Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:37, 30 May 2022

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

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

Shortcut:
WT:RFVN

This page is for entries in any language other than English and Chinese/Japanese/Korean. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English. For CJK-language entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.

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

July 2017

The Slavic Latin contributions of 89.172.183.48

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Latin. 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

@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

February 2018

Lomocso

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tagalog. @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

July 2019

manuculus

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Latin manuculus: Attested or not?

Latin. @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

~~RFV-Passed~~ —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There still are 0 quotes. --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, this should have a star, as it isn't directly attested, but emended from mamaculus in an ancient glossary and it can be inferred from manuciolus (“small handfull”). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the one hand, it's not really attested and only a correction.

On the other hand, there are similar issues with:

1) manuscripts and editions – editions can contain corrections as well (compare e.g. Northus);

2) ancient inscriptions – often people have to guess about word divisions, spellings and meanings (see e.g. Bergakker inscription, Old Latin#Fragments and inscriptions).

So I guess all three is possible: Have mamaculus, manuculus or *manuculus - of course, with label, explanation and source (Heraeus mentioning a gloss). --Myrelia (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

auctorico

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Latin. @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

[2]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [3], [4]; 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

@Benwing2: So move to *auctoricō, because it's unattested, but a necessary preform of Spanish? Is that the gist of what you're saying? Or could it have been derived later within Spanish? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

So FEW states that the word is attested, citing various source texts but giving no quotes. But we need quotes, and in the past 3 years nobody here has been able to identify any. Does FEW have an index of source texts? Where does one search for digitised Medieval Latin source texts (other than Brepolis, which mainly has religious texts and turns up nothing for this word)? This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

August 2019

Latin odeō, odīre; podeō

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@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

@Benwing2: What's the status on podeō? I can't find anything. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

odeō RFV-Failed
podeō ???

September 2019

Old French plaigne and descendants

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

October 2019

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectives

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

Category:Old Prussian lemmas

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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). [5] 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

గోపి

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. --95.186.143.168 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([6], [7]) as well as elsewhere ([8], [9] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([10], [11]). --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

November 2019

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/erþaburgz

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

zapalotl

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Classical Nahuatl. 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

This string of letters, with some meaning, is mentioned as a Nahuatl word in a number of texts, one of which asserts it as a word in Sinaloa:

2010, Daniel F. Austin, Baboquivari Mountain Plants: Identification, Ecology, and Ethnobotany, University of Arizona Press (→ISBN), page 30:
SPANISH: lechuguilla (little lettuce), maguey (see A. parviflora for derivation), zapalote (from Náhuatl zapalotl, the name for A. tequilana farther south, Sinaloa);

And others place it as a word in Honduras, if that helps narrow down what varieties of Nahuatl to search in:

1907, Alberto Membreño, Aztequismos de Honduras:
Zapalotl, plátano. Color moreno de una clase de maíz. / Zapoyolo. Tzapoyollotl, centro del zapote. El hueso del mamey mexicano y del zapotillo.
1982, Alberto Membreño, Hondureñismos:
En azteca, zapalotl significa banano, plátano.
1989, Alessandra Foletti-Castegnaro, Alfarería lenca contemporánea de Honduras:
[…] zapote, y "yolotl", corazón. maíz de color oscuro, negro veteado con rojo. Del nahua "zapalotl", plátano.

I can only find one string of running text, and the bibliographic details of it are unclear:

(on Google Books as "1958, Proceedings":)
Sen tonali icuac notscaltili hueyi oquili nantzin nejua nicnequi nicmatis catlejua onquinosa tlacal tecuanantli oquili tlacal cuy hueyi san zapalotl quinopialia miec mañas Totecuiyo Dios mispiali. oquito tecuanconetl nejua niau nictetemos nana ...

- -sche (discuss) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lvovmauro do any of the books above (narrowing down where it's supposedly used), or your own knowledge, help identify what Nahuan lect the one citation above might be in? (Is it just someone's late "conlang Nahuatl" like neo-Gothic?) - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Striking; it was detagged in October 2021 and there's a citation of use, which no-one has deigned to assert is any other Nahuan language. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/təmnēmi

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

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. [12], 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

pascha

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Latin. 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

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ancient Greek. 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

December 2019

Old English andwyrdan, andwirdan "to present"

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@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 [[13]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[14]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[15]], 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

Schembeis

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

German. "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

[16], [17], [18]. --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

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/wārús

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

chó hoang châu Phi

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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: [19], [20], [21], [22]. My Vietnamese does not suffice to verify if they are durably archived. --Lambiam 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

January 2020

مكوى

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. --37.124.137.40 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

مقلى

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. --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

February 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/lauwu

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Arabic. 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^[23], 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

March 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/dubbjan

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

centiampère (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

centicandela

centiseconde

centisteradiaal

Unattested units. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

@Lambiam, Rua, DrJos, Thadh, Morgengave, Mnemosientje, MuDavid Do any of you object to the deletion of those entries? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

[24]: I know this isn't a durably archived source, but I think this is prove that centiseconde is in use. Thadh (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is a durably archived use of the plural centiseconden. One use is not enough for our CFI. I’m afraid I do not really care. On one hand, if no three cites can be found now, it is predictable that more uses of these SI units will eventually appear in books and journals. On the other hand, these compounds are completely transparent; as long as we do not even have entries for much more common compounds such as stormwaarschuwing, why care? --Lambiam 21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here is another one, so centiseconde at least looks promising. This article might have a third independent use, but it is paywalled. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's not necessary to check the paywalled article, there are other cites here, on file page 31, original page 49. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree: just like "yottaseconde" it is a unit that could be used. Otherwise you should strictly adhere to the three cites rule for every lemma. Yottaseconde has a French lemma so why not a Dutch? --DrJos (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

That reasoning could justify thousands of unattested derived SI units. It clearly is not a workable standard for an empirical, descriptive dictionary. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

My opinion: these units (and the ones with zepto/zetta/yocto/yotta above) obviously exist: they are SoP and can therefore be used whenever the need arises. Most of them probably see little to no use though, and as they are SoP I won't lose any sleep over their deletion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Centiseconde has been cited. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

دعش

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Arabic. —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

otofoto

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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

Sorry for the very long delay, but I forgot about this. user:CJLippert replied to me on Wikipedia and the answer is here. —Soap— 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

April 2020

Vladimir

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: “to meet with one's wish accidentally“ and “(modern) to request” --95.187.167.159 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

ᨷᨷ᩠ᨹᩤᩈ

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Pali. {{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

Tom

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Untagged by @Mnemosientje here. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьśь

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Inaccurate reconstruction and meaning. -- Gnosandes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

What makes you say it is inaccurate? 70.175.192.217 01:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ентусиастъ Is there any reason to doubt this reconstruction and meaning? This, that and the other (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other Per me, it should be something more like *vьsъ. I doubt that there is any need of <ś> and there definitely has to be a final /*ъ/ in order for the word to correspond properly to the Lithuanian and the BPSl ending. It's very rare for a Proto-Balto-Slavic *-as to give Proto-Slavic *-ь. An example is Proto-Balto-Slavic *-āˀjas (whence Lithuanian *-ojas, Latvian -ājs) which gave Proto-Slavic *-ajь. There is no need of <ś> in the reconstructed Proto-Balto-Slavic *wiśas too, as this would have given a Lithuanian *višas, but it's Lithuanian visas instead. Both this and the Balto-Slavic reconstructions are wrong in this regard, esp. the former. Ентусиастъ (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ентусиастъ: West Slavic data clearly points towards *vьśь (Polish wszystko, wszelki, Czech všechno, Slovak všetok) and I don’t see how they could derive from **vьsъ, OCS вьсь, вьсꙗ / вьсѣ (vĭsĭ, vĭsja / vĭsě) (cf. gorazd), Russian весь (vesʹ) too points at least towards the final soft yer. It comes from older *vix- by progressive palatalization. This unpalatalized *x is actually attested in Old Novgorod forms like вхоу. Derksen in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon also reconstructs *vьśь and explains the -śь as originally locative plural ending (*-xъ in Slavic, generalized from PBSl *-šu < PIE *-su in ruKi contexts) and Lithuanian lack of š by levelling from forms to which ruKi did not apply:

The origin of this etymon may be a Lpl. *uiṣu. In Lithuanian, the š < *ṣ may have been replaced with s when the variant -su of the Lpl. was generalized (F. Kortlandt, p.c.). Slavic generalized the ending -xъ < *-ṣu in the Lpl., which is why the pronoun has *ś < *x as a result of the progressive palatalization. In North Russian, we still find forms with x (cf. Vermeer 2000: passim).

// Silmeth ^@talk 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Silmethule I know about the West Slavic analogues. Also cope:-) Ентусиастъ (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, how does a hard stem explain them? Asking honestly. Vininn126 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pol

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

OS

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

O.S.

OD

O.D.

Latin. Tagged in diff. Also add OD. --Mittsloo (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is shorthand used by ophthalmologists in eyeglass prescriptions.^[25] 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: [26], [27], [28]. --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: [29], [30]. 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

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wirtiz

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

I think this can be deleted in favour of more recent reconstructions. Just let me make sure we don't lose and descendants or break any links first. Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

KBC / ABC

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

German. 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”)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

@Rua: I've chased why this wesan (“to feast”) is in some dictionaries. It's only used once—maybe—in Old English (and possibly again in Middle English? I haven't gone after that one yet), but it's fairly doubtful. I've added the info at the entry. —caoimhinoc (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

kanker (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

The following moved here from #kanker. --Lambiam 13:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

The 2nd definition is also correct. In dutch, flemish and german (among others), one can use nearly any disease, vulgar term or otherwise negative word as a prefix to the noun or adjective as an offensive intensifier. It's also possible to use kanker or other diseases as a prefix to a positive adjective to put emphasis on it. — This unsigned comment was added by 24.132.96.66 (talk) at 13:02, February 16, 2021‎ (UTC).

That usage is not the disputed one. The prefix already exists at kanker-, but the definition and the part of speech of the contested sense clearly is that of a noun. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Λεώνη

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

إنسانية

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: “politeness” —176.224.226.115 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

June 2020

Malajio

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Esperanto. 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: [31]. —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: [32] —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

I did some searching, and was only able to come up with the above examples provided by the person offering this up for RFV. All of the sources that I've found are definitely referencing this as a historical term, but I feel as though there is not enough documentation with either of the sources provided to be able to verify this term at this point in time. Please keep in mind that I did spend about 20-30 minutes looking around for sources, and most of the sources that I found, I could trace back to the sources provided above. Razor flame 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell, the mention in «Lingvo kaj vivo» by G. Waringhien appears to be in the context of country names that are erroneous and should be avoided (note that «Malajio» is listed alongside «Kanadio» and «Urugvio» which are flatly wrong). So I would hesitate to list that as a legitimate citation. The context for the mention Internacia scienca revuo is unclear, as mentioned above, complicated by the fact that in 1909 (year of publication) some geographical names may still not have been standardized. Nanyang Siang Pau is a good find, but (in my opinion) is the only legitimate mention of those three.
I could find only two other mentions of the term:
[33] (may not be durable) - SAT Esperanto. Nur Ĉinio kaj Malajio eskapis el tio, malpermesante la eliron de la kapitaloj.
[34] La Pacdefendanto, no. 51, March 1956: aŭstralaj kaj novzelandaj trupoj en Malajio siajn militajn operaciojnkontraŭ la anoj de la nacia liberiga movado
If these two mentions are kosher, that should make three. If do end up keeping this entry, though, I would definitely flag it as {{obsolete form of}} and/or {{nonstandard form of}}. Audrey (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

อุตสาห

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

Thai. 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"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

-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

сука

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Russian. 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

There are lot of senses in this word. But of course it also has the sexual connotations associated with dogs, actually more than the English bitch which often refers to the pesky behaviour of dogs (→ bitchy), so translation is not one to one. Maybe all those senses you find for как суку in pornographic sites on the web are examples for this gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would say not necessarily promiscuous, but a slut in some quasi-positive sense, more like a sexually attractive sophisticated woman. --GareginRA (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

دائمي

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. —78.95.89.13 00:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

July 2020

New Saxon Spellings

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See the search results. The Wikipedia article was deleted. --B-Fahrer (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

πρωτο-

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

inflection table for Gaulish entry

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

🦀

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

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

@Metaknowledge Would tweets archived by the Internet Archive constitute a "permanently recorded" medium? cc: WordyAndNerdy Graham11 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Graham11: No. As it stands, there is no consensus to treat webpages archived by the IA as durably archived. However, that consensus may change. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Apologies if this might be tangential to this RFV, but is there somewhere that documents the current consensus of what "permanently recorded media" and "durably archived" mean? As far as I can see, WT:CFI doesn't seem to expand on the meaning of those terms except to implicitly suggest that Usenet and "print media such as books and magazines" qualify.

And is there something about the way that Google archives Usenet that would lead it to be regarded differently to the Internet Archive? Or was Usenet's inclusion in WT:CFI a compromise measure of sorts rather than the result of a kind of consistent definition of these terms? Graham11 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Graham11: The status quo is neither ideal nor clear. In short, "durably archived" is limited to things that were physically published at some point (including songs and movies!), or are on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Usenet. These were originally supposed to be sources where only the destruction of civilisation as we know it could cause them to become completely inaccessible, although they have also served as a way to limit what the dictionary must include. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is that disjunctive? Is a quotation from Google Books that only exists in digital form usable? 70.172.194.25 06:23, 30 January 2022 (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

This is also found a lot on e.g. Reddit [35] [36] [37] [38] – quotes: "🦀 Hey a good thing happened! 🦀", "🦀Little man is gone🦀", "🦀🦀London is gone🦀🦀", "🦀 no authenticator delay 🦀". – Nixinova [‌T|C] 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

بطران

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gulf Arabic. فين أخاي (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Спаса

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Various Ukrainian senses. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

August 2020

буковинець сипав воду а галичан віллів

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Ukrainian. @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 [[w:Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village]|Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an agency of the Government of Alberta, by professional researchers including Klymasz] 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

gichi-

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ojibwe. 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

:

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 [39], [40])”), 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

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

French. 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: [41], [42], [43], [44] (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: [45]. --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Needs citations in the appropriate place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Russian згра

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

fake news

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Dutch. 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

If use in Dutch is like use in English I would add a usage note rather than a definition. It functions as an emphatic denial like calling something a lie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not true, this term pops up in relation to a number of populists who use it as a generic buzzword to discredit unflattering news. This sense is encountered often if you follow Dutch-language news and it genuinely seems distinct from sense 1. Politicians who use it generally seem uninterested in actually demonstrating falsehoods in news, for one. I also think it is poor form to speculate about the political motivations of other editors. Anyway, here are some hits, though some are less than ideal (mentions/mentionlike, only used in titles): [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] It is a sense you hear relatively frequently on broadcast media. Searching on Google is hampered because the results also include nepnieuws, even if you use quotation marks. Perhaps the definition is too narrow, because the term is also used in this way by the Chinese communists. "[P]opulists and autocrats", perchance? But that will likely attract more outrage and vandalism. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Do Chinese politicians really use this word, while speaking Chinese, or do they use some Chinese wording that gets translated as "fake news" by Anglophone media?__Gamren (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

tennessine

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Yeah, probably not. The form with -e at the end never really made sense, it's very "un-Danish". The form promoted by Dansk Kemisk Nomenklatur is tennessin, which also has a short entry on Den Store Danske (an online Encyclopedia). I've added three cites for that which I found on Infomedia, but they're one month short of spanning a year.__Gamren (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

More symbols from Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B block without any clearly meaningful definitions

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I first posted three of these at RFD, but now it seems to me that RFV might be the appropriate place. The problem here is that supposedly mathematical symbols have been entered, but instead of a definition they have a description of the symbol itself.

⦢, ⦣, ⧓, ⧫, ⧶

__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

September 2020

abulhayat

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. Only found 2 times in regular books (not dictionary or glossary) in Google Books (other used as person name). First book used "rain" sense. Second book is not clear. Rex Aurorum (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The word is listed with the given meanings in the KBBI, the official dictionary of the Indonesian language. While Indonesian is not an LDL and this is a mention, not a use, it is a strong indication that the term exists. --Lambiam 22:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

LDL? Many foreign words forced listed in KBBI to enrich KBBI (to encourage people to use these words) while ignoring attestation in Indonesian. See Wiktionary:About Indonesian#Detailed consideration —Rex Aurorum (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

If I understand what is written there, such entries of foreign words are labelled with a code indicating which language they are from, like Jw for Javanese. The entry for abulhayat has no such label. --Lambiam 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but not all loaned words required a etymology (language label) according their policy. According a KBBI Daring editor: language labels are not required for common words. Almost all words which used language label is part of 'forced borrowing' what i said in earlier comment. So, it's not weird for KBBI do such partice. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

abba

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Corsican. Isn't on INFCOR (where apa / aba is given) and the plural seemed suspicious (should have been "abbe" instead of *abbi). Couldn't find any non-wiki usages. Would be nice to have a verification. Thadh (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

aver

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Corsican. Seems suspicious, especially given the ending -r, which isn't normally present in Corsican verbs, both from the northern and southern dialects. Is in any case a form of avè, with which it apparently shares most verb forms. Isn't on INFCOR and isn't recognized by AIACCINU as a verb. Thadh (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Habsburgus

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I added the Latin definition "Habsburgus." Anonymous "93.221.41.43" added the verify sense rfv. Anonymous failed to create a verification post here. Aearthrise (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The existing quotation is unverifiable – to which edition of Comenius’ enormous œuvre does the page number correspond? Moreover, the “64b”, “31b” and “32b” are strange; is the quote not taken from running text but from an Index? Three uses: [53], [54], [55] – the last one not authored by "Jezuité", as Google Books would have us believe, but by Georg Widmanstad. --Lambiam 12:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: I received the index here. Aearthrise (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aearthrise Quoting from the index is usually a bad idea, since indexes aren't really part of the work and are often added later by an editor. Also, "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus, imperator 64b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 31b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 32b." is terrible formatting. In English, items in a list should be separated by commas or semicolons, not periods. If you want to use separate lines instead, you need something like <br> to force a new line. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I guess, it's also a matter of RfC: Which sense of Habsburg is meant (proper noun: castle; proper noun: family; common noun: family-member)? In "Rudolphus Habsburgus" and "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus" it looks to me like the common noun. --93.221.41.43 06:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

denk (Afrikaans)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Afrikaans. Rfv-sense of "thought", all I find are old-fashioned verb forms or parts of compounds. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: "maar hy hat het iets in hom gehad wat buite die denk van ons volk gereik het" "maar vir die denk moet ons onderskei - en altyd onthou dat dit ons is wat die onderskeiding gemaak het.". I suppose the translation "thinking" may be better, but there is definitely a noun in this form. Thadh (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh These are basically substantivised infinitives, like Dutch het denken. So yes, the translation is "thinking". I don't think they are lemmatised separately. @Metaknowledge? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

October 2020

Caphareus

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 84.161.26.75 on 19 October 2016, not listed:

“RFV for dat. and abl. "Caphāreī" and voc. "Caphāree". L&S has "voc. Caphareu", and Caphāreī and Caphāree seem to be incorrect.
BTW: There might also be a genitive Caphareos (based on Greek), and the archaic form "Capereus" (with p instead of ph) in "Pacuv. [Marcus Pacuvius] tr. 136".” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brepols Library of Latin Texts has, for caphare*:

Caphare (1), Capharei (1), Caphareo (4), Caphareum (2), Caphareus (2), Capharea (4)

for caphere*:

Capherea (7), Caphereis (2), Caphereos (1), Caphereum (3), Caphereus (12), Capherei (3), Caphereo (1), Caphereu (1)

(note, it normalises everything to lowercase so I manually uppercased these). For capere* one only gets forms of capiō and Caperei (1 - Pacuvius). So the IP seems to be correct, noting that the declension of Caphareus would match that of Caphereus. This, that and the other (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

cocciferus

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by Greenismean2016 on 4 November 2018, not listed:

“it looks like this should be coccum + fero” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Normally, the suffix is -fer – I don’t know the rules of formation of taxonomic rules in all fields of biology but this is incorrect Latin, so the page should be coccifer probably for both Latin and Translingual, ignoring now the distinction between Latin and translingual. So the taxonomic names with that form seem to be illegally formed. Scyphophorus cocciferus is one of the cases where a word is only attested in miswriting. Pinging @SemperBlotto as the author. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
- It what sense is it illegal? It isn't really bad Latin. Lewis and Short have deiferus and infructiferus. While obviously occurring far less often than the 166 entries for terms ending in fer, the ferus ending seems to have occurred in classical Latin. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  - @DCDuring, SemperBlotto: L&S is pretty careless about manuscripts. As with the ghostword zirbus, Georges has it differently and right as Georges lacks both these two forms and lists infrūctifer and deifer with the same two singular quotes as in L&S. The two 2 -ferus forms seem ghost words and their manuscript appearance, as well as their appearing in nominative singular in those singular quotes, is doubtful. We read in Rosén, Hannah (2000) “Grammaticalization in Latin? Two Case Studies”, in Glotta, volume 76, →DOI, page 105. »The inventory of these nouns up to the 6th century comprises ca. 190 -fer words (of which 60 are Late Latin, 4th to mid-6th century) and ca. 80 -ger words (of which 35 are Late Latin). […] Apart from variant forms there are 2 isolated (exclusively) -ferus words: Late Latin infructiferus and hybrid theoferus.« He goes on about some being calques of Greek terms with -αγρος (-agros) or -φόρος (-phóros), which explains deiferus which is however also deifer. You do find some New Latin quotes for infructiferus but mostly mentions and infructifer is rather in use. equiferus mentioned by Rosén is also a ghost word, one reads that we have “equifer als echte Nominativform durch die Glossen erwiesen”. The occurrences are all so rarified in attestation that they can be considered non-existing in native speakers’ Latin. In any case Wiktionary needs to have are coccifer, infructifer, deifer etc. as main forms, the others can only be had as dubious forms. @PUC, Brutal Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we have an entry for coccifer#Latin? DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DCDuring Hey, thanks for the ping. I think it makes sense to distinguish between the ancient and the new latin usage. In Latin as a living language, at least for some speakers, these syncopated/non-syncopated, or more likely restored pairs were definitely alloforms. There are parallel pairs for -ger(us), and some words only exist with the full ending (mōrigerus). The situation can be further complicated by the reinterpretation of some of these as 3d declension forms, at least in some varieties (no examples come to mind there are some for sure, even if only detectable through Romance). There also exist forms like mascel, sicel for the regular masculus, siculus, albeit it's often suspected these are Sabellicisms (note the final vowel that escaped the regular u-colouring by the velar L, meaning the L had to have been geminate - or the word had to be borrowed). These then would be legitimate, native-speaker Latin. — Another thing altogether is New Latin, in our case used as a polite term for the Latin of the people who don't know Latin but make use of it in coining nomenclature. Their authority is a typical school grammar, and when their word-formation disagrees with the prescriptions of a school grammar, it's to be treated as a simple mistake on their part (this fine creation comes to mind) instead of referring them to any process characteristic of a living language. Now, these scientists' mistakes often coincide with attested non-literary Late Latin or reconstructed forms - no big surprise there - but I imagine they themselves would admit to simply having made an oversight in coining the term, and would hardly try defending their creation by appealing to attested non-literary Latin or any such whataboutisms. It's not a peculiarity of their idiolect of Latin or a specimen of ongoing grammatical change, it's a simple mistake coining a word in a language that you don't speak. — Ultimately, however, if a name is used, and isn't blatantly ungrammatical, I don't see what we can do about it other than list it as it is. Would anyone propose marking it as mistakenly formed and redirecting to coccifer? I hesitate to call that prescriptivism any more than I'd call it that when a teacher corrects a student. Even so, if a name is in use, we certainly need to have the entry - but what if the schoolgrammatically-correct name isn't used at all? Retroactively "correcting" what the editor perceives as "bad Latin" is hardly the task of a dictionary editor (imagine the task they'd have on their hands with Mideval Latin! xD). Brutal Russian (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

ille

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Latin. Sense: “(Vulgar Latin) he, she, it (third-person personal pronoun)”. Tagged by Brain-Dwain on 18 June, not listed:

“at least a cleanup is needed (pronouns, determiners and articles are different parts of speech), the RFV is reasonable as well (sometimes unattested Vulgar Latin is given as if it were attested)”, “cp. Talk:ille” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

Ille legalem paternitatem Iesu accipere non timuit

Francisco (2020). Patris Corde. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.pdf — This unsigned comment was added by 186.155.147.247 (talk) at 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC).Reply

Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

"Ego baptizavi vos aqua, ille vero baptizabit vos Spiritu Sancto" Mark 1 8

I baptized you all in water, he in fact will baptize you all with the holy spirit. — This unsigned comment was added by 24.155.190.34 (talk) at 16:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

Moved from unnecessary new section. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

-olus

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by GuitarDudeness on 24 January 2018, not listed:

“If not from -lus added to nouns ending in -ius or -eus, is there proof of free use of this suffix?” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty clear that -olus is an allomorph of -ulus, and not a distinct suffix: their distribution is predictable and comeplementary aside from the variation between o and u after u/v (as in aquula~aquola~acula, servulus~servolus) which is not specific to this suffix (it's the same phenomenon as the variation between vulgus~volgus) and which does not indicate any difference in meaning. We presumably should still have a page at -olus, but whether or not it should just redirect to -ulus with a full explanation on that page is a question of preference.--Urszag (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

physalis

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by Marontyan on 3 November 2019, not listed:

“I only saw Physalis”, “If attested in Latin: The usage note doesn't apply to Latin, cp. the quotes in ruderalis, Physalis.” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note that I meticulously tried to find Latin uses, and I came to the conclusion that it has not been used in Latin texts, because obviously its Greek and in Latin one can use vēsīca or bulla or else; for literal and transferred senses there are enough native words, so this is, meseems, really ever only a component of translingual species names. Fay Freak (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Searching even for the inflected forms, the only cites I've spotted so far that are in Latin, not capitalized, and not scannos, are of it as part of taxonomic names, as Fay Freak says, but it does give me pause that a few of those cites are in Latin works and fully inflect the taxonomic name as if using it as a sequence of 'regular' Latin descriptive words, like:

1800, Philippe Petit-Radel, De amoribus Pancharitis et Zoroae poema eroticon idalio stylo exaratum, vita auctoris, pages lxxxviij - lxxxix:
Mitto quæ haberem dicenda de holothuriis physalibus, de medusis velellis et argonautis argo, tum loliginibus et scolopendra phosphorea (1) in quibus incidimus dum viam versus insulam de l'Ascension carperemus, […]
(1) Holothuria physalis, medusa velella et Argonauta Argo dum placidum est mar, ex imis emergunt fluctibus et natantes, […]

- -sche (discuss) 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Treverorum

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. Tagged by Bakunla on 5 May, not listed. J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

November 2020

dur comme fer

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

French. Is it ever used with other verbs than croire? 212.224.234.45 20:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat ironically, although the usex at dur comme fer, actually a quote from a book, contains a form of the verb croire, the verb governing dur comme fer in the example is vouloir. Its use, other than in the fixed collocution croire dur comme fer, is defined in a 19th-century dictionary (by an example in which it is a predicative adjective) as meaning “having a very great hardiness“.^[56] Here are some book uses: a 16th-century use; an 18-th century use; a 19-th century use (rather SOP here); and a 21th-century use. Here are some stand-alone uses in news sources: [57]; [58]; [59]. --Lambiam 10:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

ماش

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: narrator --188.54.114.229 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

หน้าม้า

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thai. Is หน้าม้า really used to refer the Hindu god? Does someone have example? If so, can Krishna be called หน้าช้าง too? --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

dada (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Childish for "bye-bye; away". ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be Flemish: Het Vlaams woordenboek (sense 2); schrijvenonline.org; Agreed, not the best sources, but still mentions. Better one: Het Dialectenboek (page 193) Thadh (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

daven (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Base form for the frequentative daveren, but I am not convinced that this is attested in Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

1881 ~~1820 1629 1618~~ I guess this is technically Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh 1618 is draaft, 1629 is ſlaaft (next to draaft), 1820 is laaft and 1881 is correct, but also a bit mentionny and an example sentence. (It is used to illustrate the mentioned verb daven.) ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh Yes, many scanned texts before 1850 are of very poor quality, so there are many scannos and other problems. Long s is rather common in Dutch before 1830. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

De Haag

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, area form of Den Haag. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Archaic Dutch: [60] [61] Haags Dutch: [62] [63] ([64]) [65] Thadh (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

December 2020

omo-

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:371b:bd88:f550:e41e:6251:c0db today, not listed:

“no derived terms” J3133 (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I spot a few instances of Medical Latin counterparts of the words in Category:English words prefixed with omo- embedded in English, German, and other-language works, namely google books:"omoclavicularis", google books:"omohyoides", and (using the other etymology} google books:"omophagus", google books:"omophagis", but I didn't spot any but the last one in fully Latin texts and it's questionable whether they should be viewed as establishing a Latin prefix vs deriving from Greek. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Eszwaren

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

German. Tagged by Malpadam on 8 October 2019, not listed. J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added one use with that spelling. There are more in Google books. I have a hard time reading those old German fonts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
- If by "those old German fonts" you mean Fraktur we have to be careful, because "ſz" in Fraktur is actually "ß". So at [66], for example, the search engine finds "Eszwaren" but the scan shows it's actually Eßwaren. But [67] is an unambiguous example of "Eszwaren" in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  - The one I added was in a legible font, not Fraktur. I found more[68][69], but maybe this is only a rare misspelling under the influence of reading ſz as sz. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
    - In older texts I wouldn't call it a misspelling. There was a time when sz, ss, and ß were sort of competing ways of rendering ſz in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
    - Modern Philology (inside the entry) is English and [70] is Dutch. That aren't good examples for German spellings. --Schläsinger X (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
      The proceedings are mainly in Dutch, but the context around Eszwaren obviously isn't Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

intermediatoria

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian. Tagged by Embryomystic on 12 December 2019, not listed: “Is this a typo for intermediaria?” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

teatro

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian. Sense: “movie theater, cinema”. Tagged by 86.181.21.251 on 24 February, not listed: “These senses may not exist, need verification”, “My sense verification request for Italian was removed, presumably because the definition was 'theatre (all senses)'. So I have broken down the definition and added the rfv-sense to the specific sense that requires verification.” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

di traverso

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian. Sense: “across, sideways, sidelong”. Tagged by Imetsia on 12 September, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

deeltjesversnellertje

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Dutch, diminutive of deeltjesversneller. Unlikely to be attestable, most particle accelerators are enormous facilities. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Teilchenbeschleunigerchen. Beautiful. – Jberkel 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me: @Soap, this may be one for your list ("little particle accelerator"). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly however, very small particle accelerators are being investigated. See for example these two newspaper articles which are using the diminutive: [71], [72]. Morgengave (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Heh, for once, reality catching up with the dictionary? – Jberkel 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed that when I looked for attestations of the diminutive; unfortunately they do not use the diminutive for it yet and Wiktionary is for describing language as it is currently attested. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

A suitable term to dub or subtitle the movie Ghostbusters (1984), original quotation "Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our back." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

ကွေန်ၚါ်တြုံ

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

ကောန်ညာ်တြုံ

According to a complaint of a native Mon speaker (Special:PermaLink/61255799/#Mon_Vocabulary_problem_explanation_(ကွေန်ၚါ်တြုံ); File:You stop hurt my language.jpg), these two spelling variants for ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ (“boy”) are non-existent. I googled these two and failed to obtain favorable results though some of their components (ကောန် (kon) / ကွေန် (“child”), တြုံ (truˀ, “male”)) are attested. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

For ကွေန်ၚါ် , go to [73] to look for "ကွေန် ၚါ် ". (That site uses space between compound).
For ကောန်ညာ် , here is my evidence พจนานุกรมไทย-มอญ สำเนียงมอญลพบุรี(p122lost).pdf (2007) look at page 70. It is intentionally spelled like that.
တြုံ is a word that can be added any noun expressing male.

About its author, จำปี ซื่อสัตย์, I don't know if he is still alive. He must be 90 years old now.

Anyway, you should copy my another dictionary too พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย.pdf (1984).

And if you can open sqlite database, also take this too Mon-Thai Dictionary.sqlite. I extracted from this mobile app.

--Octahedron80 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 Thank you for your explanation. I have difficulty understanding Thai, so it would be harder without you. OK, some combinations of the components are indeed attested. Then, is there any source that shows each of the spellings from beginning to end? Even some parts of them are attested, it would be another matter whether these two combinations are documented as they are. The variants listed at the current version of ကောန်ၚာ် (kon ṅāk) are of course OK, but when it comes to the forms seen at ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ, things are quite uncertain. Your attitudes gives the impression that you could create an entry *徒葩 as a spelling variant for Japanese 徒花(あだばな) (adabana, “a flower that blooms but never bears fruit”) since both 葩 (quite uncommon) and 花 (quite common) are read as hana and have the sense “flower, blossom” in common, therefore they are always freely interchangeable—no, no, actually it is not! We cannot do such a horrific deed without complete evidence —otherwise, what we do will be perfect invention! --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@エリック・キィ About the whole word "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ", I was not the one who created it at first, I renamed to another form and, after 咽頭べさ was mad, then I reverted back. (I cannot rename same page twice so I edited it instead.) I can only verify ကောန်ၚာ် and တြုံ solely. You may ask him about "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is some evidence either. (It should be documented somewhere / or it is just SOP?) I could remove alternative forms of "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is no evidence, even their parts have.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

By the way, 咽頭べさ mistakenly put some unknown texts into IPA template in many words; I assume he does not know IPA. I must follow his track to cleanup this mess. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 I agree with you on this point. I asked him about this topic (it seems something other than IPA, then what is it?) before, but he has made no reply so far...--Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

A few observations: First, the self-assessment by this editor as "en-2" is rather generous. Figuring out how much they understand our policies is likely to be a challenge, and explaining anything doubly so.

