderlin2019 raises a good point. It's clear that Proto-Iranian *kat- can't be connected and should be deleted, but why is Sanskrit शशद (śaśada) = Latin cecidī impossible? It could even be evidence for a full grade *ḱh₂ed- (since zero grade *ḱh₂d- would have given ^×śid- rather than śad-). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, ×शशद (×śaśada) does not exist -- it's actually शशाद (śaśāda), and that word reflects PIE *ḱe-ḱód-e, which itself points to a *ḱed- root. Secondly, I've only seen that word in the context of listing cognates for the Latin -- it's not in any of my Sanskrit dictionaries -- so it's very poorly attested which makes me question its meaning entirely and think that it's just a bunch of semantic massaging by Latinists. Not all Indo-European words need cognates, nor are all words actually from PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in both Whitney and MW? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to write, "is it", and no, in Sanskrit the word शशाद (śaśāda) actually means "eating rabbits", as seen in Monier-Williams. --{{victar|talk}} 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that it's listed in both Whitney and MW. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, accidental question mark than. That's the danger of using older sources; often inflection tables are assumed and not based on actual sources. The only form that is found in Sanskrit, and again, very poorly attested, is (only found once in AV) शत्स्यति (śatsyati) and everything else is fabricated. So again, ×शशद (×śaśada) did not exist. --{{victar|talk}} 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a quizzical question mark. I don't know why you think the inflections are fabricated (by whom? Whitney/MW? the Indian grammarians?); both Whitney and MW assert that this particular one is attested in the Brahmanas. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inflection tables are made up all the time. We do so even on en.Wikt. Modern sources ({{R:ine:LIV}}) cite the word as शशाद (śaśāda) and not ×शशद (×śaśada) as seen in MW. Also, MW mistakenly associates this word with the unrelated शीयते (śīyate, “to fall down”), which is from *ḱey-. --{{victar|talk}} 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: But शशाद (śaśāda) does exist? If so, it can come from *ḱe-ḱod-e as you say, but surely it can also come from *ḱe-ḱh₂od-e, from a root *ḱh₂ed-, of which both the zero grade and the full grade could give Latin cadō. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: Is *ḰHeT- even a valid root in PIE? In PII, you might also expect the laygyeal to have some sort of aspirating power. --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: We have entries for *kh₂em-, *kh₂eyd-, and *sh₂ey-, so the root shape seems to be rare but not impossible. As for aspiration, you'd expect it after a stop, but probably not after ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: I was asking *ḰHeT- (=*KʲHeT-), not *KHeT-. I don't think it is. Aspiration would have been pre-PII. --{{victar|talk}} 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: In both cases I suspect there aren't enough examples to allow us to generalize. CHEC is a rather rare root shape to begin with, so the apparent lack of ḰHeC- could be coincidental. And even if *-ḱH- became *-śʰ- in PII, are there enough examples of PII *-śʰ- to be sure that it didn't simply become ś in Sanskrit? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: I found an example with *sḱeh₂i- ~ *(s)ḱh₂ey- ~ *(s)ḱeyh₂- (“cut open, sting”) which allegedly yielded σχάω (skháō) and ἔσχασα (éskhasa). Theoretically, I would think PIE *ḱe-ḱh₂ód-e would have yielded > śeśʰh₂óde > PII *ćaćʰHáda (=/tśatśʰHáda/) > PIA *śaśʰHáda > शहद (śaháda). Problem is, we lack clear examples of *ḱh₂. --{{victar|talk}} 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. We know that *źʰ became h in Sanskrit, but that doesn't mean *śʰ did. It may have become simply ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: This discussion is surreal. Whitney does not "make up" inflection tables; Whitney does not deal in inflection tables, except in his introductory grammars. What he does do is catalogue attested Vedic + Skt. forms and assign them to roots. MW is not in error; he's simply following the synchronic analysis of the ancient grammarians, whose fiat assignment in this particular case Whitney explicitly discusses. The reduplicated perfect in question is multiply attested in the Brahmanas. I'm frankly astounded by how tenuous your grasp of how to understand the Sanskrit is, never mind the Sanskrit itself Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But Whitney doesn't list *शशद (śaśada); he lists शशाद (śaśāda), whose existence Victar isn't denying. — This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talk • contribs) at 16:40, 24 June 2019.

For one, I've only been referring to MW, not Whitney. Secondly, I'm not infallible and if I misread some source, I'm happy for someone to point it out, but personally attacking me is unnecessary. And lastly, any author is also fallible, especially in older works when our understanding of PIE and Sanskrit was not as developed and defined as it is today. I'm not sure which part you are claiming MW isn't in error of, but Rix agrees that MW mistakenly lumped शीयते (śīyate, “to fall down”) into this root, which probably had bearing on the definition he gave for it and calls into question the semantic connection to the Latin. --{{victar|talk}} 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, {{R:ine:LIV}} reconstructs the root as *ḱad- (*ḱád-e-ti > cadō) and {{R:ine:LIPP}} as *ḱed- (*ḱd-é-ti > *ḱₔd-é-ti > cadō). --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could work too for those of us who believe that PIE primary a was merely rare but not nonexistent. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: Yeah, I'm not a fan of PIE a entries either. I think, however, there is some argument to be made that it existed natively in onomatopoeic roots. My preference would be for *ḱed- though. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse emi ? (1st person sg. copula)

this wiki page as well as online etymology dictionary mention emi as an alternative form of em, preserving the final -i of PIE verb endings. Can we get an academic source for this?

RubixLang (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

caelus as Vulgar Latin form in caelum

I'm challenging the Vulgar Latin form as [59] sounds like the added form should be Vulgar Latin *caelus. --Waikaistai (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like this is just an alternative form of caelum, not an entirely separate word. —Rua (mew) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't tell what's being challenged here. The entry is referenced, with several cites listed in Gaffiot. As the anon notes, this being the colloquial term explains the Old French well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the question is, is there evidence that Latin caelus survived into the period of Vulgar Latin? If not, and this is a reconstruction, it should be marked as such. I don’t understand the argument, though, why this is supposed to be Vulgar Latin in the first place. Old French ciel is thought to come from Latin caelum. What is with this Old French ciels? Is that another word than the plural of ciel? The authors cited in Gaffiot are all strictly classical – the latest is Servius, who wrote in Classical Latin – so I don’t understand why this {{alter}} of caelum is labelled old either. --Lambiam 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Old French still had two cases, but lost the neuter gender already. The nominative singular form ciels is a direct reflection of caelus. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. So does this mean that in the section Etymology of Old French ciel From {{inh|fro|la|caelum}} should be changed to From {{inh|fro|la|caelus}}? --Lambiam 21:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metaknowledge: Does Gaffiot give cites for a Vulgar Latin term? Enn[ius] is Old Latin and Lucr[etius], Vitr[uvius] and Cic[ero] aren't Vulgar Latin either.

Quoting Lambian: "the question is, is there evidence that Latin caelus survived into the period of Vulgar Latin? If not, and this is a reconstruction, it should be marked as such." Indeed. And even if it survived into Vulgar Latin times: Is it attested as Vulgar Latin, or only as Late Latin in which case the Vulgar Latin would still be a reconstruction or a mislabelling of Late Latin? --Waikaistai (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Vulgar Latin was an umbrella term for Latin spoken by ordinary folk wherever Roman influence was strong and was contemporaneous with both Classical Latin and Late Latin, and may be considered to have lasted beyond, even to the end of the first millennium. DCDuring (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So Vulgar Latin survived Classical Latin and even Late Latin. But I still see no reasonable argument for labelling the alternative form caelus as specifically Vulgar Latin (or old, or anything). --Lambiam 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so easy to make a distinction, as they were just two different registers of the same language. Elements of vulgar Latin occasionally crept into written Latin from time to time, but I don't think there is a point in distinguishing VL as an entirely separate dialect or even language. It was just the informal-everyday spoken form of Latin, whereas the written standard was more formal and archaic. What can be said about caelus, if it is indeed attested, is that it fits the general trend in most of the Romance languages of eliminating the neuter gender in favour of the masculine. But that alone does not make caelus vulgar, necessarily, just that it has one particular trait associated with vulgar Latin. —Rua (mew) 16:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if it could treated here as something like a reconstructed language, based on occasional intrusions into written Latins and backward inference from Christian Latin, Late Latin, and early forms of Romance languages. Some older sources support it. It's hard for me to see why we should extirpate it from Wiktionary. DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd challenge. Added quotes from the early Empire. Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak – The way I interpret the request does not involve the lemma caelus, but only the section Alternative forms of etymology 1 for caelum, and specifically the dialect indicated there in the line “・ caelus (old, Vulgar Latin)”.

Indeed, caelus itself wasn't challenged. caelus (Vulgar Latin) is and there still aren't any Vulgar Latin quotes, like old graffiti, or mentionings, as in the Appendix Probi. --Waikaistai (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/buþlijaną

Kroonen does not have this verb. It only has one descendant, which does not match the reconstructed form. The noun *buþlą/*bōþlą, which the verb supposedly derives from, is not found in Kroonen's dictionary either. All this together suggests that this is a rather ad-hoc reconstruction and not supported well enough to have an entry. —Rua (mew) 16:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't reconstructible to Proto-Germanic really, only to (Proto)-Old English. build specifically has to come from early Old English metathesis of earlier *buþlą to *bulþą, with characteristic voicing to *buld-a- after /l/, then *buldijan-. An extra-Germanic cognate is found in Ancient Greek φύτλον, so the word is old, albeit with semantic shift, "live/grow". Burgundaz (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua: Old Frisian belda exist and derives from PWG *bōþlijan.^[1] --{{victar|talk}} 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then there's still no common preform that both of them can descend from. —Rua (mew) 09:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Boutkan, Dirk, Siebinga, Sjoerd (2005) “belda”, in Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 1), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 36: “Denominative verb *bōdl-jan > *bēdl-(j)a(n) > bēlda with metathesis *dl > ld”

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bōþlą

Not found in Kroonen's dictionary either, and few of the attested descendants match the reconstruction. Old English preserves -þl-, as shown in the descendants of other Proto-Germanic terms with this cluster, which rules out bold and botl. Moreover, these descendants have a short o. Old Saxon shows Proto-Germanic d, rather than þ (compare *nēþlō, where þ is preserved). Middle Dutch merges þ and d, so there is no evidence there either way. Old Norse indeed has a regular change þl > l, as is visible from the descendants of the other pages. All in all, I don't think there's enough evidence to clearly reconstruct this. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua: I went and added source and cognates. Old Frisian also exhibits the same metathesis, so maybe just an Anglo-Frisian random variant. --{{victar|talk}} 04:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-neutral usage of male Esperanto words

The following words are male in traditional Esperanto according to PMEG: avo, edzo, fianĉo, filo, frato, kuzo, nepo, nevo, onklo, patro, princo, reĝo, vidvo. In Wiktionary they have a second sense, a gender-neutral sense. I don't think this can be properly cited. Some people use words like patriĉo and edziĉo, which are cited, but those people never really use the base words gender-neutrally, but use words like gepatro and geedzo instead. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuppes

Looks spurious, also as Maria Besse, Britter Wörterbuch. Moselfränkischer Dialekt am "Tor zum Hochwald" has "Fuppes m. .. dummes Zeug, Unsinn ..". Super Teddy 3 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it is spurious. See the following article on the website of Welt (not Die Welt): “Über Fuppes, beömmeln und den Muckefuck”. The tentative etymologies given in the article have nothing in common with the one in our entry, but the sense and regional identification agree. --Lambiam 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinujo

The word Palestinujo is formed wrong. The root "Palestin-" indicates a country, so adding -ujo to it is wrong. When I search this term online, I mostly find it in grammar discussions about country names. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This might be citable, a quick search already yielded two attestations: [60] [61] ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Atayalic/aku

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Atayalic/suwaiʔ

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Rukai/ako

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Rukai/səpatə

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

倭

Currently the article 倭 states that the meaning is "dwarf". That is not correct. The meaning is: "submissive, docile, obedient", "bowing; bent over" or “distant” and or was used as the early name of Japanese (Yamato?). This needs to be corrected. I wanted to correct that, but was reverted and it was explained that I have to do a request for verification first. The "dwarf" or "short" meaning is this: 矮 — This unsigned comment was added by AsadalEditor (talk • contribs).

@AsadalEditor: FWIW, The MDBG entry gives a meaning of dwarf for 倭. Meanwhile, the MDBG entry for 矮 gives a meaning of short, but not dwarf. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

wárhiti

I don't think this is a standard spelling. The same goes for 'warhi. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wiki

@Justinrleung sent this to RFD, where multiple editors encouraged putting it in RFV instead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/frijô

tagged but not listed with the following note: "This page lists *frijō as an antonym while that page list frijô as an antonynm, but they both have the same meaning. Given the other words formed from this root: frijōndz ("friend") vs fijands ("foe"), it appears this was a typo and the antonym should have been something like "fijô" and one of these pages may be wrong"

I believe the antonym is due to the gender of the words (one being male, the other female) in the same way that man is the antonym of woman Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this was not really an RFV matter. But RFV kept, anyway. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

爩

Rfv-sense for "fumigate" and "bleach with burning sulfur" definitions. Sourced from the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epaña

Spanish, eye dialect spelling of España. Ehpaña is much more citeable. Ultimateria (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultimateria: There's a lot of hits on Google Groups; are these just typos? Julia ☺ ☆ 08:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Julia: It can be hard to tell which ones are typos, but it looks like the majority to me. One is "epaña eh diferente" which uses another eye dialect spelling ("eh" for "es"). That and "pero que eto eh epaña" make only two that are definitively intentional. Ultimateria (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A query.

English spelling is extremely squishy. We've got oddball things like knight and night both pronounced like nite. Words like are could be realized as /aː/ or /ɑɹ/ or /aʊə/ etc. An argument could be made that English spelling is approaching logographic in its divergence from strict phonetics. Spelling night as nite is clearly just a visual divergence: both are pronounced the same.

However, various other languages are less loosey-goosey with their orthography. Words are pronounced as they're spelled. Thus, España and Epaña are not just visual differences -- the different spellings represent different phonetic realizations.

At what point does this spelling-difference phenomenon shift from "eye dialect" to just "dialect"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wiktionarians are misusing the term eye dialect, which refers to a nonstandard spelling reflecting a standard pronunciation (e.g. English sez for says, whose standard pronunciation is /sɛz/). Unless /eˈpaɲa/ and /ehˈpaɲa/ are standard pronunciations in Spanish, these aren't eye dialect. They're nonstandard spellings, i.e. spellings reflecting nonstandard pronunciations. — This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talk • contribs) at 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

drone (Dutch)

Rfv-sense of "male bee or wasp". The Middle Dutch is in the MNW (lemma: dorne), but no luck with the modern Dutch term. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands Dutch dar comes from Middle Dutch drone by an interesting development: drone → (by metathesis) dorne, darn(e), whose s-plural darns was displace by the en-plural darnen, and then → (by assimilation) darren, reanalyzed as the plural of dar. Parallel survival of Middle Dutch drone into present-day Dutch appears extremely implausible to me. --Lambiam 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In several Limburgish dialects, it is droon/drone: [62], [63]. It's a bit tricky to find non-dictionary references seen the scarcity of dialectal usage online and seen the now-prevalent use of drone in the machine sense. Morgengave (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgengave I think this can be resolved by changing the language header to Limburgish and adding a reference to that Limburgish dictionary (the preview doesn't show for me), as Limburgish is a LDL. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It exists in Limburgish as draen (Bakkes 2007 p. 107)/droon/dreen, depending on the dialect. The form on -e is always plural however. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

豺狼

Rfv-sense: dhole. @Atitarev added it per Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (2002), but a newer (the newest?) version of the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Chinese edition) does not have such a sense. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung I won't cry if the sense is removed, it's from the old dictionary. BTW, I have pinged you on 猱犬 (náoquǎn, “dhole”), which I found in Pleco but you may have missed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: In the Dungan-Russian dictionary there is an entry for цэлон (celon) (tones III-I) with a translation шака́л (šakál, “jackal”) (for the lack of the more correct word for "dhole"). I'm pretty sure it's the equivalent of Mandarin 豺狼 (cháiláng). Dungan цэгу (cegu) = 豺狗 (cháigǒu) and цэгузы (ceguzɨ) are listed as synonyms. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

プーマ

the animal
the brand (WT:BRAND)

—Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It refers only to the brand Puma. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Grünen

The first sense. This doesn't count:

"Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
"Grüne", "die Grünen" etc.
"Die Grünen" at the beginning of a sentence

For the second sense, one can find enough examples searching for "Partei Die Grünen". Daloda (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that your issue is that sense 1 is actually the sum of the definite article die and the plural form of the noun Grüne(r)? If so, I think you are right. But the sense ”(in plural, collectively) the German green party, 'Bündnis 90/Die Grünen'“, currently found at Grüner, may be more in place at Grünen. (Does it make sense that this noun has separate masculine and feminine entries? Can’t we combine them?) --Lambiam 05:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point is: Does "Die Grünen" meaning "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen" exists, is it attestable, are there pars-pro-toto uses? "Die Grünen" refering to an older party exists. And because of the capital D it's not just "die" + "Grüner".

(Grüner/Grüne and Grüne are different words with different gender and inflection.) Daloda (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

庳哩

The word exists, but the characters seem questionable. I can only find this orthography in a wikibook (b:zh:福州語/數字). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

福州方言研究 writes the monosyllabic form bì (recorded in 福州方言詞典 1998 as bĭ) as 啤. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

escuelear

Spanish, "to tame". Ultimateria (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in this dictionary (not sure what "sl" means). DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it means "slang". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was WF who made the page, which is a bad sign. That guy sucks. Anyway, it seems to mean, unsurprisingly, to school or educate. Rare as hell, though. --I learned some phrases (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

ops

An IP editor insists on removing it as "unattestable". — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to L&S the nominative singular is unattested. It's not in my Later Latin (to AD600) glossary either. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP may know Latin (just FYI the IP address belongs is a US school district), but they don't know how Wiktionary Latin entries are organized: the lemma is supposed to be at the nominative singular, and the other forms are soft redirects to the lemma. If we delete the lemma, the definitions, etymology and inflection tables go with it, just leaving redlinks to a non-existent lemma in the form-of entries. IIRC, we deal with this by saying somewhere in the lemma entry that the nominative singular itself isn't attested. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough, the term is also the name of the earth goddess Ops, and also when used as her name it is unattested in the nominative or vocative; even where you would expect this according to the standard grammatical rules, the oblique case “Opis” is substituted. This is rather peculiar. Was there a tabu on the term “ops”? And how can we be sure that the nominative is not actually “opis” (cf. “apis” – “apis” – “apī” – ...)? --Lambiam 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's inops, possibly virops, Ops (besides Opis). But correctly it would still be *ops or opis (genitive, nominative not attested) with a "--" for the nominative in the inflection table. --Pitza Guy (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should terms like these be moved to the Reconstruction namespace? That way we could keep the information, and still link to it from other entries, but we avoid potential errors of speculation about lemmata. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the entire term unattested, or just the nominative singular? What form(s) are attested? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gathered, some non-lemma forms are attested. I meant that the lemma should be moved to a Reconstruction namespace, not the attested forms. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mat

Doesn't Gaulish normally preserve endings, like in *matis? —Rua (mew) 12:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's conceivable this was found in an inscription where the ending is missing (e.g. the stone is broken), which a scholarly edition would probably render as mat[is]. I never know what we should do with cases like that, or with scribal errors in manuscripts. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fp

Swedish. Along with kd, seems to be uppercase. --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tizzone

Rfv-sense "(normally considered offensive, often considered vulgar, ethnic slur) A dark-skinned person, especially a person of, or primarily of, black African descent", removed by an IP as "I am italian and I have never once heard the word "tizzone" used in that way. There's no trace of it anywhere on the internet that I could find of, and the italian page doesn't mention it either". — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my paper dictionaries. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. Have you even considered that maybe your paper dictionaries don't cover racist slurs? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The arguments become stranger and stranger. It’s one of the most valuable parts of Wiktionary that we have words that fall under the radar, that aren’t covered and aren’t known by those people who else curate dictionaries. If you haven’t heard certain words, it also comes from a state of privilege. “I am Italian”, “I am German” ends up to be like “I have been brought up in the polite society”.

That being said, if one listens to Italian rap music oftener one will probably stumble upon this word, as Metaknowledge’s quote has shown. Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is RFV driven by WT:ATTEST, and for Italian, paper dictionaries do not even count toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: I know this is real, at least in Sicilian (as used in the US), but I don't know how to search rap lyrics or sift through all the uses of the literal meaning, so I think it's up to you to save this one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge Yeah but I have never learned Italian, let alone listened to raps in it, i.e. I am no active user of it yet, so I don’t know to search certain words or constructions to find certain things. (You might also create a Sicilian entry with a quote which will have a similar value.) Where are the Italians anyhow? None on Wiktionary apparently? (Oh, the last one was Angelucci, you know what happened. No Italians in the recent changes to Italian lemmas.) Fay Freak (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GianWiki is a frequent contributor; maybe he can be of help. Canonicalization (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have to say that – while I can see the word being used in such a sense – I've never heard (or read) it used in a similar sense. -- GianWiki (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sentar

Rfv-sense Used in various Brazilian funk song, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzavRj4pnK0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsl3uQdQw0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7urWiVOLcc

اختبر

Rfv-sense (Arabic): “to research; to explore, to search; to know well, to know by experience“--51.223.99.17 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reorganize the senses to describe what you think the word means. The concepts (which are also scrammed together from Hans Wehr and co.) are very close together and in many contexts replaceable. If one has tried and experienced one also knows by experience etc., and knows well if one has done it enough. Fay Freak (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

kôiôty

Malagasy. Not found in kôiôty in Malagasy dictionaries at malagasyword.org and even google:kôiôty finds almost nothing. Pinging Corsicanwarrah to help us find citations or sources to support WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky I just came across it on the Malagasy Wiktionary entry for 郊狼. Here. It's also on the other Malagasy Wiktionary entries for other foreign words for 'coyote' (but the word kôiôty itself is not an entry on the Malagasy Wiktionary.) Back then I wasn't aware of the CFI rules. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find on the History page of the MG WT kôiôty entry that there have only been three edits, all apparently by bot user Bot-Jagwar. So I'm not sure anything there should be taken without a grain of salt, as it were. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 15:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Corsicanwarrah: Thank you. Other Wiktionaries are not reliable sources for the purpose of the English Wiktionary. Terms only found in other Wiktionaries are liable to be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also fallen foul of this, seen below on this list. However, the only link on Google for kôiôty that doesn’t relate to Wiktionary is Mitarika ireo fanahy, which uses the word once. After using Google Translate, the section where it is used seems to talk about how sheep are 'killed by wild animals such as lions or coyotes'. Obviously, this is not a reputable source or translation, but it does show an example of its use. -- DPUH (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

gen pl vicum

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Does not appear to exist. This is a defective noun with only certain cases attested. As those attestations are very frequent, I would expect the missing forms to be truly missing, not simply unattested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for dative singular vicī and maybe vocative plural vicēs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

k, m, q

Should be K., M., Q. (cp. Category:Latin praenominal abbreviations). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ibid

Because of the missing dot it looks English and not Latin. --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

magro

Possibly should be mag̃ro, cp. [64], [65], [66]. BTW: Similary ptate (properly ptãte as in [67], [68]?), hmoi might be wrong... --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to the latter, I see ħmoi, ħmõi and hm̃oi, but also (because of limited typographical capabilities?) vanilla hmoi. --Lambiam 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not.-Tir., n.-Tir.

"-" makes no sense (in Latin). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the same can be said for a full stop to denote an abbreviation; yet, the latter is conventionally applied all over the place. Note that we also have n.-Tir. I believe the corresponding versions without hyphens (not. Tir., n. Tir.) are in use but unoccupied here, and so it appears safe to move them to that spelling. --Lambiam 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German and Latin not. Tir., Not. Tir., not. Tiron., Not. Tiron. (also with capital in Latin) can easily be found (Latin: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]).
[77], [78] have not. tiron..
I had no luck finding n./N. tiron./Tiron., n./N. tir./Tir. (in any combination regarding capitalisation) or any hyphenated form.
not. Tiron. had, for whatever reason, "|head=not.-Tīrōn." with hyphen. Based on that, I too would assume that "-" was incorrectly added (in a hypercorrectly Frenchy way?). --Brown*Toad (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was fooled by occurrences of n. Tir. as seen here, but examination reveals that the juxtaposition of n. and Tir. is incidental and that Tir. stands for Tirocinium. --Lambiam 07:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin albicilla

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): I strongly suspect this is an erroneous adjective created by someone who didn't know Latin genders very well rather than a noun. In particular, it is used in Haliaeetus albicilla, which was originally named Falco albicilla. I suspect the person who chose the name Falco albicilla thought that falcō was feminine rather than masculine (an easy mistake to make), and accordingly used the feminine of albicillus (“white-tailed”). This error was then propagated when the genus was renamed. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A taxonomist would say that the species was moved to a new genus, not that the genus was renamed (Falco is still the correct genus for most falcons). The specific epithet is supposed to agree with the generic name when it's an adjective, but in this case it may be a noun "in apposition" as the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature puts it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here] is the original publication. If Linnaeus had thought that Falco was feminine, you would think that some of the other specific epithets would be feminine, but none of them seem to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz Thanks, that's very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin manuculus: Attested or not?

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Latin manuculus is marked as "Vulgar Latin", and many sources put a star by it indicating it's reconstructed. Can we attest it? Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Often stars are put wrongly or after obsolete or uninformed sources. With references and several variants and even several derivatives mentioned by Wilhelm Heraeus Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen p. 45 bottom. I note and link here the earlier form maniculus in Apuleius book 9. The Thesaurus linguae latinae has manuculus too. Fay Freak (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

越王頭

Chinese. Has the term been used outside the Nanfang Caomu Zhuang and sources which quote it? I requested its creation but back then I was a bit shaky on the CFI rules. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions in other sources, most notably in Bencao Gangmu. That should be enough now since this term is not Standard Written Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin vetātus "forbidden"

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Classical participle is vetitus. The progression to vetātus would be logical but Du Cange only lists a different meaning "striped, made of twigs". Did this ever mean "forbidden" and if so, when? Benwing2 (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Transeuntes autem Phrygiam et Galatiae regionem, vetati sunt a Spiritu Sancto loqui verbum Dei in Asia.“ (Actus Apostolorum 16:6, Biblia Sacra Vulgata). This seems to be the only locus. --Lambiam 08:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “The ending -ĭtus, in the first conjugation, generally fell into disuse: [...] vetitus > vetatus”. --Lambiam 13:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georges: "Vulg. Perf. vetavit, Pers. 5, 90. Serv. Verg. Aen. 2, 201. Past. Herm. 3, 9, 6 Pal., vetastis, Itala Luc. 11, 52 Cant., vetassent, Epit. Iliad. 250, vetatus est, Itala act. apost. 17, 15, vetati sunt, Vulg. act. apost. 16, 6: vetati sulci, Chalcid. Tim. 153." 3 places for vetatus/vetati. --Trangomaron (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin persecātus "dissected"

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Similar to above. The proper past passive participle is persectus. Does persecātus exist and if so when did it come into existence? Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “In the first conjugation -ātus was preserved and was extended to all verbs: [...] sectus > secatus”. --Lambiam 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Sure; you can see this in the Romance languages. But this doesn't mean that such words are necessarily attested in *Latin* texts, and even if they are, I'd like to indicate what era to make clear this isn't Classical. Benwing2 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the quoted source puts asterisks in front of some forms, but not secatus, strongly suggests that the latter is attested in Vulgar Latin. This does not imply that this extends to persecātus, of course. All we know is that any attestations are unlikely to be Classical Latin. --Lambiam 08:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georges: "Perf. im Vulgärlat. auch secavi, wov. secarunt, Corp. inscr. Lat. 6, 30112: secarit, Serv. Verg. Aen. 5, 2: Partiz. Fut. Akt. secaturus, Colum. 5, 9, 2.: Partiz. Perf. Pass. secatus, Corp. inscr. Lat. 5, 5049, 12. de Rosci inscr. Christ. Vol. I. p. 265. Vulg. 4. Esdr. 4, 32. Commodian. apol. 514 (510)." But that's secare and secatus, not persecatus.

auctoricō

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): This is defined as "Vulgar Latin form of auctorō". The comment says "attested by Brodsky in Spanish Vocabulary: An Etymological Approach" but I can't find any attestations in Google Books. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[79]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [80], [81]; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives octroi from Late Latin auctorizare.) --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

妈々

Verifying entry {{zh-see|媽媽|ss}}: the second-round simplified form of 媽媽／妈妈 (māma). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is second-round simplified, but 媽々 may be attestable in older publications, like this(?). However, it seems to be difficult to find examples. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More cases here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also here and here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

吞々吐々

Made by the same contributor. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin balnea singular

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam We have an entry for balnea singular genitive balneae that says it's an uncommon synonym of balneum, and the page on balneum likewise says balnea (singular) is an occasional variant. Is this true? It's not mentioned in LS or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in the singular in a letter by Marcus Aurelius quoted here. The Medieval Latin term balneum Mariae (bain-marie) occurs as balnea Mariae e.g. here. --Lambiam 13:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M

Rfv-sense in Esperanto. This should be fun to search for... a texting abbreviation of mi (me, I). --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also, V should mean vi (you). I hope we can find a cute text message saying "I love you" in Esperanto. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added all those abbreviations to RFV before, here they are. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Latin Aunes = Aunios

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Aunes is claimed to be the Medieval Latin equivalent of Aunios, found in Pliny. The listed declension makes no sense (genitive Auniī) and I can't find any attestations. I'm inclined to just delete it straight away as nonsense but would like to see if anyone can attest it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heck, @Froaringus probably mistyped or something like that. First created as Aunis, then moved to Aunes, then the content to Aunios but not bringing it over to put a {{delete}} to Aunes. It’s a thing made up in his mind, sure. Fay Freak (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry with Aunis, it was a mistype and I later forgot about it. The correct form, present in local Medieval Latin charters (CODOLGA) is Aunes.--Froaringus (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin fars

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam I don't think this is a word. It was added Feb 2019 and isn't found in L+S or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, but in parentheses because the nominative is not attested. It lists the following attestations:

<com>esa farte -- Plautus, fragmenta incerta 143;

(facetiously) non uestem amatores amant mulieri', sed uestis fartim -- Mostellaria 169

(figuratively) fartem (conjecture) facere ex hostibus -- Miles Gloriosus 8

Since these are all from Plautus, it should be categorized as Old Latin. --Lvovmauro (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvovmauro Plautus isn't exactly considered Old Latin normally, but these attestations seem questionable, given their labeling as "conjecture" and "fragmenta incerta". fartim is a potentially separate adverb. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plautus is Old Latin. [82] by the way mentions distinctions and different senses of "Old Latin". --Pitza Guy (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this. As I have mentioned for example on Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/July § Vocative of nouns in -ēius and -ius Plautus is Old Latin in some sense, but what that “Old Latin” on Wiktionary is referring to is Latin even older than that. “Inscriptional Latin” that is old enough that you cannot easily understand it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Plautus is Old Latin. That Wiktionary might misuse the term "Old Latin" in an arbitrary and self-defined way to mean something else doesn't change this fact. --Pitza Guy (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin oogenesis

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam This is undoubtedly a word in English and various other modern languages, but I see no evidence that this is a Latin word. Benwing2 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an example of its use in Latin (unsurprisingly, the source is modern, not ancient). The dissertation "De spermatosomatum evolutione in plagiostomis," August 1878, by Adolph von La Valette-St. George, contains the quote "Itaque spermatogenesin ab oogenesi gradu solum, non re, differre existimo..." (p. 6). Perhaps he coined the term, as his Wikipedia article says he was the first known user of various terms related related to gamete generation.--Urszag (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin escaio