Second, it's easier to take the word of a native speaker as to the existence of something in their language than its non-existence. Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.

Also, in an environment where their language is actively discouraged, one would expect a certain prescriptivism that sees variation from what they're battling to defend as an attack (that environment would increase isolation between speakers, as well, which reinforces my second point).

Of course, I have no direct knowledge, so I could be completely off base. I would rather bend over backward and walk on eggshells than risk piling on with those around them who don't want to hear their language. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80, Chuck Entz Please don't worry, I have no doubt about the existence of the term ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ itself, since I am able to find its records through Google Search. What he (yes he, judging from the audio records) and I regard as a problem is which combination is allowed to spell and which is not. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz >Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.

Of course, I understand this point. That's why I have made this edit. Mon language has numerous dialects but no official standard variety is seen while something similar to it exists (Bauer 1982: xvii; Jenny 2005: 30; Jenny 2015: 555). Thus, even if a certain word itself is attested in a material in terms of pronunciation and spelling, there is NO guarantee that we can apply it directly to other dialects. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jeju terms for modern concepts

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As categorized by UNESCO and as discussed in Wikipedia, fluent speakers of the actual Jeju language were all born in the 1940s or earlier. The following terms relating to modern concepts are not likely to be found in traditional Jeju, which was spoken solely by impoverished peasants. As what is now spoken in Jeju Island—an indubitably Korean dialect—is not what we mean by Jeju in Wiktionary, I believe these entries should all be deleted unless someone can provide an actual early attestation (preferably from the very first academic studies of the dialect, in the 1960s). The Digital Museum for Endangered Languages and Cultures or the NIKL dictionaries ported at Urimalsaem is not necessarily reliable in this regard, since they do not really make this distinction.

Making the distinction between traditional, soon-to-be-extinct Jeju and Category:Jeju Korean is crucial for maintaining some integrity in Category:Jeju lemmas. The most credible dictionary of Jeju, 개정증보제주어사전, does not bother with these modernisms and I believe we should follow their lead. — This unsigned comment was added by Karaeng Matoaya (talk • contribs) at 19:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC).Reply

To anyone who's going through these, please do not delete them for now, as I'm finding cites and am planning on making a complete update soon, but have been behind recently. Thanks! AG202 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

ᄉᆞ훼

Wasei kango for "society", not a traditional word. I think it should be deleted entirely because the actual form in modern Jeju speech is likely to be 사훼 (sahwe) (due to the loss of /ɔ/), which is pronounced identically to Standard Korean 사회 (sahoe). The word ᄉᆞ훼 (sawhwe) represents an intermediary stage between "true" Jeju and the modern Jeju-tinged Korean, and I do not think we should categorize this stage as Jeju.

ᄌᆞ영거

How many bicycles existed in Jeju before South Korean industrialization? This form is a dialectal pronunciation of 自行車, a term which was definitely used in many mainland dialects in 1945, so it could well be a post-1940s introduction into the island. Should be changed to 자영거 (jayeonggeo) under the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}.

관광객

This word is not attested in Korean in the "tourist" sense before the 1910s, and is a Japanese import. How many tourists were in Jeju before South Korean industrialization?

기념관

"Memorial hall" in the modern sense. Also likely to be a modernism.

냉장고

"Refrigerator". Refrigerators were not common in South Korea until the 1970s.

브랜드

English loan meaning "brand" (as in a perfume brand, etc.). Highly unlikely to be found in traditional Jeju.

사진끼

"Camera".

생물권

"Biosphere" in the modern scientific sense.

선풍기

"Electric fan". Electric fans were not common in South Korea until the 1980s.

악매

"Demon, Devil". Has Christian connotations to me as a native speaker of Korean, and not found in 제주도무속자료사전 or other sources on Jeju religion; the very concept is alien to Jeju religious practice. Likely a late Christian introduction; the date is unknown, but Christianity was very marginal in Jeju until the 1950s and is still not particularly important there. If it fails RFV, should be changed to the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}.

조선시대

A modern historiographical term that could not have existed before the 1950s.

주인공

"Main character; protagonist" in the modern literary sense, probably from Japanese.

텔레비전

"Television". Did not exist in Korea before the 1950s.

풍력단지

"Wind power plant".

deca-ampère

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

decaseconde

decasteradiaal

deciampère

deciseconde

decisteradiaal

Dutch. Theoretically possible but apparently unattested SI units. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

decyl

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

decyn

Dutch. These seem unattestable. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how chemical CFI works, but compounds with decyl: N,N'-bis(10-(p- methoxyfenoxy)-decyl)-p-diaminobenzeen, di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat decyl-trimethylammonium, plain decyl: [74]. Thadh (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is a systematic name but has Dutch spelling of components, benzeen instead of benzene, etc. A paper from 2009 talks about chemistry translation: doi:10.1021/ci800243w. I think di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat appearing in a Dutch paper can be used to support decyl, octyl, and ftalaat (= phthalate, I assume). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

deel en heers

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, many scannos on BGC. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It may be archaic or obsolete: [75], [76], [77]. --Lambiam 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is certainly an obsolete spelling, but I agree they are all valid uses. If this spelling isn't attested, it can be moved to that spelling. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

blits

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. RFV-sense of "firm, impressive", distinct from "fashionable, flashy". Not found in the dictionaries I checked. Most results on Google Books are clearly in the latter sense. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not found, but I see the term used as a noun in the expression – presumably idiom – de blits maken: [78], [79], [80] In the last cite it translates English (to carry as) a badge (for one’s peers). --Lambiam 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it exists as a noun; it relates to the uncontested adjective sense "fashionable". De blits maken means "to be fashionable, to make a fashionable impression", there are also the expressions de blits uithangen and colloquially de blits zijn (maybe not durably attested) that are more or less synonyms. I'm not sure how it should be lemmatised. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

schalk (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

RFV-sense of "(Outdated) A knave, servant.". Not in the WNT, etymological dictionaries suggest this didn't outlast Middle Dutch. The definition is unclear, too. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's listed here [[81]], and I can find uses in Google Books [[82]] (search "een schalk" "nederlands"). Leasnam (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

But the first link doesn't give "servant" for modern Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Clearly archaic, but in early modern Dutch it seemed to have been used in at least some religious texts, in phrases such as "Heer, ik ben uw schalk" (Lord, I am thy servant) and in compounds such as Godschalk (God's servant = priest) [83] Morgengave (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's certainly a valid use. But I'm curious where those 19th-century writers got it from. The Vorstermann-, Deux-Aes- and Statenvertaling all use "knecht" [84] [85] [86] and it seems "schalk" was very pejorative in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. So my guess is that is was from an eighteenth-century (maybe late seventeenth-century) Psalm translation that had been published separately. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The book Antiquitates Germanicæ linked to above is an 18th-century text; possibly later writers, who do not quote more than this single phrase, copied it from that text. It has somewhat the nature of a mention; in particular, how can we be sure that the unidentified (rhyming?) translation of the Book of Psalms was Dutch and not Middle Dutch? If the term schalk came from a Middle Dutch psalter it was not the 1360 translation, which has O Heere, ic ben dijn knech, ic ben cnecht, dijnre dierne sone.^[87], and also not the 1483 psalter linked to from Middelnederlandse psalters, which has O he^ꝛe want ic dijn knecht bin Ick bin dijn knecht eñ ſone dijnre diernen.^[88] --Lambiam 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Without exception each use of schalck(en) in this Bible concordance from 1645 has a sense of depravity, extending to priests (Want beyde Propheten ende Priesters zijn ſchalken). I find it hard to imagine a contemporaneous sense of pious submission. Interestingly, the word is also used as an adjective (Exempelen eeniger ſchalke menſchen). --Lambiam 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I also noticed the adjective, it seems quite common from the 16th up to the 19th century. I have personally never seen or heard the adjective schalk before this month, but the more clearly marked adjective schalks is still a very current word. However, it does seem like the meaning of schalk (adj.) was rather more negative. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

رست

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Persian. I can't find this term in any reputable dictionary. --{{victar|talk}} 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: [89] --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Repeating the call. Do you still insist on the verifications? I won't be able to add citations in Persian, I am afraid, need native speakers. I have found the term in another dictionary English-Persian Persian-English (it requires registration and this dictionary can be borrowed for an hour). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ZxxZxxZ, Dijan, Qehath Anyone? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I found it only in Amid dictionary. It's a relatively smaller Persian dictioary containing words found in the late Persian literature. The Amid dictionary of the Vajehyab website has cited a couplet (I guess it is based on the revised edition of the Amid Dictionary). --Z 07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Viech

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

East Central German. Tagged by IP, "lacks definition and source/reference". "East Central German" word added by @Lo Ximiendo.__Gamren (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the German ~~Wikipedia~~ Wiktionary lists this under the lemma Tier as an Upper Saxonian dialectal expression (Dialektausdruck), next to Dier and Biest. Upper Saxonian is an LDL. --Lambiam 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

German Wikipedia, entry Tier doesn't have this.
German Wiktionary (having de:Viech, de:Tier) is a foolish mess.

German WT is unable to differ between regional Standard High German and dialects, in so many ways.
- de:Mandl, de:Boandlkramer are given is "bairisch" (not bayrisch/bayerisch), yet the inflection is SHG and Duden sometimes used as a source is for SHG.
- de:Abdach, de:Pogge are given as "niederdeutsch", yet the inflection is SHG.
- In de:Tier, Low German is present twice, in two different places: 1. It's present among other non-High German languages, where it is "Niederdeutsch" and with the addition "Nordniedersächsisch". 2. It's present between High German dialectal expressions, where names of Low German dialects occur: "Lippisch", "Mecklenburgisch", "Ostfälisch", "Ostfriesisch".
In de:Tier German WT uses it's own made-up orthography only documented at a user-page: de:Benutzer:UliDolbarge/Orthografie.

--2003:DE:373F:4031:3515:67E:BD2C:B01B 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dialectisches aus dem Erzgebirge states that Erzgebirgisch is part of Obersächsisch and mentions Viech = German Vieh. --2003:DE:373F:4013:C05F:826B:3C85:3D79 20:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

RFV-kept, although we still need a definition: "livestock", "beast", or both? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

First of all, it might still need attestion - or a better label. Erzgebirgisch is not, at least not always and universally, included in Obersächsisch or Upper Saxon (see examples below). So what does the label "Upper Saxon" in the entry mean, Upper Saxon in a broader sense including Erzgebirgisch or Upper Saxon in a stricter sense exluding Erzgebirgisch? If it's supposed to be the strict sense, sources are lacking. If it's supposed to be the broad sense but currently only attested in Erzgebirgisch, then the more specific term Erzgebirgisch seems like a better label.

[90]: "drei Dialekten (Obersächsisch, Vogtländisch, Erzgebirgisch)"
[91]: "Die Grenze zwischen Obersächsisch und Erzgebirgisch, das auch in Deutschböhmen gesprochen wird, läuft"
[92]: "das Obersächsische im engeren Sinne .. die Dialektgebiete des Meißnischen .. und des Südwest/Südost-Osterländischen .., also unter Ausschluß des Erzgebirgischen und Vogtländischen .., des Nordosterländischen und ... sowie des Lausitzischen .."

--46.91.106.74 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Now:

Fixed.

Same holds true for Been, though being pedantic one could question it: East Central German Been = Bein was sourced, Bein means leg and bone (in this sense a bit dated though), so one could questions which sense or senses East Central German Been has: both or only one? --2003:DE:3720:3733:F84C:4C4E:8FDB:64C9 12:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Imme f

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

German. Sense: a swarm of bees. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

幽霊四: If you just looked into the darn standard references instead of the Duden which covers only the last century you wouldn’t need to request. Especially impudent if the sense is explicitly labelled obsolete. Here a selection of attestation-based dictionaries: FNHDWB, DRW, Grimm. Etc.. With varying spellings of course, but we wouldn’t want to have the word under Yme etc. either and as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know. Case closed, newb without user page? Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Grimm: It's "imme, m.". Different gender (and also different capitalisation). Also Grimme covers more than New High German.

DRW:

Examples have "ein immen", "ain imp", "ein unverfolgter impen", "ein imme", so often have other forms and where the gender is revealed without any doubts [i.e. in "ein unverfolgter impen"], it's masculine.
Meaning: "Bienenstock und -schwarm" (bee-hive and bee-swarm), that's different from the entry. (Is it even both bee-hive and bee-swarm (a single sense) or either bee-hive or bee-swarm (two senses, though sometimes/often hard to distinguish?)
DRW's quotes are incorrect as can be seen by the 1709 Mutach quote for Impen at Talk:Imme#Citations. ("Normalization" in a quote makes the quote incorrect - a correct quote keeps spelling including capitalisation of the original work. In case of Impen also the page-number is wrong: It's 41 and not 40.)
"I Bienenstock und -schwarm" with "den hochflugk der impen lassen wir" looks like it could be wrong too: It could be a feminine singular genitive der impen of imp/impe/impen = "swarm of bees", but also a plural genitive with the second sense "bee".
DRW also includes OHG, MHG and MLG, so many quotes are insufficient for German.

FWB (= Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, this is the abbreviation used there and not "FNHDWB"):

Sense "1. Bienenschwarm, Bienenstock" with "sehet an die immen, die machen das honig aus der edelsten manna aller blumen" looks like it could be wrong too: it's immen pl. = bees, so rather an example for sense "2. Biene".

"Etc.":

Adelung doesn't have this sense. "Im Friesischen Ihme, in andern gegenden Ympe, wo es auch einen Bienenstock bedeutet" refers to Frisian (East Frisian Low German or Frisian Frisian?).
BMZ and Lexer are for Middle High German.
ElsWB, PfWB are for dialects which aren't part of German in Wiktionary.

-幽霊四 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) & 幽霊四 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because of the grammar of the Early New High German texts, in many cases it is not clear which gender the quotes have – you do not seem to understand the grammar, “ein imme” can also be feminine back then; especially in Bavarian areas also “ein immen” –; in addition to what FNHDWB says that in many attestations it is not clear if a swarm of bees or bees as individuals are meant. However I see from some quotes there clearly that the meaning of an individual bee has also been masculine. So a solution is to change to masculine and have a feminine POS as alternative form because the feminine is only a modern perversion of some poets and it does not matter whether it has recently been used more often as feminine since it is not often at all; or give m in the head and then f immediately after. In any case the way you requested here is to be reprehended since someone dealing with it and not knowing where to search German could have, because of nobody answering, just deleted the sense while at most a gender switch would have been appropriate. And no, capitalisation is irrelevant, New High German nouns get added capitalized even if they died out before capitalisation of nouns was a thing, and those liberal writers who do not follow the capitalization rules in modern times are treated as if they have written their texts capitalized regularly, because otherwise it’s confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to the rule that says we unify? I was under the impression it was a contentious thing, done on a language-by-language basis. And WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings", so as a rule, we don't unify German. Perhaps instead of harassing the "newb without a user page" you should check what the rules actually are?

Just verify the damn thing, Fay Freak. The general rules say that we need cites for any words, not cribbing from dictionaries. We can quibble about stuff after we have a suitable number of citations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Prosfilaes: Can you point me to the rule that says we do not unify and have to find every sense in every spelling in every gender three times? No, because it’s not true. The word is not “spelling”, hence unifying. I have proven it also on various places, as for example by the fact that one can attest from audio, or texts written scriptio continua, etc., e.g. above under Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#baußen, also on Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#Huang-ch'i I noted that “we cannot derive from the mere entry layout practice that for alternative spelling pages entries are cloned the requirement that each such sense or even only part of speech needs three citations”. The fact that one needs to argue for certain interpretations of the law does not speak against the stance of him who argues.

I have shown attestations above; the dictionaries give quotes. Can you demonstrate me a rule that we need cites typed off into the page and that referring to dictionaries quoting the senses or spellings, e.g. even other Wiktionaries, wouldn’t suffice? The fact that we constantly have too little personnel and are underpaid suggests otherwise, as well as the fact that blind quotes of quotes given in other sources are avoided in science.

You don’t seriously suggest we should have this word under Ymme or Yme or perhaps ymme or yme because of not being quoted in the modern spelling and the particular gender and particular sense? Because “we operate under the tyranny of entry titles”?

I have presented multiple ways of representing the word. You speak of harrassing but it is perfectly legimitate to point out that his request was unclear in concerning the particular gender so it could have lead to excessive deletion of a known sense, and a fact that one is negatively disposed towards users who do not state their language levels on their user pages, and I do not forgo to notify particularly newbs of uncomfortable truths, because they in particular have to get to know things. If “newb” is an offensive then one shall forgive me because I am not responsible for every neutral word’s meaning being ousted by connotations to an extent that we cannot communicate without a nimb of aggression. Language hasn’t been made for the internet. Fay Freak (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings". You shouldn't say "as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know" to a newb, if there are established users who would argue against it. There's a difference between arguing for a position, and informing someone that a position is the rule.

Nice change in standards of evidence, if you make a claim, you don't have to provide evidence. If I make a claim, I have to demonstrate an exact rule. Have I been wasting my time on RFV when I could have just responded by "check out Google Books"? When I added cites to Uno, people disagreed that some of those cites were appropriate cites: see the archived discussion on Talk:Uno. It would have been a lot harder to have that discussion had I and other people not copied the text into the article. In this case, the user has disagreed with your cites; it would be much easier to work with if the cites were here where we could read them, instead of just handwaves at dictionaries.

Yes, I seriously suggest we should have this word under the spellings it's used under. As you quote a vote, you know that this is not an uncontentious issue at Wiktionary--Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns closed 9-4--and the vote you quote is very limited, as wynn can be replaced one for one with w in all cases in Old English. We shouldn't have to map from a spelling used in real life to some arbitrary spelling invented by a dictionary writer, us or someone else.

You don't distinguish "uncomfortable truths" from "Fay Freak's opinions", and this is not the first time I've seen you do this. Here's an uncomfortable truth; you'd be running a chance of getting blocked on some other English Wikis, and acting like it's other people's fault and "Language hasn’t been made for the internet." is absurd when many other people manage to follow these rules and newb says "(Internet slang, sometimes derogatory)", so yes, it's made for the Internet, and it's always had that negative meaning. And while "newb" may be somewhat problematic, the fact you're asserting Fay Freak's opinions as "uncomfortable truths" that they obviously should have known (despite the fact you can't cite any place on the Wiki where they could have learned those "truths") is much more problematic. As is saying "the way you requested here is to be reprehended", which condemns the person instead of focusing on the action, say, "an RFV on a word could cause it to be incorrectly deleted." Which is itself garbage; if someone feels a word needs RFV, they should feel free to RFV it. There are points someone RFVing a bunch of words that are going to be kept could be a problem, but I'd say that's never the case for words that might get deleted; nominating words for RFV should get cites added, making them clearly attested words, and in many cases get definitions refined and separated out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Prosfilaes I have added a few cites, though it is advisable that a native speaker looks it over. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dievoet

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dievoort

Dutch, two senses: "(chiefly Belgium) A place name" and "(chiefly Belgium) A surname with the prefix van". The second sense exists at Vandievoet or Van Dievoet because that is how Flemish names work, the first sense does not seem attestable in use; although there are mentions of a hamlet in Ukkel (Uccle). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave What is your view on this? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't know the place myself, but Dievoort seems to be a place near Breda: [93]. The place in Ukkel is indeed called Dievoet, not Dietvoort. Morgengave (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

an toàn đệ nhất

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Not how you normally say "safety first" in Vietnamese (an toàn là trên hết is used instead), most google hits are from translations of Chinese novels.PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123: Just advice since I saw this. If the term an toàn đệ nhất exists, but is just very uncommon, you can add it as a synonym in the main entry an toàn là trên hết, and label it as rare or uncommon, and put the same label in the other entry. We don't need to delete this entry if it really exists, but is just rare. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think Phan Anh is being polite when he says it is not "how you normally say" it. ☺ All instances I could find of this online seem to be automated or community-generated translations of Chinese stories. Nothing durable. Furthermore the people (or machines) who create those translations seem to follow the wuxia convention that anything fancy should not be translated but merely transliterated to the Vietnamese pronunciation. Most of those phrases would never be used outside of works translated from Chinese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do wonder, how should we handle words that are mainly found in translations, particularly awkward or unnatural ones, in general? MSG17 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, if such terms made it into three independent durably archived sources, they should be included, as people may encounter them and want to look them up. If they only appear in machine translations posted online (as seems to be the case with an toàn đệ nhất) then I say we should just delete them. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

drieken

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Dutch. This could in theory be related to drek, but it is absent from many dialect dictionaries and I cannot find it used (results are scannos for drinken, drukken, etc.). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave, Rua, Alexis Jazz Do you think this lemma might be something or does it seem ephemeral? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Never heard of this, and it's not in the (amateur) Vlaams woordenboek, which is with its ~34000 entries quite elaborate. So I suppose if it exists (does it?), it's likely part of a Dutch-Dutch or Suriname-Dutch dialect, or slang (which could explain its non-attestation)? It's a pity that the entry creator is anonymous. Morgengave (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave All right, that seems to rule out Belgian Dutch. It might be from dialectal usage in the Netherlands or a borrowing from Westlauwers Frisian or Low Saxon, but I did not find it in the eWND. Surinamese Dutch seems very implausible to me because of the vowel change that cannot be explained as a borrowing to Sranantongo and back. That said, I'm willing to wait this one out until libraries reopen. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Sounds familiar, but I think that's a false memory. Did some searches, all came up dry. Maybe something highly local that doesn't appear in any written text. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

January 2021

thede

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Scots. Did this word (which seems to be rare and obsolete) ever actually have the sense "species"/"kind"? The Dictionary of the Scots Language only lists the senses "a country" and "a people or community". The "species" sense isn't in the OED either. Zacwill (talk)

While we're at it, it'd be good to see some verification for the "region or province" sense too. Zacwill (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

burjan

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Old High German. Created based on mention in etymology of burgeon. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is a tricky one. The usual forms in Old High German are burien, burren, buren, and purjan all meaning to "to lift, raise, straighten, begin". However I was able to find a mention of the form burjan here [[94]] Leasnam (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

If I change your search term from althochdeutsch to ahd I find an old dictionary of old German (Altdeutsches Wörterbuch) with an entry "[burjan], purjan, purjen, purren, puren, burren, burren"[95] which may mean burjan is reconstructed. I found unbracketed and unstarred mentions in etymology lists for other languages, which is what led to the entry here being created. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if it's reconstructed or not. There's really no need for references to reconstruct the term (i.e. *burjan), it definitely exists as burien, so I don't see the motivation towards sources needing to do that. burjan would have to be an early form though, so if attested it must be one of the first... Leasnam (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

ankel

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Old Saxon. This may be a reconstructed form in the wrong namespace. Also spelled enkel. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be two distinct senses.__Gamren (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can't find this attested for Old Saxon. The "ankle" sense should be moved to *enkil. I have no clue where the "hip" sense comes from... Leasnam (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

fo-shruth

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Allegedly Scottish Gaelic for underflow. Found no reliable evidence for this claim. --Droigheann (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I could only find [96]. Thadh (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ariomardus

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 93.221.34.122 on 16 January, not listed. J3133 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

oblongo

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:372f:4574:d9ce:f109:7b6e:2983 on 26 January, not listed: “As participles get their own entries (e.g. laudātus, labōrātus), I doubt this does exist.” J3133 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This RFV sounds insane, as the entry tells that is exists in a particular form, so it does not claim to exist how IP pretends it is claimed to exist. But I see there even is one use for the 3rd person singular perfect oblongavit. However the definition would of course have to be “to oblongate”, like it means “to make oblong”. Funnily English oblongate at least exists in the form oblongated; a few hits however also for the participle oblongating. Fay Freak (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

All hits are New Latin; the verb is not even listed in the Du Cange. A well-known medical term is medulla oblongata, often colloquially shortened to just oblongata. In botanical texts, leaf shapes are often called oblongate,^[97][98][99] and the term is also used in various anatomical descriptions.^{[100][101][102]} --Lambiam 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cited This, that and the other (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2021

de lunatico inquirendo

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 46.91.106.74 on 31 January, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apparently used here: [103]. Thadh (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found a use in running Latin text here. I think that's missing the point though; it's NISoP in Latin. This, that and the other (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

moved to WT:RFDN#de lunatico inquirendo This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

angiosperms

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Translingual. Looks English, cp. angiosperm, sperm, -s. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Depending on the outcome, possibly to add: magnoliids, monocots, core eudicots (also cp. core), superasterids, asterids, superrosids, rosids, fabids, malvids. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Clades are tricky, because many of them don't have an accepted conventional taxonomic name. The taxonomists working on them give them an informal English name, and other taxonomists use them like the conventional Latin-based taxonomic names- which we treat as Translingual(language code mul) because they're used in a great many languages without being a part of the languages. These English-based names for plants are technically invalid according to the taxonomic code, but they're definitely used in taxonomic contexts.

This particular one is odd because the clade has a normal taxonomic name, Angiospermae, and there's nothing about the formation of that name that precludes it from being validly given any rank above superfamily. It doesn't seem necessary to use an English-based name in non-English usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

And yet it is so used. DCDuring (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

IMO, none of these are Translingual. They were all created by DCDuring, who has no training in relevant fields and seems opposed to the distinction betwen taxonomic and common names used by workers in the actual field. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is angiosperms (and are the others) used in multiple languages?
google books:"angiosperms" "das" (with German das n (“the”)), google books:"angiosperms" "le" (with French le m (“the”)) and similar searches (with other articles, with forms of translations of be, excluding the) brought up:

French "les Angiospermes"
German "Angiospermen (angiosperms): Bedecktsamer; Pflanzen, deren ..." which is only a mentioning of the English

My search wasn't exhaustive, but I didn't see any non-English usage. --幽霊四 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it is then it still does not mean it is translingual. In other languages there is still in principle a distinction between the native language and Translingual even if the terms look the same 100% (which they don’t, due to capitalization). Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just move to English. It is formally clear here what is translingual and what English. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not a vote. That might be appropriate in RfM or RfD. There is attestation in scholarly journals for the terms being used in a manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names. There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms. DCDuring (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that this shouldn't be a vote. It's how it's used that should determine what language header it goes under, not a prescriptive standard. Our Translingual section should be just as descriptive as the rest of the dictionary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re "There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms": Is there? Google Books is not case sensitive, so searching for angiosperms and Angiosperms brings up the same results. As I searched, I didn't see more for the capitalised variant. --幽霊四 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I found abundant attestation for Angiosperm in use parallel to Latinate taxa at Google Scholar. I searched for "clade Angiosperms". DCDuring (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

“manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names”. Cannot nachvollziehen such reasoning. It’s not only the manner, i.e. the context in which it is used which indicates which language something is. This is the same irrational approach that declares long Latin or Greek bonmots “Danish”. The Verkehrsanschauung is unambiguous about which language it is (and one can hardly with more quotes show that something is more translingual or more English; “eudicots” will not look less English because there are quotes in some other language that has the same pluralization practice, so it is true it is more RfM matter and not RfV matter – though even better, somebody who is able to sharply distinguish can just move/transform such entries for he can rationally defend it). Fay Freak (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The only use in a work not in English is a section of an unpublished Czech thesis which quotes from the English language product of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group adding a few Czech words in. Elsewhere in the thesis the word is treated as Czech, for example "angiospermní: krytosemenné rostliny, jednoděloţné a dvouděloţné" (angiosperms, plants with hidden seeds...). This supports a borrowing or parallel formation, not a multilingual word. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's very hard to find usage, because of the huge number of false positives due to English titles in their cited references. It's also true that there are taxonomists who don't view APG clade names as valid for taxonomic use and therefore don't use them translingually. Also, this term seems to be much less common than those for which there is no validly published conventional alternative. I was able to find a few that I would argue show translingual usage. I could probably find a few more, if necessary. Most of these are in tables rather than in running text, but I would contend that such is how taxonomic names are often used. Here (on page 10 of the pdf) is one of several where the APG names are contrasted with the standard classifications, but they are both treated as the same sort of thing. This pdf has it at the beginning, while this pdf follows a common Chinese practice of a mixture of translingual and English glosses in parentheses throughout the text, but has a table on the 5th page (numbered 524) where the clade names are in a context that has everything else in either taxonomic Latin or Chinese.

As for whether these are durably archived: the taxonomic codes, until fairly recently, explicitly required what basically amounts to durable archiving for anything taxonomic to be validly published. As far as I know, it's still very much the practice, with some online journals going so far as to print a limited number of hard copies that are placed in selected libraries to satisfy such requirements. As far as I know, theses for academic credit are all archived with the educational institution, and government publications are archived as well. I can't guarantee that all of these specific articles are durably archived, but there's a high probability that they are. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Here (on page 10 of the pdf)" - page 19 of the PDF, page 3 of the actual work, where it begins with Según APG IV (“According to APG [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] IV”) and which also has core eudicots? That looks like a mentioning of APG – English? In the bibliography sections, it mentions Catálogo de las Angiospermas y Gimnospermas del Perú.
"This pdf":
- It doesn't look durably archived.
- It's mentioning English wikipedia, FAO with APG in URL. It could copy English stuff. "United Emirats arabes unis (Arab Emirates) (Arabe, Arabic)" also looks strange regarding the language.

--幽霊四 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

eudicots

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Translingual. Looks English, see also -s, also as there are non-English translations. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

幽霊四: If it “looks English” then spare us such requests and move to English. Nothing would get lost. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's an English plural noun. The taxonomic clade is Eudicots. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would add a request for Translingual Eudicots as well, with the same reasoning.

[104] has "der Eudicots" (gen. pl., gender not revealed) and "die core eudicots" (pl., same; with italics), but it's just one source, not sufficent.
[105] has "Der Name Eudicotyledonae (engl. eudicots)", giving two reasons why it doesn't look translingual: 1. It's English. 2. There's an alternative.
[106] has it in French, but with quotation marks and also "higher hamamelids" (with quotation marks as well) which is even more English.
[107] has "Les Eudicotylédones (Eudicots)", "des Eudicots", "Les Rosidées". Could also be regular French (-s), or not?

--幽霊四 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

kakilima beratap

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. Sent from RFD. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 10:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#kakilima beratap (2). I am not sure about the orthographies of various terms, but Indonesian kaki lima, literally “five foot”, short for ”five-foot way”, can by itself mean the walkway under an arcade, usually housing shops. It is to be expected then that such an arcade is called a kaki-lima beratap. At least one dictionary lists the term;^[108] and the term is used here. The issue seems to be more whether this is not a good old SOP. (Aside: we also have an entry kaki-lima, whose status seems dubious to me, just like “the shop on the corner” may often be a convenience store, but does not necessarily mean that.) --Lambiam 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

รูปแปดด้าน

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thai. Sent from RFD. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 10:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Spanish capacho "having horns pointing flat out to the sides" (bullfighting)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In reality this appears to mean "wicker basket". I can find no references to bullfighting with respect to this term. Benwing2 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's loads of hits Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most are mentions in dictionaries, but I saw at least three uses (also using a news search) that count for CFI purposes: [109], [110], [111]. --Lambiam 14:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

IXOYE

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Translingual. Created by suzukaze-c; RFV suggested by @This, that and the other. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

3 cites from Google Books, in English contexts:

Jack Bowen, If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers
Fish symbol with "Ixoye" in the middle:
Michael Theisen, Exploring Catholicism
sacred letters, words, and symbols such as IHS, IXOYE, INRI, ✝, JESUS, ΑΩ
Thomas Nelson Publishers, The Safe Sites Internet Yellow Pages
Home to The IXOYE Page and Doulos Ministries. Specializing in everything from evangelism to homeschooling and prophecy

(https://web.archive.org/web/20021130051023/http://home1.gte.net/ixoye/)

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The last cite is part of a proper name, so I don't think we can admit that. The other two look like mentions, so ordinarily I'd reject them, but I do note that the PoS is "Symbol". Maybe this shifts the goalposts as far as the use-mention distinction is concerned... This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Misprint for ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for "fish" but also acronym of Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ, meaning "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour". The first Christians used this, or even sometimes just a stylized fish shape, as a sign of recognition which would escape the notice of their Roman persecutors. IXOYE should be ΙΧΘΥΣ in all three numbered links above. See w:Ichthys for details. — Tonymec (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tonymec: At Wiktionary we are interested in how language is used in the real world, not how it "should" be used. I don't think anyone would disagree with you that IXOYE is "wrong" on some level, but if it is in use we ought to include it. This, that and the other (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Three more from Google Scholar, confirmed not scannos:

Pathways off the streets: Homeless people and their use of resources Wright, Bradley R. Entner. The University of Wisconsin - Madison. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1996
the parishioners of St. Andrews Church and Faith Community Bible Church. IXOYE.
Oracle (Sep 21, 1973), and many more instances from the same series
IXOYE (pronounced ICHTHUS)
Esther Lim, Portland State University, Nine Months
Next to “UCSB Dad” was a fish symbol with the letters “IXOYE” in the middle—the classic acronym for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Translingual Symbol sense 5

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A system of paper sizes with similar proportions, as A0, A1, A2, etc.

Is the letter "A" used alone (in any language, since this is Translingual) to refer to a paper size system? I would make a claim that uses like "the A paper size system" do not support the inclusion of this term. Please argue with me on this though! This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Attributively at least: A paper sizes. Fay Freak (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Still a strange thing to include in such a place in a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Translingual Symbol sense 6

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

An academic grade lower than A+ but greater than A-.

I dispute that this is used translingually, even if the definition were to be worded more generally. I contend that letter grades are only or largely confined in the Anglosphere. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some (if not many) Dutch primary schools use letter grades (E-D-C-B-A) interchangeably with digits (1-10). Cito also uses these. Thadh (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think few primary schools actually use those as the actual marks rather than as a mere secondary encoding of onvoldoende, voldoende, goed, etc. In any case, its marginal use by Dutch schools seems not much of an argument for its translingual status. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is kind of likely that in some Pacific islands and African colonies this system has been taken over, without school education taking place in English. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

кыл

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Komi-Zyrian. Seems to be dialectal Permyak rather than Zyrian (compare also Коми-Ёдз кыл). Thadh (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

uirí-ubhagán

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Irish. I can't seem to find any attestations for Irish uirí-ubhagán in the Corpus of Contemporary Irish and the hits that I get when doing a web search appear to be copies of the English Wiktionary entry or that from The National Terminology Database for Irish. Is the term a protologism or in use, but simply undocumented because of its rarity? Take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suspect it's a protologism. If it's actually used, I can't find evidence of it. It's listed in tearma.ie and acmhainn.ie, "both of which sometimes coin Irish neologisms rather than reporting on existing usage" (thus WT:AGA). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

bruggenhoofd

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Dutch, RFV-sense of "an area around the end of a bridge". This seems an incorrect interference from the English sense; in relation to bridges it seems that the sense of "support/pillar of a bridge" does occur frequently. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

As the editor, I actually took this sense from the Wikipedia article landhoofd [112], which considers bruggenhoofd to be a synonym of landhoofd (e.g., the area connecting ground and bridge, including the support structure). Morgengave (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I agree it is used for the structure connecting the extended parts of a bridge and the ground. The meaning of English bridgehead in relation to actual bridges is about a small area (considered to be strategic) and to my knowledge not about really the support structure. [113] ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Dutch it can have the same strategic sense: [114], [115], [116]. It can also be used in a figurative sense: [117], [118], [119]. --Lambiam 08:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam I think there is a misunderstanding here due to my use of "strategic", but senses 2 and 3 are not contested. The discussion above is about the non-military sense for a small area around the end of a bridge, that I have RFV'd, and a support element at the end of a bridge. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

un coup

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

French. Old entry created by me, apparently unattestable. P U C – 11:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PUC Not sure what qualifies as attestation, but this is a very common expression. There are even more senses than just the softening of an order. "je passe un coup chez le dentiste" (rapidement), "un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus" (tantôt... tantôt),... Lots of hits on Google. Sitaron (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

If it's real, we need citations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

autotoxicus

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin: “(New Latin, medicine) (Can we clean up⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) autoimmune [descendant:] English: horror autotoxicus”. Tagged by 2003:DE:3702:3E91:54CA:403:2464:75BF on 20 Februrary, not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

ad tempus

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Senses:

~~on time, in time, punctually~~ (not tagged)
temporarily
for the current time, for a while, at present

Tagged by 2003:DE:3702:3E91:54CA:403:2464:75BF on 20 February, not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

L&S lists the senses, ”For some time, for the time being, for a while, for the moment“, giving references to Cicero, Livius, and Tacitus. Le Gaffiot gives the same Cicero references for a sense of “pour un temps, momentanément”. --Lambiam 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

GEVA

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Esperanto: “(Internet slang, text messaging) Acronym of Guglo estas via amiko (“Google is your friend (GIYF)”). [Usage notes:] A way of telling someone, “go search Google”.” Tagged by Robin van der Vliet on 28 January 2019, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

avcı sinek

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Turkish. Literally "hunter fly", defined as referring to the predatory fly family Asilidae but the few uses I can find are not so limited. A couple related uses refer to a species of Promachus, which is in that family. Another refers to Coenosia attenuata, sometimes called "hunter fly" in English. A third group of hits refers to family Chamaemyiidae, species of which are predatory as larvae. So I don't think there is any more than a sum of parts here. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

baykuş sineği

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Turkish. Literally "owl fly". The definition is inconsistent, assigning the supposed insect to two distinct orders (Neuroptera and Diptera). I was unable to verify either meaning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vox Sciurorum: People are saying this on the internet, example 1 and example 2, with pictures and descriptions leaving now doubt about the identification. The uses postdate the 2009 creation of the Wiktionary entry though, and there is a possibility people on the internet coined it after the English. On the other hand I do not believe the original editor had a need to make up names for all flies and he had to take the names from somewhere, though his name be literally Sinek. A Turkish Wikipedia article on the animal, a frequent source of such coinages, never existed. Is it possible that entomology works a badly indexed? In particular I am skeptical about Google Books providing even a sketch of the Near East’s zoology. By now it is proven Google systematically skews the portrayal of science in favour of the American hegemon.

A question has always to be posited: What else is it called? We have learned that even the caperberry in Finnish struggles with the CFI. And we are repulsed by an untrue statement in a translation table that there is no name at all in so bulky a language, for so unexotic an organism. Fay Freak (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: I have no problem holding Turkish to lesser standards than English. (By precedent, if not rule, as nominator I can withdraw the RFV if I am satisfied and nobody objects.) I am not counting durable citations on my fingers, but looking for sufficient evidence of use. For some other derivatives of sinek I found that evidence. For the ones I nominated, I did not. There are many species that in ordinary English are simply "bugs". And there are people trying to prescribe names contrary to common use. Somebody who lives in Turkey and has taken an entomology course there will have much better insight than I could get reading literature from 8,000 km away. (Perhaps I will look up some entomologists and email them about common names.) The dominance of English and German in entomological literature gives those languages an advantage in popularizing vocabulary, whatever Google's prejudices may be. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’m a bit unclear as to what the issue of relative standards is. Compare English sandfly, used for various fly species in different families. There is no lack of mentions that establish the several identifications with taxonomic groups, but in uses the specific identification is generally impossible to establish. Even if someone files a durably archived report of having been bitten by a sandfly in New Zealand, how can we be sure it was not a biting midge, with the reporter being a visiting Australian? Do we truly hold English common names for critters to the high standards of CFI? --Lambiam 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This definitely a problem (to figure out which sense of a word is meant, in many cases), compare klaviform, which has been RFC-tagged as needing to have separate definitions matching claviform, but ... good luck figuring out which of the meanings is meant from any particular use! - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, it was always conceit to require that not only occurrences convey meaning, but they also convey all of the meaning and prove it alone. The nature of a use is that it does not convey meaning. Paradox, paradox, but evident; uses at large presuppose meanings having already been conveyed, though it occur that they add to them by their impressions. People employ the metric system without outlining what a metre or a gramme is. The more exact you want to be the more you have to look around. Paradox in discerning language, a holistic scheme!

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning is only superficially an essential distinction and inherently irrational, it is a private language of analytic philosophers and you play a language game pretending that you conform, instead of owning it is fashionable nonsense. Fay Freak (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

kara sinek

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Turkish. Rfv-sense stable fly. Might also be spelled karasinek. The house fly sense is well attested. The stable fly is generally similar in appearance (except it bites) so you could easily have one word meaning both. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In English the designation black fly is used for various flies in the genus Simulium. Likewise, in Turkish the term kara sinek may be used for them, like here and here (as a search key) for the genus, and here for S. erythrocephalum. After all, they are flies, and they are black. The same cannot be said of the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans). Both are blood suckers, and they are often mentioned together as being biting flies, so I wonder if there has been some generic confusion. --Lambiam 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The name is used in English for the whole family Simuliidae. Simulium is the most common genus. When I looked I didn't have the sense that kara sinek in this sense was citable or common. It was used, but not often. It may meet CFI or be in regular use by entomologists. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stomoxys calcitrans is rather black in this photograph, though, so this may simply occur in a description as a SOP. --Lambiam 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would not be surprised to learn that Turkish kara sinek is used like English house fly, by ordinary people to refer to large flies found around the house and in formal writing to refer to Musca domestica. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Rather in general, in informal contexts people commonly use terms that do not respect recognized taxonomical categories. I’ve heard bit (“louse”) used to mean “flea”, and fare (“mouse“) for “rat”. The use is even looser for fish names and botanical names, which I think is the case for many other languages too. The use in written texts generally has a better correspondence, though, between the intended sense and that of taxonomists. --Lambiam 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Serbo-Croatian entries by Lumbardhia

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

barzilo
brdoka
dročka
kaluša
lakora
diza (etymology 2)
struga
hira
šotka
dreteza
teša
karpa
frus

See Talk:štaljba, Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#štaljba. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 13:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection:
bàrzilo is already said in the first volume of {{R:sh:RJA}} to occur only in Vuk Karadžić’s dictionary, it is an occasional formation along with barzeša, barzica, barzulijca, and should be deleted. I have added the better-used base adjectives to bardhë which should suffice.
brdoka as well as bardoka have allegedly been used in Kosovo, but it is too specific to be found.
kàluša is used here and there defined: Kaluša redovno ima veću pegu i na telu, najčešće na grudima, na trbuhu, na sapima u blizini korena repa, tamne noge do kolena i skočnog zgloba ili su noge poprskane pegama kao i kod ostalih domaćih pramenki. The bibliographic information and digitization status of these works is insufficient for me to format quotes.
lakora I do not find at all.
kȃrpa are hard to search but are attested, given quotes in Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика, in the ends, where it is continued in better known Macedonian карпа (karpa) and Bulgarian карпа (karpa). The etymology is more doubtful than its existence.
strȕga has many attestations, e.g. quoted in {{R:sh:RSHKJ|page=37a|volume=6}}.
diza, dročka, hira are too hard, specific cheese manufacturing terms it seems, with much homonymy, so one can’t try too much. tȇša I see related by mentions in Vanja Stanišić’s book Serbo-Albanian language relations page 106 as a rather recent word but used by Albanians only in few places, so it is not worth it.
drȅteza only in works discussing Albanian words in Serbo-Croatian, and again from Vuk Karadžić.
šȍtka was the normal word for duck in some spots of Serbia, a whole isogloss but rural enough to escape the purview of the written language, however surely attested; I have added one quote from a Croatian who wrote a lot and probably picked it up there.
frȗs is mostly known from Vuk Karadžić’s dictionary, where it is given as Montenegrin – from a time when Montenegro was a bunch of mountain shepherds barely anybody of whom could read and write; however you find фрус in brackets after добрац (“measles”), which looks like some Serbian doctors knew that it is called so in Montenegro. With the advancement of medicine, a lot of disease names have vanished, as is a common experience if you deal with them in any language. Evidently, the word must be labelled “obsolete”.
So, after four hours for this list, I am positive about the nature of šȍtka, kàluša, kȃrpa, frȗs, strȕga, the rest falls through the sieve for this decade. Fay Freak (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Here, on the other hand, I repeat my opinion of one year ago: I don’t think Lumbardhia made anything up, or intended to do so—while Surjection’s general suspicion of agents of the Albanian cause introducing fakes seems to be true, as there must be the liars somewhere and Albanians are known as deranged due to their recent history—, but these words are all traceable to dialectological literature, and to the extent I have outlined that one day one year ago the words are found in literature. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2021

lesbiske

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Swedish. Created by a bot. Logically impossible, because males can't be lesbian. Glades12 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

One can jocularly/hypothetically refer to male lesbians (just as well as to invisible pink unicorns or other things that need not actually exist), so it's at least conceivable that it might be used. When I google Swedish websites I get some hits, but many look like Norwegian and others look like gibberish, or intentional (or unintentional) misspellings like den lesbiske gudden; in general the fact that it's also a Norwegian word, and that likely collocands are also homographic to Norwegian words, makes searching tedious, so I don't know if it's actually used anywhere or not. - -sche (discuss) 10:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's a form in Danish too, which makes searching even more tedious. Glades12 (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are there any words in Swedish that are grammatically masculine but can refer to females? By way of parallel, the German word for 'guest' is grammatically masculine regardless of the gender of the referent, so one could certainly refer to ein lesbischer Gast with the masculine form of the adjective. (Gast is one of the very few German words that refers to a person that doesn't have a separate feminine form; a German friend of mine once laughed out loud when I referred to someone as a Gästin because I didn't know any better.) —Mahāgaja · talk 17:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's not how the Swedish gender system works. The only grammatical genders in the vast majority of dialects are common (a merger of the masculine and feminine genders that did exist in older Swedish) and neuter. Adjective forms ending with -e (like this one) are optionally used when referring to something naturally masculine, like a man, in the definite form. Far from everything considered "masculine" in German would be considered "masculine" here. Glades12 (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can find a non-durable web hit for "Ah du menar som karaktären Lisa i L-word, den lesbiske mannen. Som figurerar kort i första säsongen av serien." Everything else is Norwegian. - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

So, this form isn't attested in durable media. On one hand, it's theoretically valid i.e. it is what would be used if someone were referring (in a hypothetical, joke, etc) to a lesbian man, which people sometimes do on the non-durable web, in Swedish just as in English (e.g. if talking about how this guy joined a lesbian dating app), and we don't require every cell in an inflection table to be attested: if there are only two or zero citations of the neuter mixed declension dative form of a German adjective, we don't remove it from the table. On the other hand, we don't list forms if they categorically don't exist, like we don't list plural forms if a word is singular only. So what do people want to do here? Leave this form, or modify the template to allow the masculine to be suppressed? (Delete the entry but leave the table as-is?) It's tempting to think there must be other adjectives which couldn't be used in the masculine form, but I'm not sure it's true, e.g. "den kvinnlige mannen" and "den feminine mannen" are attested (perhaps because they also mean "feminine" and not just "female"), as is "den gravide mannen" (unsurprising, given the existence of seahorses and trans men as well as the boundless possibilities of fiction). - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't speak Swedish, but in this situation I'm inclined to support keeping the entry. A comparison might be Spanish nievo ("I snow", logically impossible and probably unattested, but there is no doubt that this is the 1st-sg present form of the verb). It would be different if there were some grammatical reason to doubt that the form is valid (a possible singulare tantum or defective verb, for instance). —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

a) "I snow" could be possible, like if a personified cloud speaks.

b) nievo could be an impersonal (3rd person only) verb like schneien, so the form could theoretically be RFVed as well.

c) At least older grammars and also SAOB know a masculine gender, e.g. in SAOB it's "GAST gas⁴t, sbst.¹, m." and not gast c (“ghost”), "DIALEKT di¹aläk⁴t [...] r. l. m." However, "Lesbian Greek(s)" might be more likely to be attested than "lesbian ghost".

-Myrelia (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

pretender

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Spanish. Rfv-sense - to pretend
Sense was removed by 118.189.41.31 (diff). 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to WordReference.com, the verb is used with the sense “to claim” in Latin-American Spanish. If so, it is a regional semantic loan. I did not readily see such uses, but they are hard to search for. If the sense is kept, the usage note should be adapted accordingly. --Lambiam 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

A book use: “pretendió que todo estaba bien”.^[120] This is a translation of an English novel, translated by a Chilean translator and published in Chile. Another one: “pretendamos que no pasó nada”.^[121] This autobiographical account is set in a context of a Latin American immigrant family in NYC. A use in the Spanish Wikipedia, in the article It (novela): “toda la ciudad pretendió que nunca ocurrió”. Judging from their edits, the editor who wrote this appears to be based in Mexico. --Lambiam 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

val

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rfv-sense: Dutch, "An East Indian weight for silver and gold." I can't find evidence for an Indian customary weight with a name anything like this. The etymology claims it's "From Sanskrit वल्ले (valle), called after the resilient seeds of Abrus precatorius." However, I can't find any such Sanskrit word; also, the unit of weight named after Abrus precatorius is the ratti (Ratti), apparently also called w:nl:Ratti in Dutch. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added a quote, earliest reference mentioned in http://wnt.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M073176&lemmodern=val&domein=0&conc=true (seems to be source of etymology). The notes to the English language edition of the cited work mention that "at present" in Gujarat 1 val = 3 rati : 16 val = 1 gadiana : 2 gadiana = 1 tola https://books.google.com/books?id=w1rbCmQOs4YC&lpg=PA329&ots=LoiWGCdwGi&dq=%22pecha%22%20paisa%20india&hl=nl&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false --Appolodorus1 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

تهلوك

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. --37.42.165.198 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

liquideren

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Dutch, RFV-sense of "to root out, to clear out" (distinct from killing, that is covered by sense 3). Not in other dictionaries, the WNT does have a rare sense "to make level/even" that appears to be yet another different meaning and may or may not be citable. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam, Morgengave, Thadh, Azertus, Alexis Jazz: Do any of you think this can be salvaged or should I go ahead and remove it? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Dutch Wiktionary lists a sense of uitroeien, uit de weg ruimen, of which the disputed sense is a reasonable translation. Applied to human beings, these are IMO synonyms (the latter of the two somewhat euphemistically) for “to kill”. The core sense of liquideren here is “to do away with”, “to terminate”, figuratively applied to other things than material assets. “To do away with”, “to terminate”, can also be an indirect way of saying “to kill”. Is the verb liquideren ever used figuratively for the termination of inanimate entities? Otherwise the sense listed at the Dutch Wiktionary is essentially synonymous with vermoorden and ought to be formulated less fuzzily. --Lambiam 09:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't have access to good sources right now, but the verb is often used figuratively: as in "jobs liquideren", "sociaal verzet liquideren", "capaciteit liquideren". Google and I can't think of more examples at the moment, but I'm sure there's more. --Azertus (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some citations. -- Curious (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

abaissement, abaissere (Norwegian)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Moved from RFD.Gamren (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think these are actual words used in Norwegian, there are no hits for either one in the Bokmål Dictionary nor the Norwegian Academy dictionary, also nothing on Wikipedia or the Norwegian Lexicon. Google searches didn't give me anything for a Norwegian use of these words, only French. Supevan (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It mostly seems to occur in the phrase abaissement du niveau mental.__Gamren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

aranaruaq

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Upper Kuskokwim. This user added words for "two-spirit" in several different languages. Could it actually just be a mistranslated slur?__Gamren (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

đerđef

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Serbo-Croatian. I cannot find attestation for the second given sense of the word Dege31 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, Vorziblix, Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf Pinging some active Serbo-Croatian editors. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

buba

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense: bark in Baoule. Mentioned in this article https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/50/E5346.full.pdf as origin of the Sranan Tongo word with the same meaning but not very specific.--Appolodorus1 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

اصطدأ

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. --188.53.217.9 00:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

تصادأ

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 07:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

صطم

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 08:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

صخم

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

صديد

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

سنة

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: (countable, Islam) a narrative attributed to an Islamic religious figure (typically Prophet Muhammad), a tradition; a hadith --188.49.46.246 12:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

April 2021

eetpiraatje

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. Another unattested diminutive. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

eeuwwendetje

And another one. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

eeuwwisselingetje

And another one. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi LBD, as there's no Wiktionary policy on regular diminutives in Dutch (should we always include them as they help users form the diminutive, or should we only include them if they have three durable attestations?). I would honestly not pursue a verification & deletion campaign. I don't see any value in this at all, and it may siphon time away from real things to improve. Morgengave (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI -> 3 cites. Diminutives aren't even inflected forms, but derived terms. Also, for dubious inflected forms there could be RFVs as well, e.g. for plurals when the term is (thought to be) singular only, uncountable. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:371c:3d29:91e2:2f43:c6bd:d627 (talk) at 15:19, 3 April 2021‎.

The point is that any Dutch user at any time can apply such a regular diminutive - usage would be considered correct and unremarkable. These are not dubious grammatically - there are just so many nouns in Dutch that not for every noun, you can find durable attestations of their regular diminutives. This also means that at any moment in time such an unattested diminutive can "appear" in newspapers and books, making these deletions likely temporary anyway. This is not the case for uncountable words - a plural here would just sound wrong. I won't oppose the verification-to-deletion process of these diminutives btw; I just find it a waste of time. Morgengave (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave What I like about the English Wiktionary is that it is a very empirical dictionary. Removing entries for unattested diminutives would make our Dutch coverage more empirical and prevent shitty mirror sites from spreading misinformation. Moreover, the view that unattested diminutives qualify for inclusion is not uncontroversial outside the Dutch-language editor base, though I do not presume to know what the majority view is. I can agree to displaying unattested diminutives, but woudl rather not agree to linking to them. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I respect that pov. I never create unattested diminutives myself, and generally (following our chat) even follow your way of working of not even displaying unattested diminutives in new lemmas (so that no red link appears). But deleting existing entries just seems pointless. These diminutives are not wrong in any shape or form. Morgengave (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

ฃึ๋น

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thai. I believe this, if attested at all, is a misreading of ฃึ้น. The tone mark mai tho, which this word should have, was originally carved as a simple cross, a shape subsequently adopted for mai chattawa. RichardW57 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

hyggelig (Danish)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RFV-sense of "awesome". Removed by an IP. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not familiar with this sense. Usually it conveys a sense of "cozy, pleasantly calm", certainly not "exciting" or "remarkable".__Gamren (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

entrecôtetje

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. Unattested, seemingly erroneous diminutive of a superseded spelling. The Woordenlijst gives entrecoteje as the accepted spelling and although that one is also a rare beast, it may actually be durably citable. Anyway, that would suggest that the diminutive of the superseded spelling is entrecôteje. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it entrecootje? Durable attestations: [122], [123], [124] Morgengave (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave That is not on the Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal, so it is probably superseded, but I certainly do not mind its inclusion if it is durably attested. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Well, the attestations seem durably archived - and recent (2016, 2021) so likely only "superseded" in the eyes of linguists. Using a Google Search, that spelling also seems more frequent than "entrecotetje" which sounds a bit awkward and stilted. I can't imagine a native speaker (at least in Belgium) seriously use it in speech. It does raise an interesting point, which the Woordenlijst may not cover, namely that dimunitives that lead to a "-tetje"-ending (if a schwa) do rarely occur and are (in Belgium) often shortened in a regular way to a "-tje"-ending (at least this seems to be the case in Belgium). Besides entrecootje, I am immediately thinking of gedeeltje (from gedeelte), gemeentje (from gemeente), brochetje (from brochette; this diminutive recognized by the VRT: [125]), camionnetje (from camionette; the stress differs and hence not pronounced the same as camionnetje, the diminutive of camion), and groentje (from groente). Morgengave (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave "Superseded" and "unofficial" (perhaps more appropriate here) only makes a claim about the official status of a form, it does not suggest that it is out of use. I should also clarify that entrecotetje is not the official spelling either; the prescribed form is entrecoteje, which looks awkward but whose pronunciation is equivalent to entrecootje... or so I presume. I agree that sequences with <tetje> containing two schwas are awkward to pronounce. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

ثمر

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: "(collective) the typically sweet- or (less commonly) sour-tasting produce of plants, fruit, fruitage" --5.245.69.225 02:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Searching on Google appears to yield many results of modern-style writings (that is, ones that might be dismissed as solecisms). There are, nevertheless, a few medieval-style results like this one that seem to capture the meaning of "fleshy plant products". Modern Standard Arabic occurrences though are far more frequent in this sense. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Roger.M.Williams: Fix your link! I abstain from this issue, dealing with so microscopic a sense distinction. If you see such senses then it is perhaps you who could … ehm add at least one clear quotation. If it’s from the web maybe an occurrence by an image makes it clear. Fay Freak (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

ô veramente

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Neapolitan. Moved from RFD; see WT:RFDN#ô veramente. This, that and the other (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

esperantologe

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

esperantoloog

Dutch. Both are rather rare, but the latter might be citable. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

erfzonde

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. RFV-sense of "human imperfectness", it's implausible that any attestations are anything other than ad-hoc metaphors. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam, Morgengave, Thadh, Azertus, Alexis Jazz: Are there any objections to getting rid of this? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, fine. This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine that teaches the faithful that the sorrowful aspects of being human ("in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"; "in sorrow shalt thou eat of [the ground] all the days of thy life"; "unto dust shalt thou return") are due to the original sin. --Lambiam 09:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

omm

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Danish. "If and only if". Added by this IP. om is not nearly as common as hvis in the sense "if", so I found this very dubious. On the other hand, hviss I've encountered here and there, although not in books.__Gamren (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/aganą

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The conjugation table does not agree with the title, however I am unsure what it should be changed to. Pinging @Rua Mårtensås (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since the only direct descendant is Gothic 𐍉𐌲𐌰𐌽 (ōgan), I suspect Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/aganą should be moved to Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ōganą. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

And looking through the page history, I see it was at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ōganą until Rua moved it to aganą in January 2019. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Proto-Germanic page title is fine. The only thing wrong with the conjugation is that the present singulars should be *ōg, *ōht and *ōg, respectively. The infinitive, not being inflected for number or person, is properly *aganą which follows the stem of the non-singular present, just like the present participle *agandz does, as we see in the fossilized Gothic 𐌿𐌽𐌰𐌲𐌰𐌽𐌳𐍃 (unagands). The Gothic form of the verb as *ōgan, with *ōg spread throughout the paradigm, including the secondary present participle 𐍉𐌲𐌰𐌽𐌳𐍃 (ōgands), shows high degrees of regularization as is pretty typical for Gothic, which supports the theory that it was a superstratum language with many non-native speakers.

Likewise for aorist-presents, the infinitive stem follows the non-singular present stem of the verb, as seen in *wiganą, although here too the present singulars should be *wīhō, *wīhizi, *wīhidi respectively; this is proved by the fact that otherwise -h- would have been unrecoverable to later Germanic speakers, and Gothic could not have regularized the -h- throughout... Which again in Gothic, we see regularization as the singular stem of the verb *wīh-, is spread to the other present formations: 𐍅𐌴𐌹𐌷𐌰𐌼 (weiham) instead of original *wigam, and again in a derived form of the present participle, the original short vowel is kept, but the velar is regularized to -h- instead of original -g-: 𐌰𐌽𐌳𐍅𐌰𐌹𐌷𐌰𐌽𐌳𐍉 (andwaihandō) instead of *andwigandō. Burgundaz (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seconding that the title agrees perfectly well with the IPA and conjugation table, even if perhaps the vocalisation of the present singulars is incorrect as Burgundaz says. Tristanjlroberts (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

parivuṭṭha

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pali. I can't find the sense 'stale' in my Pali dictionaries - does the sense exist?. RichardW57 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

May 2021

သိက္ခါ

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Pali. I have grave doubts about the spelling of this word. I am unable to find any Pali examples by googling (the hits I have seem to be Burmese, not Pali) and, for what its worth, the Burmese Wiktionary entry at my:သိက္ခာ implies that it is written with round AA, not tall AA. (However, the Burmese Wiktionary entry has been loaded by bots.) Unless they are near homographs, the Burmese word also appears with round AA and with asat instead of stacking, i.e. as သိက်ခါ.

@Apisite's edit of sikkhā from https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sikkh%C4%81&oldid=58147529 to https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sikkh%C4%81&oldid=61036914 on 4 November 2020 asserts that the spelling of the Pali word has tall AA, not round AA.

Can anyone, e.g. @Hintha, verify the spelling pattern for Pali, i.e. that that stack is followed by round AA rather than tall AA in Pali.RichardW57 (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Correction: Verify that tall AA is used rather than round AA. RichardW57 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've now found a durable source for သိက္ခာ (sikkhā), which confirms my suspicions. RichardW57 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

haai

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, RFV of the senses "A tilted angle or strip.", "A blink, instant.", "big, strong, firm; redoubted.", "smart, clever, crafty.", "fine, good." All are present in the WNT but there is only one quotation containing a use for "big, strong, firm; redoubted". ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some citations for two senses. -- Curious (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

nemo debet esse judex in propria

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:371E:8062:C5AF:5ECF:481A:A509 on 30 April, not listed:

“1. google books only has it as "nemo debet esse judex in propria (sua) causa"

2. google books mostly had non-Latin, mostly English, results, exceptions: "nemo+debet+esse+judex+in+propria", "nemo+debet+esse+judex+in+propria"+sunt”

J3133 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

manu militari

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:371E:8062:C5AF:5ECF:481A:A509 on 30 April, not listed:

“1. the reference is given for both Latin and English above - 1 source, 2 languages (usually) don't add up

2. the reference is English, and cites it in English context ("[...] who enforce the execution manu militari.") from some English work ("Ersk." = "Erskine's Institutes of the Law of Scotland, edited by Lord Ivory.")”

J3133 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Spitzel

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

German. Tagged by 2003:DE:3724:7F29:7877:20A0:1DE0:122E on 26 April, not listed:

“also not in de.wt, Duden, DWDS, Adelung”

J3133 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Only noticing now. This IP is annoying. Shall he search "Spitzel" Hund, also "Spitzl" Hund, restricting for example to pre-1920, and add the quotes himself. This is of obvious, clearly widespread use in the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empire, as one could guess from the ending, which is the reason why the descendants also have this meaning, but not included in Duden and Adelung because of their recentist and bundedeutsch bias. Fay Freak (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are a few results of dogs called Spitzel (e.g. [126], [127]; with "Ein Spitzel"; [128], having plural "die Spitzeln").

However, it's also an issue of gender which for the dog sense is still unattesed. This contradiction is obvious:

Entry: "German ... Spitzel m ... diminutive of Spitz".
wp: "In der deutschen Standardsprache sind Diminutive stets sächlich" = "In the German standard language diminutives are always neuter" or "In Standard High German diminutives are always neuter".

-el has different suffixes/meanings: diminutive or appurtenance. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3728:BF93:7011:4B0B:BFD3:D166 (talk) at 17:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC).Reply

From my Sprachgefühl, one has just taken over the gender from Hund (the same mental process by which English loanwords in German acquire gender). There is also influence from the tool suffix -el, since the dog is a tool. However you do find the neuter: »das Mirzel ist eifersüchtig auf das Spitzel ihres Mannes«. But after all, it is the same word. It has not changed gender while acquiring the meaning of a spy but rather before (than after, which would mean you can find the meaning of a spy as neuter). (The Slavic descendants do not help since they are m by Illič-Svityč's law.) Fay Freak (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

rikj

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Plautdietsch Content resembles Rikj; examples beginn with a capital; High German more fitting cognate is Reich with a capital; Plautdietsch has regular substantive capitalisation (at least sometimes, maybe not always) --> looks like Rikj is more correct. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371E:8003:54B9:4ED1:87D6:D9E3 (talk) at 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

Not sure what you're talking about. There is no Plautdietsch entry at Rijk or even rijk. Does Plautdietsch even use the ⟨ij⟩ digraph? —Mahāgaja · talk 22:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

rikj is there; Rijk for Rikj above was a typo and is fixed. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371E:8003:54B9:4ED1:87D6:D9E3 (talk) at 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

sportmotorisch

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

German. sportmotorisch seems to have a completely different sense, see e.g. Bewegungslehre - Sportmotorik: Abriss einer Theorie der sportlichen Motorik unter pädagogischem Aspekt with people doing sports (football, running, swimming, fencing) on the cover which is totally unrelated to cars and the like. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371E:8003:54B9:4ED1:87D6:D9E3 (talk) at 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

In all uses I found, the term indeed referred to sports-related motor skills, as in sportmotorische Leistungsfähigkeit. In English text I see uses of sport motoric,^{[129][130][131]} which appears to be calqued from German. There are also uses of sports motoric.^{[132][133][134]} --Lambiam 11:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

léttu

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Corsican. Thadh (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

tissekone

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

tissemand

Danish. Rfv-sense "(fe)male restroom attendant at a public toilet". Added by @Philaweb.__Gamren (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

pizdă

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Romanian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, slang) extraordinary, super, excellent". Removed by IP (diff) with the comment "never heard it being used as an adjective, ever; add it back ONLY with a reference". — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE, Bogdan: I found nothing. I'm also not familiar with this use. Fytcha (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely a real slang use, a synonym for pizdos. It's hard to find slang usage online, since it's a colloquial use (and when I google this word, I get only porn sites), but here's one proof of usage: "spectacol pizdă". Bogdan (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

quisquam

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Latin. 'quaequam' is certainly necessary, for feminin singular and plural but also for neuter plural. — This unsigned comment was added by SumMus235711 (talk • contribs) at 11:48, May 15, 2021‎ (UTC).

I am not sure what you mean by “certainly necessary”. The form quaequam is easily attestable in later Latin texts; it would seem rare, though, to restrict a use of “anyone” to female persons. --Lambiam 11:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you are rigth! I looked a little further. Now I am sure the feminine forms quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, quarumquam, quasquam are never used by Latin writers. Instead they use the words ulla, ullam... (derived from ullus). Also in all plural forms Latin writers use forms of ullus. For instance: Tibi certabit ulla? Will any woman compete with you? SumMus235711 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you delete my page for the word quaequam. Or you tell me how I can remove that page (I made myself)? SumMus235711 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That page quaequam is deleted! Good. I also replaced the feminine forms quaequam, quamquam ... by ulla, ullam... on the page quisquam. We still have to replace all plural forms by ulli, ullae, ulla... What do you think of this proposal? SumMus235711 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, generally we also include Late Latin and New Latin terms (e.g. quīnātus). I think some of these forms qu*quam can be attested, although perhaps not in Classical Latin texts. Editors better versed in Latin than me may have an easier time discerning whether uses of qu*quam in later texts are meant to be inflected forms of quisquam. In L&S, the entry for quisquam starts with “quis-quam (old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch.), quaequam, quicquam or quidquam” [my emphasis by underlining], and Gaffiot also gives this form, suggesting that quaequam it is found in Latin texts that are not Neo-Latin. --Lambiam 00:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It could also be, and might even be more likely, that L&S gives an unattested form. It notes: "Quisquam as a fem., like quis (ante-class.)", and gives examples, but doesn't give any example for (*?)quaequam. 14:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).