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Yes, Niermeyer lists escaire as a byform of excadere (along with escadere, eschadere, excidere). But do we really want to include every random misspelling by a semi-illiterate Medieval writer in Wiktionary? Can it even pass CFI? I would rather remove this and if we want to include it at all, just list it as an alternative form of excadō. Benwing2 (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can pass WT:CFI, if there's a durably archived usage. Or why shouldn't it? --Trangomaron (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

servile

Adverbs derived from second-class adjectives normally end in -iter (as in serviliter), not -ē. Canonicalization (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L&S: "Hence, adv., like a slave, slavishly, servilely. a servile: gemens, Claud. B. Gild. 364.", Georges: "Acc. neutr. poet. st. des Adv., servile gemens, Claud. b. Gild. 364." --Trangomaron (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Acc. neutr. poet.": so that would be servīlĕ with a short -ĕ, not with the adverbial suffix -ē. Also, L&S states that "Comp. and sup. of the adj. and adv. do not occur", yet Latisc added them. Canonicalization (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the one adverbial use by Claudian, in De Bello Gildonico: servile gemens. The pitiful moans come from a captured lion, called a monstrum by the Emperor’s father-in-law relating a prophetic dream. Might it be that the neuter form servile is in agreement with the neuter noun monstrum? --Lambiam 09:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering your question, but having scanned the dactylic hexameter, I can confirm it's a short -ĕ. Canonicalization (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

antialunizaje

Spanish. I see tons of products with this word in the name but no usable cites. Ultimateria (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. --Lambiam 10:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Southwestern Tai/khaau

Request added by @Octahedron80. Pinging @Alifshinobi (the creator of the entry) as well. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be *qawᶜ (comparing to PT *C̬.qawᶜ) according to Pittayaporn's revised system (this word is not mentioned in the document however.) By the way, "kh" can be interpreted as *kʰ-, *x-, *q-, or *χ-. Thai ข้าว is only one that prolongs vowel.--Octahedron80 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see the document, I have it here: [88] --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quater

Rfv-sense quăter , adv. num. quattuor, I.four times: “quater in anno pariunt,” Varr. R. R. 3, 10; Verg. A. 2, 242; Hor. S. 2, 3, 1.—With other numerals: “quater quinis minis,” Plaut. Ps. 1, 3, 111: “quater deni,” forty, Ov. M. 7, 293: “quater decies,” fourteen times, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 39, § 100: “quater centies,” Vitr. 10, 14. —Freq. in phrase: ter et quater, ter aut quater, or terque quaterque, three and (or) four times, i. e. over and over again, often, extremely: “ter et quater Anno revisens aequor,” Hor. C. 1, 31, 13: “corvi presso ter gutture voces Aut quater ingeminant,” Verg. G. 1, 410: “terque quaterque solum scindendum,” id. ib. 2, 399: “terque quaterque beati,” id. A. 1, 94: “o mihi felicem terque quaterque diem,” Tib. 3, 3, 26. — This unsigned comment was added by 87.11.204.161 (talk) at 10:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The gloss “often” seems to derive from idioms like the phrases you have mentioned. It can be used liberally in poetry as numbers often, and while it can be appropriate to translate such things with “dreimal und öfter” and the like, it is not appropriate to gloss it like that. quater means “four times” and not “many times”, period. “Four” does not mean “often”, nothing to argue here, I will delete that gloss it right away, well following it having RFV-sense tag since 1 June 2019‎, anyway. If somebody goes over to adding senses “many” to English numbers like “twenty” or “several” to “six” based on poetical expressions or contexts where the exact value is not relevant we would declare him insane. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had an entry 77 times defined as “An unlimited number”, but the entry has been deleted, together with the history record revealing its insane creator. --Lambiam 12:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was an IP from Quincy College. --Lambiam 12:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin odeō, odīre; podeō

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Claimed to be an alternative form of odiō; conjugated like eō. Is it real? Benwing2 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also podeō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2 I don't remember seeing anything like that the last time I researched the various forms of the former verb, or ever. The closest thing to other one seems to be this medieval macaronic form (also see podibat in the end of the article). Brutal Russian (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brutal Russian Thanks. I will delete odeō. As for podeō, this is supposed to be a variant of pudeō rather than possum. BTW when you say "medieval macaronic form" are you referring to spellings like "aucturetate" (like in the podibat article you cited) for "auctoritate"? What happens if someone wants to add a spelling like this to Wiktionary? My instinct is not to include them, otherwise the categories could be overwhelmed with such variant spellings. I asked the same question earlier with regards to escaiō, a macaronic spelling of excido. For that entry, someone actually created a full paradigm escaiō, escaīre with a Classical pronunciation, which seems very bogus. Benwing2 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2 Yeah, it is indeed a different verb. Aucturetate is an actual Late Latin/Medieval spelling, this type of vowel confusion is absolutely ubiquotous in Gallia after the 4th century (basically random chance error rate) as well as elsewhere a bit later. Podibat on the other hand is precisely the same macaronic type as odiātus and escaio, a Romance form minimally adapted to Latin morphology. I did see your question, and it's more or less the same one I had asked in the above-mentioned discussion - it seems like people generally feel the same way, but can't quite decide to do something about it. In my opinion before we decide what to do with these forms, we should sort out what are actual (ante-/post-)Classical alternative forms that currently reside under Category:Latin_misspellings, as well as the one macaronic form there, and then also sort out the whole Vulgar Latin thing, which for the time being I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent exactly - seems like a general dump for anything non-standard regardless of period, style and attestation. Where would be the best place to ask what's the working definition of Vulgar Latin on this website, and why this notoriously undefinable and largely rejected term has been chosen? Brutal Russian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brutal Russian I think the best place to ask about Vulgar Latin would be the beer parlor. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brutal Russian For me “Vulgar Latin” is about style, register. It is also the same question whether a term is literary Arabic or dialectal. I as others have also spoken of “Vulgar Turkish” in reference to the diglossia of the Ottoman Empire. Many terms for one idea. This works everywhere where one writes significantly differently from how one speaks on the basis of a Dachsprache tradition.

Another question is why we have duplicates like “Vulgar Latin” Reconstruction:Latin/werra together with Medieval Latin werra. That’s a bloody joke, it’s the same word, I opt for deleting it. It’s not even that the Latin is reborrowed from Romance in this case, but even in such a case I tend to believe that the duplication should be refused. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see, your attempt to define it already highlights the problem to me, seeing as it combines references to style and register - aspects of one language -, as well as to diglossia - which is quite the opposite! Moreover, modern scholarship expressly rejects the notion of Latin diglossia, while a separate phonology and dedicated inflection templates for a certain style or register of the same language is something I've yet to see a precedent for, anywhere! To quote one of the best books to read on the topic, Social Variation and the Latin Language by J. N. Adams:

"Many have tried to give Vulgar Latin a precise meaning {...}, but it has continued to generate confusion. Lloyd (1979) identiﬁed thirteen meanings that have been assigned to the term (no doubt many others could be found: see Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2005: 25) {...} In recent decades the inadequacy of ‘Vulgar Latin’ has been increasingly felt with the advance of sociolinguistics as a discipline. Analyses of social variations across well-deﬁned social or occupational groups in modern speech communities are bound to show up traditional concepts of Vulgar Latin, however the phrase might be deﬁned, as hopelessly vague."

The word you're referring to seems to show that two different people had two different ideas about what constitutes Vulgar Latin, both of them probably likewise "hopelessly vague" :) Brutal Russian (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin ratihabeō

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Appears to exist only as a noun ratihabitiō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2 Again you forget that Latin was used after antiquity. In this case it exists in legal writing of the Modern Age. Fay Freak (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval, many instances in googelbooks. Brutal Russian (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dɑnau

Supposedly a Bavarian noun - but not defined as one. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of speech was incorrect, but entry is properly attest. Bavarian is a WT:LDL and hence a single quote is enough to attest it and there is a quote. --Apauge (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boarische Schreibweis (Bavarian Orthography) on the Bavarian Wikipedia does not show any uses of the symbol “ɑ”. It does state that there is no standard orthography and that in literary use no special symbols are used, but that “ɑ̃” is used – as one might expect for a nasalized vowel – in an orthography used in dictionaries and grammar books. (There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.) --Lambiam 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood that article. "It does state ... that in literary use no special symbols are used" is not correct. bar.WP: "Fia d Boarische Schreibweis gibd's no koa Konvenzion. Af da oan Seitn gibd's de Schreibweisn fia de Dichtung und fian Oidog .., wo nua weng oda goa koane Sondazeichn vawendd wean, af da ondan Seitn Weatabiachl, Grammatikn und Sprochatlantn, wo moasd a Lautschreibung mid Sondazeichn gnuzd wead." That's: "... On the one side there are spellings used in poetry and for every day .., which use few or none special characters, ...". (Few or none is more than no special characters.)
Even if the article would state that no special characters are used in literary use, it wouldn't matter as it's only WP and as it's obviously not correct. One example is given in dɑnau and there are many others.
As for "There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.": That's obviously not correct. Krauß' and Dümml's orthography uses it and is an orthography. It's not a standard orthography, but that doesn't matter as there is no Bavarian standard orthography and not a single Bavarian dialect, but many different subdialects.

And again: Bavarian is a WT:LDL, hence a single quote is enough (WT:CFI, WT:LDL), hence both terms (dɑnau & Aɑ(n)schei(n)) are properly attested. --Agaupe (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

𒄿𒄿

This is the one to be deleted; it is mostly attested as 𒄿𒋾 i-ti, however it can theoretically be written 𒄿𒄿𒋾 i-i-ti, perhaps this was the original intention of this entry. It is often common practice in Luwian to write out all long vowels with additional signs, such as a-an-ta for ānta meaning to go into, doubled even in the front of words as is seen here. -Profes.I. (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

estancele

Not in Le Trésor, which only has estencele as ancestor of French étincelle. Godefroy has estancele, but with a completely different sense. --Lambiam 01:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

殿

Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 臀 (tún, “buttocks”). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese 中殿筋 is a synonym of 中臀筋. I don’t know if a similar equivalence can be found in Chinese, although I see Google hits for 殿中肌 (e.g. here, where it appears to refer to the gluteus medius). --Lambiam 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

កូនក្អុក

Request for verification: "tadpole". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found ក្អុក (kʼok) that already means tadpole (and also a kind of fish). Does it need to prepend កូន (koun)? If not, the entry should be renamed to ក្អុក. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

آب‌راه

Persian: Tagged by Emascandam (talk • contribs) --Mélange a trois (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added source. --{{victar|talk}} 04:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there three quotations for this? Persian is a WDL. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

厼

Rfv-sense

厼 (eumhun 금) It is the borrowed notation(借字表記 / 차자표기), which was veryfied in some references. (1984, P. Nam, “차자표기법 연구”(借字表記法硏究), Dankook University Publish, published 1984.)Reference

是去有良厼。이거이신아금。 attested in the Jeonyul Tongbo (典律通補 / 전율통보), 1786. Reference

--Meoru00 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

兀

Rfv-sense "A meaningless participle." What on earth is this supposed to mean? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge: I think the IP meant to write "a meaningless particle", but it probably isn't right. It's more like a prefix used in pronouns for emphasis, e.g. 兀那, 兀誰. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ハ行転呼

baidefeis

Real Spanish? Yes. Have I seen it before? Yes. Have I considered adding this term to WT before? Yes. Is it jocular? Yes. Is the etymology interesting? Yes, it's a Spanishized pseudo-English calque of por la cara. Does it appear in durably archived media? Not at first glance, but I'm sure with a bit of digging it might be. --Vealhurl (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is used here as the title of a news category; I am not certain that enredando.info counts as permanently recorded media. A book use: [89]. Another one: [90], but there it seems used as part of a proper noun (Baidefeis card), which may not count. --Lambiam 05:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old French plaigne and descendants

This is claimed to mean "plain" (flat expanse of land), which is misspelled "plane" in the entry. It appears the correct word is either plain or plaine. This is *maybe* an Anglo-Norman word; http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ has "plaingne" in this meaning among many other variants, which is similar to "plaigne". The form "plaigne" is also given in this dictionary as the first feminine form of "plein" "full". The English descendants "plain" and "plane" are claimed for this word, which doesn't agree with the etymologies listed for those words. BTW how would the gn sneak into this word? Maybe a non-attested VL *plānea? But then how does the feminine of "plein" end up as "plaigne"? @Fay Freak, Lambiam, any ideas? Benwing2 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term occurs in the Vulgate Lancelot, in some mss. twice (see the footnote on p.329). I have no theory on the origin of the intrusive g, but note that Romansch plagn shows that nasalization of [n] can apparently also take place without high vowel following the n. --Lambiam 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

蝨仔

蝨子 is usually called 蝨乸 in Cantonese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

三枚目

Does this word have the sense "antagonist; villain"? Such a usage is not found on Google. ᾨδή (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr ᾨδή (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ᾨδή: I based that on my local copy of the KDJ, which is the most in-depth dictionary that I'm aware of and that I have access to. That 三枚目 entry has the following definition (emphasis mine):

演劇、映画などで道化役や敵役（かたきやく）をする者。

Checking elsewhere, I see that the Sekai Dai Hyakka Jiten entry over here on Kotobank adds a little more detail:

... 滑稽な敵役を〈三枚目敵（さんまいめがたき）〉と呼ぶ。

So not just an antagonist, but specifically a comic antagonist. That said, the Zokugo Dai Jiten entry here on Weblio keeps the "comic" and "antagonist" role senses separate:

① 第（だい）三流所（りうどころ）の意から転じて、敵役（かたきやく）とか道化役者（だうけやくしや）のことをいふ。〔歌舞伎〕

...

③〔演〕敵役、又は道化役者のこと。

The "antagonist" sense might be dated or historical rather than current, I have no particular data on that. @TAKASUGI Shinji might have more insight. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: I can see the second link give its source as 隠語大辞典, wherein interestingly it even has a meaning "屋根を破る窃盗犯". It sounds like an argot or something, as means 隠語. I guess this sense must have been of very limited usage and even native Japanese people may not have ever heard of it. I suggest leaving this sense out when writing a short definition in sections like "See also". ᾨδή (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally didn’t know the “antagonist” sense. That must be obsolete and probably rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TAKASUGI Shinji:, that sense already has labels for "dated" and "uncommon". Should that be changed? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen it and it may be rather “rare” than “uncommon”. We need some citations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

poster (Dutch)

Etymology 1, "one who sets out posts, such as sentinels". I'm not sure what it means, so I reckon that makes the definition a shitpost. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Dutch word wachtpost, which according to the Dutch Wiktionary can mean “person keeping watch”. I guess post can be used in Dutch as a shortening of wachtpost. I suspect that the editor who added this was Dutch-speaking. See sense 2 of the verb posten, added by the same editor. If that sense 2 exists, poster would be the standard corresponding agent noun – which does not imply the term is in actual use in this sense. (If used, the pronunciation will not be the same as for the homographs borrowed from English.) --Lambiam 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Verbo is a Dutch speaker. There seems to be a specific sense, included by the WNT, for a trade union member who tries to deter strikebreakers. [91] [92] [93] I doubt that a more broad sense ever existed, there doesn't seem to have been any word poster in Dutch until the trade union movement coined that one. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

解放

Rfv-sense of the three Mainland proper noun historiographic senses. Are they really all used on their own, and as proper nouns? @Tooironic, Justinrleung. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: Could you, erm, provide some evidence? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ọ

Igbo third-person pronoun, but capitalized. Seems dubious. There's a fuller entry at ọ. — Eru·tuon 08:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few uses that are not sentence-initial (only in search snippets; web pages fail to display), but they are in Bible texts and seem to refer to the Judeo-Christian God. We do have He as an {{honor alt case|en|he|nocap=1}} Capitalized “ọ” may be attestable with the analogous sense in Igbo. The current definition is obviously inconsistent with the headword line. --Lambiam 09:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

adstutia

I'm not sure what's going on with this entry. In Latin, the consonant cluster dst only occurs in morphologically complex words that contain the prepositional prefix ad-. However, there is no base word stutia or stutus for a prefixed word "ad-stutia" to be built on. A prefixed word like "adstutia" would be expected to have the alternative form astutia, with elision of the d; compare astrictiō and adstrictiō. There is a Latin word astūtia, but it does not seem to contain the prefix ad-: it is from the adjective astūtus, from astus, whose etymology is a little unclear. The spelling adstutia could have arisen by analogy with words that did start with the prefix ad-, but I can't find that form actually listed in any reliable dictionary entry for astutia. The meaning is also slightly different ("adstutia" supposedly means "diplomacy", while "astūtia" is more like "cunning"). Can anyone confirm whether "adstutia" exists as anything other than a misspelling of astūtia?--Urszag (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few occurrences in Late Latin: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]. I am not sure how to place this, but it seems to arise from a false splitting. But why the effort to throw in an extra d? A pedantic way of showing off? I have not looked at the senses of these uses. --Lambiam 21:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectives

RFV for any neuter form. Instead of "masculine and neuter forms identical to feminine forms" it might be "masculine forms identical to feminine forms; neuter forms not attested". --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly attested uses of some such adjectives with neuter nouns in some case/number combinations, although it's not commonly seen. I discussed this type of adjective on Benwing's talk page, where Benwing brought up the application of the adjective to the neuter noun vinum (Benwing gave the form vīnum aliēnigena, while Lewis & Short gives a quote for the same phrase in the ablative: "“vino alienigenā utere,” Gell. 2, 24"). Similarly, the L&S entry for indigena gives a citation for its use with the form vinum. I said on the other page that I don't know of any examples of a first-declension form being used for a neuter in the plural, and I am quite suspicious of the neuter plural nominative/accusative forms in "-ae" that we currently display. Many such adjectives seem to have had collateral second-declension forms.--Urszag (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also vinus m - might that occur in "vino alienigenā"? --Marontyan (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Pliny citation that I mentioned in my last post, and it looks like it is actually ablative as well: "de indigena vino". So you're correct that these forms are not distinctively neuter as opposed to masculine, although I don't believe either of these authors ever uses the masculine nominative form "vinus". I will look for examples of the nominative singular in Classical sources (it's fairly easy to find a few post-Classical examples just by Googling the phrases mentioned above).--Urszag (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A much-mentioned example seems to be the use of ruricola to modify aratrum, in Ovid, but in this case as well the actual attested form doesn't seem to be nominative or accusative: the verse is given as "Tempore ruricolae patiens fit taurus aratri", with the genitive singular.--Urszag (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another update. The post-classical examples that I mentioned seem to mostly be dictionaries, which are not so great I think as examples of usage. But in any case, here is one concrete example of "indigena" used with an unambiguously neuter noun: "Landwein: vinum indigena, vinum in ipsa terra natum: vinum vernaculum", page 1402 in Ausführliches und möglichst vollständiges deutsch-lateinisches Lexicon oder Worterbuch zur Übung in der lateinischen Sprache, by Immanuel Johann Gerhard Scheller, 1789. Because of the pedagogical tradition of classifying such adjectives as common gender, there seems to be a fairly firmly established idea in taxonomic circles that forms ending in -cola can be used in the nominative as neuter adjectives (these two blog posts reference that idea: https://diaphanus.livejournal.com/1658229.html, https://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/120246141998/atmidolum) so I'd imagine taxonomic examples can be found, but that runs into the issue that you've talked about in your other RFVs.--Urszag (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these even really adjectives, and not simply attributive nouns? --Lvovmauro (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "attributive" the term you're looking for, or did you mean to say "appositive" instead? Adjectives and appositive nouns are formally distinguished in Latin in certain contexts by the fact that appositive nouns could be of a different gender from the head noun; e.g. "flumen Tiberim". But aside from that, adjectives and appositive nouns tend to behave similarly. So despite the existence of this distinction, there were some doubtful or variable cases. Madvig, transl. Woods 1870 mentions the case of adjectival neuter plural forms victricia and ultricia derived from originally appositive victor/victrix and ultor/ultrix. It seems that compilers of other Latin dictionaries have generally been of the opinion that the use of indigena and alienigena in the quotations above was adjectival.--Urszag (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

melas

Entry is wrong (WT:ELE: "Derived terms [...] in the same language [...]")
The note seems to be nonsense like the one once in ruderalis (diff) as it doesn't seem to apply to Latin, but to translingual nonsense.
The Late Latin is a mentioning (of a Greek term although in transliteration) and no usage

--Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously used in taxonomic names, four of which appear as derived terms. DCDuring (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have had repeated inconclusive discussions about whether such terms should appear under Translingual or Latin L2 headers. Some of them have been used in scientific Latin running text, but attestation is difficult. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Latin term, it needs Latin usages. If not used in Latin, it isn't Latin, see WT:CFI, Talk:albifrons. --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dendrobatidis

The term looks like a noun in the genitive and not like an adjective, and the note hints that this term doesn't exist in Latin. --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the term acrobates exists in Latin, except in Neo-Latin as Acrobates, a genus name, like Dendrobates. It is anybody’s guess how acrobates would have been declined, had the Ancient Romans known the word and not declined to decline it, but acrobatidis is most unlikely, as there is no d in the stem; analogously, dendrobatidis does not look like a Latin case form of dendrobates. The Ancient Greek genitive of the etymon of acrobat was ἀκροβάτου (akrobátou), but Latin loans from Greek did not in general copy the Greek declension paradigm (e.g. Ancient Greek ἀθλητής (athlētḗs) — ἀθλητοῦ (athlētoû) was borrowed as āthlēta — āthlētae). To me “Dendrobatidis” sounds like a Modern Greek family name, like Apostolidis or Tsakalidis. --Lambiam 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The -id- in dendrobatidis is presumably related to the Greek patronymic suffix that is the source of the taxonomic termination -idae. However, I don't know why or how the -is got there. If if is a genitive singular form, as Marontyan speculated, it would be consistent with a third-declension d-stem dendrobatis, but the ending -is -idis (Greek -ις -ιδος) seems to be used specifically for feminine patronymics.--Urszag (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the authors uploaded the article where the name Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis was first used to academia.edu ("Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians"), but it doesn't have any helpful explanation of the formation. It simply says that dendrobatidis is "from 'Dendrobates'".--Urszag (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The genitive of the name of a host organism is commonly used for the specific epithet for a small organism that lives on or in the host for at least some part of its life cycle. I guess that the 'idis' ending might be based of treating the '-bates' ending as if it were '-batis': βατίς ("skate"), βατίδος. In any event, mistake or not, we would need just one more taxonomic name to pass RfV. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a third species with the epithet. Result, one fungus species, two chromists. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a Latin term it does not need 3 species names, but 1 Latin usage, see WT:CFI, Talk:albifrons. --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

virginibus puerisque

As Citations:virginibus puerisque is not Latin but English. --Marontyan (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the language issue, I think the definition is wrong. In the citation there and others I can find, it seems to be used in the literal sense of "to/for girls and boys". It seems more like code-switching than an English phrase, albeit a form of code-switching conventionalized among English speakers? --Lvovmauro (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Latin entry, it's clearly SOP, so if it's to be kept at all, it can only be kept as an English entry. I think "suitable for children" would be a good definition, but we do need more cites than just the one that's there. Some people don't like it when foreign terms are italicized as that indicates that the term hasn't really been assimilated into English yet. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Prussian lemmas

For everything spelled with a macron (e.g. Dēiwas/Dēiws, piēncts) as it looks like reconstruction, neo-Old Prussian. See also: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Trothmuse (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about our Old Prussian coverage as well, but I'm not sure anyone active here knows enough about the language and its corpus to dare to speak up about it or to be able to answer this rfv satisfactorily. I really am not sure what is to be done; if I had the leisure time right now to research this all on my own I would, but I don't. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are. I know that Old Prussian has long vowels, furthermore the Elbing vocabulary, the one online, provides, I think, a reconstruction of words phonetically. The examples above are strange given the other Baltic languages don't have a ē in Lithuanian diẽvas and Latvian dìevs. From what I know, Old Prussian had no phonological development that caused stressed vowels to lengthen, only the opposite, that unstressed long vowels were reduced to simple vowels. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFV for the following:

azzaran: EGPV "See Assaran", see assaran
ballo: EGPV "Stirne Batto"
dags: see EGPV in dagis
irma: EGPV "Arm Irmo", TLP "irmo, Arm, Oberarm", see irmo
kams: EGPV "Bene Bitte" & "Hu͡mele Camus", TLP "camus, Hummel, [..] Voc. 788."
naguttis: EGPV "Nagel Nagutis", TLP "nagutis, Nagel am Finger"
pazzuls: EGPV "Nacke Passoles", TLP "pa-ssoles, (pl.?), Nacken"
salts: "(manuscript forms:) salta" sounds like "salts" is a non-manuscript form, i.e. a reconstruction. TLP "salta, kalt", WBdSG "kalt Salta"
sirablas: EGPV "Silber Siraplis" - only attested as acc. sirablan, cp. TLP?
skals: EGPV "Kinne Scalus", TLP "scalus, Kinn"
sunnis: EGPV "Hunt Sunis", TLP "sunis, Hund", WBdSG "Hundt Songos"
swerreps: EPGV "Keynhe͡gest Sweriapis", TLP "sweriapis (keynhengest) Voc. 431. ist nunmehr wohl hinreichend klar gelegt als Zuchthengst, Beschäler; es ist das Masc., welches den Femininis poln. [..], böhm. swerzepice, Stute, entspricht; [...] niederrhein. kîen, beschälen [...]"
August, Daggis, Rags: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.

EGPV = Elbing German-Prussian Vocabulary (by G. H. F. Nesselmann, online with reconstructions); TLP = Thesaurus linguae prussicae (etc.) by G. H. F. Nesselmann; WBdSG = Wörterbuch des Simon Grunau.
BTW RFC for undan and unds, see the comment in unds and in the source of wundan. TLP "wundan, Wasser, Voc. 59., wunda, Gr., vgl. und-s" and "und-s, nom., undan, acc. undas, gen. sg., undans, acc. pl., Wasser; Ench. [..]; wundan, Voc., wunda, Gr. s. dd." --Trothmuse (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (“town”) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (“town”), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (“village”) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (“village”).

If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.

I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (“water”) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (“water”).

One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).

Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [99] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.

Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.

Also RFV for the following terms with macron:

Dēiwas/Dēiws & dēiwas/dēiws
wisasīdis: EGPV "Dinstag Wissaseydis", TLP "wissa-seydis, Dienstag, Voc. 19"
Janwārs, Februārs, Mārts: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.

--Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.

Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.

If that’s the case then they should be deleted.

I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

vēnus

According to dictionaries it isn't attested:

L&S: "vēnus, ūs, m., or vēnum (vaen-), i, n. (occurring only in the forms venui, veno, and venum) [...]"
Georges: "vēnus, ūs u. ī, m. [...] nur im Dat. u. Acc. vorkommend [...]"

Hence it's *vēnus, or vēnum (defective). --Marontyan (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Latin Dictionary says it's documented only in the accusative and dative, but venus is still the lemma form used in that source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some Latin adjectives

All created by the same user.
Just la.WP/WT protologisms (with changed capitalisation)? --Marontyan (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

iudaeogermanicus

I've moved the content to iudaeo-germanicus, which seems to be attested. This spelling and all its inflected forms will have to be deleted later (if not cited) by someone with more time to do that than I have at the moment. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

iudaeohispanicus

iudaeoromanicus

meglenoromanicus

foroiulicus

Contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin? DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any of these at google books searching for several (not all) inflected forms. --Marontyan (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

గోపి

Telugu: Abbreviation. Apparently means "cat on the wall". Why would anyone abbreviate that???? --Vealhurl (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Rajasekhar1961... --Lambiam 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

short form of గోడమీద పిల్లి (gōḍamīda pilli) (Cat on the wall). It is similar to మి.మీ. (mi.mī.) for మిల్లీ మీటరు. (millī mīṭaru.). If it is not clear, can we put a fullstop between the letters.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajasekhar1961 Yeah, but why would you abbreviate such an obviously SOP phrase? A google search brings up what looks like a movie/show, along with actual cats on walls. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an idiomatic expression expressing uncertainty about how a situation will develop. (Self [te-0] and Google translate [te-1] at best, so this interpretation may not be on the nose.) It is pointless to define it by giving its literal translation, which does not carry that sense in English. --Lambiam 11:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Telugu dictionary explains it as “a proverbial expression for sitting on the fence”. It is not clear to me whether the idiom applies to a person (a fence sitter), or to an unresolved issue that can go either way, or can apply to either. --Lambiam 12:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

مديونير

--95.186.143.168 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([100], [101]) as well as elsewhere ([102], [103] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([104], [105]). --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

乾貨

Rfv-sense: "corpse". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sense is found in Guoyu Cidian. It might be hard to find actual uses. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

偏僻

Rfv-sense: "peculiar; eccentric". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: It's probably the same definition as "冷僻，不常見" in Hanyu Da Cidian or "少有的、特異的" in Guoyu Cidian. What do you think? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. "Eccentric" is usually used to describe a person, while 偏僻 primarily describes places. Perhaps this sense is supposed to mean 古怪 or 怪異, but I see no such a sense in the various CC/CE dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

回頭

Rfv-sense: "to retrogress". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

分庭

Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

嚴謹

Rfv-sense: "compact; well-knit; tight". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

妙處

Rfv-sense: "ideal place; suitable location". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

責備

Rfv-sense: "(literary) to punish". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: Guoyu Cidian defines it as "責罰", but I think this should be combined with "to blame; to criticize; to reproach". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

節制

Rfv-sense: "to command (an army)". Tagged but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

咖啡

Vietnamese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

學部

Rfv-sense: "school club". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

官員

Rfv-sense: "administrator". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

就此

Rfv-sense: "because of this". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

後來

Rfv-sense: "less advanced people". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

新居

Rfv-sense: "current residence". Tagged by @Dine2016 but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

新鮮

Rfv-sense: "odd; strange". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

斷頭

Rfv-sense: "to behead; to decapitate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

早期

Rfv-sense: "earlier; previously". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

曲說

Rfv-sense: "(literary) to convince; to argue one's case". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

機運

Rfv-sense: "fate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

流暢

Rfv-sense: "fast-selling". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

熄火

Rfv-sense: "flameout, misfire, cutoff". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mar vin kaiser, who added this sense. It seems out of place because it seems to be a noun sense placed under a "Verb" heading. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: Just saw this now. I actually don't remember where I got it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPC

The quote is in English, put in a French section --Vealhurl (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two French sources, but the term is spelled “p.p.c.” or “P.P.C.”: [106], [107]. --Lambiam 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

zepto-ohm

zeptoampère

zeptosteradiaal

zetta-ampère

zettaseconde

yoctoampère

yocto-ohm

yoctosteradiaal

yotta-ampère

yottaohm

yottaseconde

Dutch, these units appear to be very rare if not non-existent. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t that hold even more strongly for the corresponding yoctos and yottas? --Lambiam 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, though yoctoseconde is in fact attested, by a hair's breadth. I have added those that seem unattested to me. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/erþaburgz

I have no problem with the word or whenever it existed or not. My issue is in regards to whenever the word should be reconstructed as Proto-Germanic *erþaburgz (“earthen mound, earthwork”) or *erþōburgz. This example is one of many PGmc where the first noun of the reconstructed compound ends with "ō" but the reconstructed compound has medial "a". I would normally check the descendent to see if I can deduce more information, however, most have no medial compound vowel e.g. Old English eorþburh, Old High German erdburg, Old Norse jarðborh. So now, I'm left wondering what form it should be. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The default medial vowel in pre-Germanic had become -o- for the thematic classes, as in Celtic and Latin. PGmc medial*-ō- would presumably have left some trace in OHG. Burgundaz (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

octavius, octarius

The references are English and possible the language got confused (compare Talk:bibliothecologia). --Bolaguun (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

zapalotl

This word is not found in either of the cited dictionaries. There is a word tzapalotl in Morelos Nahuatl, but that's spelled differently. Alexis Wimmer's Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl classique has an entry for zapalotl citing Clavigero's Historia antigua de Megico, but as far as I can see it only includes the Spanish loan zapalote, and not the Nahuatl word. (Plus I'm not sure if the Nahuatl of Clavigero's time would be considered Classical.) --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/təmnēmi

This doesn't fit the Greek form, which reflects *temnō. —Rua (mew) 09:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. According to Beekes 2010 in the entry for τέμνω, "The nasal present τάμνω << PGr. *tamnēmi < PIE *tm-neh₁-mi is original, as is the root aorist 3sg. *etemet < *h₁e-temh₁-t, which was replaced by a thematic aorist ἔτεμον. This situation was levelled in various ways in the dialects: Att. innovated with the present τέμνω, while epic Ion. and Dor. secondarily created the aorist ἔταμον." Beekes states at the beginning of the entry that the form τάμνω is attested in Epic Ionic as well as Doric. This τάμνω appears to be simply a thematicized version of the original athematic nasal present PIE *tm-neh₁-mi attested in several IE languages. --Demolition man (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's several aspects to look at then.