@Lambiam: Basically it seems to be related to the feminine of quis issue tormented on this page just below, the separate feminine form of which creeps up post-Classically. quaequam is indeed attestable, and indeed rare, mainly it seems for the reason you mention - the female-only restrictive condition is pragmatically rare, more so than the interrogative pronoun. It also sounds kind of rude, granted this might be my Russian intuition based on какая-то - Russian distinguishes pronouns from determiners way more strictly, so using the latter alone sounds very abrupt. It's confusing to me that @SumMus235711: says "you are right" only to immediately disagree with the statement that quaequam is easily attestable in later Latin texts, saying that it's never used by Latin writers, which is untrue. The Oxford Latin Dictionary says: separate f. forms perh. not attested in the period covered, except quamquam in Sen. Ep. 108.24. ūllus is used instead of this word only when we're talking about the determiner (sī ūllus porcus grunniat, sī ūlla avis canat), but as standalone pronouns these are dispreferred. Incidentally this means that using quaeque as a pronoun shouldn't sound abrupt; it does sound discriminatory, which women tend not to like. —My opinion is that it passes the RFV easily, but could use some Usage notes. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some men also tend not to like language that is discriminatory towards women. Does that make them небрутальные? --Lambiam 11:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think in regards to gender-descriminatory language, men tend to not like what women don't like, but they don't care as much. For example, women are significantly less likely to refer to themselves using female-specific profession terms in Russian because these sound less professional, and in some cases bordering on derogatory (докторша (doktorša), even артистка (artistka)). You'll often find women referring to themselves using gender-neutral (masculine) terms. This issue doesn't exist at all for male-specific terms as far as I can think, which in my opinion reflects the fact that men aren't sensitive to language that discriminates men (not discriminates against men). Brutal Russian (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

van hier tot Tokio

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch. RFV-sense of "off by a wide margin", added by an IP. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

quis

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Latin. "for feminine quae etc.". 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).

@2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718: Pinkster 2015 p. 1174:

The distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut (see § 11.28), as can be seen in (b): qui and quae are used where quis is the regular form. Neuter quid and quod are clearly distinguished.

Also this stackexchange answer and this one - I suggest using that for questions about Latin grammar. Brutal Russian (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's "masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms)", that is qui and not quis, and also has "normally the determiner forms", meaning there are exceptions, that is qui (f. quae) used like pronouns. 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).

@2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718: Quis, quī and quae are all used as both pronouns and determiner forms, as explained in the stackexchange answer. Quī and quae are "normally" the determiner forms, and optionally interrogative pronoun forms. quis is "normally" the interrogative pronoun form, and optionally the masculine determiner form. Saying that they're used "like" the other one is begging the question. quis and quī are clearly in a complementary distribution based on being followed by a vowel or a consonant. A confusion between these two paradigms - one o-stem, one i~consonantal-stem, existed for millenia, and saying that quae is part of the quī paradigm is equivalent to saying that the Dat./Abl. quibus is part of the quis paradigm that is exceptionally used "like the o-stem determiners", whose Dat./Abl. is quīs. You're trying to shoehorn the language into tidy prescriptive school grammar-friendly tables, it doesn't work like that. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

kamelåså

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Norwegian Bokmål. Does anyone actually use this word in writing? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think these are two examples: [135], [136]. BTW, I don’t see how this demonstrates a difficulty with the understandability of Danish; to me it seems an issue of lack of knowledge of the specialized vocabulary for hardware items. If I was working as a newbie clerk in an English hardware store, and a customer asked for something I’d never heard of, such as a spiglet, I too might not understand they were using a made-up term. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

patruelis

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin.

Sense: of, belonging to or descending from one's father's sister

might be PC, but not in L&S and others. 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).

L&S say that Cicero used it once as a substantive to mean "a father's sister's son, a cousin". LaNe also has "van vaders broer of (zelden) zuster (af)stammend". Good enough to keep? This, that and the other (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Gaffiot (also among the References on the page) has 4 cites, including Cicero. Parallel in morphology and meaning to matruelis. That would seem to do it. It would be nice to have the full cites on the page, if possible. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

huehue

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spanish. "a jocular representation of a Spaniard, conquistador, or other dominant force. The huehues are nowadays masked people, part of a festival or dance". Spanish Wikipedia has an article about something called the dance of the huehues, but it's sparsely sourced.__Gamren (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

mercum

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Latin: “genitive plural of merx”. It was in the declension table instead of mercium (see Talk:merx). Should it be re-added to the table or deleted (i.e., it is wrong or not attested)? J3133 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Georges: "merx, mercis, Genet. Plur. mercium, f. [...] I) die Ware [...] tabes mercium, verlegene W. [...] 2) meton., der Preis der Ware, der Warenpreis, mercium quantitas, Cypr. de habit. virg. 14. [...]". But well, it could also depend on the edition (or manuscript), which is something which foolishly gets ignored here quite often...
Gaffiot 2016: "merx, mercis, gén. pl. mercium", but without any source.
L&S is without any note, so foolishly mercum could have been assumed, or be generated from the declension template without checking anything or without realising that the template could be wrong...

Additionally, mercum could also exist but be a low or medieval Latin form, which then should be mentioned but also should be marked. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

[two occurrences here], a third can certainly be fished out in google, but this form is a clear solecism even medievally. I would relegate it to an Alternative form linked at mercium. Brutal Russian (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

etveen

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch, "a peatland repurposed as a pasture", uncommon indeed. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Abnehmertausch

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

German. "Consumer exchange". Seems to be a dictionary-only word copied from a book about "Nazi German". The talk page of the adder, User Talk:Cryptic C62, has more context. It may be necessary to go through all their contributions.__Gamren (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Google Books:

[137] without nazi-context
[138] with nazi-context, only a mentioning, once also with a * (what ever that's supposed to denote) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

The first is not accessible to me, a problem with using Google Books. The asterisk probably means "please refer to the entry on Abnehmertausch".__Gamren (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

1st is: Jörg Becker, Reinhard Schütte, Handelsinformationssysteme: Domänenorientierte Einführung in die Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2nd ed., 2004, and has: "Sofern der TIA [= Teilintelligenter Agent] beispielsweise nicht eigenständig durch Umgehung eines Staus die Belieferung von Abnehmern sicherstellen kann, verhandelt er mit anderen TIA über einen möglichen Abnehmertausch, um die Belieferungstermine nicht zu gefährden." — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 19:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

I bet that the line of which only the tops of the letters are visible in the second of these two mentions says: “tomers *Absatzkreis”. The Nazi sense was a compulsory assignment of restricted sales regions (Absatzkreise) to suppliers in order to minimize travel distances and thereby the use of fuel, of which there was a shortage. I can’t seem to find uses, though. --Lambiam 19:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An additional mention: Il lessico della violenza nella Germania nazista: "Abnehmertausch (m) scambio degli utenti. Pae. 6." --2003:DE:3732:612:CD9C:1A19:B224:917C 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

abflaken

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

German. "to shoot down with antiaircraft fire". Also the gerund.__Gamren (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

ab- + Flak + -en, at least a possible formation.

Google Books: — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

yuvāna

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Pali entry for a noun with the meaning 'young' seems to be based on nothing more than a misreading of the entry for *yuvāna in Turner's dictionary giving 'young' as the meaning of Pali yuvāna, which is recorded only as an adjective in Childers' dictionary, according with the main meaning of the English word. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

buzul kuşu

Latest comment: 2 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

Turkish. Zero Google Books hits, from the people that brought you sınalgı (see Talk:buzulkuşu for some of the backstory). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Buzul means glacier and kuş means bird, so buzul kuşu means glacier bird. If you try to translate buzul kuşu from Turkish to English by Google translate it will result glacier bird and if you try to translate glacier bird from English to Turkish then it will result buzul kuşu. If you ask any Turkish speaker how do you say glacier bird in Turkish? probably every one will say it is buzul kuşu in Turkish. There is no allegation that it means a penguin or it means another bird.

If you search by adding some suffixes to this word, you can find some cites:

Ursula K. Le Guin (translator: Ümit Altuğ), Karanlığın Sol Eli (original name: The Left Hand of Darkness), 2004, p. 36 ISBN:978-975-539-044-4 (printed book which is not listed in Google Books but can be found by Google search).

salıverilince donan buzul kuşları gibi hava koşullarına karşı fizyolojik dirençlerini yitirebilirler.

TRT Vizyon (monthly journal), June 2020 by Türkiye Radyo Televizyon Kurumu (official Turkish Radio and Television Establishment), p. 28.

Peru’da bulunan buzul, dünyanın buza yuva yapan tek kuşu, beyaz kanatlı buzul kuşuna ev... --5.46.180.19 18:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Çerkez Bozdağ, Buzul Kuşuna Çağrı, 2017 (it's a book name itself). --5.46.180.19 20:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The “glacier bird” is a bird species found along the Andes. One wouldn’t expect a Turkish common name for an inconspicuous bird found only in South America. The use in Karanlığın Sol Eli translates the original English Arctic birds (“Perhaps if they did they would lose their physiological waterproofing, like Arctic birds kept in warm tents, who being released get frostbitten feet.”), so this is a different sense. --Lambiam 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no allegation that it is a specific bird. It literally means a glacier bird and can be used for any bird which lives in glaciers. Only the second cite (which is from the official radio and television establishment of Turkey) represents a white-winged Diuca finch in the form of 'Beyaz Kanatlı Buzul Kuşu'. --5.46.180.19 16:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Right, but the requested verification requires at least three uses in which the term has a specific meaning, not just a generic “bird found on ice”. So the use in Karanlığın Sol Eli does not count. It is not obvious that the one in TRT Vizyon is not purely descriptive, what with its beyaz kanatlı. If I saw the text “Peru’da bulunan çöl, dünyanın kume yuva yapan tek kuşu, sarı tepeli çöl kuşuna ev sahipliği yapıyor”, I would think that sarı tepeli çöl kuşu (“yellow-crested desert bird”) is either descriptive, or a common name for some bird species that makes it nest in the desert sand; the idea that just “çöl kuşu” is meant to identify a species might not occur to me (even though tarla kuşu is a species). I am in the dark about the nature of the bird Çerkez Bozdağ is summoning; it is apparently a collection of poems, so this is likely the title of one of the poems in the book. --Lambiam 22:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

As an outsider with no Turkish ability, I must ask -- if this is literally just glacier + bird, and it does not refer to any specific species, and it has no idiomatic meaning as a set phrase, then is this not a sum-of-parts term, same as "blue igloo" or "house wall"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If there is English word seabird which means Any bird that spends most of its time in coastal waters or over the oceans. here then Turkish word buzul kuşu can stay, I think. Am I wrong? --5.46.180.19 23:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It may be a matter of idiomaticity -- English seabird is generally considered to be a single integral term, and we have an entry for that, but ocean bird is not considered to be a single word, nor is it idiomatic, and we don't have any entry for this collocation.

By way of analogy, if Turkish speakers / readers / writers consider buzulkuşu to be a single integral term, we may presumably want an entry for that, even if the pieces are as straightforward as the sea and bird in seabird. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

What Eirikr just wrote is also my understanding. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If the term was considered an idiomatic combination, we should indeed also find it written as a single word, just as is the case for tarla kuşu, which many authors spell tarlakuşu.^{[139][140][141]} But no acceptable uses of buzulkuşu are found. It seems to me that buzul kuşu is no more considered an idiomatic combination than English desert bird, lake fish or forest frog. The meanings are clear enough, yet each is a sum of parts. Maybe also relevant is that Turkish buzul, a neologism introduced to replace the term cümudiye, of Arabic origin and not acceptable to the purist language reformers, has a somewhat more general sense than English glacier. It can also be used for a stationary thick ice cap; hence its (reasonable) use in translating LeGuin’s Arctic birds. The neologism was formed as buz (“ice”) +‎ -ul. But let the term have its chance for survival; if not attested, it will eventually go the way of buzulkuşu. Any uses offered by way of attestation should make clear, though, that the term is indeed not merely used as a sum of parts. --Lambiam 20:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seabird is deniz kuşu in Turkish. Penguen in the official Turkish Language Association's Up-to-date Turkish dictionary: Penguengillerden, Güney Kutbu'nda yaşayan, sırtı kara, göğsü ak, iyi yüzen, deniz hayvanlarıyla beslenen, uçamayan, kısa kanatlı deniz kuşu (Aptenodytes patagonica) and as you can see it is written separately. --5.176.72.229 16:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Plus more, there is an article whose title is deniz kuşu on Turkish wikipedia.--5.176.72.229 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Spacing alone is not enough. Is deniz kuşu considered to be an idiomatic collocation? Just looking at Google hits, I find the following:

Deniz kuşu generates 92K+ hits, from a wide variety of sources: google:"deniz kuşu"
Buzul kuşu generates 44 hits, a good chunk of which appear to be from user-generated texts like Wiktionary: google:"buzul kuşu"

Without even knowing any Turkish, I can objectively say that buzul kuşu is not used much at all by Turkish-writing users online. I might infer subjectively that deniz kuşu is a common-enough collocation that it might have idiomatic meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

As an admin on tr.wiktionary and tr.wiki, I just want to mention some facts. Actually, we always delete this word from these projects. Because there's a huge effort on adding this word at all costs. Both "buzul" and "kuş" have meanings in Turkish language however they always produce or search unreliable sources and they try to add this word based on these sources. They want to add this word over 10 years. I don't follow these RFV discussions but I've noticed that accidentally. They also want to add many invented words like "sınalgı" in tr.wiktionary but they usually fail due to our acceptableness criteria. They sometimes complain to me like "this word exists on en.wiktionary, why do you always delete it". However every wiki project has different dynamics. I believe that they won't give up. Actually it's getting boring follow these efforts but I couldn't stop myself...--Sabri76'^talk 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are an admin on Turkish wiktionary but you don't obey the community decisions. There is 3 cites criteria there as is here, but you don't accept the cites if you don't want to see a word on wiktionary. Even you come here and write a comment in order to try to make a word remove from here, while you are not an active user on English wiktionary. But you keep the word püskevit on Turkish wiktionary while it doesn't meet the criteria. --5.176.72.229 16:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

As above, is buzul kuşu idiomatic? Or is it just an unidiomatic combination of buzul (“glacier”) + kuş (“bird”)? If the latter, then the number of citations doesn't matter.

I must confess, the English phrase glacier bird doesn't really signify anything to me, it just sounds weird, like latex asparagus or concrete underwear. I wonder if the Turkish phrase leaves Turkish readers similarly scratching their heads? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The first citation is a Turkish translation; the original English text (The Left Hand of Darkness [142]) has "Arctic birds", not "glacier birds".

The second citation (TRT Vizyon [143]) is an article about the BBC documentary "Mountain: Life at the Extreme" (Turkish title: "Dağlar; Bulutların Üzerinde Yaşam"); the bird species "white-winged diuca finch" (also known as "glacier bird") from that documentary is translated as "beyaz kanatlı buzul kuşu" in this Turkish text. No evidence for the claim "buzul kuşu means any bird living on glaciers".

The third citation is the title of a book. You'll need the content of the book to determine what type of bird the author means.

In general, sure, if you want, you can put "buzul" + "kuş" together to form "buzul kuşu", but that's just a sum of parts; nothing idiomatic, not even a common collocation.

(And just for the record, Sabri76 is an experienced admin; he has explained many times to this ip user why some entries are deleted and others are kept.) -- Curious (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, I think we've reached a consensus on this discussion.--Sabri76'^talk 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@İtidal: Any opinion on the validity of these cites? Do they really all convey the same meaning, the one glossed in the entry? The last one in particular doesn't really give much to work with. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

i have no knowledge in terms of zoology so keep me out of this :) İtidal (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

First, the definition is clearly a sum of parts. Non-idiomatic English ice bird translates to non-idiomatic Turkish ice bird. As for the three citations, it has been pointed out that the first is a translation of a sum of parts English phrase. The last phrase Buzul Kuşuna Çağrı appears to me to mean calling the ice bird. It is evidence that the words have been written in that order, but not that they mean anything special. I think this fails. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

bloedergerlijk

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, very rare. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Isn’t this simply bloed- (“very”) +‎ ergerlijk? We do list bloedgeil, bloedheet and bloedmooi. The Dutch Wiktionary also has bloedarm (sense [2]), bloednerveus and bloedserieus. How productive is this prefix? Contributors in online forums can be seen complaining that they get bloedziek from something they don’t like. I think I have heard bloedje- as a prefix with the same sense, but that may have been idiolectic. --Lambiam 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is the analysis, but that doesn't stop bloedergerlijk from hardly being non-durably attested. It's not terribly productive, but the ones you mentioned are all ones that I have heard and I bet they are quite common. I don't recall any words prefixed with bloedje-. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

June 2021

moord

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. Rfv-sense of "Something extremely grave." Ad hoc figurative usage is generally not included, rather we wait until it is lexicalised. Can any evidence of lexicalisation be found? On another note, should we include the interjection? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is an unlisted sense of a positive intensifier in the compounds moordkerel,^[144][145] moordwijf^[146][147] and moordgriet.^[148] --Lambiam 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam I am sceptical that it can be attested as a separate word. Perhaps it could be a prefix, though that is best discussed elsewhere. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

denante

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spanish. Can anyone verify this as an adjective meaning "recently"? RAE suggest adverb usage as "earlier". It's an IP user's only contribution. — This unsigned comment was added by JeffDoozan (talk • contribs) at 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC).Reply

furakɛla

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wonderfool made this Bambara (!) entry in 2005 - he must've been about 15 years old at the time, and clearly didn't know Bambara Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

or he forgot to take his furakɛla. – Jberkel 14:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

آمر

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: “orderer, purchaser, customer, client” --5.245.161.80 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/kauli

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The variety of Old English forms shows that it was borrowed after the language no longer had a diphthong -au-, and also after umlaut. Otherwise it would have had the regular -īe-. In the other languages, the occurrence of stem-final -i must also point to a post-PWG borrowing, because a PWG -i would have been lost after a long syllable. This means that it cannot have been borrowed into the common ancestor. —Rua (mew) 08:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely agree that this is a funky burrowing, but I think it's the result of two things: 1. borrowings from Latin sometimes resulting in diphthong braking, compare *lēō ~ *lewō, so *kāul- ~ *kawul- seems a highly plausible vacillation 2. as with many plant words in WG, *-jā probably played a role in its descendants. --{{victar|talk}} 06:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

evenwoord

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

evenwoordig

Dutch, "synonym" and "synonymous", seem like puristic coinages with extremely low currency. The overwhelming majority of hits are scannos due to a page having multiple columns. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's indeed a puristic neologism. It's easy to find online usage, but as with many neologisms, finding durable attestations is a bit trickier. These seem durable: [149], [150], [151] Morgengave (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

They're all extremely mentionlike, but I would allow all of them as uses. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

exa-ampère

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

exacandela

exameter

exaseconde

Dutch. Another round of unattested SI units. It looks as if only exameter might be citable and even that is going to be borderline. If all fail, perhaps exa- should be deleted as well. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bulgaria (Central Nahuatl)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Added today by an IP. Is this really attested in Central Nahuatl? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

And what about the other additions by the same, like for example Rusia? --2003:DE:3732:612:CD9C:1A19:B224:917C 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ucraina

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:372B:1709:2940:24A7:C78E:F206 on 8 May, not listed: “for the vowel length”. J3133 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do we even care about vowel length for New Latin? If so, why? This, that and the other (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

volantes

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:3728:BF61:3CEF:6BEC:3439:FB55 on 7 June, not listed:

“for masc. gender.

L&S has "subst.: vŏlantes, ĭum, comm., the birds", but some other dicts only have f. (logeion -> LaNe: "subst. volantēs, ium en um f (poët.; postklass.)", Georges: "subst., volantēs, ium, f. (sc. bestiae)") and sometimes L&S has guesses, unattested information.”

J3133 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, it could be masculine or feminine when used as a substantive, depending on the context: (vermes) volantes or aves (volantes). Maybe all attestations happen to refer to feminine animal nouns (aves, columbae) and not to for instance culices or passeres. Do we need such attestations to verify the inherent gender ambivalence? An entirely different issue is whether we should list such obvious nominalizations at all; we do not list a noun powerful, even though its use as a noun is fairly common;^[152] and we also do not list an (attestable^[153]) noun sense for flagellantes. --Lambiam 11:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

guantaria "glove" (relational)

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

(Notifying GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia): Created by User:SemperBlotto, supposedly an adjective meaning "glove" in a relational/attributive sense. Unlikely to be correct as an adjective ending in -a, and not in any dictionary I can find. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can't really find any dictionary supporting the existence of an adjective like guantario, except this, which I believe might've been used as a reference for the Wiktionary entry. There are a couple of usage examples I can find online – either as an adjective or as a noun (an alternative form of guantaio (“glovemaker”)) – but that's all. — GianWiki (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it's more likely that wordsense pulled it from Wiktionary. The entry has been around for 7 years. – Jberkel 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Treccani seems to use it (industria guantaria). Also in Google books: from 1937 (industria guantaria), from 1939 (industria guantaria, attività guantaria, produzione guantaria). As for guantario, there's this book (problema guantario), from 2006 (maestro guantario), from 1959 (settore guantario). - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/buterā

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The High German forms also have -t-, whereas from this PWG form *buzzera would be expected, giving modern *Busser. Compare *watar which does have the expected development. This means that the word must have been borrowed after the change t > z was productive in OHG, and therefore cannot be of PWG date. —Rua (mew) 14:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Besides, Old High German had at least 5 other native words meaning "butter", hinting at the likelihood that butira was fairly new and had not yet ousted out the other terms. Leasnam (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

easy listening

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Spanish 212.224.235.64 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

This does not seem hard to cite in normal typography, although it's quite often itacilised. [154] [155] [156] ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

vuilniskar

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, RFV-sense of "garbage disposal service". Not implausible, but if attested it's likely colloquial. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess the meaning “garbage disposal service” indicates the use of the word in expressions like “voor de vuilniskar werken” (“to work on the garbage truck”). If so, I think it could be attested (but vuilkar is definitely more common where I’m from ☺). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

geweer

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, RFV-sense of "resistance, opposition, defense". Is this citable outside in het geweer komen? The WNT does not have a separate sense "resistance, etc." ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Earlier the lemma had a sense “(absolute use only: het geweer) A defensive attitude or position”, which I removed in December 2020 by this edit. --Lambiam 00:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

gisahhan

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old High German: “to fight” (untagged sense: “to condemn”), tagged by Holodwig21, who created the entry, on 6 December 2019, not listed: “Koebler isn't sure”. J3133 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ruodauui

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old High German: “(Bavaria) an unknown-gender given name”. Tagged by Der Zeitmeister on 2 September 2020, not listed: “page 28 and § 28 and Wortregister on p. 181 don't contain this word.” (also RFC: “Place & Year of the Work? Göttingen, 1907?”). J3133 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

cunta

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Old High German: “female genitalia”. Tagged by 88.64.225.1 on 26 June 2021, not listed:

“It's possible, but the form would obviously be irregular in High German. As of now it is not given in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. The source is not scientific and it doesn't strictly say that the word is High German. It only says that it was found by a contributor to the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, which doesn't rule out that the gloss may be Old Saxon or Low Franconian.”

J3133 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, the word is given as an example of a German word and attestation in an Old Dutch work is particularly unlikely, so the real problems are the apparently irregular form and the fact that this is a rather unusual source. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Source has:

"Zahlreiche deutsche Wörter aus dem achten bis zehnten Jahrhundert sind nur als Anmerkungen und Übersetzungshilfen am Rand oder zwischen den Zeilen lateinischer Texte überliefert. Tausende dieser sogenannten Glossen wurden erst in letzter Zeit entdeckt und untersucht. Zu ihnen gehört „cunta“, eine vulgäre Bezeichnung für das weibliche Sexualorgan, die als Übersetzung von „pudenda“ am Rand einer kirchengeschichtlichen Handschrift des neunten Jahrhunderts auftauchte."

It's only saying "German", and doesn't clarify whether it's "High German" or "High and Low German". And if it's the latter, it's open whether Low German would be "Old Saxon" or "Low Franconian and Old Saxon". Also as it's only a gloss: If there are no other glosses near to it with clear Low or High German features, who knows what language the gloss is in? --16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

balen

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RFV-sense of "to act up, usually from frustration". I doubt this can be attested as a distinct sense. I would say balen usually isn't an action, but rather a state of mind. The WNT does not have any actual attestations for its additional military senses, only references. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed - I've also never seen this sense used myself. Seems completely unattested and made-up (or extremely fringe?) Amadeus1999 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

kontekletser

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, one definition is a Verbo proctologism. The word seems super rare in any case and this kind of spelling is superseded, so maybe the black tie has to be thrown out with the butt toy. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

[157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164]. Some concerns (numbered by link): 1: not sure if it's archived, 2: I think we treat West Flemish separately from Dutch, 3: I'm not sure what language this is, could be archaic Dutch or West Flemish, 4: Baasroods, a dialect that should be treated as Dutch. The rest are solid attestations for sense 2. There was another thesis by Leiden University called "Birds through a ceiling of alabast : genderproblematiek in de romans van Hugo Claus" (one of his books apparently used this term), but the spam filter didn't let me give the google link. Seems to be a chiefly Belgian term. Thadh (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh Okay, those are valid cites for definition 2, though it is at least somewhat awkward that this is only attested in what would be a superseded spelling. That probably deserves a usage note. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

kaap (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RFV-sense of "the bird species European herring gull, Larus argentatus". Dialectal and no attestations in the WNT. If kept, it should probably be an alternative form of kobbe. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Italian mezzoprano = mezzosoprano

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

(Notifying GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma): Another User:SemperBlotto creation. Not in any dictionaries nor in context.reverso.net, which has examples of real-world usage. There are a few hits on the Internet but they all look like one-off typos. Benwing2 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess you meant mezzoprano, not mezzosoprano (there is no RFV-banner yet). I've found this: [165], [166] [167], [168], [169], [170] which should be enough valid cites. mezzosoprano has even more cites and is included in some of these. Thadh (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

These sources do not use the term consistently, but in a sprinkling between many more occurrences of mezzosoprano. It seems to me that this mainly establishes that mezzoprano is a relatively frequent misspelling of mezzosoprano. I do not find the term in this spelling in Italian dictionaries, such as Treccani.^[171] I think it is similar to the common misspelling surreptious(ly).^{[172][173][174][175][176][177][178]} --Lambiam 11:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I mean, even if it is a misspelling, we ought to keep it under {{misspelling of}}. But I'm not convinced just yet, I find it strange concerts' programmes would have such a misspelling. Thadh (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's just a really bad typo. It's not even worthy of a {{misspelling of}} as, say, conoscienza (for conoscenza) would be. Sartma (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

jahoor

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Typically written as two words, it turned out harder to cite than I thought it would be. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

[179], [180], [181], [182], [183] (some of these might not be durably archived) Thadh (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

tapis

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Indonesian. RFV-sense, tagged by Rex Aurorum, for "sieve", "adroit", "deft", "nimble", "a wraparound cloth (usually worn by women)", "to cover (something or someone)", "to weave". ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bäist

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rfv-sense: "yearling (cattle)". Maybe a mistranslation of some third language? Couldn't find any evidence for this; SW doesn't give it, neither does any book at Google Books. Thadh (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since the other meaning is "head of cattle; beef", this could easily be explained as a misreading. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

apragod

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per a comment on the talk page. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

2003, Colin Mark, The Gaelic-English Dictionary: "apragod, -oid, -an nm [noun masculine] apricot"

As it isn't a WT:WDL (maybe 'member {{LDL}}), this could be sufficient for attesting. (It's also older than the WT entry, hence not stupiditly copied from bere.)

Additionally:

1883, John Cameron, Gaelic names of plants (Scottish and Irish): "P. [Prunus] armeniaca—Apricot. Gaelic: apricoc. Welsh: bricyllen."
1825, R. A. Armstrong, A Gaelic dictionary, in two parts: "Apricot, s. [substantive?] Seorsa meas." [= kind of fruit?]
1780, William Shaw, A Galic and English Dictionary. Containing All the Words in the Scotch and Irish Dialects of the Celtic, that ...: "Crann-apricoc. Apricot-tree." & "Apricot. Seorsa meas, ubhal apricoit." [= kind of fruit, apricot apple?]

There seem to be several spellings around: both Am Faclair Beag and LearnGaelic.scot give both apracot and apricoc, while Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (which doesn't count as durably archived, I know) gives both abragod and apragot. Three paper dictionaries on my bookshelf all give only apracot. Overall, it looks like most modern dictionaries prefer the spelling apracot, so I'd suggest making that the primary entry and making apragod an {{alt form of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

epilepsie

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

TLFI only mentions epilence for Old French. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Widsith who added it in 2008. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did I!? Not sure where I got it from, but I can see that the OED(2) does cite "Old French epilepsie" as the immediate source of the English word. Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Italian ammazzavampiri

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SOP: "vampire-slayer". Benwing2 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

google books:ammazzavampiri seems to have enough results (even though several have Buffy l'ammazzavampiri = Buffy the Vampire Slayer) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3720:3741:3181:23C1:CDC2:56E4 (talk) at 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

friþe

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

MEC: "frith n.(2) Also freth(e, firth, fright, fruth, AL [= Anglo-Latin] frid-.".
- It doesn't give an alternative form frithe or friþe.
Cursur Mundi:
þis tree ys done in my friþe

for I. wil þat hit haue griþe.
- Looks like it could be an inflected form (dative) of friþ instead of an alternative form of frith.

--Macopre (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The MED's alternative forms lists aren't exhaustive, so friþe could simply be a alternate form that the MED editors missed. It doesn't look like it "could be a dative" here; instead, the orthographic final vowel is best interpreted as hypercorrect. Note that it's rhymed with griþe (= grith), which can't have a etymological final vowel here; additionally, the other three mss. of Cursor Mundi don't have a final vowel (two have frith, and one has friþ). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hazarasp: Sounds like it then might be a poetic or paragogic form? --Macopre (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to posit some sort of paragoge. The final -e is most likely hypercorrect. The scribe who wrote the manuscript obviously knew that some words once had a final -e and incorrectly assumed this was one of them. He (the scribe was almost definitely a man) has unetymological final -e in a few other words too: paradyse (← Old French paradis), ane (← Old English ān), wisedome (← Old English wīsdōm). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

net (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RFV-sense of "television network"; I only know this in either the specific sense "television channel" and the general sense "network", especially used for the Internet. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Net meaning tv network in not in my VanDale Nederlands Als Tweede Taal (NT2) dictionary.

BUT in both the Netherlands and Belgium there are nationwide tv channels so tv networks are not necessary and do not really exist.

However the American sense of a tv network is sort of applicable to these nationwide channels. — This unsigned comment was added by 72.83.123.223 (talk) at 01:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

ploegknaap

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch. Chiefly in dictionaries, but mentions also dominate in other contexts. A sense akin to "farmhand operating a plough" may be attestable, but this probably isn't. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

koewachter

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch, RFV-sense of "The arachnid harvestman". Certainly not easy to cite on BGC. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

organisme (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RFV-sense of "a purposeful organisation". Cites of the type found in the WNT seem inadequate to establish a distinct sense, they are just metaphors, because those body metaphors are old as dirt. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

litueche

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This doesn't appear to be a actual form in any Mapudungun spelling system (the actual form is probably SoP). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

botter

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Rfv-sense

https://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/models/botter/botter.html Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no doubt that the word exists in Dutch (which is, curiously enough, missing as L2). The RfV is, however, specifically for Afrikaans. --Lambiam 22:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it can't be attested in Afrikaans, then changing the L2 to Dutch would be preferable to deleting it. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’ve added a Dutch section. --Lambiam 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

August 2021

ศุข

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Like its alleged Sanskrit antecedent, शुख (śukha), I can find no trace of this as an ordinary word. I can only find evidence of it as a Thai nickname, which is excluded from Wiktionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why should a Thai nickname be excluded from Wiktionary? —Mahāgaja · talk 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:About_Thai#Thai_person's_name. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, and reasonable, I guess. In theory English nicknames are similarly unlimited, David might be Dave or Davey or D-Man or Big D or (if he's known for wearing glasses) Glasses or Four-Eyes or (based on his disposition) Feisty or Mad Dog, etc, etc. I think there was a discussion before about whether to delete an English nickname on that basis (not a nickname for a specific celebrity, like R-Pattz, but an entry defined as just "a nickname" a la "a male given name"), but I can't find it or the outcome. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've now found an entry for the word with this spelling in an 1892 dictionary, which I've recorded on the page. As it seems that I had not entered an RfV on the page (I must have failed to save my edit), can I now withdraw this RfV, or do I need to insert the RfV notice? --RichardW57 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI + WT:WDL: Thai is a WDL and requires 3 uses and not a single mention in an old dictionary. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3720:3741:3181:23C1:CDC2:56E4 (talk) at 20:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

@RichardW57 The IP's right, can you bring 3 citations for this term? Svartava2 (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: But I'm not claiming that the word is modern Thai! --RichardW57 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: The Thai of 1892 is still indisputably Thai [th]. If it belongs under that language code, it ought to be attestable just like any other Thai word. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI, WT:WDL, and also WT:About Thai, don't differentiate between older and modern Thai. So three uses would be needed. Similar, there's no differentiation of older and modern New English, so hapaxes only occuring in Shakespeare can't meet Wiktionary's attestion requirement. But as RichardW57 started the RFV request and RichardW57 wanted to withdraw it, it possibly can simply be closed. However, anyone could re-add it to RFV... --Myrelia (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, Google found me evidence that the word existed, but nothing citable as a use or even a mention. I had to read the dictionaries myself to find the entries. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed after quite some time. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

ultime gocce

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#ultime gocce.