Athematic vs thematic inflection.
The appearance of the ē.
e or a in the root.

Based on the forms you've given here, all forms of Greek seem to agree on the first two points: thematic inflection with no ē. They only differ with respect to the third point. I think Beekes is therefore correct on the distribution of e versus a. On the other hand, I think it goes too far to reconstruct Proto-Hellenic with athematic inflection and ē. After all, we know that PIE started off in one situation and Greek ended up in another, but we can't tell at what point one form got replaced with the other in the history of Hellenic. It could be entirely possible that an intermediate stage had thematic inflection but kept the ē, i.e. *təmnēō. In cases like this, I believe the reconstruction should be based on the later point in time (which is actually attested) rather than the earlier point (which is reconstructed). So I think that we should reconstruct *təmnō (aorist *(e)temon) for Proto-Hellenic, with points 1 and 2 agreeing with their later attested forms rather than their earlier PIE reconstructed forms. —Rua (mew) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologisms

In actual Classical texts, the names for these countries are simply loaned from Spanish: Francia, Inglatera and Alemania. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [108], Mexico City.

That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in Proto-Indo-European, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).

(That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marrovi Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New reference.

Commenting to cross-link a related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/December#Nahuatl_(nah):_convert_etymology-only_or_delete?. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reality of Nahautl seems to be that the 1.4 million speakers of Nahuan languages, as divergent as they might be, do try to work online and in literature as speakers of Nahuatl, not many different dialects (wisely in my opinion); see the Nahuatl Wikipedia for example. I think we should recognize this, and not act as if writing in a common lect of a group of tiny related languages is the same as writing in long-extinct languages like Gothic or PIE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the editors of the Nahuatl Wikipedia do not seem to be native speakers and I'm not sure if their writing would even be intelligible to native speakers. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

溥

Rfv-sense "faeces; poo", added by an IP. — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fluent in Chinese but there's no way that character means poo, and the person who added that probably found it funny because of the similar pronunciation, but it's not appropriate for Wiktionary. Hkbusfan (talk)

阿拉巴麻

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 03:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero hits in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 1,400 for アラバマ). Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

阿里蘇那

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 03:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero hits in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 7,000 for アリゾナ). Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

伊倫諾爾

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero hits in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 2,600 for イリノイ). Cnilep (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

倭塔瓦

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 1,200 for オタワ). Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

干賽斯

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 1,700 for カンザス). Cnilep (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

英釐安納

Nothing in Google Books or Google for Japanese (all historical Chinese documents). —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Tokyo Shimbun archives, either (versus more than 2,500 for インディアナ). Cnilep (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zwaalde

Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgengave? This exists according to gtb.inl.nl, but I can't find 3 attestations for this, and unfortunately we still don't have a good policy for terms found in dialect dictionaries. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectal usage is always more tricky. I do think we can give it the benefit of the doubt seen its many dictionary entries and as there was even a study in the 1950s on its use (vs "broodschieter" and "openpaal"): [109] Morgengave (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zwart spechtje

Dutch. Nothing on BGC, only smoke and mirrors on regular Google. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the bird "zwarte specht"? As that bird is easily attestable: [110]. Regular diminutives are implied to exist; diminutives don't need to be attested individually. Morgengave (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant to RFV only the diminutive. It is a matter of debate whether or to what extent there should be entries for unattested forms. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acht

"(obsolete, found in toponyms) field". Tagged by User:Bolaguun, but not listed. — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trekken

Dutch, RFV-sense of "to jerk off, masturbate", which could be either relatively rare, an error or vandalism. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a use here and perhaps here, so this is not simply an error or vandalism. This is not easy searching. However, there are many occurrences on the web (like here), so it may be less rare than a book search suggests. Also, apparently the agent noun trekker can be used as an invective, and I guess it is a synonym of rukker. --Lambiam 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another use. --Lambiam 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a variant of aftrekken. Compare reddit.com/r/cirkeltrek vs. reddit.com/r/circlejerk, too. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, how common is this usage? Has it entered slang or are these ad hoc formations or maybe misconstructions from aftrekken? I think three durable cites are a reasonable minimum threshold. Searching for google books:"trekken" masturberen or google books:"trekken" rukken doesn't seem promising for finding citations. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAYU

Welsh internet slang. Good luck finding durable cites. --Vealhurl (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

媽打

It seems to be restricted to certain characters on TV. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is appears to be used as a nickname (of Shelley Lee and of Tang Pik-wan), so if kept, it should be re-categorized as a proper noun. --Lambiam 19:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese: 港 Compounds

Is 港澳 really a valid Japanese kanji phrase? I don't really know Japanese, but not every Chinese word should be a Japanese word. Hkbusfan (talk)

"Should" is an interesting word. :) FWIW, the term appears much more common in Japanese as part of larger compounds, but google:"港澳は" shows enough valid, albeit rare, use as a standalone to meet our WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

鼓動

Rfv-sense: "beating; pounding". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

蒟蒻

Rfv-sense: "(originally) betel and bulrush". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

階段

Rfv-sense: "level". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in Japanese at least, the reversed term 段階 (dankai) means level. Any chance that's relevant? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

平臺階段 level terrace — This unsigned comment was added by 76.102.251.32 (talk).

靈巧

Rfv-sense: "cute; lovable". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

人心

Rfv-sense: "popularity". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mantel (Dutch)

RFV-sense of "surface (literal), lack of substance (figurative)". The literal sense is likely attestable in the meaning "the Earth's mantle", otherwise I'm not so sure. If it isn't attested with different meanings, a definition "mantle, Earth's mantle" may be a better option. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch Wiktionary gives the sense “hull of a device”, as well as “a mollusc in the order Ostreida” without being more specific. (This source may be helpful.) The Dutch Wikipedia gives, furthermore, the senses “hull of an electric cable” and Mantle (mollusc) – not an animal but an anatomical structure, a muscular body wall. So “hull” would seem a better description than “surface”. I find no examples of a figurative sense “lack of substance”. There is a figurative use in the idiom “mantel der liefde”, which seems to be used rather differently (suggesting forgiveness) than English “cloak of love” (suggesting treacherous deceit). I think I see figurative uses here and here, where too the mantel is a deceitful cloak. This may be the same figurative sense as dekmantel. Perhaps the contested figurative sense is a very poor worded attempt to define the sense “guise, facade”. If the sense “lack of substance (figurative)” can somehow be attested, it should definitely get a line of its own, since it is completely different from “surface/hull (literal)”. --Lambiam 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say hull and surface are synonyms; that a sense hull exists should be clear, but I don't really know what the appropriate level of splitting vs. lumping would be for that sense. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p

Rfv-sense: Latin: abbreviation of Publius. In lowercase. Good luck finding cites. --Vealhurl (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare: WT:RFVN#k,_m,_q.

Also I'd like to add the sense "Abbreviation of populus" as it should rather be p. or P. or P (as in SPQR) --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pascha

For "pascha n (.., genitive paschae ..); first declension ..", which is not in Gaffiot or Lewis & Short. --B-Fahrer (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of paschae, pascham and pascharum. I didn’t immediately see uses that verify that the noun is also neuter in this declensional paradigm. BTW, I doubt that Aramaic פסחא (paskha) is “from” Hebrew פסח (pésakh); I think the two terms are merely cognates. --Lambiam 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a citation to Citations:pascha that shows it being used as a neuter first-declension noun (nominative "Pascha annotinum" alongside ablative "de Pascha annotino"; if it were masculine, these would be "Pascha annotinus" and "de Pascha annotino"; if it were feminine, they would be "Pascha annotina" and "de Pascha annotina"; and if it were third declension neuter, these would be "Pascha annotinum" and "de Paschate annotino"). For a few other examples, view the answers to this Latin Stack Exchange post, which I made in May: Was “Pascha” ever used as a neuter first-declension noun?. The question post there also cites a few sources that describe this word as being declined in some sources as a first-declension neuter with a genitive singular in -ae.--Urszag (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The citation at Citations:pascha could also have an indeclinable neuter and not a neuter 1st declension noun. Some of the examples at stackexchange are better (thank you for the link) - but they are Medieval Latin and hence there should be a note in the WT entry, or a much older citation. --B-Fahrer (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B-Fahrer, Lambiam, Urszag: So is there any evidence of 3rd-decl use? And if anyone wants to add a usage note to the entry, that would be much appreciated. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the forms built on the stem paschat-/Paschat- unambiguously belong to the third declension. The things that are difficult to find evidence for are the gender of the first-declension genitive singular form "Paschae" and the declension category of the neuter singular nominative/accusative form "Pascha". The ablative singular form "Pascha" is clearly not a third-declension form. B-Fahrer suggests it could be an indeclinable form; that is technically possible, but a text that uses "pascha" as an indeclinable neuter would be expected I think to lack genitive "paschae" or to contain genitive "pascha" (which is as far as I know unattested, although I haven't tried to check for its existence yet). So I think "Pascha" in the ablative singular with neuter agreement is pretty strong evidence for the first-declension neuter paradigm. With regards to usage notes and dating, I don't know if I agree that the paucity of early examples is especially notable with regard to the first-declension neuter paradigm: as far as I can tell, the word wasn't very frequent in any of its forms until the rise of Christianity, so I'm not sure whether the feminine first-declension and neuter third-declension forms can be established as any older. The only hits for "Pasch" that I find in the PHI Latin Texts corpus are from Zeno of Verona's Tractatus (Zeno Veronensis Tractatus, ed. B. Löfstedt, 1971) . Zeno apparently lived in the fourth century CE. The sermons themselves seem to only contain the form "pascha"; there is evidence from adjective agreement that it is neuter (e.g. "legitimum pascha"). The first-declension genitive singular form "paschae" shows up in this document in sermon titles and in the table of contents—but I don't know what date those were written.--Urszag (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ἅρπα

Any texts in which this word, as opposed to ἅρπη (hárpē), appears? I didn't see a Doric or Aeolic form mentioned in any of the dictionary entries linked from ἅρπη (hárpē). — Eru·tuon 03:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Χαῖρε, hello, nice to (virtually) meet you...

With regard to recent edits on ἅρπα I wasn't sure where to post this, I was just responding specifically vis-à-vis the Doric Greek morphology of ἅρπα but ran long touching on the broader subject of Greek dialects and their inclusion on Wiktionary, so I'll post this full comment on your talk page too...

Personally I am bewildered that a simple 1st declension noun like Doric ἅρπα for Attic ἅρπη would be controversial...? This is pretty basic Ancient Greek dialectal morphology variance. Doric (and Aeolic) retain original ᾱ which Attic changed to η in many cases (there are exceptions after certain letters ε, ι, ρ; whereas Ionic nearly always changes old ᾱ to η). 1st declension singular -ᾱ, -ᾱς, -ᾳ, ᾱν. In the plural the forms are the same as Attic except in the genitive plural Doric -ᾱων typically contracts to -ᾶν. Unlike some other dialectal variances, on an academic level Doric 1st declension in -ᾱ, -ᾱς for Attic -η, -ης is a fairly well-established consistent paradigm, a minor lengthening of one vowel...

....and Western/Central Greek dialects (Doric-Aeolic) preserved ᾱ which was the original Ancient Greek form; Attic-Ionic lengthening ᾱ to η was a later dialectal novelty unique to the Eastern Greek dialects (Attic-Ionic). Attic is in fact the variant form here from the original authentic archaic Greek form which Aeolic and Doric much more faithfully preserved...to this day Tsakonian, descended from Doric, spoken in the Peloponnese (albeit sadly endangered) preserves ancient α where later Attic-derived Greek substituted η.

And in the ancient world, Doric and Aeolic Greek is what they spoke in Sparta and all of Laconia, in Thebes and all of Boeotia, in Epirus, in Achaea and Thessaly, Corinth and Olympia, on the islands of Lesbos and of Crete (also a bastion of preservation for the most authentic original Ancient Greek, being the birthplace of Greek civilization going back to the Mycenaean Greeks and Minoan Greeks), and also in much of Magna Græcia (Italy and Sicily), including Syracusæ in Sicily, the home of Archimedes, and by the Classical period the greatest and most significant rival city of Athens in the Hellenic world, by some sources Syracusæ was even larger and more significant than Athens. (And of course if you know your history, Athens deciding to launch an infamous "Sicilian Expedition" to attack Doric Syracusæ during the Peloponnesian War would prove a catastrophic ruinous mistake for the Athenians).

This seems to touch on the other general problem raised by recent edit reverts, which is bias in Wiktionary's coverage of Ancient Greek hitherto, bias that should be removed. A 21st century electronic 'Wiktionary' should not perpetuate biases of 19th century-20th century elite French and Englishmen who based on historical judgments idolized all things Athens, put up on an Ionic pedestal (the other 2 Greek column orders being Doric and Corinthian, both Dorian speakers!) while demonizing and denigrating Sparta and all of the Doric and Aeolic Greek worlds, in fact all of Ancient Greek linguistic history except for c. 5th century BC Athens. Biased scholars many centuries later decided that Attic was superior and real Greek while other dialects mere imitators, Archimedes in Syracusæ did not speak Ancient Greek of the Doric dialect, rather he spoke an inferior "Doric forms" of REAL Greek which is only Attic.

Other than such historical bias, there is no reason why distinct words and forms of Ancient Greek in Doric or Aeolic should just link to the Attic form as REAL Ancient Greek. Attic has more unique local noveltiies diverging from standard Ancient Greek than Doric/Aeolic. In their time Doric and Aeolic Greek were of equal if not greater significance, and spoken by far more people than the novel local dialect of Athens, which again only became looked at as the "model"

Doric Greek is different from Attic Greek, different enough that Doric/Aeolic forms deserve their own entry (at least a West Doric/Aeolic separate from Attic/Ionic). Different but an equally valid form of Ancient Greek in its own right and merits inclusion of Doric/Aeolic forms that stand on their own, not just (mis)represented as inferior variant forms of Attic. The language is called "Ancient Greek", NOT "Attic Greek". Doric/Aeolic Greek words and forms should be added/provided whenever possible-and as their own entries, not links to Attic, 'tis biased historical revisionism to imply Doric and Aeolic Greek are just variant forms of REAL (Attic) Greek, when in fact the dialects developed independently and were of equal standing and signifcance in the time when they were actually spoken and used as living languages (and Doric was actually closer to the original, Attic was the odd local provincial dialect that diverged most from Proto-Hellenic). As a reference source for all languages including ancient languages no longer spoken (some of which far more speculative like e.g. Phoenician/Punic), Wiktionary (and Wiktionarians) should seek to provide Doric Greek entries no less so than Attic entries. The biases of the recent past against any form of Greek except 5th century BC Athens dialect should be left on the ash heap of history. Rather, for a fair, unbiased and thorough modern reference source on Ancient Greek, the dialects should be treated equally as their own forms of Ancient Greek language with their own unique morphology.

Reducing Doric/Aeolic Greek words to mere dialectal variants of Athens just linking to the Attic variant is akin to having Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Occitan, even Portuguese, all just have links to the (Castilian) Spanish entry e.g. Catalan joventut entry should say just "Catalan form of juventud" with a link to the Castilian Spanish juventud entry. After all, like Attic among Greek dialects, Castilian Spanish is the clear historical winner of the Ibero-Romance languages, the other Ibero-Romance languages are historical losers, just inferior imitation dialect forms of Spanish language not worth recordng and preserviing in their own right, like Doric and Aeolic are just inferior imitation dialects of Attic REAL Greek...

Respectfully, I would suggest perhaps re-examining your potential ingrained Athenocentric biases that have plagued Greek classrooms and textbooks and lexicons for the past few centuries which conflate Attic Greek with Ancient Greek, and which ignore or disparage other dialects as irrelevant inferior imitations of Attic at best, missing the forest through the trees; try to zoom out and get a new bigger picture perspective conscious of these insidious deeply ingrained...some of us have actually studied and are actually interested in researching and preserving Doric and Aeolic Greek for their own sake as equally valid and historically and linguistically significant forms of Ancient Greek, not as mere trivial inferior variant subdialects of Attic. Someone who wants to research Doric Greek forms should not have to click through every entry to go see the Attic variant as the "real" form. Attic is the spin-off from the original, not Doric! And at the very least Doric and Aeolic Greek entries deserve to exist! Especially such simple forms conforming to basic paradigms of what we know about the standard morphology and usage of Doric and Aeolic Greek dialects. Wiktionary cannot claim to have comprehensive coverage of Ancient Greek as a reference source if it neglects the other equally significant, equally legitimate, equally valid, equally deserving divergent dialects. Wiktionarians should seek to add Doric Greek entries just like they add Catalan and Galician or Asturian despite being varians of far more well-known and widely used Castilian Spanish which like Attic Greek just happened to win the historical winners-and-losers lottery...

And this is the case with Doric-Aeolic ἅρπα, ἅρπᾱς, an equally valid independent Western Greek form deserving of its own entry distinct from the Eastern Greek Attic-Ionic variant ἅρπη, ἅρπης...across many other languages there are many far more redundant forms of words in closely related languages (often forms identical or nearly identical, more closely related than the rainbow of diverse Western Ancient Greek and Eastern Ancient Greek dialects) that may not be so commonlyused much but are considered worthwhile to preserve as a comprehensive linguistic reference source database.

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D2%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D13 Smyth grammar 2.13.13 FIRST DECLENSION (STEMS IN α_）

[*] 214. The dialects show various forms.

[*] 214 D. 1. For η, Doric and Aeolic have original α_; thus, νί_κα_, ϝί_κα_ς, ϝί_κᾳ, νί_κα_ν; πολί_τα_ς, κριτά_ς, Ἀτρείδα_ς.

2. Ionic has η for the α_ of Attic even after ε, ι, and ρ; thus, γενεή, οἰκίη, ἀγορή, μοίρης, μοίρῃ (nom. μοῖρα^), νεηνίης. Thus, ἀγορή, -ῆς, -ῇ, -ήν; νεηνίης, -ου, -ῃ, -ην. But Hom. has θεά_ goddess, Ἑρμεία_ς Hermes.

3. The dialects admit -α^ in the nom. sing. less often than does Attic. Thus, Ionic πρύμνη stern, κνί_ση savour (Att. πρύμνα, κνῖσα), Dor. τόλμα_ daring. Ionic has η for α^ in the abstracts in -είη, -οίη (ἀληθείη truth, εὐνοίη good-will). Hom. has νύμφα^ oh maiden from νύμφη.

8. Gen. plur.—(a) -ά_ων, the original form, occurs in Hom. (μουσά_ων, ἀγορά_ων). In Aeolic and Doric -ά_ων contracts to (b) -ᾶν (ἀγορᾶν). The Doric -ᾶν is found also in the choral songs of the drama (πετρᾶν rocks). (c) -έων, the Ionic form, appears in Homer, who usually makes it a single syllable by synizesis (60) as in βουλέωνν, from βουλή plan. -έων is from -ήων, Ionic for -ά_ων. (d) -ῶν in Hom. generally after vowels (κλισιῶν, from κλισίη hut).

Perseus Greek Word Study Tool:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpa&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpas&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπας noun sg fem gen doric aeolic

Greek morphological index (Ελληνική μορφολογικούς δείκτες):

Nominative: https://morphological_el.academic.ru/687234/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%82#sel=10:3,10:3 ἅρπας

   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc pl
   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem gen sg (doric aeolic)

Accusative: https://morphological_el.enacademic.com/687226/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD ἅρπαν

   ἅρπᾱν , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc sg (doric aeolic)

Inqvisitor (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not studied Doric and Aeolic in depth, but I am aware of several of the dialectal differences, including the retention of long alpha. Yes, ἅρπᾱ (hárpā) would be the likely Doric form, but I'm asking for an attestation (see WT:ATTEST) because lexica such as LSJ often mention a Doric form if it is used, but they don't for this word. We don't add hypothetical Doric forms for all Attic words. I don't know if the morphological tools that you linked to are restricted to attested forms (though I suspect not).

As for the rest of your post, I don't have the brain power to write a point-by-point response. I'll just say I'm in favor of marking dialects in Ancient Greek entries, as you did in ἅρπη (hárpē).

Putting most of the content in one entry is simply so that we do not have to synchronize two or more identical entries. (There are not a huge number of Ancient Greek editors and I suspect that many of us don't feel that synchronizing entries is a worthwhile use of our time when there are lots of lemmas and inflected forms missing.) The Attic or Koine entry is typically a good landing place for most of the content. The phrasing of the non-Attic or non-Koine entry ("Doric form of" the Attic form in this case) is perhaps misleading but is not meant to imply incorrect notions, such as that Attic is the ideal form while the others are distorted reflections (or that Attic is the parent and others developed from it). If this is not enough and you still want to drum up enthusiasm for changing editing practices for Ancient Greek, a better place to discuss it would be WT:BP. — Eru·tuon 09:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

acutisquamoso

—⁠Desac c̱oin ṯier 07:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

دور

Rfv-sense: to search —51.253.234.181 22:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here : https://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=357,ll=973,ls=5,la=1450,sg=397,ha=233,br=342,pr=58,aan=195,mgf=311,vi=150,kz=757,mr=235,mn=430,uqw=555,umr=375,ums=309,umj=258,ulq=733,uqa=136,uqq=108,bdw=h327,amr=h230,asb=h300,auh=h582,dhq=h185,mht=h303,msb=h84,tla=h49,amj=h249,ens=h164,mis=h643 Fenakhay (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

小酒

Rfv-sense: "quiet drink (of alcohol)" and "small bottle of wine". Pinging @Tooironic, who added these senses. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why rfv these senses? They are in common usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: For "quiet drink", I'm not sure what it really means. Does it mean drinking a little bit? For "small bottle of wine", do you have any evidence for its common usage? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it means just a little drink of alcohol. As opposed to the usual way in Chinese culture where everyone toasts and gets drunk. I have no evidence for either usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: If it's in common usage, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find evidence (not in dictionaries, but in the wild) to support it. From a quick Google search, I think there's some evidence for the "quiet drink/little drink of alcohol" sense, but I'm not sure about the "small bottle of wine" sense. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "wine" sense may not be attestable. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Old English andwyrdan, andwirdan "to present"

(Notifying Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine): User:Stardsen created these entries several years ago. andwyrdan definitely means "to answer", but I can find no dictionary that verifies the meaning "to present". The derivation from andweard makes total sense semantically and phonetically, but just doesn't seem to exist. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [[111]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[112]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[113]], so that would suggest that andweardian (also andwyrdian) has the meaning of "render, offer up, proffer". I couldn't find anything tying andweardian to andwyrdan or andwirdan, which mean "to answer" Leasnam (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ærgiestrandæg

RFV. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

劍橋春天

Brought over from RFD. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

賣豆腐

Rfv-sense: (vulgar, euphemistic) to be a prostitute — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schembeis

"reference book"s don't attest anything for Well-Documented Languages (WT:CFI, WT:WDL), and too few results at Google Books. --B-Fahrer (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created Schembeis and I just wanted to mention that some Sondersprachen are not very well documented in general for obvious reasons as they function as secret languages. In the entry I have referenced the word with the “Illustrated Lexicon of German Colloquialisms/Slang” and quoted from a book about a distinct variety of Sondersprache. If this does not meet the attestation criteria then that’s the way it is. It’d be a pity though. I wonder how documenting these kind of cants should be done then? — Best regards, Caligari ^Ɔɐ^ƀïиϠ_Ⴕ 10:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[114], [115], [116]. --Lambiam 10:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should count as one usage (WT:CFI#Independent) as the sources are: Klaus Siewert (editor), Textbuch Masematte & Textbuch Masematte II & Textbuch Masematte III. --B-Fahrer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siewert only selected these stories from the archives of the Masematte project group, which collects them to make sure this endangered lect is archived from original speakers before it dies out. The sources of these stories are independent people. --Lambiam 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the evidence for this: "The sources of these stories are independent people."? As far as I can see, the texts start with the title and end - there's no author given next to the title or at the end. The contents don't give an author either. As an additional note, the text of the 2nd book states that proper Masematte was never written and that written Masematte is younger, less authentic. --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the gender change in the entry, also RFV for the gender, if the term itself is attested. 1st and 2nd book have "im Schembeis" (m. or n.), 3rd book has "son Schembeis" (should be m. or n.) and "noch innen Schembeis" (should be m.). --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish בית‎ (beys) can be both m. and f., and you’d expect the gender to be retained in borrowing Germanic languages that have grammatical gender, possibly frozen on one of the two possibilities. Rotwelsch Beiz is reported here as m., but the Dutch cant bajes as f.. The Hebrew etymon בַּיִת is m. In view of this all, neuter gender looks somewhat improbable. --Lambiam 18:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gender change was due to a typo of mine. My bad. In the reference book by Küpper the gender is neuter. Compare Rotwelsch Bajes (and its various alternative forms such as Bais, Baiß, Baiz etc.) which is neuter as well and also from Yiddish בית‎ (beys). (Source: Siegmund A. Wolf: Wörterbuch des Rotwelschen: Deutsche Gaunersprache. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1987, p. 40.) — Caligari ^Ɔɐ^ƀïиϠ_Ⴕ 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moorhuhn

German, rfv-sense of "German casual game franchise for PCs". Unlikely to pass WT:Brand. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Likely to pass, must pass. It’s a thing that only German 1980s kids know. You can’t imagine how much it was on everyone's lips in the decade around 2000, being on “every” office computer, hence giving rise to many legal cases. Search for Moorhuhn and Arbeit or something like that. I see it genericized together with Solitär, minesweeper and the like. Fay Freak (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the first umpteen GBS hits I checked, I did not notice ostensible genericity; the term appeared to be used as a proper noun in reference to the original grouse-shooting game. Can you dig up some indisputably generic uses? --Lambiam 10:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is "gimme more Huhn"? (trigger warning for terrible, terrible music). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak, if you're so sure, add some quotes, else it will be deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/wārús

The Lithuanian form has a short vowel rather than the long one that this form predicts. The Slavic noun is an o-stem according to Derksen, not a u-stem. Too many discrepancies to reconstruct a PBS form if you ask me. —Rua (mew) 21:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Slavic noun is an u-stem according to Nikolaev, not a o-stem. Gnosandes (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So which of them is correct? —Rua (mew) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaev is looking at the data of the dialects. Derksen had apparently(?) never worked with them. I don't know.

*vȃrъ, gen, varũ. -ũ, with old traces of the dominant valence [+]. Proto-Balto-Slavic *wā̂ru-, the (AP) 2 Proto-Balto-Slavic accent paradigm (mobile accent). -ũ > -u with late recessive valence [-], also as in Wiktionary.

See also: Dybo (2012) Proto-Balto-Slavic accentology system, and the results of the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accentological system.

Zaliznjak, A. A. (2014), “Drevnerusskoje udarenije. Obščije svedenija i slovarʹ”, in Languages of Slavic Culture (in Russian), Moscow: Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gnosandes (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/sláidus

Only one descendant, and no PIE cognates. Therefore, there is no evidence that this word is of PBS date rather than formed between PBS and PS. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

chó hoang châu Phi

Plenty of hits online but only one Google Books hit, namely this, which appears to be a children's picture book teaching them English words + Vietnamese translation. (The book is seen here, not a context where the word would be in running text.)

As Vietnamese is a WDL, we need 3 durably archived occurences in running text. Another of my own created entries that I'm reporting. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some uses on what look to me like news sites: [117], [118], [119], [120]. My Vietnamese does not suffice to verify if they are durably archived. --Lambiam 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

白花

Rfv-sense: "pekoe". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

여의자

Defined as "(Japan) girl". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has a reference. If you are looking for usage in a text, does such literature exist? —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google News Search gives several hits, also in articles that are not Japan-related. I cannot judge if any of this is durably archived. --Lambiam 10:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?? Do we know? Is this used by Koreans living in Japan? It looks like they just added a third character into the existing word for girl , 여자. —Soap— 20:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: I'm confused by your question? Look at the entry. It explains right there what this means:

Calque of Japanese 女の子, from 여 (女, yeo, “woman, female”) +‎ 의 (ui, “-possessive particle”) +‎ 자 (子, ja, “child”)

Was there something else that you wanted to know about? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, is this a word used by Koreans living in Japan only? Or is it a term used by Koreans everywhere for girls living in Japan (presumably with a set of matching words for boys, men, and women)? Is the extra morpheme in the middle part of a wider trend? —Soap— 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap -- Thanks for clarifying. I'm not first-hand familiar with the Korean term, but "the extra morpheme in the middle", 의 (ui), is the possessive particle, mirroring the Japanese の (no) possessive particle in the source term that the Korean term is copying. It would be interesting and relevant, and arguably useful, to indicate if there are similar calques, perhaps standard Korean 남자 (namja, “boy”) shifting to 남의자 (namuija) to mirror the Japanese 男の子 (otoko no ko, “boy”), etc. I suspect the "Japan" label indicates that this is used primarily by speakers of Korean living in Japan, but I agree that this could be explained more clearly.

It might be useful to ping the editors who have worked on this entry: @Suzukaze-c, 幻光尘, Atitarev, do you all have any further information or insights? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The label is still not clear. The way I read it, it's the term used by Koreans living in Japan but I'm not certain. I asked for an RFV in hope it would clarify or at least, demonstrate that the term is actually used. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book named in the references section is called Language of Koreans in Japan. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

配列

Chinese, added by User:Atitarev in 2014. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 04:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the 漢語詞典, which includes a quotation by Lu Xun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Old English/nihtmare

--Lvovmauro (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to RFV a reconstructed term? By the definition of "reconstruction", there must not be any direct attestations.--Urszag (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence must be establishable through other means, still. In this case, if there is one descendant and one ancestor, it can be inferred that the intermediate form must have existed. The ancestor has descendants in all West Germanic languages, which are unlikely to all be parallel formations. Therefore, I think the existence of the Old English term can be verified. —Rua (mew) 11:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the "ancestor" too. The more likely explanation is that all of these are late coinages, or calques/adaptations from neighboring languages. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The late coinages explanation seems unlikely. Some sort of link between the terms must be supposed; they seem too specific (the night- part is obvious, but the -mare part seems like a highly specific choice and unlikely to be arrived at independently by all languages involved) to be independent coinages all around the same time in the High Middle Ages. So the next option is that it's some sort of Wanderwort/was calqued all over the place. Wanderwörter however tend to fall in way different semantic fields (especially trade and technology), not a term like nightmare. Supposing inheritance from a common ancestor seems like me to be the most elegant solution, certainly less of a stretch than a calque or independent coinages around the same time. The lack of attestations before the High Middle Ages is explained easily by the genres of literature attested for the "Old" Germanic languages, which are unlikely to attest a term like "nightmare", and by the relatively small size of those corpora which further reduces the likelihood of attestation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvovmauro: No. The history is just so that virtually nobody knew English on the continent until the middle of the 18th century. Every book that came from Britain was in Latin, one could not obtain anything in English if one sought it, and few people went over the sea, just names for some trading items like weaponry (→ Kartätsche) and fabrics could pass. There was no exposure that could let a word like this be calqued. Fay Freak (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about calquing from English? It's not like the English were locked in a cellar for hundreds of years. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He said, “calques from neighboring languages”, i.e. the neighbours of English would have calqued, also since he says “these” it would not be only English but the self-same continental languages. Fay Freak (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since he says he is "question[ing] the 'ancestor'" of the Old English term, I took his comment to mean he thinks the various (non-Old English) Germanic languages in which this term is attested calqued it from one (non-Old English) Germanic language which formed the compound in its own day rather than inheriting it from an ancestor (Proto-West Germanic). - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find any outside reference that reconstructs this, and noticed that they all seem to instead say that Middle English ni(g)htmare is a compound where merely the latter element derives from OE. I'm also not sure I see the utility of having a page like this; what does it give that could not be given in the PWG and Middle English entries? The reconstructed OE pronunciation and declension? Meh. (I'm not saying it should be deleted, though.) - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

jachtgeweer

Dutch, RFV-sense of "shotgun". Obviously some shotguns are hunting rifles, but I don't know of this as a distinct sense and neither do some dictionaries. Several gun or hunting websites don't seem to recognise this meaning either. The Dutch Wikipedia article has it as a synonym of hagelgeweer, so it may be a Wikipedianism. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of jachtgeweer: the hagelgeweer and the kogelgeweer.[121][122][123]. They obviously differ by the type of munition: shot or bullets. I think listing a hyponym as a sense of the more general term is incorrect. --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that a shotgun wouldn't necessarily be a rifle in English. However, a shotgun is definitely considered a geweer in Dutch. What do you think of a definition equivalent to "geweer used for hunting"? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case there should still be any doubt, here are three instances of a jachtgeweer firing bullets: [124], [125], [126]. --Lambiam 21:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three translations of shotgun as "jachtgeweer" (amongst other translations): [127] Morgengave (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those translations durable? The ones from Xerox and store.origin.com certainly don't seem like it. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, I'm rather confused by this one. Could you please close it? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the English term long gun help here? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam, Morgengave, Vox Sciurorum Would you agree with it if I replaced the two definitions by a single one: "long gun used for hunting, such as a hunting rifle or shotgun"? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No serious objections here. But are there other types of jachtgeweer than the two mentioned? The way it is formulated, it creates the impression that these two are just a small selection from a large variety of possibilities. Perhaps “long gun used for hunting, either a hunting rifle or shotgun“? --Lambiam 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think shotgun and rifle exhaust the category of hunting long guns. A shotgun can fire a slug, essentially a non-rifled bullet, rather than shot (“small metal balls used as ammunition”) but we still call it a shotgun. "A long gun used for hunting; a rifle or shotgun" sounds correct. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam, Vox Sciurorum Well, there are 18th-century results for jagtgeweer(en)/jachgeweeren, I strongly doubt these were shotguns and I'm not sure they were rifled; but I wouldn't mind a binary formulation as it would be accurate for the modern type of firearm and the first part of the definition would also encompass the ancient long-barrelled hunting guns anyway. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long gun used for hunting before the mid-19th century is probably a musket. Online translation of unknown reliability says either musket or geweer can be used for English musket. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

مكوى

--37.124.137.40 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

مقلى

--37.124.137.40 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples (to exclude the homographic passive participles) can be found searching "على المقلى". Example from some recipe that goes around:

نضع الزيت في المقلى على النار ثم نضع البيض على المقلى دون خلط البيض

We put the oil in the frying pan on the fire then put the egg into the frying pan without mixing the egg.

Unless this is misunderstanding the occurrences and they actually all mean “fried thing” مَقْلِيّ (maqliyy), passive participle of قَلَى (qalā), since the same recipe has the مقلى as مقلي on some places, and such occurrences is where the dictionaries have the word مِقْلًى (miqlan) from, but this is dubious because I wouldn’t know that مَقْلِيّ (maqliyy) can be used as a noun. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

亡

Rfv-sense: "poor". Pinging @Dine2016 who added it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: I think we can safely remove this definition or at least put it as a subitem under the first, namely alt form of 無／无 (wú, “to not have; to lack; to not be; no; none; etc.”). The gloss "poor" seems to be based on a single commentary in the 毛詩／毛诗 (Máoshī), under the 4th verse of 《邶風·谷風》:

何有何亡，黽勉求之。 [Pre-Classical Chinese, trad.]

何有何亡，黾勉求之。 [Pre-Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: The Classic of Poetry, c. 11^th – 7^th centuries BCE, translated based on James Legge's version

Hé yǒu hé wú, mǐn miǎn qiú zhī. [Pinyin]

Whether we had plenty or not,
I exerted myself to be getting.

The Mao annotation (傳, pages 71–72, scanned copy) reads: 「有」謂富也；「亡」謂貧也。 I suspect this is where the spurious sense "poor" came from.

However I don't think the Mao annotation were meant to be definition-giving. It simply explains the words' connotation in the particular context of the poem rather than giving an alternative gloss of the words. The meaning "poor", etc. is not a separate sense; it is already covered under the first sense. Zheng Xuan's parallel annotation (箋) did so in a slightly different manner, and so did the 正義 (sub-annotation) by Tang-era scholars. --Frigoris (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

袖口

Rfv-sense "wristband". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/lauwu

Gothic: [Term?] (“lēw”), Gothic: [Term?] (“lēwjan”), Old English: lǣwan, Old High German: gi-lāwen, Ukrainian: лïви́ти (lïvýty), Czech: leviti.

Apparently: *leh₂w-/*lh̥₂u- and *leh₁w-/*lh̥₁u-, and *lawh₁-/*luh₁-. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you explained why you're throwing all these redlinks at us that aren't mentioned in the entry. The Old English reflexes in the entry look like they're from Old English lǣwan, but you would have been better off linking to Proto-West Germanic *lāwijan and its parent Proto-Germanic *lēwijaną than dumping a random-looking heap of their descendants in front of us. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz, Thanks to these examples, you provided help. However, the reconstruction of Proto-West Germanic *lauwu is unconvincing; I suggest removing this reconstruction. It is likely that the Proto-Germanic *lēwijaną and Proto-Germanic *lēwą dates back to the Proto-Indo-European *leh₁w-. The Old English lǣwan probably dates back to the Proto-West Germanic *lāwijan.

Unconvincing reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European *leh₁wéh₂; it must be changed to Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂ < *leh₂w- (watch the discussion above). The Proto-Balto-Slavic *lā́ˀwāˀ (with Hirt's law), as well as the Proto-Germanic *lawwō (with Holtzmann's law and Dybo's law), date back to the Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂. At the same time, it is a big mistake to associate the Proto-Germanic *lawwō with Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (“to cut”), with incorrectly specified semantics by the user @Holodwig21 (how to output this?). But Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (“louse”) ≠ Proto-Indo-European *lawh₁- (“to cut, to slice”)? Emphasis paradigms should be taken into account. And do not unite the roots, as is customary.

leh₁w- (a revision of the semantics*) (to let (go)?)	*leh₂w- (berth?, bed?)
*lawh₁- (to cut off; to cut, to slice)	*lewH- (louse)

Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your PIE *leh₁wéh₂ should be deleted. At best, any connection between the two words is only worth mentioning in an etymology. Otherwise, PWG *lauwu is just fine. --{{victar|talk}} 03:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

عبر

Rfv-sense: to make cross —95.185.32.82 09:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is ambiguous: "cross" is probably a verb here, in which case it would be better as "to cause to cross". That's at least halfway plausible as the literal counterpart to this etymology's figurative senses. I sincerely doubt it's an adjective, which would mean "to cause to be annoyed; to annoy". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what Lane, Edward William (1863) “عبر”, in Arabic-English Lexicon‎^[128], London: Williams & Norgate, page 1937a writes about this sense: عبّرهُ بِالمَآءِ, (Lh, K,) inf. n. تَعْبِيرٌ; (TA;) and بِهِ المَآءَ ↓ عَبَرَ, (Lh, K,) and النَّهْرَ; (TA;) He made him to cross, go across, or pass over, or he conveyed him across, the water, (Lh, K, TA,) and the river. (TA.). Yes, a ditransitive verb is meant. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this عَبَّرَ (ʕabbara) is “to get across” in the literal meaning and in the figurative meaning (but only the latter is notorious nowadays and perhaps already in the 7th century). I do not see in what distinct sense “to interpret” is meant here which the IP added. In the example quote for the base stem it is not much different, it is just “to express to make something known with the other party”, and interpretation is always part of the process of expressing something. Probably one should change the definitions of both verbs to “to get across”, because that’s what it basically is, adding that it is normally or by now only used in the figurative sense of expressing or interpreting (to be safe in case somebody ever comes across a literal use so he might be incited by it to add his quote; now there is no hope for us to find the literal meaning by systematic search because occurrences of عبر in any form are most likely to be the base stem and the very common sense of expressing and the very common preposition “across”) Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/laują

Evidence? None of the descendants would ever point to a neuter noun. Also, it is impossible for Proto-Germanic *laują to give Gothic *𐌻𐌹𐍅𐌰 (*liwa). 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our etymologies for the Germanic terms for 'lion' are truly all over the place. The Gothic term was attested 7 years ago as 𐌻𐌰𐌹𐍅𐌰 (laiwa), btw, which is what I moved the entry to. And I have removed it from that PGmc entry, as indeed it cannot possibly have yielded any such Gothic form. The PGmc should probably be deleted. Even the MHG is not neuter, it's a masculine weak noun. I think the creator misinterpreted an etymology mentioning "*laujan-" as a neuter a-stem instead of a masculine an-stem, I have no idea how else one would get to a neuter a-stem from these supposed descendants. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WG forms appear to point to PG *laiwô, which would be consistent with the Gothic. See **laujan on Latin leō. --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

永安

Rfv-sense "everlasting peace". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a translation of one of the literary senses in the 漢語詞典. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: I think either sense there should be a verb, not a noun. What do you think? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rioleren

Dutch, RFV-sense of "to discharge through a sewer; to drain". I am only familiar with the other sense, same for the dictionaries I checked. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

衝涼

Seems to be the wrong traditional form. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

婂媤

Seems to be only used by Penang Hokkien Podcast (and probably the Hokkien Language Association of Penang). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is in regards to the character spelling of "婂媤"? —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 01:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzukaze-c: Yes. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si? Is this from 新加坡闽南话词典? In the dictionary it is written as 密司 bit⁸ su(si) but any proof that bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si is actually used in Singapore? It's strange because "mî-si" is not recorded by that dictionary.

mî-si in Singapore Hokkien is citable at 06:22 of Happy Can Already! Episode 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIrZqUKGhYU

mî-si for Penang Hokkien is citable at 05:42 of Penang Hokkien Podcast #690 Kóo-tsá-láu-mî-si-kuí (古早婂媤鬼) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWH1MEx-nE

Why use 婂媤 as the main spelling for this entry? 婂 or its component 帛 is not related with "mî". Maybe 密司 is more suitable. https://baike.baidu.com/item/密司

One last thing, any citation for Singapore Teochew and Cantonese? Are there dictionaries for Singapore Teochew and Cantonese to support this? Why add labels but no pronunciation? User talk:iambluemon 08:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(re: 婂 or its component 帛 ...: 棉 (mî), probably —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

As these Chinese varieties are no longer considered well-documented, we can probably keep 婂媤 for Penang Hokkien with the one attestation from Penang Hokkien Podcast. However, we should probably unify the entry at 密司 (even though it's kind of Mandarin-centric). Yes, bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si are from 新加坡闽南话词典. I have serious doubts about these pronunciations as well; perhaps they're just inaccurate transcriptions of mî-si. For Singaporean Teochew and Cantonese, we'd have to ask @The dog2 for evidence. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the characters, but for the pronunciations, see [129] (39:51) for Singaporean Cantonese and [130] (17:37) for Singaporean Teochew. The dog2 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/dubbjan

Doesn't have any native reflexes, only borrowings. How can we be sure that this term existed? —Rua (mew) 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move: Should be a moved to a Vulgar Latin entry. --{{victar|talk}} 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/būti

Only has reflexes in one descendant, and an uncertain borrowing. This could easily have been formed within the separate history of Dutch. —Rua (mew) 10:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The etymology is so widely circulated that even if it is wrong, which is hard to say (though I do prefer a direct Gaulish etymology for the Latin), it should just have an entry anyhow. --{{victar|talk}} 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But should that be a Proto-West Germanic entry? The term is literally has only one descendant, that's not enough evidence to claim it's of PWG date. —Rua (mew) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's mostly reconstructed as PG, so PWG is even safer, no? --{{victar|talk}} 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A term with only a Dutch descendant (which is doubtful, as Etymologiebank says the term is Low German in origin) can't even be reconstructed for PWG, let alone PG. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And others the opposite, and others still both inherited. --{{victar|talk}} 20:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this a Frankish label could be handy for PWG with only Dutch and Latin descendants. --{{victar|talk}} 20:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/fellō

Same as *dubbjan above. —Rua (mew) 12:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OHG added. --{{victar|talk}} 19:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that this is RFV, right? There's no keep/delete votes. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: --{{victar|talk}} 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...kay. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua: So does that resolve this? --{{victar|talk}} 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure if having only an OHG descendant is enough either. But I'll leave that to third parties to decide. @Mnemosientje, Mahagaja, DerRudymeister —Rua (mew) 20:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there really aren't any other West Germanic reflexes, then I'd be inclined to delete and just say the Latin is a loanword from OHG. It's not clear where OHG fello comes from, though, since Proto-Germanic *faluz doesn't have an OHG reflex. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the context of the Latin attestations, it looks to have originated from Frankish, not OHG, and if we were to say it didn't exist in PWG, we have to somehow explain how it was novelly constructed in OHG. --{{victar|talk}} 08:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could it possibly be from Proto-Germanic *faljô, a derivative of *faluz ? Leasnam (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nematodes

--Marontyan (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

centiampère (Dutch)

centicandela

centiseconde

centisteradiaal

Unattested units. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

陰國

Rfv-sense: "United Kingdom". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

乏國

France. Some hits on Google, but may not be durably archived. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

怨難

Rfv-sense: Vietnam. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a possible usage, but not durably archived. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

すんドめ

Japanese Wikipedia has an article on:

すんドめ

Wikipedia ^ja

specifically using katakana like this —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 08:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

すんドめ (Sundome) is the name of a manga series. It is not a common noun. --Lambiam 11:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that spelling is just for the manga title. The normal word is lemmatized at 寸止め. See also Weblio and Kotobank for reference. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

エスパニョール

Appears in the Daijirin. I want to see quotations anyway. @Britannic124 —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 03:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as parts of names, but this is arguably transliterated Spanish.

Chunichi Shimbun, June 8, 2017:
スペイン最大手(さいおおて)のサンタンデール銀行(ぎんこう)は七日(なのか)、同国(どうこく)大手(おおて)のポプラル・エスパニョール銀行(ぎんこう)を買収(ばいしゅう)したと発表(はっぴょう)した。
Supein saiōte no santandēru ginkō wa nanoka, dōkoku ōte no popuraru esupanyōru ginkō o baishū shita to happyō shita.
Spain's largest bank, Banco Santander, announced on the 7th that it will acquire the major Banco Popular Español in the same country.
Tokyo Shimbun, June 15, 2020:
欧州(おうしゅう)サッカー […] 　エスパニョール２－０アラベス
Ōshū sakkā […] Esupanyōru ２－０ Arabesu
European soccer […] Español 2-0 Alavés

I don't find it used productively in Japanese, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

恰

Rfv-sense for Chinese: Is 恰 (qià) a common misspelling of 卡 (kǎ)? --沈澄心 ✉ 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa

On behalf of @Crom daba, who says that it "seems suspect, reconstructed for a single descendant and the reflex isn't regular". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite possible, though I am against this page as a single-descendant reconstruction that gives us no convenience (not always I am against single-descendant reconstructions for Proto-Slavic, since the reconstructed state is not more than half a millenium before the first writings of the individual languages, it depends on the other relations or we can say justification grounds, e.g. the derived terms make *lopъ (“leaf”) bulletproof though it is only present in Bulgarian and Macedonian (which latter is arguably an Ausbausprache of Bulgarian) and we even have some cases of alternative forms or reconstructions in Proto-Germanic with one ancient descendant where the form reflected less is preferred by some author(s); but this is all not here). One can find this, but it is too uncertain, so delete. But who taught you to put reconstructed terms to RFV, @Metaknowledge? I think it is a bad habit of Gnosandes, who infected Rua with it and now you do it too. I hereby disclaim its guise of acceptability. If no thread fits denying reconstructed terms we should create another category of requests, though it be that Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium and the requests for deletion could suffice. Perhaps we need a page “requests for substantiation of reconstructed terms” (you name it) because people are unsure where to put it, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English because it is not non-English in so far as it is about imagined languages, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others because it is not other, and requests for verification is asking for occurrence evidence, whereas Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium is too wishy-washy, so understandably you want to suggest more aggressively deletion under the condition that no evidence is proferred, which is however not the condition normally stipulated under the verification requests, therefore all the oddity. Fay Freak (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered sending it to RFD, which is what I believe I used to do, but considered that as I was seeking evidence rather than opinion-based votes, RFV might be the right place after all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is either a trick, expecting that the page can be deleted if nothing is done, as opposed to a RFD which would require a majority or something like that, or it neither works here because this kind of pages keeps clogging up the request threads (for the same reason, I think, as for minor languages, the fact that nothing is expected to be done if there are only few editors dealing with these languages only rarely, and everyone is absent doing more important things than trying to attest such trifles 😐, but also because one would not know what is “enough” to fulfill the request, it is always the greyzone when such an inquiry appears: some varyingly credulous or lightheaded fellow deemed the material enough and skeptics harangue it). I would be for deleting such pages right away because of being of little discernable use and uncertain, but this hope crushed at the vote against Proto-Albanian already. Wiktionary is doomed (and that is, I think, probably because not enough people are devoted). Fay Freak (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so gloomy. This is simple: if two regular, independent reflexes are found, the entry can be kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we originally took these to RFDO, but I think the Etymology scriptorium is a better venue. After all, the reconstructions are an extension of the etymologies, and the criteria being weighed are of an etymological nature. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ES is a terrible venue for this, because when discussions there grow old, nobody deals with them. I want a decisive outcome, and (in theory) everything that enters RFV or RFD leaves it having been dealt with one way or the other. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

دعش

—213.166.157.228 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: There are quotes in the entry, but the whole thing is a bit of a mess. Could you sort this one out? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge Fixed. The quotes provided did not have it reflexive as labelled, and such usage is not expected of form II. The Saudi IP was of course affronted by the example:

لِمَاذَا يُدَعِّشُ السُعُودِيُّون؟

li-māḏā yudaʕʕišu s-suʕūdiyyūn?

*Why do Saudis join Da'esh?

as it does not work this way, it would mean “Why do Saudi make [missing object] Dāʿiš”. Fay Freak (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: Thank you, although these don't seem to be durably archived, unless I'm mistaken. Can you assess this and rustle up cites sufficient to pass CFI? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Libraries are closed. Not that I would have one in my vicinity anyway, or would go to one if there were one. Or know a considerable searchable corpus or archive of Arabic content produced since the prominence of Dāʿiš. Maybe Wiktionary should stop balling with formal requirements that nobody can fulfil to turn a blind eye on material reasons of inclusion. Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

homem sanctvm

Converted from a speedy added by an IP, no rationale given. — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 06:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more a like a case for RFV than RFD. Pinging @Ubizias, who created it. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

urroj

There is no variant "urroj" for urrej and I've looked for it. This is reasoned by earlier Latin loans often being suffixed with "-ej" instead of "-oj" or another verbal ending. HeliosX (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dhre

Albanian never has [ð] as a variant for [d] within the consonantal cluster [dɹ] or [dɽ]. The terms are unable to be encountered anywhere. HeliosX (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lafatë

The consonant [θ] is never confounded in variants with [f], hence the entry should not be kept. HeliosX (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

男妓

Rfv-sense: "pimp". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

blahý

Rfv-sense: blessed.

Czech. Suspect. Entered by User:Drago => double check is fit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

otofoto

Dutch protologism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is attested here and also in the subtitle of an article about Heleen van Royen (so NSFW) here. Perhaps someone could check Usenet? Should at least be tagged as rare if it passes. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned here. I don't see anything on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also used as a title here, but whether that should qualify as a use is rather arguable. As an aside, it turns out that it was also the title of a column about car photos in the 70s. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

miinibaashkiminasiganibiitoosijiganibadagwiingweshiganibakwezhigan

Sounds like a "dictionary-only" word. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And is that really one word? This looks like a long descriptive phrase with all the whitespace deleted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that this is a polysynthetic language. It's not a long phrase, it's a compound of compounds, with affixes filling the role of particles instead of separately. Here's a page showing the morphology and related words. You can even hear it pronounced. Given Ojibwe's LDL status, that might even suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz, my comment was actually inspired by my study of a different highly agglutinating polysynthetic language, Navajo, where we find things like chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí (“tank”, as in an armored fighting vehicle) -- a long descriptive phrase, literally parsing out to "the thing that's a car that crawls about and has a cannon and people sit on it". So when I see super long words like the one above, and then I see it broken down, I find myself wondering if this is really just a typography problem where someone decided to remove the whitespace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is whether the University of Minnesota's webpage counts as durably archived (I'm on the fence here). Secondarily, they spell it with a bunch of hyphens separating morphemes, so if we do keep it, we probably ought to move it to match their spelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the UMN website has a shorter word, lacking the badagwiingweshigani component (see also badagwiingweshin) in the entry taken here from the Anishinaabemowin website. --Lambiam 11:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They may be putting the hyphens in solely as an aid to the reader, the way Russian dictionaries put accents on that aren't used in normal writing. There are other examples of this such as biinji-gizhaabikizigan, ~~though I cant say for sure that hyphens are never used in ordinary writing in Ojibwe either. —Soap— 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)~~ Okay I see native speakers using hyphens, but it still could be that one dictionary is using them to show the morpheme boundaries as an aid to the reader when they would not be used in ordinary writing. —Soap— 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

習下韓上

~~Nothing in Google.~~ --沈澄心 ✉ 03:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koenfoo, 巋然不動 could you please help me find some quotations? --沈澄心 ✉ 03:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@沈澄心 Sure, but how do I attach links? --Koenfoo

If it is, for example, a link to the page https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2744379, the easiest is to use [https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2744379]. This will display as “[131]” (the number may vary). It can be made more readable by adding the title of the article after the url, separated by a space, thus: [https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2744379 習下韓上？扮韓國瑜、拿習維尼立牌男子熱烈招呼中國遊客]. This will display as “習下韓上？扮韓國瑜、拿習維尼立牌男子熱烈招呼中國遊客”. Even better is to use one of the quotation templates, in this case {{quote-journal}}. Instructions for use are found in its documentation. --Lambiam 07:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are <20 results in DuckDuckGo. --沈澄心 ✉ 09:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@沈澄心 There are more hits on Google. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung You're right. Perhaps my browser filtered out some results:( --沈澄心 ✉ 03:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koenfoo You've removed the rfv notice, but it's still not solved. Please see WT:CFI (especially WT:ATTEST). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Vladimir

Cebuano. Removed by an IP; originally added by User:Carl Francis. — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 11:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:Vladimir 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

توقع

Rfv-sense: “to meet with one's wish accidentally“ and “(modern) to request” --95.187.167.159 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

中共病毒

Google News results are exclusively from Falun Gong-related sources (soundofhope, epochtimes, ntdtv). Also probably missing a context label regarding connotation? —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 08:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

中共肺炎#Chinese, #Japanese

Ditto. —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 08:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terms were coined, likely partly in condemnation of the Chinese Communist Party's cover-up of the epidemic in Wuhan. --Apisite (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ᨷᨷ᩠ᨹᩤᩈ

{{pi-alt}} automatically generated this form (with tall AA) as the Tai Tham script form of papphāsa (“lungs”), and the entry that should have gone under ᨷᨷ᩠ᨹᩣᩈ (papphāsa) (with round AA) was entered under this form, although the quotation unambiguously shows round AA. The form with round AA has been created.

I am using a RFV rather than a RFD in case someone can show that the Pali orthographic syllable pphā does get written with tall AA in the Tai Tham script - tall AA is the expected form in the Burmese script. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Octahedron80 may have some relevant evidence. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin "medior" as comparative form of adjective "medius"

The page for medius says "comparative medior" (there is no separate entry for medior as an adjective form, and no citations are given for this form). This is contradicted by the Wikipedia article Latin declension which says "Comparatives and superlatives of -eus/-ius adjectives: First and second declension adjectives that end in -eus or -ius are unusual in that they do not form the comparative and superlative by taking endings at all. Instead, magis ('more') and maximē ('most'), the comparative and superlative degrees of magnoperē ('much, greatly'), respectively, are used." Which is correct?--Urszag (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This online tool for Latin conjugations and declensions agrees with Wikipedia. Semantically, the comparative is rare (what is the comparative of the adjective half?), but I see magis medius used by Aquinas in his commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. That does not mean much, though, as the Doctor Angelicus liked to form comparatives with magis. --Lambiam 20:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

被害妄想症

I doubt it means "paranoid schizophrenia". 妄想症 (wàngxiǎngzhèng) refers to delusional disorder, not schizophrenia. RcAlex36 (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RcAlex36:, Indeed, checking Wikipedia entries for both terms in Chinese and English, Persecutory delusion = 被害妄想症， and Paranoid schizophrenia = 偏狂型精神分裂症 or 妄想型思覺失調症. Shen233 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom

Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bajore, Belljie [now Beljie at ksh.wp], Brandeborsch, Bulljaarije, Finnlandt, Frankrish, Hamborsch, Heßße, Italije, Jrußbrittannije, Liechtensteen, Littaue, Luxembursh [now Luxemburch in the wp article, though the other form still occors elsewhere], Meckleborsch-Vüürpommere, Nederläng, Needersachse, Noodrhing-Wäßßfaale, Norrveeje, Ößtrish, Rhingland-Pallz, Sachse, Schwäjz, Shvede, Thüringe, Tshäshäij.
See Talk:Bälliin. --Marontyan (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьśь

Inaccurate reconstruction and meaning. -- Gnosandes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

accecini as perfect form of Latin verb accano

As far as I can see, no sources list a perfect of the form "accecini", and I'm suspicious of it because reduplicated perfects generally don't show up with prefixed verbs. I can't find any genuine uses of "accecini" or "accecinit" from an online search.--Urszag (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attested uses of accanui, accanuit or accanuerunt would settle the matter, but an (admittedly somewhat cursory) search did not yield any of these either. More research is needed. --Lambiam 16:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The grammars I've looked at seem to only mention accano as a collateral form for the present-tense forms of accino, which is listed with a perfect form accinui (which I've seen attestations of). So if we do list a perfect form for accano, accinui currently seems the least bad option to me.--Urszag (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

篦子

Rfv-sense: "steamer plate or insert". Seems to be a misspelling of 箅子. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pol

Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

誑

Rfv-sense: "(dialectal) lie; falsehood". I think it may be used as a noun in literary Chinese, not in modern dialects. Pinging @Nyarukoseijin, who added this. There is another dialectal sense in Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (用言语或行动逗引人以取乐) that we're missing - was this what this was referring to? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

智識

Rfv-senses: "good friend" and "religious mentor". Tagged by @Tooironic, but not listed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alkikinger

Very strange un-Italian spelling, very few hits. Misspelling of alchechengi? ping @GianWiki – Jberkel 00:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or a misspelling of alkekengi (seen used here, here and here)?

We do have English alkekengi, which, by the way, is a different species than the cape gooseberry. --Lambiam 06:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jberkel None of the Italian reference templates seems to contain the lemma, but a Google search seems to suggest a (somewhat marginal) use of the term. I can't really say where it comes from, though. Could be listed as a synonym of alchechengio peruviano (“cape gooseberry”, the plant Physalis peruviana), even though it'd lack etymological info. — GianWiki (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term occurs in the 1915 book Nella terra dei Negus: Pagine raccolte in Abissinia, volume 2, p. 65 (US access only), also here in GBS snippet view: “Altre fruttifere furono importate e crescono quali l’ananas, il nespolo, i cocomeri, gli alkikinger, le fragole.” The fact that it is considered a fruit suggests the cape gooseberry, not the ornamental alkekengi. The etymological origin, Arabic كَاكَنْج (kākanj), is nevertheless undoubtedly the same. Perhaps – this is pure speculation – the author picked up this spelling while visiting Ethiopia. --Lambiam 11:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

交匯

Rfv-sense: "to cooperate". @Tooironic, please remember to list it here after tagging. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

菜花

Japanese - Rfv-sense: Alternative spelling of 菜の花. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

「菜の花」「菜花」「花菜」は、そうしたアブラナの花芽の総称として使われています。

I'm not sure if this verifies it, or if anything could. It asserts that they refer to the same thing, but that's not the same as saying they are alternate spellings of the same word. For that, maybe you would need something like 菜(ナノ)花(ハナ).

Also, I'm pretty sure I added the sense, maybe paraphrasing a work that I have forgotten. Sorry. Cnilep (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the page at Kotobank only lists the なばな (nabana) reading, as does the page at Weblio.

Looking at w:ja:菜の花, it seems that the spelling with the medial の (no) particle as 菜の花 (nanohana) indicates Brassica flowers in general, while the spelling without the particle as 菜花 (nabana) refers more specifically to those Brassica flowers that are edible.

There's also a Chinese-derived reading saika, but so far I've only encountered that in a single compound, 菜花糖 (saikatō, literally “rapeseed flower sugar”), a kind of traditional sweet in the former Echizen Province of Japan, modern-day Fukui Prefecture. See also google:"菜花糖".

A search on Jim Breen's dictionary site suggests that the 菜花 spelling without the medial の (no) particle does appear with the nanohana reading as a feminine given name. Perhaps that might be where @Cnilep picked up on that? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

菜花

Chinese - Rfv-sense: genital warts (as opposed to gonorrhea). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

喬

Rfv-sense: Joel (English given name). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

消息

Rfv-sense: omen. Added by an anon IP. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also rfv-sensed the other definitions added by said IP: essence. Mechanism. Hinge; crux. These are not in any dictionaries I have access to, and are certainly not used in the vernacular. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: These seem to be from Hanyu Da Cidian. I think "omen" = "征兆，端倪", "essence" = "奥妙；真谛；底细", "mechanism" = "机关，发动机械装置的枢机", and "hinge; crux" = "引申指起决定性作用的事物"? I think the definitions could definitely be refined. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

頭緒

Rfv-sense: state of mind; thoughts. Not in any dictionaries I have access to. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

好人

Rfv-sense: Beautiful woman. Not in any dictionaries I can access. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OS

Tagged in diff. Also add OD. --Mittsloo (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is shorthand used by ophthalmologists in eyeglass prescriptions.^[132] I am not sure if this qualifies as Latin; we classify per os found in medical prescriptions as translingual. For the rest, now we have to find three durably archived eyeglass prescriptions :). --Lambiam 08:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three book uses: [133], [134], [135]. --Lambiam 08:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per os does occur in English and German, so technically it's used translingually. In Latin however, it's SOP (per os).

As for the uses, they are English OS/O.S. & OD/O.D.. And here are mentions of German OS/O. S. & OD/O. D. as well as of German LA & RA: [136], [137]. So there might indeed be Translingual OS & OD. However, that does not make it a Latin term and does not attest a Latin term.

BTW: Latin O.S. & O.D. have an RFV-sense too.