A plural that doesn't exist (uncountable), equivalent to the English last straws (derived from last straw). Or, more precisely, the plural does exist but not in an idiomatic sense, at which point it becomes SOP. Imetsia (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

2012, Renzo Mazzaro, I padroni del Veneto, chapter 3:

Se l'allusione è all'ultima goccia che fa traboccare il vaso, le ultime gocce erano due: [...]

70.175.192.217 18:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

A search for una delle ultime gocce yields a few more results (specifically the ones from Toccami le mani, Rivista di diritto processuale, Amintore Fanfani; the others seem to be using "last drops" in other senses). The usage in "Sono come tu mi vuoi" also seems relevant. Then there are forum posts and such using the phrase, like this one: "Vorrei dire che questa e' stata l'ultima goccia, ma in realta' non e' cosi'; le ultime gocce sono state piu' di una" 70.175.192.217 19:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

That said, even given all of these usages, I'm not sure that it is really an idiomatic phrase, any more than the plural last straws would be in English (for which you can also find citations, but which is not given an entry on Wiktionary). 70.175.192.217 19:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

erbieden

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Tagged by User:Lingo Bingo Dingo, but not listed — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 08:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

DWB 2 mentions: "mnl. nnl. erbieden". (BTW: Luxemburgish, Ripuarian MHG.) --19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WNT has two citations of the verbal noun erbieding from 1642, marking the verb as verouderd (“obsolete”). --Lambiam 08:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was probably curious whether this could be cited as Dutch or as Dutch Low Saxon/Low German, the latter of which corresponds to the local lects in the eastern Netherlands. The er- prefix is also very rare and unproductive in actual Dutch. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

abeillage

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The French Wiktionary entry lists one of the meanings of abeillage as "Élevage des abeilles", i.e. the raising of bees, or beekeeping. However, all of the uses I found online were referring to the other historical senses of the word. If this sense is kept, it should at least perhaps be tagged as rare because it seems the more common translations for beekeeping are apiculture or a multi-word phrase like "élevage des abeilles", "industrie abeillère". 70.175.192.217 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

gratia gratiam parit

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Latin: “kindness results in kindness”. Tagged by 2003:DE:3721:3F30:D88A:36D5:4026:6AC9 on 5 July, not listed. J3133 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

What’s the difference between grace and kindness? I don’t see it. Both translate to German as Gunst or Huld. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

English grace has several different meanings, including Anmut, Eleganz. Latin gratia is equally polysemic. --Lambiam 21:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually, because of this polysemy, the Latin proverb can even mean “kindness begets thankfulness” – but this is too trivially true to be intended. --Lambiam 21:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

zebbem

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Tagged but never listed. Stated reason:

w:Forth_and_Bargy_dialect#Cardinal_numbers only has "zeven" (which also fits to zeventeen, and that's also the form in: A Glossary, With some Pieces of Verse, of the Old Dialect of the English Colony in the Baronies of Forth and Bargy, County of Wexford, Ireland. Formerly collected By Jacob Poole: And now edited, with some Introductory Observations, Additions from various sources, and Notes, By William Barnes, London 1867, pp. 16 & 81.

Pinging Komitet J. Aldurynckiego, who created the entry, though they haven't been around since January. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

German (but with citation needed), Spanish, Russian and West Frisian WP given "zebbem" for 7 too, but without any source. Maybe English WP once had zebbem too? --22:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It was present in the first revision of the ENWP article but was removed in a 2011 edit. 70.175.192.217 00:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

In diff a source for another Yola term was provided by someone else - though p. 20 is blank (Google). --2003:DE:3720:3733:F84C:4C4E:8FDB:64C9 11:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

kattha

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This challenge applies only to the Pali 'timber' word.

It looks as though the entry

kattha : [adv.] where? || kaṭṭha (pp. of kasati), plouhged; tilled. (nt.) timber; a piece of wood.

in A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera's Concise Pali-English Dictionary (or at least, an on-line version) has been misinterpreted as saying the unretroflexed word has the 'timber' meaning. Note that Lao-script Pali ກັດຖະ (kattha) is not evidence for this spelling; it comes from a writing system that lacks the retroflex consonants. Alerting @Hk5183. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

lagopus

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Can somebody confirm the gender? This and also Lagopus and λαγώπους give the gender as feminine (the latter offering both masculine and feminine). However, λαγώς and πούς are both masculine, so I can't see how the compound could possibly be feminine. If it really is, something needs to be added to the etymologies to say how this counterintuitive gender has happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

As for Lagopus zoologists treat it as being feminine, as can be seen by the species epithets of two of the three species, the other one not being helpful. Lewis and Short asserts Latin lagopus as being feminine. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, “eight-footed”) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, “red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, “ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dioscorides^[184] and Oribasius^[185] use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover),^[186] and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig,^[187] probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained. --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for the correction; I overlooked the -xyz entries. It is somewhat unlikely that the Latin writers borrowing lagōpūs from Greek would have assigned it the feminine gender if they were not following a Greek example. --Lambiam 09:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

knoros

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch, really quite rare. One clear attestation of the plural, the other occurrences are rather mentionlike. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

fekalia

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A word of dubious existence, not listed in any major dictionary, and I was unable to find much about it on Google. Supevan (talk) Supevan (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've added one. There's another one that talks about an ampoule full of "soft fecal matter" (bløde fekalia).__Gamren (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

bularës

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Albanian: Not seeing much useful Wubble You (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

insulo

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Latin: “I make into an island”. Tagged by 2003:DE:3720:3768:391A:E7C1:E458:1606 on 25 August, not listed: “

"Usage notes: This verb, other than the perfect passive participle īnsulātus, is not attested."
īnsulātus: "Etymology: From īnsula +‎ -ātus" & "Adjective"”

J3133 (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, insulavimus 'we insulated', was used by Galvani. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep:I've now added three independent quotations, all using the same metaphor to mean 'electrically insulate'. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Then the usage notes are wrong, right? --2003:DE:3720:3733:F84C:4C4E:8FDB:64C9 07:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I don't know what the correction is. Are the finite forms restricted to Modern Latin or whatever? --RichardW57 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: Where did you get the statement on restricted usage from? --RichardW57m (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57m: Searching "#insulo", "#insulab", "#insulav", and "#insulat" on https://latin.packhum.org/search all give no results. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau Thanks, I've changed the comment to say they don't occur in Classical Latin. I'll let someone else work on Late Latin. I've managed to push the inflected verb as far back as 17th century French (isoler). I'm not sure whether to tentatively change the etymology to being a calque on French - such would merit the 'Original Research' scare tag that's been proposed. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

carpus

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Latin: “(anatomy) carpus, wrist”. Tagged by 2003:DE:3720:3796:C417:65D5:8E69:E298 today, not listed:

“Not in the alledged "References":

“carpus”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press
carpus in Gaffiot, Félix (1934) Dictionnaire illustré latin-français, Hachette.
Carl Meißner, Henry William Auden (1894) Latin Phrase-Book‎^[188], London: Macmillan and Co.
0

L&S & Gaffiot have Carpus, a proper name; Meißner & Auden don't have it at all.”

J3133 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to etymonline.com, it is Modern Latin (1670s), so should have no place in these dictionaries. Some 17th-century uses: [189], [190], [191]. --Lambiam 13:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

cited This, that and the other (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

briqen

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Albanian: unicorn Wubble You (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

buzëmadhe

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Albanian: a plant. Not seeing much, apart from Buzëmadhe, a village Wubble You (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Alpe

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Albanian Wubble You (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

çerek

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Albanian Wubble You (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You RFVed like the normal word for “quarter” or “New Year’s Eve” in Albanian. buçallë turned out to be only used in Albania as spoken in Macedonia and Bulgaria. What is left is briqen and buzëmadhe, for which I have not seen things either, it looks artificial. If bularës exists then hardly in the meaning given. An Italian-Albanian dictionary gives it for stozzo, a Serbocroatian-Albanian one differently for mlàtilo, then it is probably some rural-agricultural term. Fay Freak (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, you removed the rfv tag, but you didn't add any citation.__Gamren (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Gamren: Don’t dote! What don’t you understand about “the normal word for ‘quarter’”? You got trolled by Wonderfool, who abused this page to get rid of tbot entries and got reverted for everything I haven’t looked into. This should be just archived. What do you think “clearly widespread use” in WT:ATTEST is for? Exactly for people who RFV words like water or quarter. Fay Freak (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Storch

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

German: “(Namibia) girl”. Tagged by 2003:DE:3720:3780:D8DA:FD3B:20F3:E3CD on 29 August, not listed: “(entry gives "female Störchin", and a girl is always female.)” J3133 (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't even know where to start researching Namibian German. I briefly checked a German-language newspaper but they only mentioned the animal (+ semi-paywalled). – Jberkel 21:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

a) Mentionings can be found in dictionaries, like:

Joe Putz, Das große Dickschenärie, 2001 ([192]).
Ulrich Ammon, Hans Bickel und Alexandra Nicole Lenz (eds.), Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen, 2nd ed., 2016 ([193])

But for German (de) as WDL that's not good enough.

(Maybe Südwesterdeutsch, also Südwester Deutsch, should be a separate language so that it would be enough? Else possibly most terms in Category:Namibian German would fail an RFV?)

b) It somewhat also relates to a more general issue with "female ..." in the head of some entries: When a masculine term also refers to things or animal breeds (Japaner (“Japanese car”), Holländer (“Hollander beater”), Bohrer (“drill”), Afghane (“certain dog; type of hashish”)), the "female ..." part makes no sense, is incorrect, confusing (is it Japanerin (“Japanese car owned/driven by a female”)?). Here the question arises if it is Storch (“girl”), Störchin (“girl”), or Storch/Störchin (“girl”)?

--2003:DE:3720:3733:F84C:4C4E:8FDB:64C9 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

တလိုင်း

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

This is Round 2 relating to History assassination fraud problemတလိုင်း တႆးလႅင်‎.

I am challenging the meaning 'Tai Laing'; the previous discussion established the meaning as 'Mon', but we are now facing an edit war over the meaning. It's conceivable that the word has had both meanings, but I see no evidence of the meaning 'Tai Laing' being used in Burmese. Moreover, 'Tai Laing' shows every appearance of being an autonym, though I don't know how seriously we should take the claim that they are a branch of the Tai Daeng of Vietnam. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that the previous discussion established that; the only evidence pasted directly into the thread (by someone who didn't sign their post) was Judson's Burmese-English Dictionary, which has "တလိုင်း, n. a Peguan Talaing, [..]" (a dictionary being enough for a LDL). I've tagged the "Mon" sense with RFV, too, so both senses are now tagged: let there be citations/references added to the entry for whichever one(s) are attested (I added the reference for the Tai Laing sense). - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep 'Mon'. Actually, you added the well-nigh clinching reference for the 'Mon' sense! I can't see which bit of Talaing you didn't understand. I've used the Judson template to link to a later edition of the dictionary. I'm not sure whether to add a mention to complete the definition of Talaing. — This unsigned comment was added by RichardW57 (talk • contribs) at 07:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

It may be worth noting that the Talaing live south of Shan State while the Tai Laing live north of Shan State, in Kachin and points west. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re "I can't see which bit of Talaing you didn't understand": well, as I don't like to time travel, at the time I commented I c0uldn't see any part of that entry that you created several hours after my comment, but I realize now the Tai Laing and Talaing are distinct. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57,Did you know that Ta Laingတလိုင်း is a hate speech invented by the extremist Dog Burmese people? the fact that you are trying to express the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း, coined by the extremist Dog Burmese people, is a human animal that encourages extremism, if you are trying to express the Ta Laingတလိုင်း term coined by extremist Burmese people, it means that you are also trying to attack the Mon people. I did not believe that you would become an educated animal, if you are a real human being, you will never ruin someone else's history. The fact that you are now fabricating the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon just shows that you are an extremist terrorist, do you have strong evidence that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Mon? when the Mon people object that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is not Mon, you are trying to be Mon is an extremist act, have you received a vote from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon? Ta Laingတလိုင်း is an objection because is not Mon. Do not show propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people as evidence of Ta Laing terminology, there are many Ta Laingတလိုင်း related propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people. Those who believe in the propaganda Ta Laing book released by extremist Burmese people are ignorant animals, you should collect votes from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon, now you are accusing Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon, this is very rude, if you are a real polite person, you should describe Mon as Mon, you are very rude when you now describe Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The issue of this term being offensive and another term being preferred seems like something to resolve by adding the label "(offensive)" or "(now offensive)"; also, we should expand the etymology to note the folk etymological interpretation which has led to it being considered offensive. But apparently the sense does exist (in the past) after all. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be surprised if the term still existed as a way for Burmans to bait Mons. According to WP it still exists in a technical sense for poetry. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Shans, not just Tai Laing

Dr Intobesa has given a different account in User_talk:RichardW57#Stop trying to lie တလိုင်း. I think we've been misled because of the development of the Burmese digraph "ui". It seems that the Shans and the Mons became allies in a revolt in 1740 and consequently came to share an appellation. If this story is correct (I've verified none of it as yet), then we can even merge the two 'etymologies'. We still need verification for the initial and linking senses of the word under the new explanation, and the 'synonyms' for Etymology 2 need to be checked. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57, Tai Laing is the spelling of ထႆးလႅင်‎, there are two types of spelling of Shan people. The Shan people use the spelling of the Shan language vocabulary used in English in two different spelling words, ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ or ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ, the spelling of the word ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး was used by the Shan people to mean the whole Shan language. The Burmese people call Thai and Shan is ရှမ်းShan, but in the literature they are divided into Shan, Thai. The Mon people call Thai, Shan, Laos is Siemသေံ, but in the literature they are divided into သေံSiem, သေံဇၞော်Siem Hanok, သေံလဴSiem Lav, see definition below.

(သေံSiem) definition=Thai
(သေံဇၞော်Siem Hanok) definition=Shan/ the spelling word Siem Hanok is the same as the Thai spelling ไทยใหญ่Thai Yai.
(သေံလဴSiem Lav) definition=Laos

The word Tai Laing is probably the pronunciation of ထႆးလႅင်, so it could be Ta Laingတလိုင်း, see also the following explanation for words with the same spelling pronunciation in English, Shan, Thai, Burmese.

(Shan=ထႆး) (English=Thai) (Thai=ไทย) definition=The (ထႆးThaiไทย) spelling shown here is the same for all pronunciations.
(Shan=လႅင်) (English=Laing) (Burmese=လိုင်း/example=Ta Laingတလိုင်း) definition=The (လႅင်Laingလိုင်း) spelling shown here is the same for all pronunciations, Shan people can use two spellings ထႆး or တႆး. example=Shan languages can be said to use this ထႆးလႅင် or တႆးလႅင် term, consider the current spelling usage of Shan people in Burma and Shan people in Thailand.
Shan=(ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ) English=(Thai Yai language) Thai=(ภาษาไทยใหญ่) definition=(Shan language) explanation=These are the spelling words used by the Shan people in Thailand.
Shan=(ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ) English=(Tai Yai language) Thai=(ภาษาไทใหญ่) definition=(Shan language) explanation=These are the spelling words used by the Shan people in Burma. I am a qualified writer in literature, learn the vocabulary spelling that I have explained in detail, I would also like to warn you to avoid accusations that hurt a certain ethnic group on Wiktionary. The Wiktionary is a dictionary website, so only dictionary terms are appropriate, it is totally inappropriate to write accusations that hurt an ethnic group on Wiktionary, thanks.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

And you should be aware of the Shan word တႆးလူင် (I hope I've spelt it right) used for the main Shan group. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding it in Thai or Shan script. The literal Thai transliteration would be ไทยหลวง; the form I encounter in English is 'Tai Long' and I can even find a section of the Tai-Lōng Tipiṭaka. — This unsigned comment was added by RichardW57 (talk • contribs) at 20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

@RichardW57, The term Tai Laing has nothing to do with the term တႆးလူင် and ไทยหลวง, the correct pronunciation of the word ไทยหลวง is Thai Luang. Similarly, the correct pronunciation of the word တႆးလူင် is Tai Luang, the definitions of တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang are different, check out the following definitions of တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang.

(Thai=ไทยหลวง pronunciation=Thai Luang) (Burmese=ထိုင်းတော်ဝင် pronunciation=Thai Taw Win) (English=Thai royal) (other spelling words=Thai=ราชวงศ์ไทย/Burmese=ထိုင်းတော်ဝင်မိသားစု/English=Thai royal family) (definition=The term ไทยหลวงThai Luang and Rachngs Thaiราชวงศ์ไทย means members of the royal family of the King of Thailand.)
(Shan=တႆးလူင် pronunciation=Tai Luang) (Burmese=ရှမ်းစော်ဘွား pronunciation=Shan Saw Bwar) (English=Shan royal) (another spelling word in Burmese language=Shan Nang Dwinရှမ်းနန်းတွင်း or ရှမ်းနန်းတွင်းသူShan Nang Dwin Thu) (definition=The term တႆးလူင်Tai Luang refers to the ancient Shan King Family.

The words တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang have similar pronunciations but different meanings, let me give you another example, only ထႆးလူင် should be used for ไทยหลวงThai Luang spelling, I hope you understand what I have just explained.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's a discussion of the naming of Tai groups at [194]. As I would hope you know, Shan တႆး (tái), Thai ไทย (tai) and ไท (tai), English Thai, Tai and pinyin Dai are all essentially the same word, but to varying degrees specialised to designate specific groups of speakers. In some Tai dialects (I can confirm it for Northern Thai, i.e. the dialect of Lanna), the cognate of Thai หลวง (lǔuang, “high”) has replaced the cognate of Thai ใหญ่ (yài, “big”) as the usual word for 'big'. As the article says on p27 from journal, northern Shans "เรียก พวกตนเองว่า ไทใหญ่ (Tai Yai) หรือ ไทโหลง (Tai Long) โหลงเป็นคําเดียวกับคําว่าหลวง" (call themselves 'Tai Yai' or 'Tai Long'. 'Long' (โหลง is the word corresponding to the [Thai] word หลวง.)

It would seem that Thais use ไทโหลง because of the royal meaning of ไทหลวง.

One can also find the Shans' 'Tai Long' autonym spelt ไตโหลง or ไต๊โหลง in Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is the "Tai Longတႆးလုင်" you referred to on my user page? --RichardW57 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57, တႆးလုင်Tai Long is the term တႆးလူင်Tai Luang, the Tai Longတႆးလုင် is a spelling word used by the Khamti people, The တႆးလူင်Tai Luang is a spelling word used by the Shan people.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

September 2021

atpakal

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It is in LKZ etc., but I haven't been able to find any citations for actual usage yet, just the Latvian cognate. 70.175.192.217 17:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Aren’t there two quotes in LKZ? They are from the 19th century notably, and back in the day the current Lithuanian orthography was not invented, one rather wrote it like Polish or German, additionally writing Lithuanian in Latin was altogether forbidden in the Russian Empire, so one should seek different spellings. Where are those corpora? Even for Latvian I do not find Cyrillic spellings. Fay Freak (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it does have two citations on LKŽ, but they don't even give the specific text as far as I can tell, just the author (although the texts certainly are still archived, somewhere). Is that enough to support its inclusion? I'm not trying to be overly deletionist, I'm just not sure this is a word that's really used. Maybe it should be marked as rare/archaic. As far as the Cyrillic forms, I guess it would be "атпакал", which seems to yield Cyrillicizations of Latvian on Google (but I didn't look hard). I'm not aware of any specific corpus for Lithuanian of that era (one might still exist). All I know are these ones listed by Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas. 70.175.192.217 01:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI + WT:WDL require three quotes for Lithuanian. --Myrelia (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

beleś

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Existence questioned by User:Arqueolingüística (diff) — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 17:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Horchatamivida as the entry creator — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 17:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also note the other Iberian-critcial removals by the same user: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arqueoling%C3%BC%C3%ADstica --Fytcha (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

A brief search found that people do believe there was a word beles (allophone meles) in Iberian. But "the community of editors" (WT:CFI) for the language should decide what references to use. Apparently Hugo Schuchardt had something to say in addition to the links on the Wikipedia page. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

According with Jürgen Untermann, this is a Kurzname known from the Turma Salluitana. He discusses (p. 597-307, Spanish) his use as a component of Vollnamen. According with Luís Silgo, Schuchardt proposed the relation of Aquitanian Belex and Iberian beleś with Basque belatx (currently spelled belatz "falcon"), and he points that the relation with beltz (“black”) is possible but unsure as a proper name. Vriullop (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

klanas

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Etymology 2. LKŽ provides the definition, but no usage examples or citations. 70.175.192.217 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

﷼

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Constantly being removed by IP--4SnavaA (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seems both unlikely and unnecessary. I would redirect the page to ریال. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have cleaned up the entry. @Fay Freak, could you please fix the etymology? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- What should I know there, I am not forex-trading. Fay Freak (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

orixe

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Asturian: It seems unlikely, tho not impossible, that the plural is oríxenes. Roger the Rodger (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

overleggen

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I respectfully request verification of Etymology 2, sense 2, “to preview”, which is not found in any of my NL–EN dictionaries. (For sense 1, the object of the transitive verb appears to pertain invariably to documents, especially official ones.) --Lambiam 22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Etymology 2 is Dutch-Dutch and non-existent in Belgian-Dutch. In any case, I couldn't find any sources supporting sense 2 (only sense 1). Morgengave (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maylander

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several results at Google Books for Maylander either were foreign (English) or had in fact Mayländer (or pedantic Maylaͤnder) in it, usually as a common noun. --Myrelia (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

memorium

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Can this form, alleged to be a genitive plural of the Latin adjective memor, be attested, or are we dealing with a so-called non-i-stem variant? --Lambiam 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Template:la-decl-3rd-1E has been retired to a template farm upstate, but I suspect this was the culprit, leading to an erroneous auto-generated entry. @Benwing2 --Lambiam 01:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Might it be that A&G is mistaken: [195]? For some uses of the ablative memore, see [196], [197], and [198]. --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested? --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
As for gen. pl.: Can the other, memorum, be attested? Or is it just an assumption, a form generated by an inflection template? Maybe it can by: "hunc crebro ungula pulsu incita nec domini memorum proculcat equorum, Verg. Aen. 12, 533"? --Myrelia (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

October 2021

promovieren

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Never heard this one. As far as I know, promovieren is strictly related to a doctorate degree, but the linked sense is clearly more general/broad. Duden, pons, DWDS and de.wikt also don't make any mention of this sense. In case this RFV fails, also remove the translation in promote. --Fytcha (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The transitive use occurs in the traditional formula conferring the degree, as seen here: „Auf Grund der von Sr. kaiserlichen und apostolisch königlichen Majestät der kön. ung. Tierärztlichen Hochschule allergnädigst gewährten Ermächtigung promoviere ich Sie im Namen des Professorenkörpers dieser Hochschule zum Doktor der veterinärmedizinischen Wissenschaften.“^[199] Here is a more recent, less formal use: ‚Schließen Sie Ihr Studium ab. Dann promoviere ich Sie.‘^[200] --Lambiam 15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

In both quotes, the verb is used in its third sense: to confer a doctorate. Fytcha (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which was, I guess, the intended meaning of sense 1, the only transitive sense listed before you added this third sense. This supposition of mine is supported by the label (education). However, in the second use I cited, it is not fully clear that the promotion is to an academic degree. --Lambiam 09:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh you're right, it is a possibility that this was the intended meaning of sense 1 by the previous editor. To me they are so semantically different (the English explanations, that is) that I didn't think this was what was intended but I can see the connection now.

The context makes it clear that the second use you've cited is also about an academic degree:

Was hat Sie dazu bewogen, die Professorinnen-Laufbahn einzuschlagen? - Die Initialzündung dazu hat ein Professor gegeben. Der hat mir noch während des Studiums gesagt: ‚Schließen Sie Ihr Studium ab. Dann promoviere ich Sie.‘ ― What has motivated you to opt for the career path as a professor? - The first impetus was given to me by a professor. Still in my studies he told me: 'Finish your studies. Then I am going to promovieren you.' Fytcha (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

But a professor does not have the power to confer a degree by themselves. The intention may have been, “I’ll be happy to be your PhD adviser”, presumably including an offer of a paid position as doctoral student. Used as such it would be – IMO – an abuse of terminology. --Lambiam 09:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Obviously this was used in the 16–18th centuries just like in Latin, from which the doctorate senses are only particular applications. If you only look at de.Wiktionary, there are three old quotes. Maybe regard less what you have heard and more what was heard in former centuries? I find this usage very natural, however the gloss is wrong, I don’t know what they mean with “promote”, one shouldn’t gloss with just one word or anyone thinks of it what he wants to think of it, it’s actually no meaning at all but an “etymological equivalent”. Fay Freak (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The sense that I have submitted to RfV is not labeled as (dated) or something comparable, neither is the translation provided in promote that I've made mention of. I find it absurd that you suggest me to regard more what was heard in former centuries when the discussion circles around the modern form of the language. Moreover, I don't think there was anything on my part to explain your gruff tone towards me. Fytcha (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: You are right, as I said it is badly glossed and labelled, but editors often do not know if something is really not used now and only whether it has been used at all, so you should expect obsolete senses not labelled obsolete, but really, it is kind of easy pickings to conclude that back in the day – in the Baroque style Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft fought against – people just used any sense of the Latin word and then the doctorate sense developed, not just borrowed from Latin discourse. Fay Freak (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW: The examples at de:promovieren are misquoted.

de.wp: "ein subsidium oder hilff [...] zulassen" – source: "ein ſubſidium oder hilff [...] zůlaſſen" – the Latinate term is set in another front and in zů- there's an small o above the u.
de.wp: "Bruderschaffe S. Jofephs" – source: "Bruderſchafft S. Joſephs" or simplified "Bruderschafft S. Josephs" – with Bruderschafft (cp. Bruderschaft) and Joseph.

--Myrelia (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW why don’t you correct the typos, as it is a wiki? You have looked into the scans, so do it. Antiqua in Fraktur though is of course hard to mimick, and no grounds to exclude words, as many words which we needs include, or all wälsch words, were written this way.

Do not forget to search promoviren for quotes, guys, as this is how the ending used to be written before 1900. Fay Freak (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

dvai

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

'Pogańske gwary z Narewu' has Sudovian duo = Polish dwa. Not sure where 'dvai' came from. It's included in some webpages though, e.g. [201]. Is that enough? 70.175.192.217 16:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Feminine? (like Lithuanian du vs dvi) Thadh (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's absolutely possible that this form could exist, especially considering Old Prussian dwai, but I'm not sure where it could possibly be attested. Sudovian is mostly known through one iffy second-hand glossary (Narew) that omits this word and through reconstructions based on toponymy (I'd love to know the source for this, if one exists). The source I linked above that has "dvai" also has "astônei" for eight, which is a lot closer to what you'd expect based on other Baltic forms than the Narew form aktiʃ (which looks more like acht, or some funky sound changes and/or transcription errors occurred). 70.175.192.217 06:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that this could also be somewhere in the works of Hieronimus Meletius. I'm not sure if they're digitized at all, but maybe some source mentions it second hand at least. 70.175.192.217 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

ālaws

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

In Prussian, there is *skārstis (attested form: starstis), which means 'tin', and alwis, which means 'lead'. I'm not convinced there's any attestation of a word like *ālaws with the meaning 'tin'. 70.175.192.217 00:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess, Vytautniks added constructed Neo-Prussian. Compare with: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Myrelia (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Huh, actually, there is a word "elwas" - Zinnerz (tin ore) mentioned in the page I cited above. But that's still not ālaws. 70.175.192.217 01:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see it. --Myrelia (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it's here: [202], tr. "In addition to Pr. alwis, Pr. elwas "Zinnerz" is known". There's still a significant difference between elwas and ālaws though (the vowel 'a' is not between the 'l' and 'w'). 70.175.192.217 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's: "pr. elwas „Zinnerz“ (Ziesemer PW I 103)". Ziesemer's work is a Prussian (Germanic; not Old Prussian) dictionary, and at least parts of it were released earlier than 1975 (in Lieferungen). Questions: Is elwas really Old Prussian? Is it attested or reconstructed? If attested: Where? Nesselmann doesn't (seem to?) have it. --Myrelia (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

zmūni

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Nesselmann's Thesaurus linguae prussicae has: "smûni, Person, Ench. 62: niaina endirisna steison smûni, kein Ansehen der Person, wo smûni wohl Drckf. für smûnin, Accusativform hinter dem Gen. des Pronomens steison, ist [...]". --Myrelia (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mažiulis also has smūni, no mention of a form with a Z other than normalized/reconstructed forms. 70.175.192.217 02:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Normalized ≠ reconstructed. You just quoted the word. But the page should continue to be and bear {{normalized}}, perhaps soft-redirecting to the manuscript form, so people find something in the dictionary when searching either. Fay Freak (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Except there's no unique normalization of Old Prussian. Every author has their own system and orthography (e.g., the related word smoy has various normalized forms: "zmōi", "zmōi̯", "zmūi" ([203]). abasus has variously "abazs", "abazzus" ([204]). And so on.

The fact remains that there is no form of this word starting with 'z' that ever appeared in a manuscript. Should every normalized form that any linguist has written be considered valid? To be honest, I personally wouldn't mind listing normalized forms somehow, or reconstructions even (in the case where e.g. the nominative is not attested), as long as it was handled in a clear and consistent manner, but the current situation is a real mess. 70.175.192.217 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Drūwis

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Nesselmann has only "druwi f., druwis m. nom. (Kat. I. dröffs), druwien, acc. (Kat. II. druwin als nom. gebraucht), der Glaube. Ench. [...]". --Myrelia (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why we need both capitalizations of the word anyway, it's the same word. I think we should move drūwis to druwis, and delete this (unless there's a good reason to consider the capitalizations separate words). 70.175.192.217 01:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deletion would be fine for me as well. I thought that RfV is easier and would more likely result in deletion: no discussion needed, just a bit time as it's not attested with macron. --Myrelia (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ukapirmas

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because:

IMHO it's somewhat dubious that this attested in Old Prussian - most Old Prussian literature is Christian, and reports about the Old Prussian were for example in Latin (Johannes Maeletius/Meletius/Maletius).
Rainer Eckert, Zum Analytismus in den baltischen Sprachen, p. 399, in: 2004, Eurolinguistische Arbeiten: Die europäischen Sprachen auf dem Wege zum analytischen Sprachtyp. Herausgegeben von Uwe Hinrichs unter Mitarbeit von Uwe Büttner, Wiesbaden, p. 399ff.:
... Präfix ucka- ... Occopirmus 'Saturnus' (1530 Agenda Ecclesiastica) bzw. Occopirnus 'deus coeli et terrae' (Maletius) = *Ukapirmas 'der Allererste' ...

--Myrelia (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

abazzus, azzaran, alwas, sūji, aglā, buks, dāngs, dags, gelzā, genā, rikīs, skals, sunnis, zmūi

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It's abasus, assaran, alwis, suge, aglo, bucus, dangus, dagis, gelso, genno, rikis, scalus, sunis, smoy (Elbing Vocabulary, Nesselmann's Thesaurus linguae prussicae).

With z instead of s (abazzus, azzaran, gelza vs. abasus, assaran, gelso) it looks like (re-)construction.
Macrons, albeit present in one Old Prussian source, are questionable.
Vytautniks and Beobach972 (cp. User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian) seem to have added reconstructed Old Prussian or constructed Neo-Prussian. Similar in diff which gives as source: Vytautas Mažiulis, cp. Old Prussian language#Revitalization.

--Myrelia (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Myrelia You've tagged some of these for speedy deletion. You should remove those templates while this RFV discussion is open. Ultimateria (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Have I? I don't think so. {{d}} should only be there for some bad redirects (WT:Redirections#Unacceptable uses). --Myrelia (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Myrelia: My mistake, I didn't realize there was an older discussion on this page linking to Old Prussian entries. I've taken care of those redirects. Ultimateria (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

kams

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because:

Elbing Vocabulary has "Bene Bitte", "Hu͡mele Camus", cp. camus -- by shape this looks like an alteration of camus, like reconstructed Old Prussian or constructed Neo-Prussian.
not in Nesselmann

--Myrelia (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

konsumo

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense: "provision". I wonder if that definition ever exists.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

guglo

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Esperanto; is the proper noun (“Google”) used uncapitalized? J3133 (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

That section should probably be reduced to something like:

google (an internet search using Google)

with the etymology: From the verb gugli (“to google”), from Guglo (“Google”). Perhaps someone saw it translated as "google" and didn't realize the distinction. — 69.120.66.131 21:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

briginos

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

The given sources are Latin or Greek and have bricumum, βρικίνη (with variants), briginus, none of them has briginos. Thus it's *briginos, reconstructed from Latin/Greek "deformations". Compare how it's also Vandalic eils with alternative form *heils. --Myrelia (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not *briginos, this is briginos. Scholars use to not put a star in front of this term, you are just abusing the terms “reconstructed” and “attested”.