--Marontyan (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

揭諦揭諦波羅揭諦波羅僧揭諦菩提薩婆訶

Is this used outside of the Heart Sutra (without quoting it)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Poketalker —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 20:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: conceded. A Google Books search have books using very quote from the sutra. What now? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 02:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wirtiz

This is said to be a neuter i-stem, but such nouns have a lemma in *-i, while *-iz is reserved for non-neuters. Either the gender or the inflection is wrong. —Rua (mew) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And none of the alleged Germanic descendants is in Wiktionary! The Finnic loan is present, though. RichardW57 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kluge reconstructs a z-stem as the ancestor to the OHG and ON. --{{victar|talk}} 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KBC / ABC

Probably only used in terms like KBC-Waffen / ABC-Waffen, in which at best there is a pseudo-prefix KBC- / ABC-. --Bakunla (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old English wesan (“to feast, consume”)

This is listed in the descendants of *wesaną, but it's not listed in Bosworth-Toller. Köbler does have it, but with a question mark. It also lists the derived forwesan without a question mark, while BT is missing that too. —Rua (mew) 11:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kanker (Dutch)

RFV-sense of "Something incredibly bad, poor or annoying", noun. I only know this intensifying usage as a prefix, not as a noun. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

秘色

Rfv-senses: "mysterious color", "secret color". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Λεώνη

Greek for León, Spain. According to Wikipedia it's Λεόν. Ultimateria (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article on the Greek Wikipedia gives Λεώνη as the “Hellenization” of León and Llión. --Lambiam 08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarri.greek, could you please take a look at this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Metaknowledge, it is as Lambiam explains. Many cities have both variants: phonetic unadapted simplified spelling and -usually older style:- adapted with declension. But The female's name is only Λεώνη, not Λεόν, @Ultimateria. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 07:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Devos

Dutch surname. Extremely rare, especially in comparison to the very common surname de Vos, so most attestations will be in reference to people who don't speak Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that rare in Dutch-speaking Belgium.^[138] --Lambiam 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

燒水

Rfv-sense: "boiled water" (rather than "hot water"). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

便利

Rfv-sense: "lucky". Not in any of the various C-C dictionaries. Not in any of the various C-E dictionaries. Possibly dialectal (?) but no information given. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

食水果拜樹頭

Usually 食果子拜樹頭. Some hits on Google, but very few and I don't think they're durably archived. Some hits even say something like 'haven't heard of 食水果拜樹頭' (in contrast to 食果子拜樹頭). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [139] (~30:14). The person saying it is from Xiamen, so it might be down to a difference between Xiamen Hokkien and Taiwanese Hokkien. Taiwanese Hokkien is, after all, more influential and better documented. The dog2 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: Thanks, but that's just one instance. Please see WT:CFI, especially WT:ATTEST. 閩南方言大詞典 (documenting Xiamen, Quanzhou and Zhangzhou Hokkien) has 食果子拜樹頭 so it's not just a Taiwanese thing. It seems to be an obvious case of Mandarin influence, but that's okay as long as it's attestable. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NMSL, NM$L, 你🐴死了

Is this really Chinese? see Revision History of 你媽死了. Abbreviation and emoji as Chinese word. Seems like wiktionary is slowly turning into urban dictionary. if this rfv is passed, i will go ahead and create more entries for urban slang such as NMD, TMD, TNND, CNM, 748, based on whatever criteria make NMSL, NM$L, 你🐴死了valid entry. — This unsigned comment was added by Iambluemon (talk • contribs) at 00:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Iambluemon: If they're attestable per WT:ATTEST, then they're valid entries. However, I don't think it was necessary for you to create these entries in the first place if you doubted their existence. You could have just brought this to WT:TR for discussion. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links from 你媽死了, but it was quickly reverted. I check the internet and they seem to be legit. I'm just not sure whether they can be cited properly. Does weibo, twitter, blog posts, forum posts count as citations? User:Iambluemon 01:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not direct citations but...

NMSL: Chinese Wikipedia has a page on a April 2020 Chinese-Thai Twitter battle that made NMSL known to Thai Twitter users. w:zh:中泰網絡罵戰 Google News also finds mentions of NMSL in Western media, such as [140].

NM$L: Wikimedia Commons has a NM$L graphic. w:zh:孙笑川#影响.

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

إنسانية

Rfv-sense: “politeness” —176.224.226.115 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

蘇

Rfv-sense: "Sue" and "Mary Sue". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

example (may not be widely used enough to keep; not sure) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

レペゼン

I see that there is a hip-hop group called レペゼン地球, but I'm not sure if this term is used generally to mean "a representation". It does remind me of the African American English use of Represent!, so the hip-hop connection makes sense. Cnilep (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Web dictionary says: A phrase often used as an abbreviation for the English verb "represent". Mainly used in hip-hop lyrics. "represent" means 代表する (“to represent”). For example, "レペゼン大阪" is reffered in the meanings like "I came on behalf of Osaka" or "I'm taking charge of Osaka".--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

杘

Rfv-sense: alt form of 𨳍. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Urb.gr.

Because of the lack of space and partly the small g it looks modern English.
Latin usages: "cod. Urb. Gr.", "codicibus Urb. gr." & "Cod. Urbinas graecus", "codices Urb. gr.", "cod. urb. gr.".
BTW English with spaces: [141]. --Marontyan (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

欠行

Can we verify the figurative sense (i.e., outside board gaming) of "stalemate; a dead-end situation, etc."? --Frigoris (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ダイパー

"diaper" —Suzukaze-c ◇◇ 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daijisen has it here on Kotobank, but none of the other Kotobank dictionaries are listed (KDJ, Daijirin). It's also missing from Weblio's monolingual Japanese dictionaries and its E-J bilingual resources, and Eijiro also doesn't have it.

Looking at Google Books hits, I see a lot of scannos for ダイバー (daibā, “diver”), ダイバージェンス (daibājensu, “divergence”), that kind of thing.

Seems like it's probably cromulent, but also rare. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen this on a diaper changing station in a bathroom. Searching for the expanded form ダイパーチェンジ "diaper change" turns up a lot of use examples for brand name products. —Soap— 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malajio

All I can find is one use on soc.culture.esperanto, where it seems more likely to mean Malaysia (maybe a typo for Malajzio?). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: I found it in the Nanyang Siang Pau: [142]. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books:

Saman supersimplan sistemigon oni trovas ankoraŭ nun ĉe kelkaj SAT - anoj , kiuj alkroĉas sian sufikson - i al ĉia landnomo kaj maltimas skribi : Koreio , Malajio , Urugvio , Kanadio ktp . Kiam la cirkonstancoj kaj la kritikoj invitis al pli funda ...

Lingvo kaj vivo

( 9 ) Oceanio : ( 91 ) Malajio . ( 91 . 4 ) Filipina insulo . ( 93 ) Australazio . ( 9 . 31 ) Nova Zelando . ( 9 . 32 ) Nova Kaledonio . ( 94 ) Aŭstralio . ( 95 ) Nova Gvineo . ( 96 ) Polinezio . Tabelo 3a – Helpaj nombroj de lingvoj aŭ idiomoj . La nombroj de ...

Internacia scienca revuo

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer: I do not know Esperanto. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Nanyang Siang Pau is a good find. The Lingvo kaj vivo quote is a mention. The Internacia scienca revuo quote may be a mention, but I can't see enough context to tell for sure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internacia scienca revuo, full text: [143] —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilling, but I think it's more than a mention; it's saying that (91) in their book system will cover books about Malaya.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure about what it means in that context? It seems to include the Philippines as part of 91. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps it's one of those cases where we have several cites but no one clear meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

homo

L&S: "Hic homo, this man, = I, myself (ante-class. and poet.)", Georges: "hic homo, der Mann = ich, Komik. u. Hor.", which means it's hic homo (“I, myself”). --Marontyan (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a separate entry for hic homo (which, I presume, can also be {{&lit}})?

By WT's practice i'd guess it should be "Derived terms: hic homo" in homo, and then a separate entry hic homo. If hic homo is entered as pronoun based on the translation, then {{&lit}} would belong into another POS "phrase". --Marontyan (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

兔 (Chinese, Etymology 2)

The reading and definition looks suspiciously like a ghost entry inherited from earlier lexicographers. The source seems to be the 《觀象玩占》, an astrology book attributed to Li Chunfeng. A passage from the book reads 辰星…一曰免星 link, where the character 免 could have been a misprint of something including 兔 or 㲋. The 《古今圖書集成》, quoting from the passage, corrects this character as 毚 link to the page. 《集韻》 has an entry 毚兔【辰星別名，或省】 link to page, which in the Jiyun formula seems to say these two characters 毚 and 兔 were considered variants to each other without specifying the linguistic context or referring to attestable literature. Overall the textual quality of these appearances has been subpar, and the reading, especially the tonal value in modern Mandarin, is not well-supported.

--Frigoris (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

落地成盒

Hot word from 2017, apparently a bit of video game slang, perhaps from a single game? I don't really read Chinese, but this seems to show up on Baidu, Weibo, and both Chinese and Japanese video game sites. Cnilep (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we allow terms that are amply referenced but whose scope is confined to a single video game? I could add hundreds of such words if we do, and Im not even much of a gamer .... but every little community has its own set of words that seem opaque to even other gamers, because that's just how it goes ... Zipf's law and all .... when fifty people each play something fifty times a lot of new words develop that have no meaning outside the community. For precedent, we rejected backwards long jump in 2016 even though Im sure we could turn up hundreds to thousands of citations for it. —Soap— 01:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

寇巴俄狐

Created by @Corsicanwarrah, who certainly got it from Wikipedia (considering past discussions :p).

Google Books has two mentions (Jing ji bu gong bao, Volume 35, Issues 22-24; 臺北市政府公報, Part 1 / Taiwan sheng zheng fu gong bao, Part 1).

Google Scholar has 0 results. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually used in lists from the Taiwanese government. I'm not sure if these count as mentions or uses. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

厄瓜多爾胡狼, 厄瓜多尔胡狼

One Google Books mention (破坏环境资源保护罪的定罪与量刑).

0 Google Scholar results. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears in legislation by the Hong Kong government regarding endangered animals (google:"厄瓜多爾胡狼" site:.gov.hk), a mention. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government uses 厄瓜多尔狐狼 in its CITES appendix.[144][145] Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

山狐

Nothing in G.Books / G.Scholar for "山狐" "Lycalopex" (scientific name to narrow down the results from "mountain" + "fox") —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzukaze-c I created those entries quite early in my time here, when I wasn't aware that I couldn't take terms from Wikipedia... Funnily enough, I had thought of sending these terms to RFV earlier, but then I saw that they had hits on QQ. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

走甲無尾留

No ghits. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [146] (44:03). The dog2 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: I hear 走甲無尾溜 (cháu kah bô bér-liu). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think it's clear whether 去 needs to be part of the phrase. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the second point, I'm not that sure about whether it's part of the phrase or not. For the first, 留 just seems like the more logical character, but yes, it does sound closer to 溜. The dog2 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: 尾溜 means "tail", so it would literally mean something like "to run until one's tail is gone". Since it's unclear whether 去 is part of the phrase, I don't think we should keep this at all unless we can find it elsewhere. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found 走到無尾溜 here, but I'm not exactly sure if 到 is kah in this case. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

อุตสาห

This seems to be a morpheme, not a word. I'm not sure how to clean up the entry, or whether it should remain when fixed. According to the (Thai) Royal Institute Dictionary (RID), the independent word is อุตส่าห์ (note the tone mark and cancellation mark), yielding the unbound pronunciation shown, while อุตสาห is a trisyllabic prefix, notated อุตสาห- in the RID. (The Thai of the RID does use hyphens.) The RID also reports a trisyllabic stand-alone form, อุตสาหะ. Before one spelling reform, if the word existed (evidence?), the trisyllabic unbound form would have been spelt the same as the challenged lemma. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will find lots of อุตสาหกรรม (อุตสาห + กรรม) in search results, and some rare compounds like อุตสาหการ (อุตสาห + การ). In Wiktionary, every form of a word can have its own page, that is, we can have อุตสาห, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุษาหะ, อุสสาหะ, and อุสส่าห์. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The compounds you cited are evidence for อุตสาห-, are they not? I'm not sure how to link all these forms. Linked they should be. Is the etymology of อุตสาหกรรม {{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตส่าห์|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตสาห-|กรรม}} or even {{compound|th|อุตสาห-|-กรรม}}? Or {{prefix|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}? And why doesn't the latter link to a form with a hyphen? Amusingly, อุตสาหกรรม gets broken between lines with a hyphen (at the morpheme join) in the 1999 edition of the RID.--RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If อุตสาห is now only the combining form (the disyllabic nonocombining form has vanished since I raised this RfV), why is its part of speech 'adjective' as opposed to 'prefix'? --RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}. Thai lemmas here do not have hyphen for prefix/suffix because they have same meaning of its full word so prefix/suffix will be written on the same page, unless they are spelled different. And Thai lemmas can always attach to another word even they are not prefix/suffix (a noun can modify another noun, etc), like Chinese and other languages in the SEA region. In case of อุตสาห, the dictionary said:

อุตสาห-, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ น. ความบากบั่น, ความพยายาม, ความขยัน, ความอดทน, ใช้ว่า อุษาหะ อุสสาหะ หรือ อุสส่าห์ ก็มี. ก. บากบั่น, พยายาม, ขยัน, อดทน.

and

อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ น. อุตสาหะ. ก. อุตส่าห์.

that means the entry อุตสาห should be noun (น.), since morpheme cannot be verb (ก.). อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ, and unmentioned อุษาหะ are full words. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means the preceding combining form is written in words as "อุตสาห", while as a whole word it is อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) or อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). The rest means that the word forms are both nouns and verbs, and that there are yet other spellings in use. Taking the RID as a whole, it's not clear to me what the status of อุษาหะ is; unlike the other forms, it has no entry of its own in the RID. Note there is no entry อุตสาห in the RID; the entry is อุตสาห-. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main modes of noun compounding in Thai. Indic words are combined in the order (modifier, head), and the first element usually sprouts a linking vowel and the restoration in speech of the silent final vowels, and often clarification of the phonation of a final stop. There may also be spelling changes. This the old Indo-European order, still seen in English compounds like coalmine. The native order is (head, modifier), and it is often not clear whether this is syntax or word derivation. The first element may be modified, e.g. by the vowel shortening, but this is not visible in writing. There are then a few anomalous compounds, like ผลไม้ (pǒn-lá-máai, “fruit”), with native ordering but still a link vowel. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in this case that the noun and its compounding form are written differently. I believe there is no big problem with giving the etymology of the compound as {{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}; what is uncertain is whether it is a compound of the 2- or 3-syllable form. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Octahedron80 has sneakily changed the part of speech to 'noun'. With that change, the entry is clearly a candidate for deletion, as there is no noun อุตสาห (utasāha) in correctly spelt modern Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have originally created it as a noun, since the PoS distinction in a language such as Thai is blurred, especially for compound words. I was guided by its meaning and my Thai is below average.

It's was reasonable to change it to noun. The term is present in Sanook dictionary. There are so many derivations. Please keep the word. อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) should be the alt or the main spelling, IMO. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a word in modern Thai! The Sanook dictionary is a compilation of other dictionaries. Which one are you citing? The headword from the RID looks corrupt, but perhaps it's from so old a version that the hyphen wasn't there. A 1950's book teaching Thai laments that the spelling นม represented both of what are now written as นมะ (námá, “homage”) and นม (nom, “milk)”). --RichardW57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link. What are you suggesting? I don't think it's very typical to have Thai entries with hyphens. Another solution, like having a component as SoP may be required. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating that as a copy of a recent RID dictionary, the headwords in the Sanook dictionary are corrupt. I have one other big Thai dictionary, and that also shows combining forms with a hyphen. It seems that the correct way forward is to:

Mark this entry as a 'noun form', the combining form of อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) and อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). (I have jocularly referred to Thai as having a genitive case.) --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use first of these forms as the central lemma, referencing compounds to it. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On those two pages, say, in the usage notes, how compounds are formed and handled. Display this entry with a hyphen, which is the expectation of readers who have used a good Thai dictionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A longer term solution is to change {{prefix}} so that it expects Thai prefixes to have hyphens, and rename this entry to the hyphenated form, as seen in good dictionaries. Special handling will be needed if we can find evidence of the use of the challenged word's form as a noun. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michell's 1892 dictionary has อุสสาห, but curiously indicates a disyllabic pronunciation. If that had been entered as a noun, it would be right to keep it as an obsolete spelling. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of words are in the same case like this. For example แพทย/แพทย์, อินทร/อินทร์, ศาสตร/ศาสตร์, ธุร/ธุระ, etc, if you want to look into it. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They need to be dealt with. I intend to create a template for noting the existence of a combining form. I think I'll call it {{th-combining}}. Its expansion may need rework, as head-initial and head-final compounding are different, but I couldn't think of a snappy way of saying that to non-linguists. For แพทย์ (pɛ̂ɛt, “physician”), แพทย์หญิง (pɛ̂ɛt-yǐng, “female doctor”) versus แพทยศาสตร์ (pɛ̂ɛt-tá-yá-sàat, “medicine (the disicipline)”) exemplifies the difference. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German "Suffixes"

-beck, -büren/-bühren, -broich in place-names: Instead of being formed with the suffix, rather the place-names are borrowed, e.g. German Lübeck from Low German or Middle Low German.
-vitz/-witz in surnames: Rather from place-names, e.g. Horowitz from the German place Horowitz, influenced by Slavic.

--Marontyan (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

鰂魚

Rfv-sense "cuttlefish", added by Special:Contributions/2408:84E1:10A:3F11:24AD:C8FF:FEF9:808E. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-waabiminik

I can find no online source for this entry. It could be a mash up of two morphemes waabik (dollar) and minik (how many), but even that would be the product of a unique morphology. Or perhaps it comes from a printed glossary somewhere. SteveGat (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-waakwaagan

I can find no online source for this suffix. It might be a participle, or maybe a medial+final combination that may appear together. SteveGat (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

朳

Rfv-sense: "tree". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

大阪

Rfv-sense: Japanese surname senses under Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

迂棋

There are multiple hits on QQ, but my knowledge of Chinese is not good enough to determine if they are talking about fanorona.

Searching "迂棋" "fanorona" turns up nothing on Google Books.

Searching just these characters on Google turns up mainly guides to Assassin's Creed III, which features fanorona. But would these mentions count as durably archived sources?

--Corsicanwarrah (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of the Wikipedia page suggests that it is an original creation by @Outlookxp. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a-bhuas

Looks to me like somebody meant a-nuas but got it confused with a-bhos. Never came across it and haven't found it in any of my dictionaries either. --Droigheann (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Droigheann: I can't confirm or deny the existence of a-bhuas, but is sense 2 of a-nuas correct? Does it really mean both "down towards the speaker" and "up towards the speaker"? Irish uses anuas for the former, while the latter is aníos. Does Scottish Gaelic not make the same distinction between a-nuas and a-nìos that Irish makes between anuas and aníos? —Mahāgaja · talk 20:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahagaja: That is indeed the case in Scottish Gaelic as well, but in some dialects a-nìos disappeared and a-nuas is used for both, cf eg here: "Confusingly, some dialects have merged a-nuas and a-nìos into a-nuas, in which case a-nuas stands for 'movement towards you either upwards or downwards'." I tagged the sense as dialectal. --Droigheann (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

פלסטין

Aramaic entry specifically. Nothing on Sefaria in Aramaic, nothing in the CAL. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@פֿינצטערניש: I see it’s one of the cases where 334a (talk • contribs) created Hebrew spellings for Syriac entries; the Syriac entry Payne Smith, Robert (1879–1901) Thesaurus Syriacus (in Latin), Oxford: Clarendon Press, column 3160, Payne Smith, Jessie (1903) A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded Upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D., Oxford: Clarendon Press, page 449a. I found that with certainty after getting to the entry Aramaic קפלאון (qeppalleʾōn), which is however found in Syriac books printed in Hebrew script (because Hebrew was easier to print than Syriac due to not connecting). But they preferrably would all have used {{spelling of}} instead. Fay Freak (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

近因

Rfv-sense: "directly because; directly as the result of". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

外銷

Rfv-sense: ‘to another part of the country' in all Chinese languages or only some contexts in Mandarin Chinese? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest closing and continuing discussion at Talk:外銷. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Suzukaze-c. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case there's no consensus to close, I've started collecting citations at Citations:外銷. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV closed. This was never appropriate for RFV, and the definition in the entry as given is correct. Usage notes may be appropriate. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kallënduar

Challenged by @ArbDardh. DTLHS (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bendedór

Created by @Terriffic Dunker Guy, presumably based on the pt.wikt entry, which was created by a now-permablocked user. Native speaker @Ismenelik informs me that none of the islands actually use this form. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

perrónpoetsbeurtjórgenizater

A lovely word I stumbled upon while looking for something else. But it seems like it's misspelled, unless there's some vowel fusion in this language, and neither this spelling nor the one I would expect from the etymology turn up any use examples or even hits on Google aside from us and our mirrors. —Soap— 18:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limburgish is a freely compounding language, like its neighbouring Germanic languages, with many fully transparent noun + noun compounds, entirely predictable except for a possible infix. If these organizers are recognizable by a type of hat they wear, that would then be a perrónpoetsbeurtjórganizaterhood. Often such lengthy compounds are found in collections of trivia items as (often artificially constructed) examples of how laughably long words in some languages can get (Rindfleischetikettierungsuberwachungsaufgabenubertragungsgesetz anyone?). Definitely made-up examples include Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft and muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine. Other long words are formed by agglutination. We have some such entries: hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, hottentottententententoonstelling, floccinaucinihilipilification, pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, epäjärjestelmällistyttämättömyydellänsäkään, превысокомногорассмотрительствующий (prevysokomnogorassmotritelʹstvujuščij), გადმოსაკონტრრევოლუციონერებლებისნაირებისათვისაცო (gadmosaḳonṭrrevolucionereblebisnairebisatvisaco). The German Wiktionary has Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung. Other erstwhile entries have failed verification (megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért). What is bizarre about the entry under discussion is that none of its components has an entry (and, apart from poets, not even on the Limburgish Wiktionary). --Lambiam 12:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

сука

Rfv-sense "(vulgar, offensive) promiscuous slut". Originally added by an IP (with the wrong template) with the reasoning: "Reliable source needed for that use of the word" in diff. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

دائمي

—78.95.89.13 00:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hyaȷ́atás

The thematic vowel points to these being secondary. Probably should be deleted. @Ariamihr, AryamanA, JohnC5 --{{victar|talk}} 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: We would be keeping the Proto-Iranian entry? The Sanskrit does seem derived regularly rather than inherited. —Aryaman^A ^{(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AryamanA: Yeah, the Iranian would also be secondary, but it's possible that Iranian would have thrown in a thematic vowel. I'll have to look more into that. Certainly wouldn't've been IIr. --{{victar|talk}} 01:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klopse

The Afrikaans sense - isn't it supposed to be klopse if it's a noun? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a quotation of the first sense as Klopse, but it's in English. It also appears as klops in the singular in English. It may appear sometimes capitalized because the proper noun Kaapse Klopse can be shortened to Klopse.

2019 January 2, “Tweede Nuwe Jaar: Origins and evolution of die Kaapse Klopse”, in The South African:

During the festival thousands of brightly-clothed people march through the streets of Cape Town, organized into Klopse (troupes), entertaining the crowd through singing, dancing and playing a number of musical instruments.

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

escala de piedras

Originally sent to RFD; escala doesn't mean "climbing", but the term seems unattested anyway. It was created by Luciferwildcat. Ultimateria (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

бабушка

Belarusian meaning grandmother. User:Atitarev thinks this does not exist in Belarusian (diff).

I admit that, when creating the Belarusian entry, I have probably misread slounik.org[147], which has boldface "бабушка" only for "Расейска-беларускі (Булыка)" and "Расейска-беларускі (Некрашэвіч-Байкоў)", that is, from dictionaries from Russian to Belarusian.

Nonetheless, I'd propose to run the normal RFV.

As an aside, changing the slounik.org link to use x=33 & y=8 & un=1[148], which was achieved by checking "толькі ў назьве", limits the search to headwords, which seems to be desirable; perhaps I should change {{R:be:slounik.org}} accordingly. Later: No, I should not change {{R:be:slounik.org}} that way since we need to find Belarusian words in the non-headword parts of Russian-Belarusian dictionaries. And yet: we do not need to find Belarusian words in the non-headword parts of Russian-Belarusian dictionaries; it suffices to find the words in Belarusian-Russian dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: I have found a few citeable Belarusian GBH for "бабушкі", "бабушцы" (trying to remove Russian from the search, still doing some refined searches), so I am retracting the RFV. In slounik.org, I'd rather not check "толькі ў назьве". It does eliminate some usage examples and sometimes I only find inflections with no translations into Russian when the checkbox is ticked. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: Thank you about the entry; can you please post links to these attesting quotations here, just the minimum sufficient to find them? About {{R:be:slounik.org}}, please post to the discussion at it talk page. Maybe I was too hasty but it does seem to me that the setup without the restriction is misleading and tricky. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: link #1, link #2, link #3.

Slounik.org is not a bad dictionary, gives a lot of examples without restrictions but it's important to differentiate between the Russian and Belarusian texts. As I said at Template talk:R:be:slounik.org, if I find cases where it's detrimental, not letting you find a word, I'll let you know but in my memory, it sometimes gives inflections but no translations if a checkbox is ticked. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

蘇聯語

# {{lb|zh|informal}} [[Russian language]] {{gloss|official national federal language of the Soviet Union}}
# {{lb|zh|by restriction}} spoken Russian

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

蘇聯文

# {{lb|zh|informal}} [[Russian language]]; {{zh-synonym of|蘇聯語}} {{gloss|official national federal language of the Soviet Union}}
# {{lb|zh|by restriction}} written Russian

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

俄羅斯文

# [[Russian]] [[language]]; {{zh-synonym of|俄羅斯語}}
# {{lb|zh|by restriction}} written Russian

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be cited for both written and spoken Russian. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

俄羅斯語

# [[Russian]] [[language]]
# {{lb|zh|by restriction}} spoken Russian

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

俄國文

# [[Russian]] language; {{zh-synonym of|俄國語}}
# {{lb|zh|by restriction}} written Russian

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

俄國語

# [[Russian]] language
# {{lb|zh|by restriction}} spoken Russian

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Saxon Spellings

See the search results. The Wikipedia article was deleted. --B-Fahrer (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

सेने

Please advise where I should query if this query is in the wrong place. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC) The meaning of this is given as "perfect active third-person singular of सन् (san)", which verges on gibberish and is difficult to understand. Both the word-form of the entry and the untranslated grammar notes in the entry make it clear that the form of the entry is a not very remarkable perfect middle 3rd singular. So why is this described as 'active'? Recent discussions on how to use {{sa-verb}} cause me to be unsure that the word 'active' in the description is not a simple blunder for 'middle'. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there is a request of the definition of the meaning of the root, but when I look it up in Monier-Williams, I find three meanings:

to gain, acquire, obtain as a gift, possess, enjoy, RV. ; AV. ; Br. ; ŚrS. ;
to gain for another, procure, bestow, give, distribute, RV. ;
(Ā.) to be successful, be granted or fulfilled, ib. :

I can only guess how this would be wiktionarified. Now, I presume meaning 3 is possible for a middle form. But with regards to meanings 1 and 2, will the result of wiktionarification be intended to say that a perfect tense middle form is only to be understood as the passive of 1 or 2, or that it may also have meanings 1 and possibly even 2? Will interpretation require the user to pay attention to the 'type' of the verb? I have asked, on its discussion page, how the 'types' (Anglice 'voice') P, A and U recorded via {{sa-verb}} are to be interpreted. (The Sanskrit words these letters abbreviate appear, in this context, to have the meanings 'active', 'middle' and 'either/both' respectively.) @AryamanA, JainismWikipedian, Bhagadatta --RichardW57 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a position to comment on everything above, but I do think the "active" label at सेने (sene) is simply a mistake and can be changed to "middle" without further discussion. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mahagaja again. The person who created the entry made a mistake. The active counterpart would be ससान (sasāna). -- Bhagadatta (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which just leaves some simpler immediate questions, neglecting the issue of looking up a meaning. Should we refer the perfect forms to a finite verb or to the root (and what do we then do for compound verbs)? Mahāgaja changed the apparent lemma form from root to a 3s present active. If a finite verb, do we refer to the present tense form(s) or to the 3s perfect active (when it exists)? Should it depend on whether a perfect has a meanings of its own? Isn't the label A/P (or A/P/U?) redundant for an entry for a verb form? --RichardW57 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, ‘when it exists’? When it’s attested? At least in Classical Sanskrit, the 3s perfect active virtually always exists by fiat. Or do you mean ‘exists on Wiktionary’? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it's attested. I'm not sure how we handle citation forms that would be words if they existed in the language but don't actually exist - there's an unresolved challenge to Latin ops for this very reason. There are a few deponent verbs in Classical Sanskrit (one set of examples gives the roots labh ās kṣam vas sac), but Rigvedic or Epic Sanskrit mostly supply an active perfect when Classical Sanskrit has a middle perfect, which may not be entirely suitable. However, वस् (vas, “to wear”) (currently not in Wiktionary) has a middle perfect ववसे (vavase, “wore”) (is this sanctioned by Panini?) for which the active perfects of the homophonous roots are quite inappropriate. Panini does not dictate what words are recorded in Wiktionary, though his adherents may by what they have written.--RichardW57 (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do usually allow lemma forms that are themselves unattested, especially when the lemma form itself is in no real doubt. For ops the problem is that the nominative singular could conceivably have been opis or opēs. But if there was a Latin word whose accusative singular was attested as, say, ropulam, with dative and genitive singular ropulae, I think no one would bat an eyelash at our putting it at the unattested nominative singular ropula. As for Sanskrit, we should have separate entries for roots and verbs, and inflected forms of verbs should point to the verb entry, not to the root, so the current version of सेने (sene) calling it an inflected form of सनति (sanati) and सनोति (sanoti) is right; it shouldn't be called an inflected form of the root सन् (san). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between non-existence and an attestation gap. It gets awkward when all the speakers of a language are L2-speakers. Still, we can defer those arguments until the debate over which of लभते (labhate), लभति (labhati) and लम्भते (lambhate) to refer लेभे (lebhe, “got”) to. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I often do for similar cases in Ancient Greek, where an aorist or perfect stem is associated with multiple present stems, is to assign them to the most commonly attested present stem, and then at the entries for the other present stems, I leave a note saying "For other tenses, see [most common present form]". And the less common present stems are listed as Alternative forms at the top of the page for the most common present form. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works well when the present stems are synonymous. I suppose Greek πείθω (peíthō) is an exemplar for different perfects having different meanings. With my limited knowledge, I looked to Latin īnstō and īnsistō for cognate presents having different meanings, but their common perfect īnstitī doesn't point back to both of them :-( --RichardW57 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was bot-generated (in fact, the page institi has only ever been edited by bots!): it created the forms of one of the two verbs first, and when it got to the second verb, it didn't create any form that already had a Latin entry. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-resolved. As far as I can tell, this never belonged here in the first place. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

特

Rfv-sense: "single-handed; by oneself". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

犆

Rfv-sense: "to draw lots using cattle". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

πρωτο-

Anon added Ancient Greek to this entry, but I'm wondering if it actually was a prefix in that language. Anyone care to shed some light? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to start with: πρωτ- and πρωθ- Chuck Entz (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that it's a variant of πρωτ- and πρωθ- or the main prefix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say πρωτο- (prōto-) is the primary form and πρωτ- (prōt-) and πρωθ- (prōth-) are alternative forms. I'd also say it's a real prefix, though I'm not sure how to test that hypothesis against the alternative, namely that words beginning with it are compounds of πρῶτος (prôtos). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the test is either impossible or impracticable, for Old Armenian I put the derivatives under the primary form and add a usage note, as in պէս (pēs) and բան (ban). --Vahag (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

poire-alligator

The ghits seem mentioney and often refer to the English word alligator pear. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred

Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alamu

Yoruba, supposedly meaning "lizard"; the only word for "lizard" my dictionaries have is alangba. The creator made quite a few mistakes with Yoruba entries, but I thought this one might be worth checking. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

atanna

Yoruba for "electron". Used on yo.wiki, but not as the page title, and I can't find use elsewhere. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

gbigbe

Yoruba for "home". I don't see this word in my dictionaries, nor with this meaning on Google Books. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its an adjective .... maybe there is an inflectional morpheme missing. Or maybe the inflection is there and the word for "home" as a noun is shorter. I know little about this language .... just throwing out ideas .... figuring that it is unlikely that its totally fictitious. —Soap— 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have anything useful to add, please consider not saying anything. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I may be subconsciously importing habits from social media where it's OK to make comments with no helpful information just to call attention to a post. This post had been up for a few days with no reply so I thought maybe I would "upvote" it but I realize 3 days is not a very long time by the stanrdards for these pages. Now, in my defense, you gave me this same message a few months ago for a comment that I still stand by and believe was helpful, but I find myself apologizing for talkign too much elsewhere too so I know I need to limit what i say. I hear you and understand. In fact, in some cases I think people are are too patient with me. But I've babbled enough. Thanks, —Soap— 13:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhippo.com[149] is a plausible source of this error. It translates residence as ile gbigbe. It looks like ilé is the real word for house if you reduce it to one word, not gbigbe. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

бар акша

Methinks not a real word. Taken from Swarthmore talking dictionary, which includes a lot of SOPs. Alves9 (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which meaning of бар (bar) + “money” adds up to “cash”? --Lambiam 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

бар (bar, “available”) + акша (akşa, “money”), as in "Мээң бар акшам" (The money that I have) is how I see it. Here's some other questionable terms taken from the Swarthmore dictionary:

эртеңги хая (erteñgi xaya, “sunset”) (misspelling of эртенги хая)
өөредип каар (ööredip kaar, “to teach”) (SOP of өөредир (ööredir) + каар (kaar))
чүдей берген (çüdey bergen, “hungover”) (non-idiomatic SOP of чүдээр (çüdeer) + бээр (beer) in its past tense; this entry used to exist in the form of чүдей)
эштип билир (eştip bilir, “to swim”) (SOP of эштир (eştir) + билир (bilir) and also wrong, should be "to know how to swim") —Alves9 (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to specify headwords in multi-word terms, to link to the lemma forms of each element, i.e. {{tyv-verb|head=эштип билир}}. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that, but since those entries in particular are SOP I figured I wouldn't mess too much with them. Just as there is no know how to swim or know how to do entry for English, there should be no эштип билир entry for Tuvan. Alves9 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All SOP terms deleted (treating this as a RFD). To the future archiver, be sure to link back to all the redlinks below. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

сознание

The sense 'confession' must be confused with признание, or, if it really exists, it needs some label: rare? archaic? some special context? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, it is correct, as it is derived from сознаться (soznatʹsja, “to confess”). признание has a different sense of confession. Even the wikipedia page explains the word as confession, as in confession before a mother or confession before a priest. Not archaic at all, I have seen and heard it numerous times. Thadh (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Allahverdi Verdizade, Thadh: I have added the "obsolete" label. This sense is completely forgotten but can be confirmed. E.g. the Russian Wiktionary entry for сознание has a Pushkin quote where the term is used in the sense with a related verb, which makes it even more obvious: " "Нужна ли тебе моя критика? Нет! не правда ли? всё равно; критикую: ты сознаёшься, что характер поэта неправдоподобен; сознание похвальное, но надобно бы сию неправдоподобность оправдать, извинить в самой комедии, а не в предисловии." --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something happened to the way Wiktionary projects are linked. I no longer can link to the Russian Wiktionary entries. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then I guess rfv-tag can be removed Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV resolved by retraction, but @Atitarev, it would be much better if you included that Pushkin quote (and two others) in the entry itself. Also, nothing has changed with linking: ru:сознание works just fine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge: All right, quote added. Thanks. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

鬼仔

Rfv-sense: an ethnic Chinese boy who only speaks English. @The dog2 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely remember it being used as a sort-of insult in a Chinese restaurant in Australia, when the server referred to a primary-school aged ethnic Chinese boy who only spoke English but not Cantonese as 鬼仔. The dog2 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: (1) Remembering something isn't proof (especially when you're not a native speaker). (2) The definition seems too specific. While English is the most salient foreign language to Cantonese speakers, it's unlikely that 鬼仔 is only about speaking English. It seems to be more of a term used figuratively to describe someone of Chinese descent who has grown up in Western society, i.e. someone who is whitewashed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the sense I got was that it is similar to the using the term "banana" to refer to someone of Chinese descent raised in the West who does not speak any variety of Chinese. Most often, it applies to one from an ethnic Chinese from an English-speaking country, but I guess it could also in theory also refer to a French or German person of Chinese descent. The dog2 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

出殳

Second-round simplified. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

沋击

Another second-round simplified. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

inflection table for Gaulish entry

The entry given has a declension table for the Gaulish pronoun "tu". I highly doubt even half of these forms are actually attested. RubixLang (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

afstraffing

Dutch, RFV-sense of "a memorable lesson". An extremely weird definition (probably a Verboism); a severe punishment or beatdown can certainly be a memorable lesson, but I do not think that can be attested as a denotation. As an aside, I think we could perhaps use a literal sense for "beating". ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The figurative use seen here, a humiliating defeat, fits the contested definition better than “punishment” or “beatdown”. (The Dutch phrase “Na deze afstraffing“ here translates English “Soundly thrashed”.) Note that the figurative sense of “defeat” is shared by English beating (as a noun). Often the meaning is merely a (purely verbal) reprimand, like here and here, a figurative sense shared by English castigation. --Lambiam 20:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🦀

Rfv-sense: Used to convey joy, excitement, or celebration. As an experiment to see what kind of citations would satisfy this. DTLHS (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't index emojis and neither does Issuu, so this means it's impossible to attest emojis, even when they're used in books, magazines, and other durably-archived media. This has been in use since at least 2019 (it's inspired by the 2018 "Crab Rave" video), and appears easily citable off Twitter. It's doesn't seem reasonable that a whole area of language would be precluded from inclusion simply because the technical limitations of Google mean we cannot find "durable" citations. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter citations added here, spanning 2018 to this year. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn about this. Surely there are books or magazines with extensive use of emojis that could be collated and scanned by eye, but it's undeniable that the burden of attesting emojis is vastly higher for purely nonlinguistic reasons. That said, we can't just switch to using Twitter to attest things, in part because tweets are easily deleted or removed, and in part because that would be a conscious choice to attest emoji usage on Twitter, which is often rather distinct from its usage elsewhere. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing this the old-fashioned way would require someone to manually read through every book and magazine printed in the last two years in the vain hope they can find three instances of the crab emoji being used. (I think I've happened upon the eggplant emoji in print once in all my deep-diving through Issuu). There's no way to cite emojis except through platforms that index emojis, and Twitter is currently the largest, most active platform that does. The "durably archived media, except Usenet" thing is unnecessarily hamstringing our ability to document emojis, and possibly other Internet slang as well. Seriously, it was a weird policy ten years ago. Now it's just silly. Almost no one is having conversations on Usenet in 2020. Google has nerfed Groups to the point it's basically useless. I can't find things anymore unless I know exactly which newsgroups to search. And you couldn't find emojis on Groups, even if Usenet was still being widely used.

Of course there needs to be standards. I'm not suggesting the one-year citation span be thrown out. I still think emojis should have to meet that threshold. But it's silly that emojis should be excluded simply because Google Books, Google Groups, Google Scholar, and Issuu don't let you search for them. Technical limitations imposed by the services we use to find citations should not limit how we document language. This isn't an impassable roadblock -- it's a problem in need of a solution. And that's where Twitter comes in. It's widely used. It's easy to search. It's freely viewable for almost everyone. Sure, tweets sometimes get deleted. But "durably archived" has never meant "freely accessible for everyone in perpetuity." Books go out of print. Libraries take titles out of general circulation. Books moulder or are destroyed in fires. Old newspapers get converted to microfiche, which can then become damaged and unreadable. New newspapers end up filed away behind paywalls. The good thing about Twitter is that there's generally a fresh supply of new tweets to replaces ones that may get deleted. It's not perfect, certainly, but it's the only reliable way to cite emojis, as it stands. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My practice for creating slang entries is to tolerate fewer durable citations if the word is mentioned in a reputable slang dictionary. People sometimes write about twitter words. Are there any less ephemeral mentions to add to the citations page? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

獨身

Rfv-sense Does the "people who are separated from their family" sense apply in Min Nan or Cantonese? If not, should this be labelled as "Mandarin"? [150][151] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The definition seems to be a little too specific. Most Mandarin dictionaries define it as 單獨一個人 or something like that, which would be "(someone who is) alone". 现代汉语规范词典 says it's a noun, but 现代汉语词典 says it's an adverb. To me, it is more an adverb than a noun. Its use in 史記 (per 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本) and other ancient texts (per 漢語大詞典) suggests that it's used in literary Chinese, which could be read in any modern variety of Chinese.

If we're talking about whether 單獨一個人 is used in non-Mandarin varieties, I think so. I've put a couple of citations in Citations:獨身. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kokërrëz

Marked as reconstructed in etymology this was mentioned in. Online results seem to all be mentions, even on standard Google web search. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 18:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this RFV. I have already noticed it is an invented word and @Ain92 has reckoned so too. @Lumbardhia: Stop creating entries you have not witnessed to exist, and especially avoid Vladimir Orel’s works. You are creating a skewed view of the Albanian language. Fay Freak (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The particular Orel work cited doesn't have this word either, actually. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 18:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burn with fire and send @Lumbardhia on a time-out for falsely citing sources. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

優利

Also see earlier discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#優利. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 23:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

сухабочыца

Non-existent. Entered as Belarusian for flounder, plaice, sole. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted out of process by Atitatev. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ᑭᒧᓭᐤ

Seems to be a typo; See ᑭᓄᓭᐤ (kinosew) for a lemma that apparently has the same transliteration and meaning (although ᑭᒧᓭᐤ should be transliterated as kimosew, not kinosew). Thadh (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

肉粽

Rfv-sense: (Min Nan) zongzi (in general). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it only refers to zongzi with meat fillings, not all zongzi, but I may be wrong. And in Singapore, we only use it to refer to the traditional Hokkien and Teochew styles too; it's not used to refer to Nyonya-style dumplings, which are instead called 娘惹粽. The dog2 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: I think you're right. Definitions from various Min Nan dictionaries (emphasis mine):

臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典: 用竹葉或月桃葉等包裹糯米、肉、香菇等食料，然後蒸煮製成的食品，是端午節的節慶食品。
A dictionary of Southern Min (Embree): small packet of meat and rice (wrapped in a leaf and steamed, cf ké-chàng)
Maryknoll Taiwanese-English Dictionary: glutinous rice pastry stuffed with meat and wrapped in bamboo leaves, then steamed or boiled
台日大辭典: 糯米に肉類を入れ竹の葉に包み蒸した角黍。
台日大辭典 (translated into Taiwanese): 有包肉ê粽。
臺灣閩南語辭典 (under 粽): 包肉、香菇、蛋黃等料
Chinese-English dictionary of vernacular or spoken language of Amoy (Douglas, under tsàng): that confection made of rice and pork.
普通话闽南语词典 (under 粽): 包猪肉、栗子、虾干、香菇等的五香粽子
闽南方言大词典 (only has 燒肉粽 as an entry, just an excerpt of a longer definition): 烧肉粽的选料很讲究，不但糯米要精选，连香菇、虾米、栗子、猪肉都要精选。
新加坡闽南话词典: 用粳米等拌肉（最好是三层肉即五花肉）、香菇等加上调料，在锅里稍炒一下，然后拿起来，包在竹叶（或其他可以包粽子的某些植物叶子），扎紧后，放在锅里煮熟后即可吃
Penang Hokkien Dictionary (bak1cang3): meat dumpling

They all agree that meat is an essential ingredient in 肉粽. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we should just delete this sense then. The dog2 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

гарнак

Non-existent? Entered by an IP as Belarusian for grog, any alcoholic beverage containing hot water and sugar. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted out of process by Atitarev. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

بطران

فين أخاي (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ओकार

It seems inherently implausible that Sanskrit ओकार (okāra) should mean 'nu', the Greek letter, as well as the letter 'o'. I could also find the claim at https://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=okAra&direct=se&script=ia&link=yes&mode=3 , but I suspect they've been duped. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

trujense

Both Portuguese and Spanish sections. Made up demonyms. Ultimateria (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Шәңғаң

Converted from an RFD tag, added by @Білгіш Шежіреші. This entry was added by an unreliable editor who didn't know Kazakh, and appears to be an adaptation of the Mandarin that has zero hits on Google Books. Also @Vtgnoq7238rmqco —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page then. After all, I did not creat that page. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ε

Rfv-sense "(mathematics) e, the base of natural logarithms". — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 11:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ε is another symbol of Euler's number, so it would be verified. 176.88.98.248 13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the Greek letter used to represent Euler’s number. This sense is not listed at Wikipedia at ε#Symbol, and this representation is not mentioned in the article on Euler’s number. Using it in this sense would tend to be confusing, since Euler’s number often appears in a context of taking limits, in which ε is traditionally used as a bound variable denoting an arbitrarily small positive number. I do not consider this verified until we have actual instances of uses meeting the CFI criteria. --Lambiam 14:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed at ε#Symbol, but the symbol e is commonly used. 176.88.94.230 11:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both were added by you, 176.88.96.0/22, who are, apparently, a range-blocked anonymous IP-hopping maths warrior over at Wikipedia. --Lambiam 12:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

amaritude

An anon has recently moved the entry from English to Middle English, but left the EME spelling of amaritude as the entry title (I can only find it in Caxton as Middle English amarytude. That said, I find only the 1 Middle English use of this word: c.1450~1489 (Caxton); 2 EME uses: 1611 (Speed) and 1666 (Harvey); and one Scots use in 1599 (Stewart). Are there any others ? Leasnam (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOund one: 1630 (Taylor). That makes this term EME. I will revert the change. Leasnam (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find more uses, but I found one snippet in Google Books[152] saying it came into English via Old French and not directly from Latin as our etymology states. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved (as English). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afar numerals

See User talk:EncycloPetey#Afar numerals. RFV of the following entries: enek, nammay, sidoh, ferey, konoy, lehey, malhin. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mitig

The meaning of wood for mitig is attested as an inanimate noun. I can't find a source for it as an animate noun. SteveGat (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ґарчина

Ukrainian: (Canada) Diminutive of ґара; car, little car. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ґара

Rfv-sense: Ukrainian: --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)(Canada) car, automobile. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Спаса

Various Ukrainian senses. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*

Rfv-sense "Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing." in languages other than German. If failed, move to a German section, and add a link to the page Gendersternchen somewhere.__Gamren (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

епӗ

Originally the same entry as эпӗ. Is it even real or a typo? If real, what is the difference between the two forms? Thadh (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure эпӗ (ep̬ĕ) is the right form and епӗ (ep̬ĕ) is wrong. I couldn't find anything to confirm "епӗ" (or "епĕ" the last letter written in Latin, which is often the case in Chuvash Wikipedia). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

शिरोपधान

— sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

буковинець сипав воду а галичан віллів

@Atitarev This has no hits outside of Wiktionary, and the grammar of галичан віллів seems questionable; галичан is genitive plural, which doesn't fit, and віллів cannot be found in any dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: Entry created by User:Kevlar67, apparently from hearsay, used by some narrow community in Canada. I don't understand the grammar and most of the vocab in the phrase. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev, Benwing2 "Hearsay" is one way of saying it. It's actually "oral history research" done by professional museum researchers. http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/heritagevillage/dictionary.php#B see the quote: "Bukovýnets sýpav vódu a halychán výlliv — a Bukovynian and a Galician both pour water, but each calls it by another name." I just transliterated it into Cyrillic. (though perhaps it should be виллів) Kevlar67 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevlar67 So what we have here is an obsolete Canadian dialect of Ukrainian, taken from a website of questionable provenance, with no source identified for the words, written in a non-scientific transcription, then back-transliterated into Cyrillic (sometimes with errors) and identified as "Ukrainian" often with no indication that it's obsolete dialect. This doesn't bode well, to say the least. I feel uncomfortable about accepting these terms at all into this dictionary; I think it does no favors to the quality of the dictionary to include them. Furthermore, do you understand the grammar of this sentence? I don't: the word for Galician is галича́нин (галича́н is genitive plural, which makes no sense here) and ви́ллів looks like a genitive plural but I don't know of what word; it can't be found in the dictionary. I suspect this phrase is garbled by whoever did the research. Benwing2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: Obsolete is a bit strong; it's in decline, sure, but so are thousands of languages and dialects around the world. The research was done the [153] Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an agency of the Government of Alberta, by professional researchers including [154] Robert Klymasz the preeminent Ukrainian-Canadian folklorist and expert on the local dialect. The link I provided is a summary comprised of the glossaries of several published works of oral history research, most notably Robert B. Klymasz, Sviéto: Celebrating Ukrainian-Canadian ritual in East Central Alberta through the Generations, Edmonton, 1992. Notice that the title is even in dialect, the standard being Sviato. Yes, indeed the phrase it should be given context labels. I have no issue with that, in fact I can do it now. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the transcription: it is a modified version of the Library of Congress system that the research staff at the Ukrainian Village adopted for their first published report in 1976, Ukrainian Vernacular Architecture in Alberta by John Lehr, when access to word processors that could make diacritical marks in Canada was limited. Further, the materials were meant to be read by non-linguists, mainly museum employees, historians, folklorists, etc. I don't see this as an issue in any way. Works about the dialect were also published in Cyrillic, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Rudnyckyj Jaroslav Rudnyckyj's multi-volume Ukrainian-Canadian Folklore and Dermatological Texts (Winnipeg, 1956, 1958, and 1962-63). Kevlar67 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevlar67: The phrase has no value and should be deleted. It was poorly transliterated (the page just uses phonetic Anglicisation, not any specific standard) and poorly translated or rather described. Now I understand what it meant:

At play is a variation of two verbs with similar meaning:

си́пати/насипа́ти (наси́пати)/висипа́ти (ви́сипати) vs ли́ти/налива́ти (нали́ти)/вилива́ти (ви́лити)

"sýpav" refers to си́пав (from си́пати-impf) and "výlliv" is ви́лив (from ви́лити-pf, to pour out).

There is a mix-up in East Slavic languages, not unique to Ukrainian about си́пати (to pour friable/solid objects, such as sand, sugar, salt, etc) and ли́ти (to pour (liquid). Using си́пати (*sỳpati) is normally considered incorrect in standard Ukrainian, ли́ти (*liti) should be used for liquids. This incorrect usage is ascribed to a Galician speaker and it's supposed to be funny in how one person from Bukovina pours water in, the other from Galicia pours it out but they just use different verbs to describe their action.

The sentence uses inconsistent aspects - the first part is imperfective and the second is perfective.

It's grammatically incorrect. It can be rewritten as "букови́нець си́пав во́ду, а галича́нин вилива́в" (imperfective) or "букови́нець naси́пав во́ду, а галича́нин ви́лив" (perfective). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of no value to whom? Yes, I understand it is humourous, that was the point all along. It is equivalent to the English saying: Britain and American are two countries divided by a common language. Rather than give an word-for-word translation, I think the point of the sentence is best compared to this popular English joke. This was how Galicians and Bukovinians felt about each other when they settled together in Canada: similar enough to understand each other but different enough to get confused. Again, this is recorded exactly as spoken from oral history interviews, using the Library of Congress system so if the grammar doesn't match standardized conventions, this is not an error, it is verity. In any event, I will be adding more examples of Ukrainian-Canadian usage as part of my work to document and publicize this endangered dialect. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevlar67: Are you even sure that "виллів" is correct? Why is "l" doubled and it's an "і", not "и"? It's not Ukrainian by any measure. What is this word? Are you sure that the author did a good job by transliterating into an Anglicised version of Ukrainian? Why different verbs aspects are used? It doesn't make sense. How well did the interviewees speak Ukrainian? Diaspora Ukrainian differs from modern standard Ukrainian but in different ways. Such examples only give false impressions. By not providing the links to lemmas or providing the literal translations (on top of the explanation), you're doing a disservice to users. Adding some labels (Canada, dated) is a good start but your spellings suggest that Ukrainians in 1920's in Canada didn't know how to pronounce or spell. Your source actually provides stresses, which you failed to insert. The RFV will take its course and the entry will be deleted (by any user who knows the rules here) because there are no citations provided. A single mention in this dictionary is not a enough. There are zero uses and one mention. On top of that, we don't record non-idiomatic phrases. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

خنث نفسك

--37.125.52.110 08:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale? SOP? Unverifiable? --Lambiam 10:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Unverifiable, unused, ungrammatical. Also swearing in Arabic does not work like in English or even Turkish. Fay Freak (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

gichi-

Gichi- is one of the ways to say right (not left). It is not clear whether it should be considered a preverb (see here) or an initial (initials are written without a hyphen), as in gichinik, or whether it can be analyzed as a separate lemma at all. SteveGat (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:

Latin: Used to mark abbreviations. Tagged by Der Zeitmeister on 4 August 2020 with also the RFC template (“for more information as . is the usual abbreviation mark - although · does occur in inscriptions as word separator and abbreviation mark too (as in [155], [156])”), not listed.

I created this entry because I found it used in a painting and on a British coin but uses that meet the CFI better, to add as quotations, could probably be found easily. J3133 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cheveux blancs

Not familiar with this. P U C – 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [157], [158], [159], [160] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: [161]. --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

geslo

Rfv-sense "password"; removed by IP in diff. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 22:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP is right. It’s in Slovene “password” and even .hr webpages using it for “password” end up being in Slovene; strangely enough @Ivan Štambuk started the page only with this meaning in Croatian, apparently mistranslating the meaning, also misrepresenting its synonym lòzīnka (which is used like German Losung, though it also means password in computer security); an IP added the right meaning later without removing the misleading gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian згра

Per User:Atitarev, a dictionary-only word found in Dal with a ? by it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: The entry in Vladimir Dal's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language (in that time "Great Russian"=Russian, as opposed to Ukrainian or Belarusian) dictionary looks like this:

ЗГРА? донск. искра (зга?).

Question marks are preserved. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: I've added reference to Dahl. If it's kept, the inlfections should be removed as unknown. зга (zga) exists in modern Russian but preserved only in expressions. Also diminutive зги́нка (zgínka). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get it .... why arent we just assuming the etymology is that it's a variant of искра? thanks, —Soap— 23:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

minger

Spanish. Removed by IP in diff. For such a common word, you'd expect entries in other dictionaries, but I can't find any, but I can find some results, so it might not be a complete hoax. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 16:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

برق

Rfv-sense: telegraph --213.166.133.52 05:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source confirms as much, [162], the root is clearly related to telegrams [163] as is attested in Wehr, this must be a variant form. This is rfv-passed removing request and keeping. -Profes.I. (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

羅布樂思

Unlikely to meet WT:CFI, unlike Roblox#English (meticulously checked at Citations:Roblox). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fake news

Rfv-sense "any news considered insufficiently flattering by populists [from 2016 or 2017]". Very specific definition, and the wording makes me suspect it's a jab at a particular politician that some editor doesn't like.__Gamren (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sense in which populist politicians generally use the term; just read the Wikipedia article Fake news. Dutch politicians are no exception. So there is no strong reason to think the editor had any specific politician in mind. Instead of “insufficiently flattering” I think the term denotes, rather, news for which it is more convenient for the speaker if it can be discarded as not being true. I am not sure why we do not have an English entry, but as used in the sense of “it's all lies, folks — so dishonest....” it is not the more usual sense of a hoax news item (“NASA: Mysterious UFO appears to 'sit and watch' Hubble telescope”; “Mother-of-ten (aged 77) pregnant with triplets – doctors are baffled”; “VP Shoots Fellow Hunter: Cheney peppers Texas lawyer with birdshot during quail hunt”*) --Lambiam 17:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* O, wait, that one was actual news. But here is a bonus made-up story.

I'm not sure if the "news I don't want to be true" sense is the same as "fabricated news", or if we want to add a sense "2. false news." Certainly there are news stories I don't consider "fake news" that have been called such, but you have to get into the speaker's head to know the intended meaning. If I call evolution or quantum field theory or N-rays pseudoscience, have I created a new sense of pseudoscience or used the existing sense in a way some people disagree with? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we can think about like this: Would it make sense for a politician to outright tell her constituency "this may be true, but if it were found to be true, it would undermine my policies, therefore we should agree to disregard it"? Certainly they would not take her seriously! Alternatively, I found an article claiming to debunk Trump's accusations of fake news. The authors of this article clearly understand those accusations to regard veracity rather than political usefulness. I definitely think the intent behind describing something as fake news is that it contains information known to be untrue. I wouldn't mind if a usage note was added explaining that the term has a history of being misapplied by politicians to demonstrably true information.__Gamren (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ligh

Rfv-sense "(transitive, intransitive) lick", removed by IP. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 10:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means "lick", and it's the main verb that does mean "lick". Here are a couple of lemmings: [164] showing that ligh means “lick”, and [165] showing that “lick” is translated with ligh. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those do show that the verb is very much in common use, so I'll just close this as a RFV-passed. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ヅース

Alt. form of デュース. @LittleWhole —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"ヅース" finds 242 ostensible hits, collapsing to 30 when paging through.

Of those 30 hits, most of them appear to be scannos of uncertain original form. As an example of how wacky scannos can get, at least one of these is actually a French manuscript, and Google misparsed the cursive script as Japanese somehow. More tamely, at least five of these were misparsings of ソース (sōsu), a borrowing of either source (as in "source code") or sauce.

The only one instance that might actually be ヅース (zūsu) seems to be a transliteration of a Hungarian name.

I'd say delete as unconfirmable.

ヅアル

Alt. form of デュアル. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

eadar-bhunaiteach

Allegedly Scottish Gaelic for astable. Never came across it, can't find any reference for it. --Droigheann (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

अगार

User blanked the page with the message "Deleted wrong word completely. अगार is no word, आगार is the right word." DTLHS (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Hindi Wiktionary lists both term as Hindi. --Lambiam 06:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I said at RFD: Monier Monier-Williams gives both अगार (agāra) [166] and आगार (āgāra) [167] for Sanskrit. This RFV seems to be for Pali, though, and the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary lists only agāra as the "real" form, and āgāra just says to see the entry for agāra. At that entry we read: "Owing to freq. occurrence of agāra at the end of cpds. of which the first word ends in a, we have a dozen quite familiar words ending apparently in āgāra. This form has been considered therefore as a proper doublet of agāra. This however is wrong. The long ā is simply a contraction of the short a at the end of the first part of the cpd. with the short a at the beginning of agāra." Of course we aren't obliged to blindly follow a 100-year-old dictionary, but there does seem to be good reason to believe that "अगार is no word, आगार is the right word" is an incorrect claim. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the {{rfv}} tag was for the Sanskrit entry as well, but it was changed out of process to {{rfd}}. --Lambiam 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

štaljba

I suspect User:Lumbardhia is adding nonexistent terms again. No ghits, BGC has a few but they seem to all be mentions. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 10:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

白堊館

Literally "white-painted large building", as opposed to "the White House".

@空色の季節 —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

政治改正

chèng-tī kái-chèng

I got it from Wikipedia :p. Are there any quotations outside the Wikipedia? --沈澄心 ✉ 14:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

中央

Rfv-sense: "centralized". --沈澄心 ✉ 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mascne

Portuguese. See also the RFV of English mascne. J3133 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe cited. Three uses, at least. I don't know what Portuguese sources are considered durable but I avoided anything that was obviously a blog. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vox Sciurorum: Are the other translations of maskne (French maskne, Indonesian maskne, Italian maskne m., Russian маскне (maskne), Spanish mascné m.) attested? I request verification. J3133 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those words in those languages exist on the web. I did not check durability. Not having seen a policy, my observation of others' editing habits tells me translations do not have to meet the same standards as definitions. The Spanish and Russian words are on those languages' request pages. I do not consider myself qualified to add Russian and Indonesian definitions. I can attempt adding proper Spanish and Italian definitions with citations if you are throwing down your gauntlet, but my life is busy this week. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are for entries that should exist. If they are not attested, they shall be removed, as the policies do not have exceptions for terms in translation sections nor should there be a double standard allowing unattested translations. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created Citations:mascné for Spanish. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created Citations:maskné for French. Other spellings have been used (maskne, mascné, la mascnée). This one looks like the winner. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added one each Italian and Indonesian use to Citations:maskne as evidence I did not fabricate the words. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tennessine

Hot word in Danish from 2016. Can it be kept? DTLHS (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation with nihonium and moscovium. These new elements are kind of translingual, but not entirely because they can have language-specific inflection. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Wikipedia article suggests that the word is no longer in use in Danish. I think that may have been the point of the RFV. Thadh (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

大馬哈

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Which sense are you trying to verify?

1) "chum salmon"

2020-06, 延边新闻综合频道, 《珲春市人民检察院召开大马哈资源保护公益监督听证会》[168]
听证会上，珲春市人民检察院就密江河大马哈国家级水产种植资源的工业诉讼监督情况，建立大马哈国家级水产种植资源多部门联合保护机制情况的进行介绍。与会人员围绕大马哈种群繁衍、增殖放流、保护渔业资源等方面进行讨论。大家纷纷表示，多部门联合保护机制的建立，标志着大马哈资源保护从密江河流域提升到图们江流域，进一步形成多部门齐抓共管、合作共赢的态势，必将有力推动大马哈国家级水产种植资源保护。
2017, 东北网, 《“大马哈”洄游故里赏江品鱼乐“东极”》[169]
“今天我打了四条大马哈，能卖2000多元钱”。渔民张鹏向我们展示着他的渔获。

在抚远市中心区，有“东极鱼市”一条街，这几天马哈鱼成了这里的主角。大马哈上市后，吸引不少市民及外地游客驻足。晾晒的马哈鱼制品临街摆挂着，鱼品加工厂也忙碌起来，各种马哈鱼制品新鲜出炉，供游客及市民选购。
2012-11-14, 《美丽中国乡村行》[生活567]，《神奇的村庄追捕大马哈》[170]
捕鱼能手齐聚江边，下网追捕大马哈鱼。“我终于见到了一条活的大马哈！”
1995-04, 徐英杰, 《人民日报》, 《大马哈鱼苗放流绥芬河》
４月１０日，在黑龙江省边陲县城———东宁县冰雪初开的绥芬河下游的我国境内，４０多万尾大马哈幼鱼又被放入河中，欢快地告别故土，向大海游去。这是东宁县大马哈人工放流增殖站从１９８８年开始，连续７年进行人工放流，已有１９１万尾大马哈鱼流入大海。
1995-02, 关锐捷、张建英、刘金华, 《人民日报》
品异国鱼，尝大洋鲜，在１０年前，对我国寻常百姓而言，似乎是天方夜谭。然而，如今只要留心一下国内大中城市日趋丰富的水产品市场，就会欣喜地发现，已增加了不少来自远方的新家族，像西非的黄鱼、北冰洋的大马哈、东南亚的竹节虾……林林总总，琳琅满目。
1994, 《市场报》
每一天的太阳都是新的。这个边陲重镇，曾经一次又一次砸烂过所有的坛坛罐罐，微薄的一点财政收入，便是江里日见稀少的“三花五罗”（鱼）、鲟鱼、鳇鱼、大马哈……。“先建设，后吃饭”。尽管机关里已两个多月没开支了，尽管干部们的口袋里还揣着前两年的药费、差旅费单据，而上万平方米的口岸设施：联检办公楼，联检大厅，联检住宅楼……，正纷纷拔地而起。
1983, 刘兆林, 《雪国热闹镇》
他想起八月十五晚上牛(?)和他在江边放河灯——这是赫哲人的风俗，把一盏盏纸灯放在江上，让它顺流漂得远很远，意思是照亮江里的水路，好让最名贵的大马哈以及重唇、哲罗、红鲤、白鳔、鳌花……能在亮堂堂的江里游来，供他们捕捉。

2) "scatterbrain"

2020, 搜狐新闻, 《女人别舍不得花钱，投资自己才有幸福》[171]
很多女人结婚后，一心就想着为家庭付出，对于自己的关心就会少了很多。很多男人属于那种大马哈的，更加不会关心你这些。可是在很多男人眼中，他可以看得出女人的变化，很多时候，你不会打扮自己，那他可能就会被其他打扮的漂亮的女人吸引了。
2019-12, 看家快报, 《成都最全证件补办攻略，看这一篇就够了！》[172]
小编的朋友是个大马哈，总是把什么身份证、社保卡、户口本，这些非常重要的证件搞丢……
2019-06, 网易新闻, 《女子婚后一年不来月经检查后丈夫直接提出离婚》[173]
事后小蓉哭哭啼啼地说，她一直没来过月经，16岁那年跟她妈说，她妈是个大马哈，手一挥，说女孩子迟早会来的，就再没过问过！而小蓉自己也是个大马哈，身体一直健健康康，于是从没想过不来月经也是种病。
2019-01, 浩姐说情 (百度百家号), 《习惯在这些事上“装傻”的你，大多能让男孩子对你念念不忘》[174]
好心办坏事儿时，你本身就已经觉得很愧疚了，然后就会对他疯狂道歉，但越是这样越容易再出错，事情也会越描越黑。他对于这样大马哈的你，自然也是无法忘记了，即使你在这个时候假装不承认是自己，也很难让他忘记你了。
2018, 腾讯新闻, 《谢娜是个大马哈，掉东西也就算了，既然双胞胎女儿傻傻分不清楚！》[175]
谢娜是一个大马哈，最近热播的《妻子的浪漫旅行》我想大概很多人都知道。我们的谢娜实在是太呆萌了！
2017, 李朵, 《亲爱的少年》[176]
“我又不认识你，等我熟悉你之后，再告诉你。对了，你叫什么名字？”伊荷似乎看出来了大马哈先生不具有攻击性，她停在了大马哈先生眼皮底下。

“我叫范小米。”“大马哈”是范先生的绰号，因为他很健忘啊。
2016, 陕西新闻网, 《被偷者多为大马哈 民警教你冬季公共场所咋防范》[177]
2015, 澎湃新闻, 《维C泡腾片可以每天都吃吗？》[178]
这里有必要跟大家具体聊聊，让准妈妈们学会识别、紧急处理等等，免得紧张的准妈妈们草木皆兵，增加心理负担，搞得自己和家人都身心疲惫；而大马哈的准妈妈则容易忽视一些重要的问题，也有妈妈会很无知、没有常识，错过最佳处理时机，可能引起严重的后果。
2008, Car百科 (百度百家号), 《好消息来了！全国高速将统一限速标志，另外这4种情况不再扣分》[179]
部分地方的高速公路限速将提高阈值，比如从限速100km/h提高到120km/h。这才有点高速公路的样子嘛。另外之前讨论的“突然看到限速标志要不要急刹”的问题也不用讨论了，因为《规范》规定固定测速点位置必须在前方500米至1000米处竖立告示牌，这完完全全堵住一些大马哈的嘴！500米够你们反应过来了，看你们以后找什么借口！

Note: There is also a third definition, when it is used in the set phrase "摔(了)个大马哈" (to have an embarrassing fall).