The given sources being Latin or Greek does not hinder anything, since languages can be attested from mentions. It is no difference whether I put the Latin or Greek texts as collapsible “quotes” or mere ”citations” in a reference section, but the former is more customary for ancient works; yourself you just put Latin quotes in Vandalic entries and German in Old Prussian and the like.

The exact form is also attested, in the third quote. briginos, written briginus because the author identified the Gaulish ending with the Latin ending, but this does not make it Latin, the quote literally says it is Gaulish. And it is well known that sometimes an exact lemma form is not attested but only “a deformation”, also known as inflection.

Therefore, this RFV is dismissed.

It is also dismissed as abusive and futile since we know well that these are all quotes that exist for this word. All quotes are given. Fay Freak (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Quotes are given, but again: none has briginos. Attested are only briginus etc. (By the quote, βρικίνη however could rather be a Greek than a Gaulish term.) Compare with Vandalic eils vs. *heils, and e.g. Old Prussian wolistian (attested) vs. *āzistin (M. Klussis' (re-)construction), *vɔ̄zistʹan (V. Mažiulis' (re-)construction). --Myrelia (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No conclusion is made from your comparisons.

The templates rely on the -os ending.

The third quote has briginos, as it has briginus. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why this antic anyway of moving to the reconstruction space if it is attested? Something mindboggling for you: The word is attested, but none of its forms are. But the forms of a word do not need to be attested all. None need to be. I have attested the term. This is as much as the CFI require. Fay Freak (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wort – Text – Sprache und Kultur has "Gall. *briginos/briginom war mithin schlicht die 'kräftige (i. S. v. sehr wirksame) Pflanze'", with star and two reconstructed forms, and here scholars too use a star. Mithridate / Mithridates (1555) has "Cf. [source], s.v. bricumos, briginos ? «armoise»", with a question mark.

And BTW: I haven't put any Latin quote in a Vandalic entry. Also not in Old Prussian (Elbing Vocabulary which I cited is in Middle High German and Old Prussian). --Myrelia (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are just citing friends who are also unsure how to use the star. Simultaneously you refer to one source which lacks the star, so you see that it is not necessary, only your personal preference. Under some convention the star would be put after the term. On the other hand, often people do not even exactly know how a term is attested, therefore they star forms just to be cautious, without having sighted the loci. But this then does not even tell us whether the term or form is attested, in their view.

Still you dodge the fact that the CFI do not require particular forms nor spellings to be attested, only terms.

The term linked in the title is attested, quoted. The form is too, we can well claim. Fay Freak (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

“Attested”, not in the Latin quotation, but in the English translation supplied by you. Is your strike-through of the heading, as if the issue has been resolved other than by a shouting match, not somewhat out-of-process? --Lambiam 19:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: How pedantic do you want to be? It is attested in the Latin quotation. Lemma-forms aren’t even attested always, what if it is e.g. in the plural or genitive? The lemma form would not be a reconstruction. From this derives the rule that we can disregard the inflectional part. And in the genitive the ending in Latin and Gaulish is the same, isn’t it too arbitrary to assume that then there is no “deformation”? But it is still not Latin in any case, whichever form is chosen, there is no evidence for it being Latin but for it being Gaulish. It literally says, “the Gauls call it briginos”, exactly this form, and not “the Gauls when speaking Latin”, the most natural interpretation in this glossary. If a Latin reader in antiquity reads “the Gauls call it briginus it is implied that the ending there is a wee bit different, as quotation practice was not like today. For antiquity standards this is how one has to abstract from the details, the intended meaning of the text. The text behind the text. It says that. Textual witnesses aren’t in that good a state either. Have you looked how the Punic in Poenulus is attested? It’s a forest of gibberish through which you have to look through to see the trees, it may be even up to the point of a small inexactness the author himself smuggled into the first text(s). A variant reading is not a reconstruction. And it would be an exaggeration to speak of a conjecture, emendation or reconstruction here. That man has no sense of proportion.

The request was out of process from the beginning since all attestations were given, something else is requested … Fay Freak (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Move to reconstruction namespace. FWIW, kids throwing a tantrum can be ignored in our discussions. Akletos (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is a simple test to decide whether a word goes to the mainspace or reconstructed space: Is it attested? This word is, it has (even three) quotes for it, so it is situated in the mainspace. Only kids that blow their tops when they don’t get everything they want try to bend the rules and make representations when they face some edge that diverts them from furnishing their dollhouse. Fay Freak (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Gng

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, RFV for Gng, since as far as I know, the correct form of this is Gng., with a period, since this is an abbreviation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

November 2021

humana

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I can find una humana in google searches, but a quick check of other dictionaries shows humano as a masculine only noun. We've included this since the entry was first created 2007. Is it valid? If so, should humano mention a feminine form? — This unsigned comment was added by JeffDoozan (talk • contribs) at 13:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC).Reply

I would say it's valid. In particular, it should be common in fantasy/mythological settings where a (female) human is mentioned by non-human entity. Though I do agree it might be hard to fetch some examples, I got these: 1, 2, 3, 4. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

խոյարած

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added by an unreliable editor. I can find attestations only in one author, Mushegh Galshoyan. Three independent attestations are needed per WT:CFI. --Vahag (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

𑜒𑜪𑜨𑜍𑜣𑜄

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is given as an Assamese word in the Ahom script. A literal translation of the word would be [i]oṃrīta[/i]. As we do not list Ahom as a script of Assamese, I believe such an entry needs to connect to an attestation. Unsurprisingly, Google finds nothing but clones of Wiktionary - it takes time for text to appear in Unicode. As @Msasag added the spelling, I hope he can oblige us with such a connection. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

“As we do not list Ahom as a script of Assamese” → non sequitur. We do not list all every scripts in which a language has been written. If I assess that Ahom script was used for Assamese – which on first glance makes much sense but we also have Middle Assamese, so perhaps it does not apply to the present chronolect – I may just add it, and your argument vanishes utterly into thin air. (And then, as you yourself seem to acknowledge, by Pali experience, we don’t always seek an attestation for a word in every script, but I say this as others do not realize this situation.)

But no less we want to know from Msasag how or from where he gets these spellings, to assess the situation. Fay Freak (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gemenebes Virginië

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Afrikaans. I didn't find anything on Google Books. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

eksponensiaal vergelyking

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Afrikaans. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

presumably one word. Sadly, Afrikaans is an HDL and this quote isn't sufficient for an entry. Also, doesn't really help this RFV... Thadh (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

طلين

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--50.60.5.189 03:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

pristino

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As opposed to prístino with an accent. The further reading template was a 404. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would say it's a very common misspelling based on a widespread mispronunciation. In fact, I didn't even know the correct form was prístino, as all my live I've pronounced it as paroxytone word (thus as "pristino"). See some examples on the news: 1, 2 3.- Sarilho1 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just updated the entry accordingly. Is it fine to close the discussion? - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fredbalum

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I doubt this is attested in Vandalic language, and instead it's a Latinisation of a Vandalic name found in Latin sources, with -um being the Latin accusative ending (Hydatius/Idatius: Chronicon). It's similar to how there are Vandalic *Gaisarīx (unattested/reconstructed), Latin Gaisericus/Geisericus (attested in Latin, and inflected in the Latin way), English Gaiseric (attested in English). --Myrelia (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fridus

Similar. Source is Latin, and has (for example?):

Epithalamium Fridi [title]
...: liceat Frido seruire marito, ...

--Myrelia (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Heldic

Similar. Source is Latin, and has (in: II, 15) Heldicae, Heldicam. --Myrelia (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

soillsean

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense: "plural of soillse"; Both Mark (2003) and LearnGaelic argue that soillse is invariable. Thadh (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

hregera

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can only find mentions of Old Saxon regera, which is an alt-form listed on this page, and none for the entry headform. Nearest I can find conclusively is OHG reigara. Leasnam (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

almatón

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English.

This word doesn’t exist beyond a vandalism on Spanish Wikipedia. The suffix -ón doesn’t form demonyms in Spanish. The only demonym that I could attest online is almatino, which makes much more sense. —Born2bgratis (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

What if the Almatian is a really big guy? --Java Beauty (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Delete or move to RFV (where it will likely fail). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

dex

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Norwegian interjection. Tagged, not listed? "An expression used by some locals in Bergen (Norway) to emphasize that something is good, nice." Equinox ◑ 18:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

December 2021

Statur

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rfv-sense "character; profile; good standing; integrity; stature" --Fytcha (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Uses of “ein Mann von solcher Statur” in a figurative sense: [205], [206], [207]. --Lambiam 13:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

طه

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rfv-sense "the prophet Muhammad". This is part of the exegetical interpretation, but does anyone actually refer to Muhammad by this name? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

For some background, see Ta-Ha. The name is not included in the many names of the prophet Muhammed. --Lambiam 18:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

pirsten

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it a Latgalian term or an Old Prussian one? It is the only entry in Category:Latgalian_neuter_nouns. --TongcyDai (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TongcyDai: Latgalian doesn't have a neuter gender, so that's definitely not the case. Whether it exists in Old Prussian is another question. Thadh (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh: Thank you for your reply! --TongcyDai (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nederduits

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Rfv-sense, removed in diff. (Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

[208], [209], [210], [211] all meaning Dutch. See also the name "Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk". Thadh (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Svartava, no idea. @Rua: any comment as you added it? [212] and [213]. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here's some more, including one in which it refers to Afrikaans: [214], [215], [216], [217]. This seems obvious enough. —Rua (mew) 19:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thadh, Alexis Jazz, Rua, can anyone add the citations in the entry under the sense "(obsolete) Any continental West Germanic language that is neither High German nor Frisian, thus including Dutch as well as Low German"? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 13:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

anh hai

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense "(slang) the police". Tagged by Special:Contributions/2405:4800:529f:7c5b:9d30:7682:67c5:4ba but not listed (diff). Compare also the ongoing RFD: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#anh_hai --Fytcha (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

sexagintanovemo

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection I think this can be moved to rfd. Akletos (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

-σσω

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is this really an Ancient Greek suffix? 1. re: The definition of the term "suffix": It's not attached to the stem (or another analysable morphological entity), but the outcome of regular sound change involving the closing consonant + a suffix -jō (or of a surface filter operating for a longer period of time; I don't know if this would make any difference). 2. re: Its productivity in Ancient Greek: Can it be shown that there are words formed with -σσω in Ancient Greek rather than in one of its pre-stages? There are candidates for this in the "Derived terms" section (e.g. φαρμάσσω, ἱμάσσω). --Akletos (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think this not a suffix, just like -ssus in Latin fissus is not a suffix but the result of a phonological process at play in fi(n)d- +‎ -tus. If this is deleted, the same fate should befall -ζω (-zō), -λλω (-llō), -πτω (-ptō) and -ττω (-ttō). --Lambiam 10:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam @Erutuon Perhaps the content of these entries can at least in part be transferred to Category:Ancient Greek verbs with a progressive iota or yod marker (and the cat. be renamed?). Akletos (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

bomba

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moved to RFV from an RFD: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#bomba --Fytcha (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also copying over the rationale of the original poster:

The word is almost never used in Indonesian. ind_mixed_2013 corpus from Leipzig did "attest" the word but keep in mind that the corpus is mixed with Malay, but if it's not a Malay word then the word is a proper noun or not widespread enough.

News corpora didn't show anything.

Mahali syarifuddin (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

قويعدة

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Basion --2A02:9B0:4058:6BC1:340C:D9E7:B447:F669 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

salumpuwit

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Discussion moved from WT:RFD.

Tagalog, IP suggests that this isn't a word but a common joke. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

If it is used as such, also as a joke, it is entryworthy – but we should then note it is meant to be humorous. Move to RfV? --Lambiam 10:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not a joke. I learned it in school over there. It's not commonly used ("upuan" is more common) but it is used as a real word. — This unsigned comment was added by 387mqr (talk • contribs) at 19:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC).Reply

Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVN or label it. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep, it is a recently coined word used mostly as a joke and a criticism to the excessive purism of the now-debunk Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. We can label it as such and inform readers about its past and its usage.Stricnina (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Remark. This is not a voting booth, but a request for attestations. Can you find examples in books or newspapers where the term is actually used in a sentence, like umupo siya sa salumpuwit? --Lambiam 16:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am also of the opinion of keeping this entry, being one of the current major editors of Tagalog now in Wiktionary. I'm offering these pieces of points to argue for keeping this. Before I do, just to explain the origin of this word, this was coined as a criticism of Lope K. Santos for his use and coinage of Tagalog words.

This word is found in 2 published dictionaries. The 1st dictionary is Vicassan's Pilipino-English dictionary, defined by anything to support the buttocks. The 2nd dictionary is the Diksyunaryong Tagalog by Angelita G. Gonzales, Maria Lourdes S. Lim, and Lolita P. Vargas, defined as "silya; upuan", with an example sentence.
A simple Google search for this word shows the huge number of websites of lists made by different people as a Tagalog/Filipino word that people should use or know. So this shows that this word is well-known, albeit informal.
All the usage of this word in publications is using it as an example for language policy.
I learned this word in our Filipino class, our Filipino teacher thought that this was a traditional Tagalog word, since she said that her grandmother used to say it.
I'm not sure of the use of this word outside Metro Manila (this word might have become popular in use in some Tagalog provinces), but in Metro Manila, it would either be used in discussions of language policy, a humorous way to refer to a chair, or someone deliberately wanting to sound formal (perceiving this word as a sophisticated word for "chair"). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

To add, I just found 2 attestations of this word, already put it in the entry. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aside from the 2 attestations I found, it turns out so many Wattpad stories in Tagalog use this word. Examples include this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, among so many examples. @Lambiam, given this, can we remove the RFV tag now? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see the tag has been removed already, and although Wattpad stories are hardly “permanently recorded media”, I won’t request its restoration. The only reason I suggested RfV in the first place was to offer an alternative to outright deletion when this was posted at RFD. --Lambiam 09:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Porthos

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.

(French) RFD sense of the fictional character: "One of the Three Musketeers." It already says this in the etymology, and IMO that's enough if it's a rare male given name derived from the book. This RFD goes along with the RFD on English Aramis. Note the inconsistency also; we have Aramis as English, Porthos as French, and no entry for Athos. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Send to WT:RFVN and check regarding WT:CFI#Fictional universes? --21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4037:3c6c:85b5:850a:bea0 (talk).

Needs figurative use. Ultimateria (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

andar a las chapas

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion moved from WT:RFD.

I think Wonderfool made a mistake when she misunderstood something while watching an Argentinian film. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

DELETE. "a las chapas" is not a verb, and does not contain a verb in the expression, so it does not belong on the Spanish Verbs list. There are expressions such as "jugar a las chapas" or "venir a las chapas" that could be included, where "jugar"/"venir" are the verbs in the expression. — This unsigned comment was added by CatFinanciere (talk • contribs) at 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

This was previously just "a las chapas". I don't see uses. Ultimateria (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

calientapiés

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense: cocktease DTLHS (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

pindoramygûara

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not sure if it is an Old Tupi term or a Nheengatu one. --TongcyDai (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Passive participles, nominal passive participles and adverbial passive participles of videbli

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If the verb is intransitive, these forms should not exist. --TongcyDai (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

dikuçar

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Tagged for speedy deletion as a phony purist invention, which it no doubt is. The question is whether it is in use enough to meet WT:ATTEST. There are citations on the citation page, but I have no way to assess their validity. If not deleted, it needs to be labeled appropriately so no one thinks this is the regular Turkish word for helicopter. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Turkey, there're some proposals for foreign origin words. This is one of them. Another proposals are sınalgı and bağdarlama. Some people who aspire to generalization of Turkish origin words in Turkish language, try to create articles like this. It's hard to find citations for those words because you cannot convince people for using dikuçar instead of helikopter. Helikopter is widely used for decades. Dikuçar has no meaning in the eye of people who speak Turkish. "Dik" means "vertical" and "uçar" means "fly". This word was fabricated approximately ten years ago. There're very few citations for it. Furthermore, verification of these citations are problematical, because in Turkey everyone can easily publish a book without seeking for any expertness. Hani Astolin who always write books which contain proposed Turkish origin words and no one can understand these words because they're extra-ordinary. It mentioned in just one postgraduate thesis and an unofficial report belongs to an initiative. Therefore, we can't talk about independent instances for this words. In Turkish Wikipedia some anonymous users have tried to create these type of articles for over a decade. They never give up.--Sabri76'^talk 10:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

If there are three cites, is it still a proposal? Every one can publish a book - huh? So why is there a three-cites criterion here? Then the criteria of wiktionary for attestation won't work! You think someone from Sakarya University wrote a project report and someone from Gazi University wrote a postgraduate thesis and Pamukkale University founded a dictionary for just adding this word into wiktionary. Wow! All of them united against your opinion! --159.146.10.166 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion self-published books should not count towards the three citation minimum. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The word is not included in the dictionary of the Turksih Language Association. The first two citations appear to be about quadcopters. I can’t make out the sense from the third one. --Lambiam 20:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, I think we've reached a consensus on this discussion.--Sabri76'^talk 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've added more cites.--159.146.10.115 21:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

tungol

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense: celestial. Def looks wrong, placed under Noun pos header. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 03:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

brinar

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

IP marked it for speedy (Br00pVain). —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lumbardhia, Bolt Escargot, Etimo any thoughts? Thadh (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

according to the online lexicons: http://m.fjalori.shkenca.org/, https://fjale.al/brinar, and https://fjalorthi.com/brinar, brinar is an accepted word for a cuckold in the albanian lexicography. seems to be derived from the word bri (brinë in Gheg), a euphemism for a woman donning "horns" for her husband. Lumbardhia (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

дзевяць тысяч

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does not meet criteria for inclusion: is a numeric consisting of two words more than 100. --Jarash (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jarash: Should be sent to WT:RFDN. Fytcha (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There're also six thousand, nine thousand, níu þúsund - they show the correct spelling (with space or not?) and the formation (9 * 1000, not 90 * 100). --05:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe the inclusion criteria for numbers are a bit too restrictive. I'm pretty sure we used to make exceptions for numbers above 100 that were sufficiently "interesting". Obviously that is in the eye of the beholder but 10,000 seems it should qualify. Cf. Russian де́сять ты́сяч (désjatʹ týsjač), which also exists (and given the complexity of Russian numbers, should arguably exist to help users correctly decline the number and its complement, if any). BTW English ten thousand qualifies regardless as it is a translation hub. Benwing2 (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

January 2022

diskordisch

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

diskordianisch

--Fytcha (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dafür, dass die Angelegenheit geradezu vorbildlich diskordianisch war,; That's the only one I could find. Thadh (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

rajah

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved from RFD. Reason for deletion: English term of the already existent Tagalog "ladya" and "raha". --Fytcha (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

uçurcu

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Following some mild edit warring in astronaut, I've went ahead and created this article so I can RFV it. Pinging @İtidal, MhmtÖ, 123snake45. --Fytcha (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I just realized this should probably have been uçurucu. So just a {{misspelling of}}? On the same note, what about fezagir? That one has also been the target of edit warring. --Fytcha (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Turkish has both a suffix -ci and a variant -ici. The latter is attached to the stem of causative verbs (anlatıcı, canlandırıcı, çökertici, parlatıcı, sağaltıcı, uyuşturucu), and tends to form words that are primarily adjectives, so the neologism uçurcu is IMO more plausible than uçurucu. The suffix -ci is usually attached to a noun, though, and although the participle uçur can grammatically be used as a noun, it is not in actual use as such. (Compare the words çıkarcı and dönerci, in which the first component is a participle that has an independent existence as a noun.) As to fezagir, one of the ambitions of President Erdoğan is to send a Turk into space to kick off the Turkish National Space Program, and wouldn’t it be nice if they then could refer to this space voyager with an ur-Turkic term, instead of one with (blech) Greek roots. At the end of a lengthy speech, in which he revealed that astronomy and trigonometry had been invented by Turks, Erdoğan said: “Since a compatriot of ours will enter space, it is now necessary to find a Turkish counterpart for the words ‘astronaut’ or ‘cosmonaut’. From here, I call on our linguists and say, come, let us find a Turkish name for Turkish space travelers. Let our 83 million citizens too participate with their original ideas in this quest.”^[218] This led to many suggestions, such as semanot, göknot, gökoğul, gökbey, evrenot, gökalp and cacabey.^[219] Serdar Hüseyin Yıldırım, the administrator of the Turkish Space Agency, proposed the term fezagir.^[220] That is, as far as I see, the status of fezagir on sources we accept for attestation: mentions as a proposal for a neologism. --Lambiam 17:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

when i saw the "uçurcu" i thought it was an ungrammatical form of uçurucu, neither of them used for astronaut nor meaningful so i undid the edit. Then i learned that the translation dictionary of Pamukkale University does have the words "uçur" and "uçurcu". I dont know how does "uçur" means "universe, space" (aorist of uçmak which is intransitive of "to fly" is uçar "he/she/it does fly, something that flies") or where did they found the word but both of the words doesnt exist in the offical dictionary.

As for fezagir, Lambiam wrote how it came up, they probably took the word from Uzbek and proposed but nobody uses it as much as i know. MhmtÖ (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

How do we label Turkish words proposed as replacements for foreign borrowings, used three times per CFI, but not in common use? I don't like nonstandard here because some of the words were proposed by a government committee to create and possibly enforce a language standard. I would not be surprised to find some newspapers did use the government's proposals; at least one newspaper published periodic lists of coinages saying they would henceforth use them to replace Ottoman words. Yet most of those words did not enter common use. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

bobotante

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Pare Mo Please check if this satisfies the attestation criteria of Wiktionary. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here's some of what I had found:

I have my doubts as to whether this meets the first criteria (clearly widespread use), though use has been noticeably persistent between 2012 and 2021 during which the comments were published. --Pare Mo (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Pare Mo: Which ones are not in the article itself and not in the comments section? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

All instances appear either in the comments section or in forum posts. --Pare Mo (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jungermanniae

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"subclass within class Jungermanniopsida" Seems like a nearly 15-year old mistake for Jungermanniidae, which has same definition. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

limosina

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Spanish word for "limousine" is limusina, not limosina. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

آپا

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tagged as speedy here by User:Optional. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

hund-

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old English (“prefix used at the beginning of numerals from 70 to 120 / hundseofonta ― decade seventh”); tagged by Glésan on 15 March, not listed: “Can the second sense be verified? What is the source of hundseofonta?”. J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Angelcynn

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old English (“(by extension) England”); tagged by 93.221.56.52 on 26 December, not listed: “not in Bosworth-Toller”. J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Cited. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Holokaustleugner

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

German; tagged by 93.221.56.52 on 28 December, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be only citeable in non-German texts, a hypercorrect rendering. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

[221] - besides this, there are several internet results. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rixe

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

German; tagged by LinguisticMystic today, not listed: “Are you sure that it is a legit German word? I couldn't find it in any reference books.” J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

rixig

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

German; tagged by LinguisticMystic today, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Hamaryns as the creator.

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): I'm not finding anything at all. Anyone want to have a go at it before I close it as failed? Pretty funny that they have both been FWotD; Category:Words of the day that were later deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a Österreichisches Wörterbuch, but it is behind a paywall. – Jberkel 10:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is a Duden-measure dictionary, apart from it not containing quotations, why would one expect anything interesting there? They are marketing scams from which there is nothing good to expect, all the regard they have they get for regulatory capture. Very naïve to expect that all words that exist one can also find at least mentioned somewhere. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd expect Austrian-specific terms to be in there, for a start. But maybe I'm hopelessly naïve. – Jberkel 11:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not everything labelled “Austria” is “General Austrian”. There is a lot that has only been fashionable for a certain time and only in the capital, Vienna being the capital of one of the greatest Empires, or even in territories lost to Austria. And of course they slight the recent monarchic past to focus on more progressive vocabulary. Fay Freak (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a Czech-Slovak corpus including Austro-Hungarian parliamentary debates, which is so deep in the deep web that search engines fail to show words from its texts, such as honigeln = Honig ums Maul schmieren 1902-07-21 also employed by Robert Musil, as a reader found. Search engines are fibbing, but I don’t know how. Do you find where the full text search for the database is, @Fytcha, finding results even for normal German words? Fay Freak (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: That page can potentially be crawled and then indexed offline, but I'm not finding anything online to search it. FYI the reason why you can't search it isn't because search engines are fibbing but rather because the site admin explicitly disallowed it: robots.txt (last line: Disallow: /eknih). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is the reason to do so not that they have an own full-text search which I just failed to fathom behind all the tools on the site? I mean why does one exclude if the purpose of the website is to make texts accessible? Too bad I am not a search engine spammer using “bad bots” infamous to ignore robots.txt (Majestic-12?) to best find language material. Fay Freak (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rixe and rixig each have one citation, but German is a WDL so they need 3. If they get deleted, don't forget to move the cites to Citation: namespace first, please! —Mahāgaja · talk 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Probably was not only used by Steiner though, but the internet is slanted, as in the example above, so it has the three uses in permanently recorded three independent instances, which we don’t find. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja: Perhaps it can be converted to Bavarian if we are reasonably sure that the German term is a borrowing from Bavarian. The quote is of course undoubtedly German but the term has to have come from somewhere; to give a comparable case, Bünzli is obviously borrowed from Alemannic for morphological reasons but even if the Alemannic one cannot be cited, it should be created and retained as long as we can cite it in German. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

عليه الصلوة والسلم

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--2001:16A2:EC5D:8800:E551:74C5:7C5F:2499 20:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

terewîl

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Northern Kurdish: bird - nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

senem

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Northern Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Try looking for inflected forms like senemî. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This appears, in Arabic script with French transliteration, on page 270 of the 1879 Dictionnaire kurde-français[222]: "صنم, sanám, idole". Per LDL rules the Northern Kurdish editing community should decide which sources are acceptable. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

çexdar

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Northern Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

xerûze

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Northern Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

ھەردەم

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Central Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Page 441 of the 1879 Dictionnaire kurde-français[223] has "هردایم her-dàim, toujors". This is likely a more northern dialect, the dictionary being prepared largely in eastern Anatolia. A modern Northern Kurdish dictionary has her dem. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Benzoid

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

کتب لغت

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Might be archaic but I would like to see evidence that it's not made up. --Optional (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

[224] [225] --Rishabhbhat (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

ꠢꠣꠉ

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed out of process (diff). @Msasag as the editor who added that (diff). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

proximus

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rfv-sense "neighbour". Is this restricted to the biblical sense of neighbour (“a fellow human being”), or is it also used for the literal sense of "person living on adjacent land/house/apartment"?__Gamren (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think this is specifically biblical. In the Vulgate this translates ὁ πλησίον (ho plēsíon) (“one’s neighbour”) in the Septuagint, a nominalized adverb derived from the adjective πλησίος (plēsíos) meaning near, neighbouring. Latin has the feature of zero-derivation nominalization of adjectives,^[226] so perhaps Jerome simply used the nearest Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective as a noun. (Jerome could instead have used vīcīnus (neighbour), also a nominalization of an adjective; we can only guess why he did not do so.) IMO there is hardly a reason to list this separately under the PoS “Noun”. When used as a noun, the term has a spectrum of meanings depending on the different senses of closeness, including “someone living nearby”, but is more likely to mean “next of kin”. --Lambiam 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

isang daang porsyento

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@TagaSanPedroAko The English entry of this exists because it has a figurative meaning, while I think in Tagalog it's just the literal meaning, which makes this entry SOP. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mar vin kaiser I can't answer this straightforward, but it's hard to tell if an loan translation of an English term is SOP. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TagaSanPedroAko: It's pretty simple. If the only definition of "isang daang porsyento" is "one hundred percent", then that's SOP. If you look at the entry one hundred percent, it's referring to the figurative meanings of the term. And also, it's not a loan translation. It's just Tagalog. We didn't need English to enter the Philippines for us to get "isang daang porsyento". We got "porsyento" or "porsiyento" from Spanish. And 100% or "cien porciento" is just "isang daang porsiyento" in Tagalog, similar to if we replace "isang daan" with any other number. If we need "isang daang porsyento" as an entry to know that that's 100% in Tagalog, then we also need "limampung porsiyento", "sampung porsiyento", and "limang porsiyento". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mar vin kaiser I'll be find with that, but have you found any attestation that follows the English's figurative sense? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TagaSanPedroAko: Technically, I see some, but all of them are translations of English books into Tagalog, where probably the translator just translated word-for-word, giving us this scenario of "isang daang porsiyento" being used with the same figurative meaning as the English phrase. But I can't find any independent usage from that. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

من من من من من من المنان

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--2001:16A2:ED8A:9A01:AC99:C4C1:C920:DF3A 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

şabiyetçilik

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

RFV. I don't see it outside of Wiktionary and a redirect on Turkish Wikipedia. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looks like there is no such word in Turkish. I couldn't find any dictionary that includes it. ToprakM (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a rare word şabiye which is explained with the words halkçı^[1] and demokratik^[2]. But it seems there is no word such as şabiyet.--159.146.45.126 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Demokratik Modernite, volume 10
^ Serxwebûn, May 2012

googol

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ݢوݢول

Malay. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

googolpleks

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ݢوݢولڤليکس

Malay. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

ab

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I couldn't find this word on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, or ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Added here by User:Drago. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

fflwyr

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved over from RFD (diff by User:Llusiduonbach): Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#fflwyr — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

iskul-bukol

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@TagaSanPedroAko Looking for attestation of this definition. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mar vin kaiser I'll be fine removing sense in question, but how would you translate this sentence: "Maputi ka pa di ka tulad ng mga kaklase mong iskul-bukol." Is iskul-bukol here slow learner, or a student who doesn't place importance on academic performance (I don't know what term can express that)? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TagaSanPedroAko: Maybe the general definition of the term "iskul-bukol" is someone who doesn't care about academic performance and generally a slow learner? Because the term alludes to the TV show, so it must be characteristics of what the show is about. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mar vin kaiser I can agree to that, but I'm not a batang 90s nor one who watched it. Again, any idea about translating the sentence I provided? I can say iskul-bukol often connotes having more time hanging out with friends, focusing on sports, playing games, engaging in romantic relationships, getting involved in vice, etc.. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

ĉipo

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I only know the word ĉipa, which means "cheap". I have never seen this word. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

basado

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Rfv-sense "(Internet slang) based (not caring what others think about oneself)": Found in durably archived sources? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here's a ref[227] — This unsigned comment was added by 186.158.132.93 (talk) at 05:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

(Mistranslation) agreed (showing the speaker agrees with what was said) KothMoreno (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kartoffeldeutsch

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Tagged by Special:Diff/93.234.196.139 but not listed. @Fay Freak as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: IP is a notorious barrator, normal readers do not request verification of terms included with quote. I could not see other occurrences in the beginning, which only made it more believable that this term was used in German New Guinea, in addition to being added in contrast to the usual meaning of the slur kartoffeldeutsch and the Danish Kartoffeldeutscher. Potato German is not found anywhere either for Unserdeutsch, but note the obsolete spelling of the nightshade “potatoe–german” in the article, evidently copied from some archival record.