冠狀肺炎

2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《王毅出訪西歐5國三大目標》[180]
中國外長王毅今天8月25日開始出訪歐洲5國。這是爆發疫情以後王毅首次出訪。他第一站是意大利。冠狀肺炎疫情在武漢爆發後，擴散到全球。在北京向世界亮出意識形態底牌之後，國際格局有些變化。

這是冠狀肺炎疫情危機爆發以來，中國外長首次到外國訪問。法新社說，美國政府試圖說服盟國排除華為的5G移動通訊技術。估計王毅會在這次訪問中呼籲他的對話者們，在使用華為5G方面排除美國的壓力。
2020, 《天下雜誌》,《抗癌防疫鏈結國際開創醫藥新航道》[181]
醫師科學家與時俱進開發新藥也抵禦冠狀肺炎
2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《法國觀點周刊：中國疫情死亡最少25000人》[182]
中國官方統計只將在醫院死亡的冠狀肺炎病例納入其中，死在家中的不算數。然而這些死者在新修訂的統計中佔比三分之一。而且，按照中國的統計，病患必須單純死於冠狀肺炎才被記入，如有其他疾病，最終死於合並症也不算數。中國流行病學研究的數據顯示，因合並症死亡的病例在醫院死亡病例中佔72%。因此，中國冠狀肺炎受害者的實際數字最少應該為25000人，而不是官方宣布的4632人。武漢市的冠狀肺炎死亡人數估計為14000人。
2020, 思考HK, 《國內新增冠狀肺炎個案跌至個位數》[183]
2020, 新浪網 [184]
土耳其冠狀肺炎死亡病例上升19例至5225例。
2020, 香港經濟日報, 《【新冠肺炎】疑受排華情緒殃及　新加坡少年倫敦街頭被圍毆致臉腫　兇徒吼「你這個冠狀病毒」》[185]
一名在英國留學的新加坡男生在社交平台稱，上周二（2月24日）在倫敦牛津街被數名青少年圍毆，施襲者向他吼叫「不想你的冠狀肺炎病毒在我的國家。」
2020, 晴報, 《新冠肺炎症狀輕潛伏期長醫生呼籲4大危險族群要留神》[186]
由於女性荷爾蒙的關係，女性的免疫力比男性強，所以得到重病或重大外傷時，存活率往往比男性高。雖然現時男性患上新冠肺炎的比例較女性為高，但可能是因部分女性症狀較輕，未能被診斷出來。江醫生提醒「如果女生偶爾有小咳嗽，可能要比男生更小心，因為有可能是輕症冠狀肺炎。」

新冠狀肺炎

2020, 彭廣揚, 《世界日報》, 《場邊人語：疫情依舊少棒停秀》[187]
因為新冠狀肺炎傳染疫情依舊，少年棒球競技只有明年再秀。
2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《中國的新冠狀病毒肺炎危機已經上升到政治問題》[188]
法國解放報說，法國新增5名確診新冠狀肺炎患者，全部是英國人。
2020, 頭條日報, 《與施匡翹新冠狀肺炎病毒指數接近零 Apple姐：冇事就會放我出院》[189]
已入院隔離一日的Apple姐和施匡翹今日（19日）依然沒有任何病徵，今朝醫院再為兩位進行深喉唾液檢測，新冠狀肺炎病毒指數很低接近「零」，所有檢查報告都顯示逐漸康復，Apple姐及施匡翹多謝各位傳媒朋友及每位朋友粉絲關心及問候，令大家擔心及受影響的所有同行及朋友，兩位深感歉意，祝福大家平安無事及健康！
2020, Yahoo奇摩, 《個股：懷特(4108)精製多醣研究中心，啟動新冠狀肺炎適應症研究》[190]
2020, 香港01, 《新冠肺炎．5.16｜本港相隔3日再度零確診　澳門只餘一患者留院》[191]
因應新冠狀肺炎疫情及其帶來的全球性影響，教資會及轄下的研資局分別額外撥出1.5億元及1億元，透過協作研究金及主題研究計劃，資助教資會資助界別進行與新冠病毒病及其他新型傳染病相關的集體研究項目，現已開始接受申請。
2020, BBC, 《肺炎疫情：中共黨媒刊載習近平疫情講話稿引發「責任」質疑》[192]
消息人士稱，中國官方是以排查新冠狀肺炎疫情為由上門將許帶走的。
2020, 科技報橘, 《由 Amazon 收购 Zoox 来看，新冠状肺炎带来的新投资机会》[193]
在新冠状肺炎疫情的冲击下，重创了全球经济的发展，然而，在这样的危机之下，由于民众外出行动受限，使得线上购物需求大增，此时物流的稳定与速度则成了业者的新挑战，也间接带动了无人驾驶、物流仓库设置的新投资机会。以下是曾经任职于伦敦交易所的 Jason 提出的看法。
2020, 三立新聞網, 《台灣氫氧機捐贈土耳其投入新冠狀肺炎治療研究》[194]

新冠狀病毒

2020, BBC, 《肺炎疫情：中共黨媒刊載習近平疫情講話稿引發「責任」質疑》[195]
實際上，武漢公安部門同期還對在微信「朋友圈」內告誡同學要當心不明肺炎感染的醫生李文亮等8人進行了訓誡。李文亮醫生本人後來死於新冠狀病毒疫情。
2020, 中時新聞, 《健康新視界：潘懷宗》感冒讓您免得新冠肺炎嗎？》[196]
英國曼徹斯特大學的免疫學家克魯克申克教授(Sheena Cruickshank)通過電子郵件說，未暴露於新冠狀病毒的健康個體並未測到另一種類型的抗體，即IgA，這可能意味著任何先前存在的免疫保護力都受到限制。她補充說，另一大警告是，人們對普通感冒病毒的免疫力不被認為對人們而言是持久的，無論其年齡如何，因此保護作用的持久性是值得注意的一項議題。
2020, 頭條日報, 《瑞典指華大基因新冠病毒檢測套裝出現約3700宗假陽性》[197]
瑞典公共衞生局公布指，一批中國「華大基因」製造的新冠狀病毒檢測套裝出現問題，大約3700人出現假陽性結果，而收到假陽性結果的人，大多是出現輕微症狀或無症狀。
2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《恐全民檢測反應冷淡累中央沒面子林鄭遷怒唱反調專家》[198]
港府要求中央支援的新冠狀病毒全民測試，將在9月1日正式展開，各方亦已加緊籌備工作，但由於確診人數近日已大幅回落至個位數，而有關測試樣本資料將轉送北京造成私隱危機的傳聞不斷，加上不少專家公開質疑全民檢測的成效，最新民調已顯示港人對全民檢測意欲低，為了挽救頹勢，特首林鄭月娥昨（24日）更公開輕蔑質疑全民檢測成效的醫學界專家學者，指他們為“所謂專家”，而且“不斷抹黑”有關計畫。
2020, 數位時代, 《疫情過後活下來！零售業的「新基礎建設」是什麼？如何轉型跨境電商？》[199]
今年，受到新冠狀病毒（COVID-19，俗稱武漢肺炎）疫情打擊之下，民眾減少出門、國際交通停擺，讓「如何經營跨境電商」這個問題必須迫切面對，成為零售業者不得不做的功課。
2020, 世界日報, 《新道指成分股 Salesforce上季財報佳》[200]
本季Salesforce推出Work.com工具，以協助組織在新冠狀病毒大流行導致全球各地辦公室關閉後繼續工作。
2020, 新頭殼, 《普篩醫界不同調！陳秀熙：了解群體免疫李秉穎：邊境防疫才重要》[201]
今（23）日新冠狀病毒檢測研討會在台大登場，會議後半段，針對是否普篩的問題分為持正反意見的兩派學者，其中支持普篩的是台大公衛學院教授陳秀熙，而反對的學者則是台大感染科專家李秉穎，陳秀熙認為血清抗體篩檢有其重要性，而李秉穎則是認為普篩有偽陽性的問題。
2020, 中時新聞, 《蘋果、重啟經濟股帶頭衝標普500首度漲破3400點》[202]
抗疫戰取得新進展的消息提振全球市場。美國食品藥物管理局（FDA）批准新冠狀病毒肺炎使用血漿療法，以及美國政府考慮加速引進阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）與牛津大學合作開發的新冠狀病毒疫苗，希望能在11月3日大選前使用。

脊灰炎

2020, 新浪科技, 《非洲正式消灭了野生脊灰病毒最后病例发现于4年前》[203]
脊灰病毒分为I型、II型、III型三种，三种脊灰炎病毒在造成的症状上都是相同的，都会导致不可逆的瘫痪，甚至死亡。
2020, 澎湃新闻, 《北大教授查道炯：中国自研新冠疫苗如何成为国际卫生公共品》[204]
世界免疫史上，“卡特事件”是经典案例。1955年美国加州的卡特实验室（Cutter Laboratories）生产的脊髓灰质炎出现事故，在12万名接种该疫苗的儿童中，有4万名儿童染病，其中56人患上了麻痹型脊灰炎，最终113人终生瘫痪，5人死亡。伴随致病归因而发生的旷日持久的诉讼，让卡特公司付出的巨额的民事赔偿，这家1897年成立的制药企业在1974年被德国贝尔公司收购。
2019, 联合国新闻, 《世卫组织：肯尼亚、莫桑比克与尼日尔重新获得“无脊灰炎”地位》[205]
世界卫生组织今天表示，肯尼亚、莫桑比克与尼日尔三个非洲国家已经成功阻止了近期一波脊髓灰质炎疫情，重新获得“无脊灰炎”地位，显示出这一疫情也能在非洲的其他地区得到控制。

世卫组织负责应对本轮疫情的区域协调员恩都塔贝（Modjirom Ndoutabe）表示，上述三国所取得的成果令人鼓舞，“这三个国家成功地阻止了疫情扩散，表明采取积极应对行动，加上高质量的免疫接种和病毒监测，也能够有效遏制区域其他国家的脊灰炎疫情……世卫组织将继续坚定努力，让脊髓灰质炎从非洲大陆上彻底消失。”
2019, 联合国新闻, 《脊灰炎日：世界比以往任何时候都更接近于消除脊灰炎》[206]
联合国儿童基金会今天也表示，脊灰炎这种致命的病毒性疾病已近“非常接近”完全消灭，受感染的儿童人数自1988年以来下降了99％。

阿富汗和巴基斯坦是仅有的两个报告了脊灰炎病例的国家，而尼日利亚作为有脊髓灰质炎流行的第三个国家，已经连续三年未报告感染病例，有望在2020年得到无脊髓灰质炎认证。

针对世界各地对疫苗安全性的错误信息的传播，联合国儿童基金会强调，彻底消灭脊灰炎意味着每个家庭中的每个孩子都必须继续接种疫苗。儿基会每年设法分发超过十亿剂脊灰炎疫苗，但仍有数以千计的儿童没有接受免疫。为生活在偏远地区或受冲突影响的社区中的弱势儿童提供免疫尤其面临诸多挑战，有时只能通过有针对性的脊灰炎疫苗接种运动为他们提供免疫。
2014, 杭州网, 《多国出现脊髓灰质炎疫情出国旅行要提早接种疫苗》[207]
世界卫生组织（WHO）已将当前脊灰疫情确定为“国际关注的突发公共卫生事件”。浙江省作为对外交流与贸易频繁的沿海大省，时刻面临脊灰炎病毒从国外输入的严峻挑战。
1986, 李铸文, 《远安县脊髓灰质炎麻痹后遗症调查》[208]
脊灰炎麻痹后遗症现患率：调查全县33岁及以下134,893人，查出跛行患者170例，跛行现患率1.26‰，其中：脊灰炎麻痹后遗症59例，占跛行的34.71%，其它原因所致者111例，占跛行的65.29%。

新冠狀病毒病

2020, 文匯報, 《院內感染老婦不治累計24亡魂》[209]
伊利沙伯醫院發言人指出，該名確診新冠病毒死亡的76歲女病人（個案1776）本身有多種長期病患。她6月30日因心臟衰竭引致氣促，入住伊利沙伯醫院內科病房接受治療，但同一病格出現確診個案，她被列為密切接觸者轉往隔離病房，本月17日監察鼻咽拭子測試的樣本，對新冠狀病毒病呈陽性反應，其時病人情況穩定。
2020, 香港經濟日報, 《新世界成人兒童口罩下周一公開發售最平$84一盒集團「買一捐一」贈非牟利團體》[210]
在新冠狀病毒病疫情爆發起，自建口罩生產綫的新世界(00017)將在下周一(8月17日)起將於網上預售自家製成人及兒童口罩共1萬盒，最平84元就有一盒30個，集團更會「買一捐一」向牟利機構捐出盒裝口罩。
2020, 香港經濟日報, 《星島：何柱國賣股預期9月中獲監管審批結果　較原訂推遲個半月》[211]
星島（01105）賣盤期限再延長。星島公布，主席兼控股股東何柱國與潛在買家就可能出售星島權益的磋商，由於新冠狀病毒病持續令取得監管機構的批准進程受阻延。按監管機構要求，雙方已同意延長時限，以給予監管機構必要的額外時間作審議，最新預期9月中獲告知知監管機構批准結果。星島早前預期，7月底可獲通知結果。
2020, Yahoo!新聞, 《口罩國家隊捨棄外銷供社區藥局平價買賣》[212]
今年初新冠狀病毒病疫情爆發，經濟部工業局公布口罩廠商共60條口罩產線被徵召為「口罩國家隊」，其中1條產線就在彰濱工業區的台灣優紙口罩公司，被國家召集生產醫療級口罩的廠商。
2020, 美通社, 《美高梅中國公佈2020年中期業績》[213]
上半年業績至今仍然受到2019年新冠狀病毒病影響。中國內地於今年1月下旬暫停旅行團及「個人遊」計劃，隨後澳門特區政府於2月宣佈所有賭場停業15天。
2020, 晴報, 《北京市場切三文魚砧板驗出病毒本港食安中心即時抽檢進口三文魚》[214]
食安中心昨日表示，因應有傳媒報道日前於北京一個新冠狀病毒病調查，在切割三文魚的砧板上檢測到新冠病毒，食安中心已即時採取跟進行動了解有關事件。為審慎起見，中心已即時從進口及批發層面，抽取來自各地三文魚樣本檢測作為預防性措施。
2020, 香港政府, 《築起防疫防線截斷病毒傳播鏈》[215]
新冠狀病毒病持續肆虐全球多個國家和地區，累計確診個案數字已突破100萬，幾乎以每日新增超過五萬宗個案的速度向上攀升。同時，本港的確診個案數字正在遞增，當中不少本地感染病例無法追蹤其感染源和傳播路徑，令人非常擔憂。

冠病

2020, 联合早报, 《我国新增77起冠病病例社区病例两起境外输入五起》[216]
我国今天（8月27日）新增77起冠病病例，累计病例达5万6572起。
2020, 星洲日报, 《诺希山：大马冠病基本传染数·提高至0.74》[217]
卫生总监丹斯里诺希山说，随着新感染群，包括打活感染群的出现，我国的冠病基本传染数（R-naught）已经提高至0.74。
2020, 联合早报, 《本地学者：冠病康复者半年内再感染非常罕见》[218]
香港出现世界首起康复冠病患者二度染病的病例，受访本地学者表示，半年内再感染的情况非常罕见。但若是二度感染成为普遍情况，日后疫苗成功面市后，可能每年都须注射相关疫苗。

新加坡国立大学苏瑞福公共卫生学院副院长（全球卫生）及传染病系主任许励扬副教授回答《联合早报》询问时说，本地目前没有已知的二度感染病例，但我国正在留意这类情况。病患在康复后，身体对冠病的免疫力能维持多久暂不得而知，这也是不少人正在深入研究的一个领域。
2020, 星洲日报, 《钟南山：冠病康复者二次感染为个别现象》[219]
“之前有报道说冠病康复者二次感染，这是很个别的现象，是极少的。希望大家不要用不同的眼光看待冠病康复者。

“我希望大家重视对冠病康复者的心理辅导。在一些地方，冠病病人恢复后，有人对他们敬而远之。这完全不必要。”
2020, 哈通社, 《阿拉木图近9成冠病患者已治愈出院》[220]
“目前，尚有589名冠病患者正在在传染病医院接受治疗当中。阿拉木图市共设有5871张传染病病床，当前的空床率为89.8%。”萨金塔耶夫说。
2020, 光华报, 《访客曾接触冠病患者过港渔民市集消毒》[221]
2020, China Press, 《◤新国阻断措施◢冠病患者到访过3地点客工宿舍又有新感染群》[222]
新加坡连续三天出现客工宿舍再被列为新感染群，位于大士南1道的大士村客工宿舍（Tuas View Dormitory）出现六起冠病确诊病例，其中五起是早前确诊。
2020, 印度尼西亞商報, 《评论：冠病大流行期间印行维持利率不变》[223]
2020, 東方Online, 《斯哈克1球员确诊冠病》[224]

新型冠狀肺炎

2020, 香港經濟日報, 《【英國疫情】市中心商廈變「鬼城」大企業傾向在家辦公》[225]
英國在今年3月時一度採取封城措施，遏止新型冠狀肺炎病毒（新冠肺炎）傳播，大批公司轉為在家辦公（work from home）。
2020, 香港經濟日報, 《新冠肺炎二次感染惹憂慮鍾南山強調屬個別現象》[226]
繼香港之後，比利時和荷蘭都出現新型冠狀肺炎患者二次感染的病例，引起民眾憂慮。中國疾控專家鍾南山為回應強調，這僅屬是「個別現象」，無需過於擔心，以免造成新冠患者的歧視與心理創傷。
2020, 新頭殼, 《外籍工程師確診武漢肺炎感染科專家：不要再往外推》[227]
昨（1日）國內新增7例確診，其中一例為20多歲比利時工程師（案469）。該名工程師於5月初入境，7月底準備離台前自費篩後確診新型冠狀肺炎，疑似為本土案例，感染源仍待釐清。感染科專家質疑從日本女大生、泰籍移工再到此個案，明顯就是本土感染個案，不應再將感染原因往外推，應該適時調整入境篩檢策略。
2020, 工商時報, 《印尼與臺灣視訊協力促進女性企業家成長》[228]
APEC女性新創企業加速器工作坊，於8月26至27日盛大展開。基於疫情防護考量，本次會議採線上視訊舉行。儘管新型冠狀肺炎疫情持續影響亞太區域經濟運作，印尼合作暨中小企業部（Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises, CSMEs），以及我國經濟部中小企業處，透過數位科技，成功跨越地域限制，圓滿舉行本次會議。本次會議見證APEC經濟體間的緊密結合，以及亞太地區中小企業及女性企業家積極協作，克服全球疫情困境。
2020, 香港01, 《英國舉行世界首個社交隔離音樂節　觀眾分小組保持至少1.5米距離》[229]
新型冠狀肺炎疫情肆虐全球，最近有不少國家都開始逐漸解封，而英國就於上月宣布酒吧、餐廳、電影院、酒店及遊樂設施重新開放。而每年都會舉行的戶外音樂節，日前於英國時間（11/8）在紐卡素Gosforth Park舉行，是自疫情爆發以來，全世界首個戶外社交隔離。
2020, 中国经济网, 《13家世界500强企业参展服贸会公共卫生防疫专题》[230]
在此次服贸会上，中医药专区将作为公共卫生防疫专区的重要组成部分,展览展示部分以“传承创新、互动体验、海外发展”为主线，将展示中医药行业的科技创新能力，还有在本次抗击新型冠状肺炎疫情中，中医药全程参与、全力治疗、成果全球共享的成就。
2020, Yahoo!奇摩, 《泰國突然向中國買潛水艇！為什麼民眾怒不可遏？》[231]
近期，泰國政府準備向中國購入潛水艇，通過的編列預算案，預計準備花費225億泰銖購置潛水艇，令大部份泰國民眾非常無法接受。事實上，由於新型冠狀肺炎疫情衝擊觀光業，泰國正面臨史無前例的財務困頓，根據當地專家統計，保守估計泰國今年度GDP將下滑至少10%，比1997年的金融風暴還要悽慘。而泰國網友因此整理出為何要購買潛水艇的分析文。

All created by 49.180.102.171 (talk). --TheDarkKnightLi (STAY HAPPY) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Boutkan, Dirk, Siebinga, Sjoerd (2005) “belda”, in Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 1), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 36: “Denominative verb *bōdl-jan > *bēdl-(j)a(n) > bēlda with metathesis *dl > ld”

[1]