Wiktionary’s “look into Google Books” method to decide about ATTESTEDness is already demonstrated squarely fictitious, you can’t even find the official name of North Macedonia or corresponding demonym in Macedonian there, so it did not ring any alarm, rather this was my reasoning. Fay Freak (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Solved, moved it to Unserdeutsch, so LDL criteria apply. See, now we can have it anyway. It’s an interesting entry for our readers even without one being decided about a particular language it would be. Fay Freak (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the interview [228] the term Kartoffeldeutsch is used only as literal translation of potatoe German for the German speaking recipients of the broadcast, comparable to our |lit= parameter in certain templates. That shouldn't even count as a mention. As long as there aren't other citations this should be deleted. Akletos (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so you think the actual term is Potato German (normalized) and it should be deleted as German but moved to English? But how come it is in English if it is in research about Unserdeutsch? Seemingly because Kartoffeldeutsch is used only as a literal translation of potatoe-German but that itself is already a translation of Unserdeutsch Kartoffeldeutsch (owing to speakers having moved to Australia). So even though you be right about it being used only as a literal translation comparable to our {{lit}} this is twice-translated and the mention of an Unserdeutsch word (as it is all part of that research grant about Unserdeutsch, a language but discovered in the 1970s). So it should be converted to Unserdeutsch. Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The chain of transmission of this term and the temporal distance is very long: (A broadcaster reports that) a researcher says that in an interview an Unserdeutsch speaker told them that decades ago a nun had said... Nobody should base any assumptions on such shaky evidence without further corroborating data. Akletos (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

ratio

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rfv-sense "(Internet) ratio (the amount of comments relative to the number of likes)". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

uchito

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. This word is not listed on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, ROMLEX, or Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade. --YukaSylvie (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

didandel

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. I can only find the form dindalel on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla (page 65a) and the Gurbet and Kalderaš dictionaries on ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

💜

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Translingual. Rfv-sense: (Internet) feminism. Not found on Emojipedia nor dictionary.com. They seem to agree on a K-Pop sense though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is real. Started around 2018 when purple was declared the official colour of International Women's Day. It's used by feminists of all stripes. Not to be confused with "💜🤍💚", which has emerged in the last year among gender-critical feminists, based on the colours used by the Women's Social and Political Union (a historical UK suffrage group). Anyway, this can be cited off Twitter, if that counts. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

抗原

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Zhuang. This seems to be relatively new borrowing. Is it ever written in Chinese characters like this? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

抗體

Also this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

共和國

Also this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Barbie

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Mayon V Hey I'm tagging you as you were the one who added this entry into Wiktionary. This is a request for verification according to Wiktionary's entry inclusion criteria. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

anglo

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Romani. Rfv-sense: "Englishman". Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla (page 8a), Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade (page 63ab), and the Gurbet and Macedonian Džambazi dictionaries on ROMLEX only list the meaning "handle". --YukaSylvie (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found the sense "Englishman" on Romano-ungriko vasteski alava by Ilona Sztojkó (2002, page 19). YukaSylvie (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2022

craven

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Middle English craven appears to only mean "to ask, demand, crave"; the ME form for "defeated" is apparently cravant. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proteacea

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Translingual. Most of the entry could be taken are referring to Proteaceae a long-established plant family. Almost all Google Books hits are for Protoeaceæ (ie, ae ligature). If we are to have an entry we need citations. I've spent time looking, but haven't exhausted BHL or similar sources. So far each alleged hit for Protoacea turns out to have the ligature on close inspection. DCDuring (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have removed a specious reference to the 1911 Century Dictionary (“Proteacea”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC.). The entry there is for Proteaceæ, analyzed as Protea + -aceæ. --Lambiam 11:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

gemula

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Romani. I have only found this term on the Matthew and Mark chapters of E Lashi Viasta. The ROMLEX only lists the words deva (Lovara); gamila (Sepečides); gêmila, gomuna/gumuna (Kalderaš); kamela (Prekmurski); kamieľa/kamielis (Latvian); kamila (Banatiski Gurbet, Crimean, Kalderaš, Sofia Erli, and Sremski Gurbet); kamel (Burgenland); and verbľudo (North Russian) for "camel". --YukaSylvie (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Romani is a LDL, so isn't the one citation enough? Or is there something dubious about this source? (Of course, further research and quotations would be a plus.) 70.172.194.25 09:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have added a quotation and {{LDL}} to the word. YukaSylvie (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

anglicko and anglojka

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. I can only find the words on Romano-ungriko vasteski alava by Ilona Sztojkó (2002, page 19). --YukaSylvie (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

maski

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, and ROMLEX only list variants of morthǐ as the Armenian loanword for "skin". --YukaSylvie (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

vesperasco

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. This is an impersonal verb; all finite forms except 3s should be deleted. vesperāscō and vesperāscis (once) are attested as mentions in grammar books, but there are no uses of personal forms in the Brepols Library of Latin Texts. This, that and the other (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dimenche, vendredy

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are days of the week capitalized in Middle French? --TongcyDai (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

korca

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. I can only find the form skorca for "bark (of a tree)" on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla and the Kalderaš dictionary on ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

框球

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Zuojiang Zhuang. No source given. --沈澄心 ✉ 03:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

walkien

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This particular form doesn't actually appear to have existed in Middle English, as Old English wealcian was conflated with wealcan from very early in the Middle English period. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

vrót, a listed alternative form of Old Norse rót

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we get a reference for this? I was unable to find it listed in any Old Norse dictionary.RubixLang (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

noro

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. I can only find the form noros on the Ursari dictionary of ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

аддзыны

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Komi-Permyak. Lytkin and Kuznecov give адззыны instead. Pinging @Rajkiandris. Thadh (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

My knowledge of Komi-Permyak is zero, but I note that "аддзыны" gets five times as many Google hits as "адззыны". --Hekaheka (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and that is not very surprising considering Komi-Zyrian has about three times as many speakers (writers?) as Komi-Permyak. I have looked through quite a few results, and concluded that those are indeed Komi-Zyrian, not Komi-Permyak. Thadh (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

shanshel

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. I can't find some form of this word on https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ by Ralph Turner, Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, or on ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

abluir, Spanish

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It's not in DRAE or Collins and Google books looks like it's finding Portuguese results. It was added long ago by an IP likely borrowing from the existing Portuguese entry. JeffDoozan (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are these valid and Castillian? [229] [230] [231] (do the semantics here fit?) 70.172.194.25 18:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nice. Well, the second result you provided is now gone, and I couldn't tell you what the first poetic example is saying (beyond a literal translation), but the third is definitely semantically relevant, and Castilian. I'll these last two as quotations. It's surprising even the RAE's historical/diachronic corpus (CORDE) doesn't seem to contain a single example though!--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 02:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:Ser be etre shi: it's still available here: [232]. It seems to fit semantically. 70.172.194.25 03:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

sura

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romani. I can't find this word on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, ROMLEX, or a Google Books search. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bishnupriya Manipuri

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

German. I don't find much and nothing that's not a mention. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don’t forgot to delete about everything from the translation tables. Not even the theoretical Russian has seems to have been used. One may wonder if one should not allow reconstructed forms in translation tables of exotic languages and countries as such things continue to be added so we could at least let those people make it transparent. Fay Freak (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, will do; I always check "What links here" upon deleting an entry. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

jambangan

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cebuano.

jambangan

Tausug.

Both marked as speedy here by User:Obsidian Soul with the rationale: "See Wikipedia entry on Zamboanga. jambangan is folk etymology." @Carl_Francis, DCDuring, Apisite as the editors of that page. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

All I know is that the spelling is used as specific epithet for a single species of gecko found in the area of Zamboanga. DCDuring (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tachometer

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

German. Rfv-sense: odometer — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

checklaton

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Middle English. Fay Freak (who should have RFVed it if he thought it was not attested in Modern English) changed the Modern English entry (which I have recreated with quotations) to Middle English on 22 May 2021. J3133 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

But I did not think it was not attested in Modern English. Checkmate. If you want to make out which spellings are Middle and Modern English you may do so, note however that the Modern English occurrences, if they aren’t macaronic switching between Middle and Modern English, are borrowed from Middle English literature—or from dictionaries: Spenser borrowed it from Middle English, normalized or mistranscribed it perhaps, and this ghost word was borrowed by the help of reference works. Here in the the Spenser Encyclopedia. “Gathered directly from a reading of Chaucer”—in his manuscript of Chaucer so spelt? There is a whole article about the word “checklaton” in a volume of the Spenser studies not put online yet. In any case I was very right about when the word was living in English, it was extinct by 1500. Fay Freak (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: By “attested” I mean “meets our attestation criteria”, i.e., three quotations. If this spelling does not have (at least one) quotation in Middle English then it should be removed. J3133 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean, but you are still misrepresenting the term’s having been used; I was making a subtle point about having only a Middle English header and including the Spenser quote thereunder; if so combined it was of course “Spenser’s spelling of a Middle English word”. The question is left how Spenser got this spelling if the word was extinct. It might have been correcter to write Spenser’s spelling of ciclatoun, followed by something about how this word has been obtained in New English works. Fay Freak (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

مهتر

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:242C:2020:97A9:DCCE 13:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

One will find quotes relating to occupations in Persia and farther east; noting the references I added. This will be about the same level as “Arabic” سِپَاه سَالَار (sipāh sālār). وَٱلكَرَّانِيَّ، وَهُوَ الْكَاتِبُ / وَٱلتُجَّارَ وَٱلرُؤَسَاءَ / وَٱلتِنْدِيلَ وَهُوَ مُقَدَّمُ ٱلْرُجَّالِ / وَسِپَاه سَالَارَ (wal-karrāniyya, wahuwa l-kātibu / wat-tujjāra war-ruʔasāʔa / wat-tindīla wahuwa muqaddamu l-rujjāli / wasipāh sālāra) in the quote at كَرَّانِيّ (karrāniyy). Fay Freak (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

karminativsten

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

karminativer

German. RFV the comparative and superlative forms. @SemperBlotto as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

ba's

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Turkish. Tagged by User:İtidal. The modern Turkish uses I found look like code-switching. Marked lrnd. in {{R:tr:NewRedhouse}} meaning it was judged to have disappeared from the spoken language, but not marked obsolete on Turkish Wiktionary. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is no Turkish word which contains an apostrophe. You may find the word ba's on some dictionaries which represent the words from both Ottoman era and Turkey era (e.g. Kubbealtı Lügati). Today, you may not find this word alone in Turkish Language Association's Güncel Türkçe Sözlük but there may be some words which contain the word bas (e.g. basübadelmevt resurrection after the death).--159.146.45.126 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

^t

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Translingual. Rfv-sense:

a superscript t

This is a phonetic symbol for a pre-stopped consonant, not a superscript- different Unicode block. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Unicode block does not determine intended use. Unicode's data file does. Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

So, what are we looking for here? It would be easy to find Tweets or other Web resources using this character as a superscript t, but our policy toward online sources is that a discussion is required to admit them. If I find a digitized copy of an offline document (e.g., book or journal article) with a superscript t in it, that only shows that superscript t exists, not that this particular Unicode character is used to represent it. Usenet has some: example (if I find two more like that, is that sufficient?). 70.172.194.25 06:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

^d

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Translingual. Rfv-sense:

a superscript d (Can we verify⁽⁺⁾ this sense?)

Another pre-stopped consonant. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unicode note that U+1D48 is intended for use as superscript here. Theknightwho (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

All I see is <super> followed by the code for another character. What data in a data file means is dependent on the file structure. What does being in that field mean? Show me the file structure. Saying that this is a superscript form of "d" is not the same as saying that it's intended for use as a superscript. As for what letters in that block are, see page 296 of this pdf, where it says:

Most of the characters in the first of the two adjacent blocks comprising the phonetic extensions are used in the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet (UPA; also called Finno-Ugric Transcription, FUT), a highly specialized system that has been used by Uralicists globally for more than 100 years.

Or better yet: w:Modifier letter. The purpose of these characters is to modify the phonetic value of a neighboring phonetic symbol/letter in a phonetic transcription. They coincidentally have the form of superscripts, but they aren't intended to be used as superscripts except in an extremely specific context.

I'm not saying they can't be used to represent superscripts in documents where you're only interested in the appearance, but they aren't the same thing. An entry with a Roman C in a Russian word instead of Cyrillic С may be visually identical to the all-Cyrillic spelling, but it's completely wrong for an online dictionary. Whenever we find something like that, we either move it to the correct spelling or delete it on the spot- no RFD necessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note Table 14 in section 5.7.3 of Unicode's Character Database here:

<super> Superscript form

This refers to decomposition mapping, which (in simple terms) is referring to where one or more characters are equivalent to another one, perhaps with some kind of modification.

Where you say "All I see is <super> followed by the code for another character", you can quite easily check that that other character is, in each case, the ordinary Latin character in question that it is a superscript version of:1D48 ( ᵈ ) is the equivalent to <super> 0064, and U+0064 is d. 1D57 ( ᵗ ) is the equivalent to <super> 0074, and U+0074 is t. Compare this to, say, 00C2 Â, which has 0041 0302(A + ◌̂) in the same field. The fact that these were added due to their use in IPA does not change the fact that they are recognised as being superscript forms. It's even repeated on the character chart for this Unicode block here. The reason that equivalents haven't been added to the superscript block is because letters were only added to that block in order to fill the gaps: it only contains ⁱ and ⁿ. There is no alternative option, here.

Even aside from that, trying to draw a semantic difference is as unhelpful as saying that we can't recognise different uses of characters like # or / because they're intended for some other use. Fundamentally, it's prescriptivist, but even on your own terms the evidence is right there.

Theknightwho (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

After reading up on this, I see you have a point. Both rfvs- withdrawn. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. For what it's worth, these characters are picked up correctly by text search - this equivalence issue is something that has also come up on Wikisource, where certain equivalences get implemented (e.g. s and ſ) and others do not (e.g. ligatures like ﬃ or ﬆ), which creates usability issues. Theknightwho (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

These dedicated-codepoint superscript characters do not appear to be functionally equivalent to the ASCII equivalents when searching within a page.

Over at 2ⁿᵈ, for instance, if I press CTRL+F in my browser and search for n (lower-case ASCII "N"), I see no hits upon the "n" in the headword. Likewise if I try searching for "d" (lower-case ASCII "D").

If I try searching this page for "t" (lower-case ASCII "T"), I cannot find any hits for the superscript-"t" in the heading of the preceding thread at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#_t. If I try searching this page for "d" (lower-case ASCII "D"), I do find the "d" in the heading for this thread. Although this appears in the wikitext as dedicated-codepoint superscript character ᵈ, an inspection of the rendered source in the browser shows that this is replaced somewhere (by the MediaWiki server? by the browser?) with <sup> d </sup> (lower-case ASCII "D" with superscript tags).

I also see that font support for the dedicated-codepoint superscript characters is inconsistent: the "n" and "d" at 2ⁿᵈ appear in markedly different sizes, and the "i" in maᵗⁱᵉ has a thinner line weight and a higher baseline than either the "t" or "e".

These dedicated-codepoint superscript characters entail various usability problems. I do not think we should use them widely without further examination of the issues and, ideally, better browser and font support. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That appears to be an issue with your browser with most of those, as I'm unable to replicate these issues in Chrome, and unless you want to start removing all entries for which you don't have proper font support, I don't think that there is likely to be a consistent solution here. Fundamentally, we should go by what the Unicode standard says, and not the idiosyncrasies of outdated browsers.

The only one that isn't is the issue of the glyphs being different sizes due to MediaWiki not handling certain codepoints properly, and it is something that should be relatively straightforward to solve. In the meantime, it is not a huge issue, and is ultimately because of the underlying font having a problem. By rights, it shouldn't really matter whether the HTML is one or the other, as the font should be handling both the same. Theknightwho (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't be privileging a single browser. If something isn't reasonably well supported by the top three or six browsers on desktop OSes (Win, Mac, Linux) and on smartphone OSes, we should not be depending on it for core functions or principal-namespace display. DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's complying with the Unicode standard, not privileging a single browser. There are quite a few scripts that have considerably worse support, and we aren't talking about moving pages using those to nonstandard page names either.

It's a bit frustrating that the argument has now been entirely flipped from saying that these weren't compatible with the Unicode standard, to now saying that the Unicode standard isn't important when deciding on the page name. There's a serious inconsistency in approaches there, and even though the arguments have been put forward by different people, it suggests a lack of consensus as to what the policy should be.

This is made worse by the fact that the logical conclusion of this argument is that we would also need to move the IPA definition for ᵈ to d as well, which is completely absurd. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

صية

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:3107:D5CB:1C9:14FD 09:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good find. I have found no mention of it. Created by @Hakeem.gadi who is Libyan, so at best it is a regional term there. Fay Freak (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

راطب

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:3107:D5CB:1C9:14FD 11:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have not found use, though it is included in some dictionaries, and it is an Ottoman variant spelling, and I think رَطِب (raṭib) serves as the irregular active participle of the mentioned verbs. Fay Freak (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

дзодзӧг

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Komi-Permyak. Same as аддзыны above. Thadh (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

כוץ

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hebrew.

The headword כוץ is different from the word used in the example, קוץ. Which is which? Sartma (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hebrew קוץ means "thorn or thistle", which is makes it semantically more plausible. From the discussion of the word on their talk page, it's apparently slang- so they might not have known its proper written form. That said, if everyone spells it כוץ, that's how we should spell it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

إمار

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. --2A02:9B0:4055:9F61:B86E:7960:F66A:E189 09:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

حماء

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. --2001:16A2:EAC3:9000:202F:F341:71CA:471B 09:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

German Kramm "junk"

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak, Fytcha): Having a hard time verifying; lots of Google hits but they all appear to refer to the surname "Kramm". Benwing2 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Probably a mistake for Kram (which always had a long vowel). Fay Freak (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2, Fay Freak: Rare misspelling of Kram? Can attest it in the compound Krammmarkt at least: [233], [234], [235] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

ظه

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Egyptian Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:BCCB:401E:A322:AB3D 09:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

به

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Egyptian Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:BCCB:401E:A322:AB3D 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

melón de agua

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Spanish. Tagged but not listed. (Notifying Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Metaknowledge, Ultimateria, Koavf, Notusbutthem, VealSociedad): —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can confirm from an online database. I don't have print sources at the moment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cited, I think, unless some of them seem too mention-y to you. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2022

ضياق

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Arabic. --2001:16A2:EAC3:9002:1D76:CAD4:B38D:FD48 04:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 do you remember what you were doing on June 21-22, 2015 when you created this verbal noun and the underlying verb? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vox Sciurorum: Creating all مَفَاعَلَة (mafāʕala) and فِعال (fiʕāl) forms of form III verb. But sometimes the latter are too strange, especially if conflicting with other formations within the root, to exist. Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2, Vox Sciurorum, Fay Freak: It was really a mistake to create all those verbal nouns without checking beforehand if they really exist. Not every فَاعَلَ (fāʕala) verb has both مُفَاعَلَة (mufāʕala) and فِعَال (fiʕāl) forms. --37.165.18.55 13:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think so. I think it is worth to take off the work of creating them by bot and in the uncommon occasion of one being weird tagging it manually for speedy deletion, as they are only bot-created and one has to manually fix the verbal noun in the conjugation tables anyway in those cases. Fay Freak (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: The conjugation template should have had the same behaviour as Form I, to force the user to manually input the correct forms (with the help of a shorthand; like “both” if it accepts both.). Creating entries from a template using a bot is never a good idea in my opinion. --37.165.19.247 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, Vox Sciurorum @anon IP (please create an account) I agree it was probably a mistake to create the فِعَال forms automatically; I didn't realize at the time that not all form-III verbs have verbal nouns like this. I also agree with the IP that the conjugation template should probably not include the فِعَال form unless you specifically request it. I see for example that كاتب "to keep up a correspondence with" lists كِتَاب as a verbal noun, which somehow I doubt it really has. Benwing2 (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, I take that back; someone actually gave an example of that verbal noun, although I imagine it's not used in MSA. Benwing2 (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

хуйло

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rusyn. It probably exists, but I doubt it's verifiable. Thadh (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

paixa

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portuguese.

As it's slang, it's more difficult to attest it in writing. --2804:1690:806:2D50:63D2:7057:A6A8:E9D6 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

ahora que hay modo

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved to RFV. Thadh (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

kirlikartopu

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Turkish. The spaced spelling kirli kartopu exists. That is a translation of dirty snowball, which I do not consider a word meaning comet but an adjective and a noun describing a comet. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The term was used in that spelling in a question on the Turkish version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. The question was, “Of which of the following is this a synonym?”, with a choice between A: the Moon, B: Venus, C: a comet, D: the Pole star.^[236] Many uses found online are quoting this quiz question, as seen here or here, in articles that otherwise use the spelling kirli kartopu. This calque of dirty snowball does (in some contexts) mean “comet”, just like the English original.^{[237][238][239]} The Turkish Language Association considers the spelling kirlikartopu the correct spelling^[240] and lists it like that in its authoritative dictionary, but the spelling kirli kartopu is quite common. --Lambiam 22:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems it is a typo.--159.146.45.126 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Verengiteni

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Karaitiano

Rarotongan. @MinecraftGod12345 as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha It is article-worthy. I am making heaps of new entries about geography in Cook Islands Māori by finding them in an online dictionary. MinecraftGod12345 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

An interesting case. First, the language: We call the language "Rarotongan", while Wikipedia calls it Cook Islands Māori and says calling the language "Rarotongan" is controversial, as Rarotongan is supposed to be one of three dialects of the Cook Islands Māori language. WT:LT doesn't mention these languages, so it may have never been discussed by Wiktionarians.

This dictionary labels Verengiteni as "Mangaia(n)", which is apparently a sub-dialect of Rarotongan. Another site gives "Poneke" as the name for Wellington, which would be from Maori Pōneke.

To verify these names, we just need to find a single use or mention in a durably archived text. The name of Wellington (at least) should be easily cited from any Cook Islands Māori news source, but I can't find any written news in this language. RNZ produces Cook Islands Māori radio news programs, and SBS previously did, but these would not be durably archived. This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

madegassischer

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

madegassischsten

German, the comparative/superlative degrees. @SemperBlotto as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Feel free to delete them. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

suglamuman

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We discussed this before, the word "suglamuman" itself is not used anywhere, not found in publications, misspelling of "suglaguman" only online, the wrong spelling only found in online wordlists. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

basipila

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New Latin, per WT:RFVN#harpastum Americanum above. Thadh (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

capitilavium

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New Latin, per WT:RFVN#harpastum Americanum above. Thadh (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

кодзув

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Komi-Permyak. Couldn't find anything. Thadh (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've no modern written sources at hand, but found rather with ӧ: кӧдзув (ködźuv) (ködźuv, ke̮ďźi̮v etc.) in most major Komi dialect sources. In case that was not simply your point? --Tropylium (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it wasn't, because my dictionary gave only the Russian loanword звезда. Actually, is кӧдзув verifiable? It returns only seven results on google, two of which are Wikipedia, one Russian text mentioning it as a type of embroidment (?), two being a Bible translation, but I'm not sure if it's published, this discussion, and some restaurant menu that I cannot open because my antivirus doesn't let me. Thadh (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

häsch du morn scho öppis vor

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Alemannic German. No results at Google and Google Books and not in Google Groups / Usenet.
Possibly too add: hän Sii morn scho öppis vor, goots dr besser, goots Ine besser, sind Sii ghüroote ([241]/[242] gives: sind Sii ghüratä). --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sasha Gray Wolf: That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think? It is obviously correct and the parts are easily attested: häsch du morn scho öppis vor. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not a verification request for the parts but for the phrase as a whole (I'm not a fan of protologisms if they aren't marked as such). One could also translate may the Force be with you, hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette or other phrases but that doesn't mean the translation is used/attested. --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

lol @ protologism. The last link in my previous reply proves that "scho öppis vorha" is used in this way and all other words are separately attested; slight variations of the complete phrase are also found on the internet. Exactly the same argument is true for sind Sii ghüroote, see e.g. isch ghüroote. RFVing a phrase that is obviously and patently correct, that is found (with slight variations) on the internet, and whose constituents are attested is just a complete barrator move. @Widsith, Chuck Entz — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

IMO this is simply a SOP. The response could be, jo, ich hä scho öppis vor morn. One could then equally ask un häsch du ibermorn scho öppis vor?. We also do not have entries for as-tu quelque chose à faire demain or yarın yapacak bir şeyin var mı. So send to rfd. --Lambiam 11:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam:

Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, what is your name is clearly a summation of its parts.
—WT:SOP

Phrasebook entries are supported in the criteria of inclusion by a passage dedicated to them in the section "Idiomaticity"; they may not meet the requirement of idiomacity other than for the dedicated passage.
—WT:PB

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The {{rfv}} tag was placed below the {{phrasebook}} label, which is why I did not spot that label when I clicked the section title. --Lambiam 07:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If this is "very common" it should be findable in exactly the form presented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not if the language is generally unwritten. Thadh (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And also has an unsettled orthography, varying by region, when written (e.g. moorn next to morn). --Lambiam 07:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't really have a great interest in Phrasebook entries. Since I was tagged I can only comment that I have certainly heard the phrase used and it's clearly correct and useful for learners, but I am neutral on its inclusion as I have never quite understood what the attestation/SOP requirements are for phrases of this kind. Ƿidsiþ 08:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, logically at the very least WT:CFI (one use or mention for a LDL) must be fulfilled. Otherwise people could translate phrases into any other language. Then we could get (my English isn't) the yellow from the egg (“(my English isn't) the best”) (cp. [243], [244]). Or may the Force be with you translated into all kinds of other languages (extinct languages like Gothic, conlangs like Esperanto, living LDLs). And then the situation with phrases would be like with Navajo animal terms (cp. A, B, C, D) or Scots (E, F).

What can be found: "hesch öppis bsungers vor für morn" ([245]), "hesch du no öppis fertig z'mache" ([246]). --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's a difference between adhering to the letter and the spirit of the law. Of course we should be wary of nonsensical literal translations such as the ones you've mentioned, but this isn't a concern here as this phrase is clearly idiomatic and in widespread use (not only confirmed by two speakers but also by analogy as "Ich ha dänn scho öppis vor." is attested). The fact that you've moved another patently correct article bisch du ghüroote to a slightly different spelling bisch du ghüüroote (diff) while ignoring the fact that the variant in question (ghüroote) is also widely attested, is pretty strong evidence that idiomaticity and barring protologisms isn't your concern with this ordeal at all. Anyway, I have more productive things to do than squabbling over my native language and wading through the combinatorial jungle just to find that one attested altform among the thousands of correct possibilities. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Multiple Basque given names

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This RFV affects Xoangotei, Xoantako, Xopeiza, Xorut, Xoro, Xoroko and Xuntako. All of them have a source (which I don't have access to), but they don't seem to be in use (not even mentioned) anywhere. The closest thing to an attestation I've found is this use of "Xoroko" as a nickname (an affectionate form of zoroko (“fool”)). The author of the book given as a source is a serious scholar so I suspect most of these supposed given names might actually be nicknames.--Santi2222 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

laþu

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old English. Can't find any evidence that this word is attested outside of derived compounds. Hundwine (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

inscne

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Irish. Rfv-sense: "gender (identification as a man, a woman, etc.)" Removed out of process here by AidanLeeMartin. Pinging @Mahagaja as the person who added this sense (diff). Should also be removed from the translation box gender if this fails. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/124/eng/initiated/b12421d.pdf

An Bille um Rialachas Corparáideach Éireannach (Cothromaíocht Inscne), 2021

Irish Corporate Governance (Gender Balance) Bill 2021

If the Government of Ireland thinks it means "gender as in identification as man or woman", then that should settle it. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Three quotes added. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

طو

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Mozarabic. Tagged by User:Nicodene. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there we have another entry by Romandalusi, a user who added hundreds, perhaps thousands of fake Mozarabic words to Wiktionary (based purely on his idea of what they should sound like), when the genuinely-attested ones number in the dozens, of which not all are even securely attested, due to the extraordinarily poor state of most of the texts.

Words cannot describe how wearisome it has been to deal with the mess Romandalusi created. Any entry added by him without a citation or quote is automatically suspect, especially ones which offer a complete spectrum of inflexions. Nicodene (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. It seems that the only attestation of this pronoun uses the spelling ت (there might another attestation as تو, but certainly not as طو).Santi2222 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

jüdisch diutsch

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Middle High German jüdisch diutsch mentioned in some entries (see Special:WhatLinksHere/jüdisch diutsch).

The MHG term is mentioned in a few English books (e.g. Merriam-Webster's dictionary). But I can't see any MHG usage. It seems more likely that English Yiddish or Yiddish ייִדיש (yidish) is from something like ^?Yiddish ייִדיש-דײַטש (yidish-daytsh), maybe influenced by German Jüdischdeutsch, and the two parts of those terms are from Middle High German jüdisch (judisch, judesch) and Middle High German diutsch (diutisch, tiutsch, tiusch; dūtisch, tūtisch). --學者三 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

OCS дѧти

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Identical to the verb дѣти (děti) except with a nasal vowel. A rare variant or just a mistake? — 69.120.66.131 00:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looking into it, I'm not even sure дѣти (děti) is attested with all of the meanings listed there. дѣꙗти (dějati) appears to be the more common form, and дѣти (děti) is mostly just attested in the reflexive phrase дѣти сѧ (děti sę). — 69.120.66.131 00:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

avel

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ladino. I could find sources describing a Ladino word "aver" meaning "air", which I added as references to the page. There is also "avel" meaning mourning ([247], [248], [249]). I could not find any sources describing a word "avel" meaning "air".

If deleted, should be moved to aver as the content is good other than the title. If kept, it must be a secondary form and the main entry should be at aver; unless, of course, it is actually a separate word and not just a variant. 70.172.194.25 02:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

keruvim

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ladino. karuvim is in the source I added. keruvim (in the form keruƀim) is in DHJE, but only with the meaning "cherubs", and I did not find any other spelling variant that could be this word. (Note that in Hebrew כְּרוּב and קָרוֹב have different initial consonants, in addition to the subtle niqqud change.) If deleted, should just be moved to karuvim. 70.172.194.25 01:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

maabe

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ladino. Same story as the previous two; a word like it definitely exists, but I can't find this particular form. In this case, mabul is the seemingly right form. 70.172.194.25 02:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not exactly an expert on Hebrew, but when I seen a double vowel in a language that has glottal stops, it makes me think one might be present, as in "ma'abe". Another consideration is that מ־ is a very common prefix with a number of functions, so you would want to check words starting with aleph or ayin as well. That said, I didn't see anything obvious along those lines, so you might already tried that and not bothered to mention it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree. It feels like it would be from the root ע־ב־ה or something. Well, the ending is unclear because it could be clipped. Anyway, here's a neat site that lets you search for words belonging to roots with multiple possible characters in each slot, allowing for some guesswork: [250]. I'm not seeing anything, but I might not be looking in the right places (well, if I include yodh, I can find the mabul one, but I assume we're looking for other possible etymons). Special:PrefixIndex/Mem-Ayin-Beth and Special:PrefixIndex/Mem-Aleph-Beth don't show anything promising either. 70.172.194.25 05:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

αρbε̰ρ

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved from RFD. Earlier discussion: WT:RFDN#αρbε̰ρ. Thadh (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

tumata

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ligurian. Moved from RFD. Previous discussion: WT:RFDN#tumata Thadh (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

luneddì

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sicilian. Moved from RFD. Previous discussion: WT:RFDN#luneddì. As I see it, if the term is widely attested it's either a significant misspelling or not a misspelling at all. If it just appears once, that's a separate discussion to be held. Thadh (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

kyembiyan

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mandobo Atas. Moved from RFD. Previous discussion: WT:RFDN#kyembiyan. Note that the reference ([251]) only provides the IPA transcription. Thadh (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

гэноцид

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mongolian. Not in any Mongolian dictionary I can access. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

[252]. Mongolian is an LDL, so I guess this is satisfactory. Thadh (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

zahut

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ladino. Rfv-sense: "blessing". 70.172.194.25 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

ceorfdeor

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Old English. Not present in Bosworth-Toller. Hythonia (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Realized I should probably ping @Hippietrail as the creator, albeit it was a pretty long time ago. Still, maybe you've got something... Google only shows Wiktionary and all the websites that stole from it. Hythonia (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wow nine years ago. I did used to have one little book on Old English. I can't think where else I might have found it, if not online. Maybe the other edits I did around the same time might provide a clue. I'll look into that... — hippietrail (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The actual main source of my stub entries is from existing red links in translation tables. So I checked for that. I created the ceorfdeor article on April 1 2013 but at that date there was already a redlink for ceorfdeor in the insect translation table. That was added by an anonymous user March 16 that year. The same user made half a dozen edits over a few months, mostly Icelandic additions to translation tables. So there's not really enough context to see whether this one word was a hoax. Are their other edits all legit? None of the others are Old English. — hippietrail (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Condate

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the authoritative text 'Rivet & Smith (1979) The Place Names of Roman Britain' (p315), the Latin name is indeclinable. What is the authority for a previous editor stating that 'Condate' follows a Greek-type' declension. If none, then this declension table should be deleted. — This unsigned comment was added by Avitacum (talk • contribs).

@Avitacum: I moved this from the English requests page (WT:RFVE) to this one. This, that and the other (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. My mistake! Avitacum (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

snaffo

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

cerpuda

necera

danballo

Marsò

Italian. All added presumably by the same IP editor and all highly dubious. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The gloss "(in Albania)" is very confusing. Presumably they're supposed to supposed to be labels that make this Albanian Italian? Theknightwho (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Or IP made this up. No hits on the web whatsoever, including Twitter specifically. Fay Freak (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well if there's any truth to them, they're much more likely to crop up in the interwar period given the history of Italian in Albania. Theknightwho (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

seime

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Middle English. I've been unable find this particular form of seym (“fat, grease”) in any source; I suspect this is because it's actually unattested. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

etesia

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. Apparently Pliny used etēsiās once, but the Latinate first declension singular is unattested. It's a plurale tantum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

ⲉⲑⲱⲙ, ⲁⲑⲱⲙ, ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙ, ⲟⲛⲟⲩⲣⲓⲥ, ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲣⲉ, ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ, ⲅⲉⲃ

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Coptic. Ⲉⲑⲱⲙ/ⲁⲑⲱⲙ are reconstructions. Ⲟⲛⲟⲩⲣⲓⲥ is a transliteration of a Greek rendering of an Egyptian god’s name. ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲣⲉ/ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ are etymologically correct forms, but never used in the sense of the goddess Tawaret in Coptic texts. Ⲅⲉⲃ just looks like the Egyptological pronunciation of gb written in Coptic letters.Rhemmiel (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ is attested by Coptic Dictionary Online. It is important to remember that Jean-François Champollion spoke Coptic and he was the one that reconstructed the ancient Egyptian language, and it is likely that ⲉⲑⲱⲙ, ⲁⲑⲱⲙ, ⲅⲉⲃ, and ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙ are the translation of Atum, Geb, and Khnum in Coptic. Ⲁⲡⲟⲗⲗⲟⲇⲱⲣⲟⲥ (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2022

actuariolum

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. L&S is wrong, the form āctuāriolum does not exist. The correct lemma is āctuāriola. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

How can a Latin neuter noun ending on -um be first declension? The claim defies understanding. --Lambiam 13:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam Does this make more sense? This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, now it does. In the one place where I see a presumably singular use^[253] it is slightly ambiguous, but the comparison with the instrumental dative ἀφράκτῳ (aphráktōi) suggests an ablative singular, with an omitted “mihi animi in navigando”. --Lambiam 09:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

diegan

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old English dīeġan is missing from both the Dictionary of Old English and Bosworth-Toller; this appears to be because it is entirely unattested; as smeortan, the OED has a note to this effect. Now as was done with that verb, we could relocate it to Reconstruction:Old English/diegan in the very likely event that cites do not end up emerging. However, I question whether the reconstruction of such a verb is necessary; the obvious justification for doing so is the existence of Middle English deyen, but that could be easily be from Old Norse deyja. This is the standard etymology given by the dictionaries, and I see no reason be at variance with them. With Middle English deyen taken out of the way, we are thus left without any justification for the reconstructing *dīeġan. It may be worth using {{no entry}} at diegan, though, as it appears to be frequently brung up in online discussions of Old English (only some of which note its tenuosity). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

kakampink

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Rayjaypab Please check inclusion criteria, thanks. I'm not saying it violates the criteria, it just needs to be checked, that's all. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for reminding me. I am confident to say that it is compliant under no. 1 of "Attestation" since the political climate here in the Philippines is a brewing pot for people to use terms such as this online and offline quite all the time (too much, actually).