@@ Line 3,268: / Line 3,268: @@
 {{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English}}
+Which sense are you trying to verify?
+) "chum salmon"
+* 2020-06, 延边新闻综合频道, 《珲春市人民检察院召开'''大马哈'''资源保护公益监督听证会》[http://www.yb983.com/world/p/192082.html]
+*: 听证会上，珲春市人民检察院就密江河'''大马哈'''国家级水产种植资源的工业诉讼监督情况，建立'''大马哈'''国家级水产种植资源多部门联合保护机制情况的进行介绍。与会人员围绕'''大马哈'''种群繁衍、增殖放流、保护渔业资源等方面进行讨论。大家纷纷表示，多部门联合保护机制的建立，标志着'''大马哈'''资源保护从密江河流域提升到图们江流域，进一步形成多部门齐抓共管、合作共赢的态势，必将有力推动'''大马哈'''国家级水产种植资源保护。
+* 2017, 东北网, 《“'''大马哈'''”洄游故里 赏江品鱼乐“东极”》[https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1579204732320546363&wfr=spider&for=pc]
+*: “今天我打了四条'''大马哈'''，能卖2000多元钱”。渔民张鹏向我们展示着他的渔获。
+*: 在抚远市中心区，有“东极鱼市”一条街，这几天马哈鱼成了这里的主角。'''大马哈'''上市后，吸引不少市民及外地游客驻足。晾晒的马哈鱼制品临街摆挂着，鱼品加工厂也忙碌起来，各种马哈鱼制品新鲜出炉，供游客及市民选购。
+* 2012-11-14, 《美丽中国乡村行》[生活567]，《神奇的村庄 追捕'''大马哈'''》[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD9FiAxI4II]
+*: 捕鱼能手齐聚江边，下网追捕大马哈鱼。“我终于见到了一条活的'''大马哈'''！”
+* 1995-04, 徐英杰, 《人民日报》, 《'''大马哈'''鱼苗放流绥芬河》
+*: ４月１０日，在黑龙江省边陲县城———东宁县冰雪初开的绥芬河下游的我国境内，４０多万尾'''大马哈'''幼鱼又被放入河中，欢快地告别故土，向大海游去。这是东宁县'''大马哈'''人工放流增殖站从１９８８年开始，连续７年进行人工放流，已有１９１万尾大马哈鱼流入大海。
+* 1995-02, 关锐捷、张建英、刘金华, 《人民日报》
+*: 品异国鱼，尝大洋鲜，在１０年前，对我国寻常百姓而言，似乎是天方夜谭。然而，如今只要留心一下国内大中城市日趋丰富的水产品市场，就会欣喜地发现，已增加了不少来自远方的新家族，像西非的黄鱼、北冰洋的'''大马哈'''、东南亚的竹节虾……林林总总，琳琅满目。
+* 1994, 《市场报》
+*: 每一天的太阳都是新的。这个边陲重镇，曾经一次又一次砸烂过所有的坛坛罐罐，微薄的一点财政收入，便是江里日见稀少的“三花五罗”（鱼）、鲟鱼、鳇鱼、'''大马哈'''……。“先建设，后吃饭”。尽管机关里已两个多月没开支了，尽管干部们的口袋里还揣着前两年的药费、差旅费单据，而上万平方米的口岸设施：联检办公楼，联检大厅，联检住宅楼……，正纷纷拔地而起。
+* 1983, 刘兆林, 《雪国热闹镇》
+*: 他想起八月十五晚上牛(?)和他在江边放河灯——这是赫哲人的风俗，把一盏盏纸灯放在江上，让它顺流漂得远很远，意思是照亮江里的水路，好让最名贵的'''大马哈'''以及重唇、哲罗、红鲤、白鳔、鳌花……能在亮堂堂的江里游来，供他们捕捉。
+) "scatterbrain"
+* 2020, 搜狐新闻, 《女人别舍不得花钱，投资自己才有幸福》[https://m.k.sohu.com/d/458363987?channelId=5&page=8]
+*: 很多女人结婚后，一心就想着为家庭付出，对于自己的关心就会少了很多。很多男人属于那种'''大马哈'''的，更加不会关心你这些。可是在很多男人眼中，他可以看得出女人的变化，很多时候，你不会打扮自己，那他可能就会被其他打扮的漂亮的女人吸引了。
+* 2019-12, 看家快报, 《成都最全证件补办攻略，看这一篇就够了！》[https://kuaibao.qq.com/s/20191225A0GL2Z00?refer=spider]
+*: 小编的朋友是个'''大马哈'''，总是把什么身份证、社保卡、户口本，这些非常重要的证件搞丢……
+* 2019-06, 网易新闻, 《女子婚后一年不来月经 检查后丈夫直接提出离婚》[http://bj.news.163.com/19/0602/13/EGLVR0VI043899JR.html]
+*: 事后小蓉哭哭啼啼地说，她一直没来过月经，16岁那年跟她妈说，她妈是个'''大马哈'''，手一挥，说女孩子迟早会来的，就再没过问过！而小蓉自己也是个'''大马哈'''，身体一直健健康康，于是从没想过不来月经也是种病。
+* 2019-01, 浩姐说情 (百度百家号), 《习惯在这些事上“装傻”的你，大多能让男孩子对你念念不忘》[https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1649885839686622737&wfr=spider&for=pc]
+*: 好心办坏事儿时，你本身就已经觉得很愧疚了，然后就会对他疯狂道歉，但越是这样越容易再出错，事情也会越描越黑。他对于这样'''大马哈'''的你，自然也是无法忘记了，即使你在这个时候假装不承认是自己，也很难让他忘记你了。
+* 2018, 腾讯新闻, 《谢娜是个'''大马哈'''，掉东西也就算了，既然双胞胎女儿傻傻分不清楚！》[https://new.qq.com/omn/20180918/20180918A1GBKO.html?pc]
+*: 谢娜是一个'''大马哈'''，最近热播的《妻子的浪漫旅行》我想大概很多人都知道。 我们的谢娜实在是太呆萌了！
+* 2017, 李朵, 《亲爱的少年》[https://books.google.com/books?id=YdeWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT282&lpg=PT282&dq=%22%E5%A4%A7%E9%A9%AC%E5%93%88%22]
+*: “我又不认识你，等我熟悉你之后，再告诉你。对了，你叫什么名字？”伊荷似乎看出来了'''大马哈'''先生不具有攻击性，她停在了'''大马哈'''先生眼皮底下。
+*: “我叫范小米。”“'''大马哈'''”是范先生的绰号，因为他很健忘啊。
+* 2016, 陕西新闻网, 《被偷者多为'''大马哈''' 民警教你冬季公共场所咋防范》[http://news.cnwest.com/content/2016-01/05/content_13496074.htm]
+* 2015, 澎湃新闻, 《维C泡腾片可以每天都吃吗？》[https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1400103]
+*: 这里有必要跟大家具体聊聊，让准妈妈们学会识别、紧急处理等等，免得紧张的准妈妈们草木皆兵，增加心理负担，搞得自己和家人都身心疲惫；而'''大马哈'''的准妈妈则容易忽视一些重要的问题，也有妈妈会很无知、没有常识，错过最佳处理时机，可能引起严重的后果。
+* 2008, Car百科 (百度百家号), 《好消息来了！全国高速将统一限速标志，另外这4种情况不再扣分》[https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1674687559075990340&wfr=spider&for=pc]
+*: 部分地方的高速公路限速将提高阈值，比如从限速100km/h提高到120km/h。这才有点高速公路的样子嘛。另外之前讨论的“突然看到限速标志要不要急刹”的问题也不用讨论了，因为《规范》规定固定测速点位置必须在前方500米至1000米处竖立告示牌，这完完全全堵住一些'''大马哈'''的嘴！500米够你们反应过来了，看你们以后找什么借口！
+Note: There is also a third definition, when it is used in the set phrase "摔(了)个大马哈" (to have an embarrassing fall).
 ===[[冠狀肺炎#rfv-notice-zh-|冠狀肺炎]]===
+* 2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《王毅出訪西歐5國 三大目標》[https://www.rfi.fr/tw/%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B/20200825-%E7%8E%8B%E6%AF%85%E5%87%BA%E8%A8%AA%E8%A5%BF%E6%AD%905%E5%9C%8B-%E4%B8%89%E5%A4%A7%E7%9B%AE%E6%A8%99]
+*: 中國外長王毅今天8月25日開始出訪歐洲5國。這是爆發疫情以後王毅首次出訪。他第一站是意大利。'''冠狀肺炎'''疫情在武漢爆發後，擴散到全球。在北京向世界亮出意識形態底牌之後，國際格局有些變化。
+*: 這是'''冠狀肺炎'''疫情危機爆發以來，中國外長首次到外國訪問。法新社說，美國政府試圖說服盟國排除華為的5G移動通訊技術。估計王毅會在這次訪問中呼籲他的對話者們，在使用華為5G方面排除美國的壓力。
+* 2020, 《天下雜誌》,《抗癌防疫 鏈結國際 開創醫藥新航道》[https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5101685]
+*: 醫師科學家與時俱進  開發新藥也抵禦'''冠狀肺炎'''
+* 2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《法國觀點周刊：中國疫情死亡最少25000人》[https://www.rfi.fr/tw/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B/20200421-%E6%B3%95%E5%9C%8B%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E%E5%91%A8%E5%88%8A-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E7%96%AB%E6%83%85%E6%AD%BB%E4%BA%A1%E6%9C%80%E5%B0%9125000%E4%BA%BA]
+*: 中國官方統計只將在醫院死亡的'''冠狀肺炎'''病例納入其中，死在家中的不算數。然而這些死者在新修訂的統計中佔比三分之一。而且，按照中國的統計，病患必須單純死於'''冠狀肺炎'''才被記入，如有其他疾病，最終死於合並症也不算數。中國流行病學研究的數據顯示，因合並症死亡的病例在醫院死亡病例中佔72%。因此，中國'''冠狀肺炎'''受害者的實際數字最少應該為25000人，而不是官方宣布的4632人。武漢市的'''冠狀肺炎'''死亡人數估計為14000人。
+* 2020, 思考HK, 《國內新增'''冠狀肺炎'''個案跌至個位數》[https://www.thinkhk.com/article/2020-03/13/40011.html]
+* 2020, 新浪網 [https://news.sina.com.tw/article/20200706/35664686.html]
+*: 土耳其'''冠狀肺炎'''死亡病例上升19例至5225例。
+* 2020, 香港經濟日報, 《【新冠肺炎】疑受排華情緒殃及　新加坡少年倫敦街頭被圍毆致臉腫　兇徒吼「你這個冠狀病毒」》[https://china.hket.com/article/2579880/%E3%80%90%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E3%80%91%E7%96%91%E5%8F%97%E6%8E%92%E8%8F%AF%E6%83%85%E7%B7%92%E6%AE%83%E5%8F%8A%E3%80%80%E6%96%B0%E5%8A%A0%E5%9D%A1%E5%B0%91%E5%B9%B4%E5%80%AB%E6%95%A6%E8%A1%97%E9%A0%AD%E8%A2%AB%E5%9C%8D%E6%AF%86%E8%87%B4%E8%87%89%E8%85%AB%E3%80%80%E5%85%87%E5%BE%92%E5%90%BC%E3%80%8C%E4%BD%A0%E9%80%99%E5%80%8B%E5%86%A0%E7%8B%80%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E3%80%8D]
+*: 一名在英國留學的新加坡男生在社交平台稱，上周二（2月24日）在倫敦牛津街被數名青少年圍毆，施襲者向他吼叫「不想你的'''冠狀肺炎'''病毒在我的國家。」
+* 2020, 晴報, 《新冠肺炎症狀輕潛伏期長 醫生呼籲4大危險族群要留神》[https://skypost.ulifestyle.com.hk/article/2599468/%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E7%97%87%E7%8B%80%E8%BC%95%E6%BD%9B%E4%BC%8F%E6%9C%9F%E9%95%B7%20%E9%86%AB%E7%94%9F%E5%91%BC%E7%B1%B24%E5%A4%A7%E5%8D%B1%E9%9A%AA%E6%97%8F%E7%BE%A4%E8%A6%81%E7%95%99%E7%A5%9E]
+*: 由於女性荷爾蒙的關係，女性的免疫力比男性強，所以得到重病或重大外傷時，存活率往往比男性高。雖然現時男性患上新冠肺炎的比例較女性為高，但可能是因部分女性症狀較輕，未能被診斷出來。江醫生提醒「如果女生偶爾有小咳嗽，可能要比男生更小心，因為有可能是輕症'''冠狀肺炎'''。」
 ===[[新冠狀肺炎#rfv-notice-zh-|新冠狀肺炎]]===
+* 2020, 彭廣揚, 《世界日報》, 《場邊人語：疫情依舊 少棒停秀》[https://www.worldjournal.com/7115904/article-%E5%A0%B4%E9%82%8A%E4%BA%BA%E8%AA%9E%EF%BC%9A%E7%96%AB%E6%83%85%E4%BE%9D%E8%88%8A-%E5%B0%91%E6%A3%92%E5%81%9C%E7%A7%80-2/?ref=%E9%81%8B%E5%8B%95]
+*: 因為'''新冠狀肺炎'''傳染疫情依舊，少年棒球競技只有明年再秀。
+* 2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《中國的新冠狀病毒肺炎危機已經上升到政治問題》[https://www.rfi.fr/tw/20200209-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E7%9A%84%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%8B%80%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E5%8D%B1%E6%A9%9F%E5%B7%B2%E7%B6%93%E4%B8%8A%E5%8D%87%E5%88%B0%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C]
+*: 法國解放報說，法國新增5名確診'''新冠狀肺炎'''患者，全部是英國人。
+* 2020, 頭條日報, 《與施匡翹'''新冠狀肺炎'''病毒指數接近零 Apple姐：冇事就會放我出院》[https://hd.stheadline.com/life/ent/realtime/1823410/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82-%E5%A8%9B%E6%A8%82-%E8%88%87%E6%96%BD%E5%8C%A1%E7%BF%B9%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%8B%80%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E6%8C%87%E6%95%B8%E6%8E%A5%E8%BF%91%E9%9B%B6-Apple%E5%A7%90-%E5%86%87%E4%BA%8B%E5%B0%B1%E6%9C%83%E6%94%BE%E6%88%91%E5%87%BA%E9%99%A2]
+*: 已入院隔離一日的Apple姐和施匡翹今日（19日）依然沒有任何病徵，今朝醫院再為兩位進行深喉唾液檢測，'''新冠狀肺炎'''病毒指數很低接近「零」，所有檢查報告都顯示逐漸康復，Apple姐及施匡翹多謝各位傳媒朋友及每位朋友粉絲關心及問候，令大家擔心及受影響的所有同行及朋友，兩位深感歉意，祝福大家平安無事及健康！
+* 2020, Yahoo奇摩, 《個股：懷特(4108)精製多醣研究中心，啟動'''新冠狀肺炎'''適應症研究》[https://tw.stock.yahoo.com/news/%E5%80%8B%E8%82%A1-%E6%87%B7%E7%89%B9-4108-%E7%B2%BE%E8%A3%BD%E5%A4%9A%E9%86%A3%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83-%E5%95%9F%E5%8B%95%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%8B%80%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E9%81%A9%E6%87%89%E7%97%87%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6-050256976.html]
+* 2020, 香港01, 《新冠肺炎．5.16｜本港相隔3日再度零確診　澳門只餘一患者留院》[https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/473814/%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E-5-16-%E6%9C%AC%E6%B8%AF%E7%9B%B8%E9%9A%943%E6%97%A5%E5%86%8D%E5%BA%A6%E9%9B%B6%E7%A2%BA%E8%A8%BA-%E6%BE%B3%E9%96%80%E5%8F%AA%E9%A4%98%E4%B8%80%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E7%95%99%E9%99%A2]
+*: 因應'''新冠狀肺炎'''疫情及其帶來的全球性影響，教資會及轄下的研資局分別額外撥出1.5億元及1億元，透過協作研究金及主題研究計劃，資助教資會資助界別進行與新冠病毒病及其他新型傳染病相關的集體研究項目，現已開始接受申請。
+* 2020, BBC, 《肺炎疫情：中共黨媒刊載習近平疫情講話稿引發「責任」質疑》[https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world-51532511]
+*: 消息人士稱，中國官方是以排查'''新冠狀肺炎'''疫情為由上門將許帶走的。
+* 2020, 科技報橘, 《由 Amazon 收购 Zoox 来看，新冠状肺炎带来的新投资机会》[https://buzzorange.com/techorange/2020/07/03/amazon-zoox-coronavirus-investment-opportunity/]
+*: 在'''新冠状肺炎'''疫情的冲击下，重创了全球经济的发展，然而，在这样的危机之下，由于民众外出行动受限，使得线上购物需求大增，此时物流的稳定与速度则成了业者的新挑战，也间接带动了无人驾驶、物流仓库设置的新投资机会。以下是曾经任职于伦敦交易所的 Jason 提出的看法。
+* 2020, 三立新聞網, 《台灣氫氧機捐贈土耳其投入'''新冠狀肺炎'''治療研究》[https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=756738]
 ===[[新冠狀病毒#rfv-notice-zh-|新冠狀病毒]]===
+* 2020, BBC, 《肺炎疫情：中共黨媒刊載習近平疫情講話稿引發「責任」質疑》[https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world-51532511]
+*: 實際上，武漢公安部門同期還對在微信「朋友圈」內告誡同學要當心不明肺炎感染的醫生李文亮等8人進行了訓誡。李文亮醫生本人後來死於'''新冠狀病毒'''疫情。
+* 2020, 中時新聞, 《健康新視界：潘懷宗》感冒讓您免得新冠肺炎嗎？》[https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20200827005288-262110?chdtv]
+*: 英國曼徹斯特大學的免疫學家克魯克申克教授(Sheena Cruickshank)通過電子郵件說，未暴露於'''新冠狀病毒'''的健康個體並未測到另一種類型的抗體，即IgA，這可能意味著任何先前存在的免疫保護力都受到限制。她補充說，另一大警告是，人們對普通感冒病毒的免疫力不被認為對人們而言是持久的，無論其年齡如何，因此保護作用的持久性是值得注意的一項議題。
+* 2020, 頭條日報, 《瑞典指華大基因新冠病毒檢測套裝出現約3700宗假陽性》[https://hd.stheadline.com/news/realtime/wo/1856257/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82-%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B-%E7%91%9E%E5%85%B8%E6%8C%87%E8%8F%AF%E5%A4%A7%E5%9F%BA%E5%9B%A0%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E6%AA%A2%E6%B8%AC%E5%A5%97%E8%A3%9D%E5%87%BA%E7%8F%BE%E7%B4%843700%E5%AE%97%E5%81%87%E9%99%BD%E6%80%A7]
+*: 瑞典公共衞生局公布指，一批中國「華大基因」製造的'''新冠狀病毒'''檢測套裝出現問題，大約3700人出現假陽性結果，而收到假陽性結果的人，大多是出現輕微症狀或無症狀。
+* 2020, RFI (法國國際廣播電台), 《恐全民檢測反應冷淡累中央沒面子林鄭遷怒唱反調專家》[https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B/20200825-%E6%81%90%E5%85%A8%E6%B0%91%E6%AA%A2%E6%B8%AC%E5%8F%8D%E6%87%89%E5%86%B7%E6%B7%A1%E7%B4%AF%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%AE%E6%B2%92%E9%9D%A2%E5%AD%90%E6%9E%97%E9%84%AD%E9%81%B7%E6%80%92%E5%94%B1%E5%8F%8D%E8%AA%BF%E5%B0%88%E5%AE%B6]
+*: 港府要求中央支援的'''新冠狀病毒'''全民測試，將在9月1日正式展開，各方亦已加緊籌備工作，但由於確診人數近日已大幅回落至個位數，而有關測試樣本資料將轉送北京造成私隱危機的傳聞不斷，加上不少專家公開質疑全民檢測的成效，最新民調已顯示港人對全民檢測意欲低，為了挽救頹勢，特首林鄭月娥昨（24日）更公開輕蔑質疑全民檢測成效的醫學界專家學者，指他們為“所謂專家”，而且“不斷抹黑”有關計畫。
+* 2020, 數位時代, 《疫情過後活下來！零售業的「新基礎建設」是什麼？如何轉型跨境電商？》[https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/58973/cross-border-e-commerce-covid-19-2020]
+*: 今年，受到'''新冠狀病毒'''（COVID-19，俗稱武漢肺炎）疫情打擊之下，民眾減少出門、國際交通停擺，讓「如何經營跨境電商」這個問題必須迫切面對，成為零售業者不得不做的功課。
+* 2020, 世界日報, 《新道指成分股 Salesforce上季財報佳》[https://www.worldjournal.com/7115826/article-%E6%96%B0%E9%81%93%E6%8C%87%E6%88%90%E5%88%86%E8%82%A1-salesforce%E4%B8%8A%E5%AD%A3%E8%B2%A1%E5%A0%B1%E4%BD%B3-2/?ref=%E8%B2%A1%E7%B6%93_%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E8%B2%A1%E7%B6%93]
+*: 本季Salesforce推出Work.com工具，以協助組織在'''新冠狀病毒'''大流行導致全球各地辦公室關閉後繼續工作。
+* 2020, 新頭殼, 《普篩醫界不同調！陳秀熙：了解群體免疫 李秉穎：邊境防疫才重要》[https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-08-23/454912]
+*: 今（23）日'''新冠狀病毒'''檢測研討會在台大登場，會議後半段，針對是否普篩的問題分為持正反意見的兩派學者，其中支持普篩的是台大公衛學院教授陳秀熙，而反對的學者則是台大感染科專家李秉穎，陳秀熙認為血清抗體篩檢有其重要性，而李秉穎則是認為普篩有偽陽性的問題。
+* 2020, 中時新聞, 《蘋果、重啟經濟股帶頭衝 標普500首度漲破3400點》[https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20200825001339-260410?chdtv]
+*: 抗疫戰取得新進展的消息提振全球市場。美國食品藥物管理局（FDA）批准'''新冠狀病毒'''肺炎使用血漿療法，以及美國政府考慮加速引進阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）與牛津大學合作開發的'''新冠狀病毒'''疫苗，希望能在11月3日大選前使用。
 ===[[脊灰炎#rfv-notice-zh-|脊灰炎]]===
+* 2020, 新浪科技, 《非洲正式消灭了野生脊灰病毒 最后病例发现于4年前》[https://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2020-08-26/doc-iivhuipp0879940.shtml]
+*: 脊灰病毒分为I型、II型、III型三种，三种'''脊灰炎'''病毒在造成的症状上都是相同的，都会导致不可逆的瘫痪，甚至死亡。
+* 2020, 澎湃新闻, 《北大教授查道炯：中国自研新冠疫苗如何成为国际卫生公共品》[https://finance.sina.com.cn/china/2020-08-05/doc-iivhvpwx9406158.shtml]
+*: 世界免疫史上，“卡特事件”是经典案例。1955年美国加州的卡特实验室（Cutter Laboratories）生产的脊髓灰质炎出现事故，在12万名接种该疫苗的儿童中，有4万名儿童染病，其中56人患上了麻痹型'''脊灰炎'''，最终113人终生瘫痪，5人死亡。伴随致病归因而发生的旷日持久的诉讼，让卡特公司付出的巨额的民事赔偿，这家1897年成立的制药企业在1974年被德国贝尔公司收购。
+* 2019, 联合国新闻, 《世卫组织：肯尼亚、莫桑比克与尼日尔重新获得“无'''脊灰炎'''”地位》[https://news.un.org/zh/story/2019/12/1047921]
+*: 世界卫生组织今天表示，肯尼亚、莫桑比克与尼日尔三个非洲国家已经成功阻止了近期一波脊髓灰质炎疫情，重新获得“无'''脊灰炎'''”地位，显示出这一疫情也能在非洲的其他地区得到控制。
+*: 世卫组织负责应对本轮疫情的区域协调员恩都塔贝（Modjirom Ndoutabe）表示，上述三国所取得的成果令人鼓舞，“这三个国家成功地阻止了疫情扩散，表明采取积极应对行动，加上高质量的免疫接种和病毒监测，也能够有效遏制区域其他国家的'''脊灰炎'''疫情……世卫组织将继续坚定努力，让脊髓灰质炎从非洲大陆上彻底消失。”
+* 2019, 联合国新闻, 《'''脊灰炎'''日：世界比以往任何时候都更接近于消除'''脊灰炎'''》[https://news.un.org/zh/story/2019/10/1044241]
+*: 联合国儿童基金会今天也表示，'''脊灰炎'''这种致命的病毒性疾病已近“非常接近”完全消灭，受感染的儿童人数自1988年以来下降了99％。
+*: 阿富汗和巴基斯坦是仅有的两个报告了'''脊灰炎'''病例的国家，而尼日利亚作为有脊髓灰质炎流行的第三个国家，已经连续三年未报告感染病例，有望在2020年得到无脊髓灰质炎认证。
+*: 针对世界各地对疫苗安全性的错误信息的传播， 联合国儿童基金会强调，彻底消灭'''脊灰炎'''意味着每个家庭中的每个孩子都必须继续接种疫苗。儿基会每年设法分发超过十亿剂'''脊灰炎'''疫苗，但仍有数以千计的儿童没有接受免疫。为生活在偏远地区或受冲突影响的社区中的弱势儿童提供免疫尤其面临诸多挑战，有时只能通过有针对性的'''脊灰炎'''疫苗接种运动为他们提供免疫。
+* 2014, 杭州网, 《多国出现脊髓灰质炎疫情出国旅行要提早接种疫苗》[https://hznews.hangzhou.com.cn/chengshi/content/2014-08/23/content_5415517.htm]
+*: 世界卫生组织（WHO）已将当前脊灰疫情确定为“国际关注的突发公共卫生事件”。浙江省作为对外交流与贸易频繁的沿海大省，时刻面临'''脊灰炎'''病毒从国外输入的严峻挑战。
+* 1986, 李铸文, 《远安县脊髓灰质炎麻痹后遗症调查》[http://www.jbjc.org/fileJBJC/journal/article/jbjc/1986/3/PDF/1003-9961_1986_1_03_46_2.pdf]
+*: '''脊灰炎'''麻痹后遗症现患率：调查全县33岁及以下134,893人，查出跛行患者170例，跛行现患率1.26‰，其中：'''脊灰炎'''麻痹后遗症59例，占跛行的34.71%，其它原因所致者111例，占跛行的65.29%。
 ===[[新冠狀病毒病#rfv-notice-zh-|新冠狀病毒病]]===
+* 2020, 文匯報, 《院內感染老婦不治 累計24亡魂》[http://paper.wenweipo.com/2020/07/30/HK2007300010.htm]
+*: 伊利沙伯醫院發言人指出，該名確診新冠病毒死亡的76歲女病人（個案1776）本身有多種長期病患。她6月30日因心臟衰竭引致氣促，入住伊利沙伯醫院內科病房接受治療，但同一病格出現確診個案，她被列為密切接觸者轉往隔離病房，本月17日監察鼻咽拭子測試的樣本，對'''新冠狀病毒病'''呈陽性反應，其時病人情況穩定。
+* 2020, 香港經濟日報, 《新世界成人兒童口罩下周一公開發售 最平$84一盒 集團「買一捐一」贈非牟利團體》[https://ps.hket.com/article/2724612/%E3%80%90%E5%8F%A3%E7%BD%A9%E4%BE%9B%E6%87%89%E3%80%91%E6%96%B0%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E6%88%90%E4%BA%BA%E5%85%92%E7%AB%A5%E5%8F%A3%E7%BD%A9%E4%B8%8B%E5%91%A8%E4%B8%80%E5%85%AC%E9%96%8B%E7%99%BC%E5%94%AE%20%E6%9C%80%E5%B9%B3-84%E4%B8%80%E7%9B%92%20%E9%9B%86%E5%9C%98%E3%80%8C%E8%B2%B7%E4%B8%80%E6%8D%90%E4%B8%80%E3%80%8D%E8%B4%88%E9%9D%9E%E7%89%9F%E5%88%A9%E5%9C%98%E9%AB%94?mtc=20023]
+*: 在'''新冠狀病毒病'''疫情爆發起，自建口罩生產綫的新世界(00017)將在下周一(8月17日)起將於網上預售自家製成人及兒童口罩共1萬盒，最平84元就有一盒30個，集團更會「買一捐一」向牟利機構捐出盒裝口罩。
+* 2020, 香港經濟日報, 《星島：何柱國賣股預期9月中獲監管審批結果　較原訂推遲個半月》[https://inews.hket.com/article/2713732/%E3%80%90%E6%98%9F%E5%B3%B6%E8%B3%A3%E7%9B%A4%E3%80%91%E6%98%9F%E5%B3%B6%EF%BC%9A%E4%BD%95%E6%9F%B1%E5%9C%8B%E8%B3%A3%E8%82%A1%E9%A0%90%E6%9C%9F9%E6%9C%88%E4%B8%AD%E7%8D%B2%E7%9B%A3%E7%AE%A1%E5%AF%A9%E6%89%B9%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E3%80%80%E8%BC%83%E5%8E%9F%E8%A8%82%E6%8E%A8%E9%81%B2%E5%80%8B%E5%8D%8A%E6%9C%88]
+*: 星島 （01105） 賣盤期限再延長。星島公布，主席兼控股股東何柱國與潛在買家就可能出售星島權益的磋商，由於'''新冠狀病毒病'''持續令取得監管機構的批准進程受阻延。按監管機構要求，雙方已同意延長時限，以給予監管機構必要的額外時間作審議，最新預期9月中獲告知知監管機構批准結果。星島早前預期，7月底可獲通知結果。
+* 2020, Yahoo!新聞, 《口罩國家隊捨棄外銷 供社區藥局平價買賣》[https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%8F%A3%E7%BD%A9%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E9%9A%8A%E6%8D%A8%E6%A3%84%E5%A4%96%E9%8A%B7-%E4%BE%9B%E7%A4%BE%E5%8D%80%E8%97%A5%E5%B1%80%E5%B9%B3%E5%83%B9%E8%B2%B7%E8%B3%A3-091322492.html]
+*: 今年初'''新冠狀病毒病'''疫情爆發，經濟部工業局公布口罩廠商共60條口罩產線被徵召為「口罩國家隊」，其中1條產線就在彰濱工業區的台灣優紙口罩公司，被國家召集生產醫療級口罩的廠商。
+* 2020, 美通社, 《美高梅中國公佈2020年中期業績》[https://times.hinet.net/news/22994539]
+*: 上半年業績至今仍然受到2019年'''新冠狀病毒病'''影響。中國內地於今年1月下旬暫停旅行團及「個人遊」計劃，隨後澳門特區政府於2月宣佈所有賭場停業15天。
+* 2020, 晴報, 《北京市場切三文魚砧板驗出病毒 本港食安中心即時抽檢進口三文魚》[https://skypost.ulifestyle.com.hk/article/2671329/%E3%80%90%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E3%80%91%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%B8%82%E5%A0%B4%E5%88%87%E4%B8%89%E6%96%87%E9%AD%9A%E7%A0%A7%E6%9D%BF%E9%A9%97%E5%87%BA%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%20%E6%9C%AC%E6%B8%AF%E9%A3%9F%E5%AE%89%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E6%8A%BD%E6%AA%A2%E9%80%B2%E5%8F%A3%E4%B8%89%E6%96%87%E9%AD%9A]
+*: 食安中心昨日表示，因應有傳媒報道日前於北京一個'''新冠狀病毒病'''調查，在切割三文魚的砧板上檢測到新冠病毒，食安中心已即時採取跟進行動了解有關事件。為審慎起見，中心已即時從進口及批發層面，抽取來自各地三文魚樣本檢測作為預防性措施。
+* 2020, 香港政府, 《築起防疫防線 截斷病毒傳播鏈》[https://www.news.gov.hk/chi/2020/04/20200405/20200405_102936_282.html]
+*: '''新冠狀病毒病'''持續肆虐全球多個國家和地區，累計確診個案數字已突破100萬，幾乎以每日新增超過五萬宗個案的速度向上攀升。同時，本港的確診個案數字正在遞增，當中不少本地感染病例無法追蹤其感染源和傳播路徑，令人非常擔憂。
 ===[[冠病#rfv-notice-zh-|冠病]]===
+* 2020, 联合早报, 《我国新增77起'''冠病'''病例 社区病例两起 境外输入五起》[https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20200827-1080168]
+*: 我国今天（8月27日）新增77起'''冠病'''病例，累计病例达5万6572起。
+* 2020, 星洲日报, 《诺希山：大马'''冠病'''基本传染数·提高至0.74》[https://www.sinchew.com.my/content/content_2332936.html]
+*: 卫生总监丹斯里诺希山说，随着新感染群，包括打活感染群的出现，我国的'''冠病'''基本传染数（R-naught）已经提高至0.74。
+* 2020, 联合早报, 《本地学者：'''冠病'''康复者半年内再感染非常罕见》[https://www.zaobao.com.sg/znews/singapore/story20200826-1079690]
+*: 香港出现世界首起康复'''冠病'''患者二度染病的病例，受访本地学者表示，半年内再感染的情况非常罕见。但若是二度感染成为普遍情况，日后疫苗成功面市后，可能每年都须注射相关疫苗。
+*: 新加坡国立大学苏瑞福公共卫生学院副院长（全球卫生）及传染病系主任许励扬副教授回答《联合早报》询问时说，本地目前没有已知的二度感染病例，但我国正在留意这类情况。病患在康复后，身体对'''冠病'''的免疫力能维持多久暂不得而知，这也是不少人正在深入研究的一个领域。
+* 2020, 星洲日报, 《钟南山：'''冠病'''康复者二次感染为个别现象》[https://www.sinchew.com.my/content/content_2332702.html]
+*: “之前有报道说'''冠病'''康复者二次感染，这是很个别的现象，是极少的。希望大家不要用不同的眼光看待'''冠病'''康复者。
+*: “我希望大家重视对'''冠病'''康复者的心理辅导。在一些地方，'''冠病'''病人恢复后，有人对他们敬而远之。这完全不必要。”
+* 2020, 哈通社, 《阿拉木图近9成'''冠病'''患者已治愈出院》[https://www.inform.kz/cn/9_a3687741]
+*: “目前，尚有589名'''冠病'''患者正在在传染病医院接受治疗当中。阿拉木图市共设有5871张传染病病床，当前的空床率为89.8%。”萨金塔耶夫说。
+* 2020, 光华报, 《访客曾接触'''冠病'''患者 过港渔民市集消毒》[https://www.kwongwah.com.my/20200827/%E8%AE%BF%E5%AE%A2%E6%9B%BE%E6%8E%A5%E8%A7%A6%E5%86%A0%E7%97%85%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85-%E8%BF%87%E6%B8%AF%E6%B8%94%E6%B0%91%E5%B8%82%E9%9B%86%E6%B6%88%E6%AF%92/]
+* 2020, China Press, 《◤新国阻断措施◢'''冠病'''患者到访过3地点 客工宿舍又有新感染群》[http://johor.chinapress.com.my/20200825/%E2%97%A4%E6%96%B0%E5%9B%BD%E9%98%BB%E6%96%AD%E6%8E%AA%E6%96%BD%E2%97%A2%E5%86%A0%E7%97%85%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E5%88%B0%E8%AE%BF%E8%BF%873%E5%9C%B0%E7%82%B9-%E5%AE%A2%E5%B7%A5%E5%AE%BF%E8%88%8D%E5%8F%88/]
+*: 新加坡连续三天出现客工宿舍再被列为新感染群，位于大士南1道的大士村客工宿舍（Tuas View Dormitory）出现六起'''冠病'''确诊病例，其中五起是早前确诊。
+* 2020, 印度尼西亞商報, 《评论：'''冠病'''大流行期间印行维持利率不变》[http://www.shangbaoindonesia.com/read/2020/08/24/opinion-1598232312]
+* 2020, 東方Online, 《斯哈克1球员确诊'''冠病'''》[https://www.orientaldaily.com.my/news/sports/2020/08/25/359625]
 ===[[新型冠狀肺炎#rfv-notice-zh-|新型冠狀肺炎]]===
+* 2020, 香港經濟日報, 《【英國疫情】市中心商廈變「鬼城」 大企業傾向在家辦公》[https://inews.hket.com/article/2736890/%E3%80%90%E8%8B%B1%E5%9C%8B%E7%96%AB%E6%83%85%E3%80%91%E5%B8%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83%E5%95%86%E5%BB%88%E8%AE%8A%E3%80%8C%E9%AC%BC%E5%9F%8E%E3%80%8D%20%E5%A4%A7%E4%BC%81%E6%A5%AD%E5%82%BE%E5%90%91%E5%9C%A8%E5%AE%B6%E8%BE%A6%E5%85%AC?mtc=20042]
+*: 英國在今年3月時一度採取封城措施，遏止'''新型冠狀肺炎'''病毒（新冠肺炎）傳播，大批公司轉為在家辦公（work from home）。
+* 2020, 香港經濟日報, 《新冠肺炎二次感染惹憂慮   鍾南山強調屬個別現象》[https://china.hket.com/article/2736622/%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E4%BA%8C%E6%AC%A1%E6%84%9F%E6%9F%93%E6%83%B9%E6%86%82%E6%85%AE%20%C2%A0%20%E9%8D%BE%E5%8D%97%E5%B1%B1%E5%BC%B7%E8%AA%BF%E5%B1%AC%E5%80%8B%E5%88%A5%E7%8F%BE%E8%B1%A1]
+*: 繼香港之後，比利時和荷蘭都出現'''新型冠狀肺炎'''患者二次感染的病例，引起民眾憂慮。中國疾控專家鍾南山為回應強調，這僅屬是「個別現象」，無需過於擔心，以免造成新冠患者的歧視與心理創傷。
+* 2020, 新頭殼, 《外籍工程師確診武漢肺炎  感染科專家：不要再往外推》[https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-08-02/444774]
+*: 昨（1日）國內新增7例確診，其中一例為20多歲比利時工程師（案469）。該名工程師於5月初入境，7月底準備離台前自費篩後確診'''新型冠狀肺炎'''，疑似為本土案例，感染源仍待釐清。感染科專家質疑從日本女大生、泰籍移工再到此個案，明顯就是本土感染個案，不應再將感染原因往外推，應該適時調整入境篩檢策略。
+* 2020, 工商時報, 《印尼與臺灣視訊協力 促進女性企業家成長》[https://ctee.com.tw/industrynews/activity/325527.html]
+*: APEC女性新創企業加速器工作坊，於8月26至27日盛大展開。基於疫情防護考量，本次會議採線上視訊舉行。儘管'''新型冠狀肺炎'''疫情持續影響亞太區域經濟運作，印尼合作暨中小企業部（Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises, CSMEs），以及我國經濟部中小企業處，透過數位科技，成功跨越地域限制，圓滿舉行本次會議。本次會議見證APEC經濟體間的緊密結合，以及亞太地區中小企業及女性企業家積極協作，克服全球疫情困境。
+* 2020, 香港01, 《英國舉行世界首個社交隔離音樂節　觀眾分小組保持至少1.5米距離》[https://www.hk01.com/%E7%9C%BE%E6%A8%82%E8%BF%B7/510411/%E8%8B%B1%E5%9C%8B%E8%88%89%E8%A1%8C%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E9%A6%96%E5%80%8B%E7%A4%BE%E4%BA%A4%E9%9A%94%E9%9B%A2%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E7%AF%80-%E8%A7%80%E7%9C%BE%E5%88%86%E5%B0%8F%E7%B5%84%E4%BF%9D%E6%8C%81%E8%87%B3%E5%B0%911-5%E7%B1%B3%E8%B7%9D%E9%9B%A2]
+*: '''新型冠狀肺炎'''疫情肆虐全球，最近有不少國家都開始逐漸解封，而英國就於上月宣布酒吧、餐廳、電影院、酒店及遊樂設施重新開放。而每年都會舉行的戶外音樂節，日前於英國時間（11/8）在紐卡素Gosforth Park舉行，是自疫情爆發以來，全世界首個戶外社交隔離。
+* 2020, 中国经济网, 《13家世界500强企业参展服贸会公共卫生防疫专题 》[https://www.sohu.com/a/414572511_120702]
+*: 在此次服贸会上，中医药专区将作为公共卫生防疫专区的重要组成部分,展览展示部分以“传承创新、互动体验、海外发展”为主线，将展示中医药行业的科技创新能力，还有在本次抗击'''新型冠状肺炎'''疫情中，中医药全程参与、全力治疗、成果全球共享的成就。
+* 2020, Yahoo!奇摩, 《泰國突然向中國買潛水艇！為什麼民眾怒不可遏？》[https://tw.mobi.yahoo.com/trendr/4wayvoice_nownews_com_335/%e6%b3%b0%e5%9c%8b%e7%aa%81%e7%84%b6%e5%90%91%e4%b8%ad%e5%9c%8b%e8%b2%b7%e6%bd%9b%e6%b0%b4%e8%89%87-%e7%82%ba%e4%bb%80%e9%ba%bc%e6%b0%91%e7%9c%be%e6%80%92%e4%b8%8d%e5%8f%af%e9%81%8f-153731088.html]
+*: 近期，泰國政府準備向中國購入潛水艇，通過的編列預算案，預計準備花費225億泰銖購置潛水艇，令大部份泰國民眾非常無法接受。事實上，由於'''新型冠狀肺炎'''疫情衝擊觀光業，泰國正面臨史無前例的財務困頓，根據當地專家統計，保守估計泰國今年度GDP將下滑至少10%，比1997年的金融風暴還要悽慘。而泰國網友因此整理出為何要購買潛水艇的分析文。
 All created by {{user|49.180.102.171}}. --[[User:Thedarkknightli|TheDarkKnightLi]] &#8203;''([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|STAY]] [[Special:Contributions/Thedarkknightli|HAPPY]])'' 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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}}

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English: difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:21, 27 August 2020

March 2017

April 2017

Compounds with quis

Some Latin adjectives

May 2017

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuam

June 2017

July 2017

The Slavic Latin contributions of 89.172.183.48

August 2017

French demonyms

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

㊁, ㊂, ㊃, ㊄, ㊅, ㊐, ㈡, ㈢, ㈣, ㈤, ㈥, ㈰

湯桶読み & 重箱読み

December 2017

January 2018

あき as reading of 商

February 2018

March 2018

May 2018

June 2018

Vietnamese ヌ

July 2018

August 2018

September 2018

実相 -- Jitsusō reading

October 2018

Italian contributions by 79.32.129.152

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

Esperanto 'ali-' correlatives

March 2019

beeld (Scots)

April 2019

Old Norse emi ? (1st person sg. copula)

caelus as Vulgar Latin form in caelum

References

Gender-neutral usage of male Esperanto words

倭

May 2019

drone (Dutch)

June 2019