May I ask if I should prove its attestation? And if so, where and how? Rayjaypab (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

To prove its attestation you would need to "Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

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

I'm not sure if anyone disputes the "widespread use" clause so this might not be necessary but it would certainly enhance the entry. General Vicinity (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Œdiporum

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Oediporum

Originally marked for {{speedy}}, but I’m not sure this cannot be attested. --Lambiam 13:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tagged it for speedy because Oedipus is a proper name with no plural. But you're right, it does seem to exist. The question then becomes, what does it mean? This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Max Beerbohm is reported to have said, “They were a tense and peculiar family, the Oedipuses, weren’t they?”.^[254] --Lambiam 12:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, many of the Latin cites (e.g.) seem to relate to the same meaning as Oedipuses often has in English: multiple different tellings of the Oedipus story. -- Visviva (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

𐌇𐌀𐌋𐌗𐌆𐌀

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Etruscan. Created by User:BandiniRaffaele2, tagged for speedy deletion by User:Airy-zero. Thadh (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is a misspelling of 𐌇𐌀𐌋𐌙𐌆𐌀, which I accidentally created rather than moved. Sorry! airy—zero (talk)

casum

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Rfv-sense: perfect passive participle of cādō. This PPP is claimed to be indeclinable, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's more, dictionaries (including TLL) don't mention a PPP for this verb. A supine stem is given, but given how widely-used this verb is, you'd expect to see some kind of reference to the PPP if it existed. This, that and the other (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the idea is that it only occurs in the compound forms of the impersonal passive construction (where the subject is always neuter singular), as shown in the conjugation table on cado. I just tried to search for an actual quotation exhibiting the use of impersonal PPP casum + auxiliary, but I haven't found one yet.--Urszag (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Késhmish Táłkááʼ Kéyah

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Navajo.

Christmas Island (an external territory of Australia)

I'm sure it's a beautiful place, but from a North American perspective it's a tiny speck in the ocean on the other side of the planet- not something that Navajo speakers would have much occasion to discuss. The entry was created by an Australian IP, along with Navajo entries for several places in Australia itself. If that isn't enough to set off alarms, currently the only Google hits are at Glosbe.com.

Of course, Navajo is an agglutinative language with extremely complex morphology, so it might be possible to find inflected forms. I'm not holding my breath. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unconfirmable. Not even found on the NV WP, where many other similar compound NV terms apparently come from.

FWIW, any inflection would be of the final element, kéyah (“land, country”), presumably one of the possessive forms. I did some quick googling and found nothing.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

midgetelan

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Old English. Possibly just vandalism (the same editor who moved and possibly also created the page also did this), so feel free to speedy and delete this discussion without archiving. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just delete this nonsense; the digraph ⟨dg⟩ is later than Old English, which had ⟨ċġ⟩ or ⟨ġġ⟩. The page was initially created as midgetel, which does not make sense as a verb, but almost immediately moved, a few hours before the editor created the now deleted midgetellan. The creator may have wanted to taunt someone called El by labelling them a midget. --Lambiam 10:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am the creator on another IP address that does not allow responses. I don’t know why you assume it is a digraph; it is pronounced (IPA) /dj/. 168.216.10.225 18:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lambiam, I don't know why you think it's a digraph. It represents the sounds (IPA) /dj/. "Midget" is pure coincidence, also I did all edits on this one except for the rfv tag. Also, if anyone can find a quotation, please add it... I see it in many dictionaries bot no bibliographies. 74.33.92.101 19:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection @Lambiam the spelling in glossaries is midġetellan, apparently mid- +‎ ġe- +‎ tellan. I wouldn't know where to find a formal cite to pass the RFV, but there must be one out there. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

A conjugated form of midgetellan occurs in the article ang:Peru on the Old English Wikipedia, but I guess that even for an LDL that does not count. Bosworth–Toller online also has a sense “to include (in a class)” for just getellan. --Lambiam 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

chéłchaaʼ bikʼosnézí

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Navajo. 70.172.194.25 05:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

incasus

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. I cannot find clear evidence of this PPP/supine stem. There is absolutely nothing in the Brepolis Library of Latin Texts, and Google Books turns up grammar books with mentions, as well as scannos and errors for in casus, in casum [255] and incassum [256]. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pompeie

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Purported vocative of Pompeius (“Pompey”), created by @JohnC5. This spelling turns up in a few Google Books results, but not as a vocative. The expected form is Pompeī. This, that and the other (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree myself. I looked through several lingva latina dictionaries and several pages of Google, but I just found some verbs in français and español. MisterSpellerMan (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Obaatzda

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bavarian. Tagged for speedy deletion by @Spanier with the reason "non-existent form". That sounds like the kind of judgment that should be made here, after due consideration.

I would note that this entry was created in 2010, but has only been edited by bots since then- so it could very well be an error. Even if it is, though, we should move it to the correct spelling rather than deleting it. As far as I can tell, this is the only Bavarian entry for this characteristic Bavarian food item. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

narentur

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Latin. There is a dubious reading of Livy which has condē narentur. But I think this is a modern transcriber's error for an old edition's condemnarentur where the macron represents a nasal and the word was broken across two lines. I can't find this anywhere else; nō seems strictly confined to the active voice throughout all eras of Latin. This, that and the other (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed - this listing was more a formality than anything else This, that and the other (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

pascor

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. RFV of the claimed Late-Latin-onwards first conjugation forms. This isn't in any of the dictionaries I checked. It's admittedly rather hard to search for, as pāscātur and friends are the present subjunctive forms of the third conjugation. Ping @Inqvisitor who added this. This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have you checked the dictionaries cited on the lemma page reference section?

pásco -ere, pávi, pástum: (3); feed, nourish, shepherd

páscor -ári: dep. (1); feed oneself, eat

Lua error in Module:parameters at line 828: Parameter "publication-date" is not used by this template. Inqvisitor (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have never heard of this dictionary, which does not appear to be available online. That this form is present in a dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin makes me more inclined to believe it, although (a) the fact that Stelten does not offer the classical conjugation is interesting, and makes me suspicious, and (b) one would expect to find a clear mention of this in DMLBS, which is not forthcoming. (Incidentally, where is du Cange's entry on this verb? It seems to not be under any of the obvious headwords, unless this strange transferred sense is really all he could come up with.)

Ultimately though, this RFV is still requiring a clear use of the first conjugation forms to be found (ideally more than one, but LDL being what it is, we would have to settle for just one). This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Finanzdienstleistungsaufsichtsgebührenverordnung

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

German. Seems like a protologism, as fair as i saw no example at the linked DWDS, only one example at google books. --學者三 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The term occurs in the heading of an official German regulation published in the Bundesgesetzblatt 2021 Vol. I nr. 62, page 4077,^[257] as short (!) for Besondere Gebührenverordnung des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen zur Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. This should be considered a proper noun, the (nick)name of a specific entity. Since the regulation provides for a convenient abbreviation of the short name, FinDAGebV (see used here), I guess we won't be seeing many uses of the term. --Lambiam 11:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed in so far it occurs in neither Beck Online nor Juris. However this is a hot word since the regulation is in effect since 01.10.2021. On the other hand it must have been applied somewhere and thus the FinDAGebV must be on record at some authorities somewhere, as if there are laws someone follows them, in Germany. A written abbreviation is enough since the short name Finanzdienstleistungsaufsichtsgebührenverordnung is how the abbreviation FinDAGebV is pronounced. Chinese pronunciations themselves aren’t supposed to occur in writing either yet pinyin gets entries. Fay Freak (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

oiseau matinal

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

French. Not used idiomatically, as far as I know. P U C – 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Everything I'm seeing on Google books (that I'm sure I understand) is literal (so SOP) or direct translations from English books. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 19:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

leckerfritzig

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

German. de.wikt has some Usenet cites. Glossed as "yummy" but that doesn't seem to fit. – Jberkel 08:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It appears to be borrowed from Low German, where it may mean tasty.^[258] The German Wiktionary glosses it as begierig (“eager”), which fits the citations given there. A German–Dutch dictionary translates it as nieuwsgierig (“curious, inquisitive”), but that does not seem to fit any actual uses. --Lambiam 11:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Somebody was bad at glossing, but I see two meanings used on the web: 1. begierig, appetent, or fond of sweets right now or as a habit 2. appealing to taste (also figuratively); this is here apparent: “Es geht darum zu prüfen, wieviel Interesse die Mitglieder an der "Lösung" haben und diese leckerfritzig zu machen.” (The word is not used in Fay Freak's originally Low German region.) Fay Freak (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Siemens

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WT:BRAND. Binarystep (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Helen

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tagalog. “Borrowed from English Helen. a female given name from English”. Tagged by 122.2.99.81 (“Not a Tagalog name Should be Elena”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Barbie

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cebuano. “From English Barbie, the name of a fashion doll. a female given name from English”. Tagged by 122.2.99.81, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

kärsiä

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Finnish. Rfv-sense: "(of an animal like elephant or pig) To dig or feel something with one's trunk or snout." So obscure Suomen murteiden sanakirja does not even have a proper definition, but at least it has it... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Does not seem real to me. I have heard this sense once, sort of. It was a Q/A type joke, that is impossible to translate, while preserving the pun. It goes like this:

-Mitä norsupappi sanoo vihkiessään norsuparin?

-???

- Kärsikää toisianne.

--Hekaheka (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you were not familiar with the sense when you heard the joke, then how did you come to realize it was a pun? --Lambiam 07:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I need to try to translate it in order to try to explain.

-What does an elephant priest say when he joins an elephant couple in matrimony?

-???

-Snout each other. (ha-ha, did you get it?)

Explanation: "kärsiä" has a dialectal meaning "to tolerate, get along with" (which we are missing). On the other hand it might be understood as a verb formed from the noun kärsä (“snout”). --Hekaheka (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-deleted — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

oramak

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Turkish, to mow. Ultimateria (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Turkish Wiktionary does not list this as Turkish, but as Turkmen and Chagatai. (For the latter language we use Arabic script, but do not have a corresponding entry.) --Lambiam 07:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

At least it existed in Ottoman Turkish اورامق (oramak), under which spellings you find some listings. Seemingly carried into Modern Turkish etymological dictionaries by inertia or indifference to the distinction between Modern and Ottoman Turkish, although it is plausible that it has remained in some (rural …) corner of Turkey. Fay Freak (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The entry for Ottoman Turkish اورامق lists اوراق (orak) and اوران (oran) as related terms. Both exist in present-day Turkish; see orak (“sickle”) and oran (“rate, ratio”). For the former, İlhan Ayverdi’s Misalli Büyük Türkçe Sözlük, a historical Turkish dictionary, gives: (Eski Türk. orğak < or-mak “biçmek”). For the latter: (Yalnız Türkiye Türkçesi'nde kullanılan kelimenin kökü belli değildir) – “the root of the word used only in Turkey’s Turkish is not known”. No mention of any oramak, also not as an obsolete Ottoman Turkish verb. --Lambiam 13:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Paganini non ripete

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Italian: "(usually humorous, sometimes menacing) Said when someone is unwilling to repeat what they have already said.". I created Citations:Paganini non ripete but I'm not sure the quotations actually support the definition given. 98.170.164.88 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this? 98.170.164.88 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The citations are all correct. Paganini non ripete is a super-common expression, you can find it in every good Italian dictionary, too. Sartma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Goldoni and Consolemania quotations do seem to be using it to express unwillingness to repeat something said. Servi is using it for refusal to perform a musical encore, which is the same as the original story. Chirichelli and Odone are using it to refer to things that cannot be repeated because they are unique, etc., the same as what Paganini originally meant; but repetition of speech is not involved. Barbiera requires more context to understand, but I think also falls into this metaphorical category.

I'm not disputing that the expression exists with some meaning, but if it's super common hopefully we can find three quotations that are unambiguously using it to refer to refusal to repeat speech. And maybe we should flesh out the non-speech meaning too (something that cannot be repeated because it was improvised, etc.). 98.170.164.88 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

böhmisch

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

German. Rfv-sense. --學者三 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Inasmuch as there is a German adjective with the sense of “related to Bohème”, it appears to be bohemisch.^{[259][260][261]} --Lambiam 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's bohemisch (from French bohémien (“gypsy”), English bohemian (“unconventional; unconventional writer or artist”)?). As for böhmisch, neither Duden, nor DWDS, nor Adelung, nor Grimm seem to mention a sense like bohemian, and i've never heard it (but well, I also know that that doesn't mean anything). --學者三 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure I understand the question. I’d analyze bohemisch as Bohème +‎ -isch, but indeed, if you wish, you can also say, from French bohémien with adaptation to the native suffix -isch. --Lambiam 20:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proteus

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. For voc. sg. --學者三 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

More in general, I'd expect this to be a third-declension noun, like Perseus. The vocative Proteu is seen in Vergil’s Georgics, verse 4.447.^[262] See also the genitive Proteos in Claudian’s epithalamium for Honorius and Maria (poem 10).^[263] --Lambiam 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Perse͡us (Gen. Persei, Dat. & Abl. Perseo, Acc. Perseum) is 2nd declension (from Greek). Proteus should be similar and with voc. Proteu instead of Protee. Georges states: "griech. Genet. -eos, Lucan. 10, 511. Iul. Val. 1, 27 (31): Akk. eum, Hygin. fab. 170 in.: Akk. ea, Ov. am. 3, 2, 35; met. 2, 9. Stat. silv. 1, 2, 129; Ach. 1, 32. Licent. poët. in Augustin. epist. 26, 3. Iul. Val. 1, 27 (31): Vok. Proteu, Ov. met. 8, 731.", i.e. with expected voc. Proteu and additional 3rd decl. gen. Proteos and acc. Protea. (3rd decl. dat. Protei isn't mentioned.) --學者三 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ancient Greek Περσεύς (Perseús) is third declension. We list Latin Perseus as 3rd (Greek-type, normal variant) or 2nd. --Lambiam 09:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

jäkittää

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Finnish. Rfv-sense: to do things slowly.

Added and immediately rfv'ed in the course of same edit by User:Brittletheories. I don't see the point in adding rare senses and expecting other users to finish the work. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka I urge you to read through the edit before spiting me for it. I added the senses detailed in etymology 2 and RFV'd the preexisting sense (now etymology 1). The now RFV'd sense was added by @Surjection last December. brittletheories (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I apologize my sloppy research. By scrolling the page down I could have verified that you weren't the origin of the sense. I'll be more careful in the future. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I added that sense and it's easily found. It's the first sense in KTSK ("olla pysähdyksissä, jumissa, jumittaa"), even if somewhat misworded, and is also found in SMS ("vaivalloisesta, itsepintaisesta, voimia vaativasta tekemisestä"). I'd assume it were common courtesy to actually check whether one can find uses before adding an RFV. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I merged the first two senses, since they're used the same way. I think we can call this resolved. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

quân tử chu nhi bất tị, tiểu nhân tị nhi bất chu

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments1 person in discussion

Vietnamese. This is often mentioned in Vietnamese text, but as far as I know always with accompanying translation, so is it ever used? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

-pela

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bislama. Also RFV'ing yumitripela, yumipela and mipela. These all seem like Tok Pisin to me rather than Bislama, where I couldn't find any evidence of an alternative -pela to the widely used -fala, neither in Crowley's grammar nor in the Bislama spelling dictionary, nor generally online. Pinging @Hippietrail, Metaknowledge as creators of the pronoun entries and the suffix entry respectively. Thadh (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lux Mundi

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English § Lux Mundi and Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English § Light of the World. --Lambiam 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Someone should check whether any of these are viable: [264]. 70.172.194.25 19:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

aparecível

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Portuguese. There seems to be some use in philosophy, always indicated as a non-standard term, but I'm not sure that the meaning given in the entry. There's also a single tweet mentioning "aparecível" with the sense of appearable, but that alone is not enough for attestation. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The philosophical uses appear to correspond to the philosophical sense of phenomenal – as opposed to noumenal; see the use of “the phenomenal universe” in paragraph 13 of (the English translation of) Kant’s inaugural dissertation. --Lambiam 18:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about the exact definition as we have it, but I think this is cited. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy Yeah, I think that with the current citations you've added the sense can be considered as attested. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

tapadh le

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Irish. The term, if it existed in Irish, would be in non-standard pre-reform orthography (the standard would have tapa instead), the historical corpus RIA finds no instances of tapadh leat or tapadh libh, and I believe in general this is not a phrase used in Irish. I believe the author who created it mistook the Scottish Gaelic phrase for Irish (the first version had the Sc. Gaelic sense ‘thank you’).

There are Scottish Gaelic entries tapadh leat and tapadh leibh and tapadh le could exist as a base uniflected entry for the Scottish Gaelic sense – but then similar phrases in Irish like go raibh maith agat / … agaibh are also in their inflected 2nd sg./pl. forms, not bare go raibh maith ag.

Dinneen’s dictionary (pre-reform spelling) notes tapadh ort ‘good speed to you’ in Torr (subdialect of Ulster Irish), but I can’t find tapadh leat or anything similar in Irish dictionaries or corpora. // Silmeth ^@talk 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cacultris (Latin)

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This form appears in an English context when Smith (1854) enumerates the tributary rivers of the Ganges listed by Arrian (who wrote in Greek). Smith's list seems to go in the same order as the Greek original; therefore, in Smith's "Commenases (Carmanaça), Cacultris, Andomatis (Andhalámati or Tamasá)..." presumably Cacultris corresponds to Greek Κάκουθις in Arrian's "Κομμινάσης τε μέγας ποταμὸς καὶ Κάκουθις καὶ Ἀνδώματις". This is pretty strange: "ultr" is not at all a regular Latinization of Greek "ουθ". I think it's possible that Smith suffered somehow from a typo that turned "Cacouthis" into "Cacultris" (it could not just be a scanno as there is a Google Books scan that confirms the spelling "Cacultris" appeared in print versions of Smith). In any case, I can't find any genuine uses of this form in Latin, unlike the more normally Latinized form Cacuthis.--Urszag (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. Even in theoretically correct spelling, it appears that the bulk of the names in the same passages should have not been added as Latin, isn’t it? Like Andomatis and what not, @Samubert96, who should review this, just assumed them to be Latin because of being presented in Latin script by this and other Western authors. There is no relevant Latin translation of the Indica of Arrian transmitted, no? Fay Freak (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if it is an author's error, then the entry should be deleted; I'm sorry that I didn't thoroughly check if the list of rivers mentioned by Smith was the exact transliteration of Arrian's list. Samubert96 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know of any transmitted ancient translation, but in more recent centuries, there have been Latin translations as well as commentaries in Latin that reproduce the list of rivers in Arrian (you can see the two Latin-language citations I found for "Cacuthis" on that page). So most of those river names should be attested in sources written in Latin. I just haven't found any yet that use the spelling "Cacultris".--Urszag (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

ܥܟܒܝܬܐ

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I could not find evidence of this word anywhere in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, only in other Aramaic languages.— This unsigned comment was added by Shuraya (talk • contribs) at 01:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC).Reply

aborto salino

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portuguese. Other than the Wikipedia page, I'm having trouble finding proper attestation for this term. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

anuos

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. I was so close to speedying this but talked myself out of it. It's an obvious transmission error. Quality editions of De Bello Gallico have the expected form annōs here. This, that and the other (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here it is obviously a scanno; in the main text the edition clearly has annos. Is there any edition that has anuos not attributable to (copying) a scanno? (If verifiable, the form presents us with a morphological mystery, being the sole witness to a stem anu- found only in one sentence of one work.) --Lambiam 09:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

gairi (Swahili)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't think the Swahili verb gairi exists. The entry was added by Tbot based on a translation but @Metaknowledge (our resident Swahili expert) removed the translation later. I consulted some dictionaries and can't find "gairi". I think this is a mixup with "ghairi". MartinMichlmayr (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

May 2022

Fangzcwngzgangj

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Zhuang.

@Justinrleung It's cool to have this entry (nine letters in a row with no identifiable vowel in sight!), but it will be way cooler and infinitely more authoritative and powerful if there were included the three cites (or one cite for poorly documented languages?) for this. Is this real? I did see that the government website for Fangchenggang has "FANGZCWNGZGANGJ SI MINZCUZ CUNGHGYAU SWVU VEIJYENZVEI" in the banner. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The “letters” ⟨z⟩ and ⟨j⟩ replace the tone marks ² and ³, as seen also e.g. in lizsij for li²si³. Similarly, ⟨x⟩ stands for ⁴, ⟨q⟩ stands for ⁵, and ⟨h⟩ stands for ⁶; see bouxganqbingh = bou⁴gan⁵bing⁶. The letters replace earlier non-Latin marks;^[265] the new system does not create ambiguities because these letters cannot transcribe finals. As in Welsh orthography, the ⟨w⟩ represents a vowel, in this case the close back unrounded vowel /ɯ/. See also Ɯ on Wikipedia. --Lambiam 16:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining that - it makes it much easier to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cited. 沈澄心 ✉ 06:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aas

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Impossible to web-search.

Imagine German, Ety 2 genitive "poo-poo" was automatically created by templates. I sincerely doubt that it can be attested, because the genitive is rare in colloquially speech and even more so in children that have not yet acquired the morphology, and even more so in writing.
Surely /ˌaˈʔa(s)/ should not be spelled Aa(s), what's usually /a:/. Who takes the time to create literally children shit entries and then doesn´t source their shit? The Further Reading only concerns Ety 1. 141.20.6.200 12:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

How else would it be spelled? —Soap— 21:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Various Mozarabic terms

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Follow-up from a previous section (related discussion here and here). For a couple days I've been cleaning up the Mozarabic entries here in Wiktionary: moving them to the attested spelling(s), adding quotations, and changing the transcriptions to the ones used by the sources. However, there are a few words which I haven't found in either {{R:mxi:CorrienteHeb}} (for texts in the Hebrew script) or {{R:mxi:Jones}} (in the Arabic script). As far as I know, these sources cover the whole Mozarabic corpus (which is rather small); I could have missed some words, but others seem completely made up. This is a list of the words I haven't found in the corpus:

~~bont~~, إسقللايرة (escalâira), العجمية (alǧamiah), الغودون (alǧodon), اِيّارِ- (-iyyáre), شّوشّْ (šoš), قاذة (káda), قرآن (qurán), ليطه (laitah), مَطْرُينة (matrwéna), يَنّايْرْ (yanayir)
These terms have a quotation, but I suspect it's made up (at least the spelling used for it certainly is): شوقّه (súkko), ليُ (liyu)
These aren't attested but can be reconstructed (they appear in {{R:DAAL}} with an asterisk): البيست (alpîšt), جّيمْجِّ (čímče), شّولُ (šúlo)
Made-up spellings of attested terms, fanciful transcriptions into Arabic of romanizations: طو (tu) (attested as ت (tu)), عَان (en) (attested as אן (en) and ־ן (-n)), ايلجو (welyo) (attested as ולויש (wélyoš))

Santi2222 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Santi2222

ليطه (laitah), a purported derivative of Latin laetus, is without a doubt made-up and can be promptly deleted. The user Romandalusi read that Mozarabic conserves the diphthong /ai̯/ and wrongly assumed that meant a continuation of the Latin /ae̯~ai̯/ rather than a preservation of early Romance /ai̯/, which never derives from the Latin diphthong (cf. Italian amai 'I loved', fornaio 'baker' < Latin amavi, furnarius, not *amae, *furnaeus).
Searching 'escalaira' on Google Books brings up a fair number of results, including apparently Corriente 1992. I don't have access to the entire book, so I can't determine what the ultimate source of this word is. It could be from something other than a kharja.
The quote justifying شوقّه (súkko)} and ليُ (liyu) appears to be a questionable reading of kharja 25:

amanE, ya habib,/ alwahsha ME+N FARAS!/ BEN, BEJA MA BOKELLA,/ LEW SUKKO TE+N BEBRAS' (source: could only find this on a random blog)

Jones (1988: 189) gives a completely different reading of the last part, which has neither of the words in question. Accordingly, I think it'd be best to remove both words from Wiktionary- the evidence is simply too flimsy.

We should probably create a new category for reconstructed Mozarabic words, to make it clear that they aren't actually attested. The question is what sort of spelling to use for them. Perhaps Latin script would be best, if that is what the DAAL uses.
As for the made-up spellings of attested terms, I see no reason not to promptly delete them. Nicodene (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

For the reconstructed terms, I think we should keep the DAAL spelling (making up a spelling in a script in which the language didn't have anything close to a standardized spelling seems out of the question to me). For example, moving شّولُ (šúlo) to something like *śúlo (in this particular case, it was borrowed into Andalusian Arabic xúlu, and then into Spanish). Regarding the words from Kharja 25, I agree that they should be deleted, the proposed reading seems too speculative (even for the standards of Mozarabic). I've also noticed that some of the supposedly Mozarabic terms are actually Andalusian Arabic (which has a way larger corpus). This is the case of يَنّايْرْ (yanayir), attested as AA يَنَّيْر (yannayr) (I'm trying to find a quotation for this one now).Santi2222 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, “they appear in {{R:DAAL}}” does not compel us to conclude “they can be reconstructed”. Can’t just reconstruct, say, from the appearance of alpiste in Galician the presence in Portuguese; there also were direct contacts of Arabs with speakers of other Iberian Romance languages than Mozarabic. Keep up the focus on the attestations. And don’t cling to those bizarre transcriptions “used in the sources” (in fact by fanciful reference works; have I mentioned that on the Arabist side we are annoyed about the nonstandard transcriptions of Arabic words and innumerous links including the article الـ (al--)? The article is never part of the lemma, in the Andalusian Arabic dialect neither, and WT:AR TR applies very well, and no marking stresses is needed since they are not distinctive and the Romanists are wrong about them too, as I have shown on حَبَق (ḥabaq)). Fay Freak (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

But I see you already normalize spellings which have followed Pedro de Alcalá. If you go the full hog you normalize to Arabic spelling. I don’t think Andalusian Arabic should ever be present in Latin script; the other dialects are not either (though Modern South Arabian is), after all it is not the alphabet used by the language community (instead even Romance under Arabic rule was written in Arabic script; MSAL are unwritten). chírba to چِرْبَة, plural چِرَاب, also the consonants under which it is found in {{R:xaa:ELA|II}}. bedústar may point to بِيدُسْتَر (bīdustar), perhaps Andalusi بَيْدُسْتَر (baydustar), found in a less common spelling of جُنْدُبَادَسْتَر (jundubādastar) which is a usual term while this claimed term for “beaver” is not found but in Pedro de Alcalá, normally only this medical ingredient, so it can well be a ghost word introduced by Pedro de Alcalá by interpretation of جُنْدُبَادَسْتَر (jundubādastar) by the parts. He also uniquely claims قُسْطَاس (qusṭās) (Corriente cites him after his own edition page 245) to be the word for “scales”, though it isn’t otherwise used in the standards or dialects for “scales” but boils down to a Qurʾān interpretation, so demonstrably transmits his hearsay of the contents of the Arabic language rather than use that has existed in his era. كُرَّج (kurraj) also has been glossed as “colt” or “foal” (مُهْر (muhr)) by various dictionaries, interpreting it by their Persian knowledge, though in use it has the peculiar restriction of “hobby-horse” (this at least Corriente has not fallen for, for Vahagn wondering: it's the lectio difficilior behind rough glosses, as organisms use to be described not specifically enough in lack of detailled acquaintance, and other identifications from others are copied over for the same reason). Fay Freak (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I feel like we are drifting a bit from the primary topic here, but anyway. I agree that words whose only attestation is from a sixteenth century glossary shouldn't be our focus here to start with. I don't like these entries and I haven't added any (I wouldn't mind if we excluded terms only found in the glossary altogether), unless you count moving this word. But if we're gonna have them, I don't think having them in an unattested spelling is a good idea. The "normalization" I mentioned in a changeset is basically substituting the háček-like diacritic in the original glossary by an acute accent. Given that the existing entries quoting the glossary already substituted the long ſ by the "normal" s, I don't see why we would want to keep that diacritic (either keep both the ſ-s and the ǎ-s or get rid of them, but not just one thing). In any case, I think this is more of a "normalized typography" rather than a "normalized spelling" thing, and not really an important matter (compared to keeping these entries or not). Otherwise, I totally agree that Andalusian Arabic entries should be in the Arabic script.Santi2222 (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Santi2222: To some degree, if the dictionary is supposed to be complete, reverse-transcription cannot be avoided. Modernly of course, cuneiform could not be printed well, and rarely is still. Gafat is probably attested more transcriptionally than in Ethiopic script, so some other now or soon defunct Ethiosemitic languages, and we are supposed to imagine how a local would write it rather than randomly creating entries as Latin and Ethiopic. This argument works for late medieval works as well, if we think the script is clear enough to show us the distinctive parts needed to spell natively. So Punic I have some terms where the spelling is comparatively clear but the only attestation is in Greek transcription; in some cases (one is farfaria) even Latin is only found in Greek transcription, in others a Greek term is mentioned as such by Latin authors (to be distinguished where a Latin term is an obvious Graecism but the Greek is not attested in neither use nor mention, e.g. molochitis and gossypium, as many terms in Pliny (you see with the latter previous philologists and a Wiktionary editor have been inexact)). The attestation situation of Polabian spellings and that of other extinct West Slavic languages is also readily circumstantial, yet somehow book-form dictionaries always end up having a uniform scheme, only the free-for-all nature of Wiktionary manages to convolute language documentation due to lacking prejudice for spelling systems.

This of course works more with Arabic than Mozarabic. In Mozarabic spelling there was no system, the Arabic script is fitted to Arabic and foreign to Mozarabic. And the Ethiopic Script is fitted to Ethiosemitic but in Cushitic we have all three of Geʿez script, Latin and Arabic one. So Romandalusí, insensitive to the distinctions of languages, made up Mozarabic spellings, in addition to ignoring the question of attestation altogether. (I mean yeah, like you listed it there were multiple layers of problems, rooted in a general lack of sensitivity, I roll it up this way.) Fay Freak (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ermin

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Middle English. Chaucer supposedly used this to mean "an Armenian". It seems likely he was just talking about ermine. (What need would he have had to specifically refer to Armenians in any case, I wonder?) This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The term occurs as a proper noun (“king Ermin”) in the metrical romance Sir Beves of Hamtoun.^[266] Ermin is king of Armenia. I have not found where Chaucer uses the term. --Lambiam 13:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here you go. In the form Ermyn. Vahag (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam, @Vahagn Petrosyan Thanks, I should have looked here first. Are you both okay with the entry being moved to Ermyn? I know Webster had the habit of modernising spellings, but I don't understand why MED lemmatises it as "Ermin" when this form doesn't seem to be attested. Am I missing something? This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know anything about Middle English and how it should be normalized. Vahag (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

अम्बा

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nepali.

As only cited as a 'translation', presumably of guava, let's see some evidence that it is a real Nepali word rather than a dictionary or Wikipedian's invention. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

marcosin

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@103.36.18.252 Make an account btw if you wanna edit. This word needs to satisfy the criteria of Wiktionary of word inclusion. Try to find published articles that use this word. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

syrjäinen

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Finnish. Rfv-sense: "outsider" (noun). I thought about RFV'ing this initially, but decided against it as I was able to find uses. User:Mölli-Möllerö later on removed it completely however, so I'm restoring it and putting it through the process. I've added one quote and I think I can find two more. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now cited, but I added "archaic" as I cannot find any recent quotes. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep per Surjection's citations. This sense is also listed in "Nykysuomen sanakirja" from 1967. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-kept — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

patriotismas

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lithuanian. Should be patriotizmas. If this form is attested it's probably a rare misspelling. 98.170.164.88 00:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

साङ्‍वा

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yamphu. This is given under a Yakkha header but with a Yamphu language code and reference. The given reference [267] has two Yamphu words for "bird": सोङा (soṅā) and सोङ्‌वा (soṅwā), but not साङ्‍वा (sāṅwā). So is this actually Yakkha, or a Yamphu typo, or a dialectal variant, or ...? @Hk5183 This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The third possibility is that this was supposed to go at Yamphu सोङ्‌वा (soṅwā), but the contributor was distracted by the similarity of the spelling (सो vs सा) into adding it to the wrong entry. Looking at their edit history, it was halfway into over an hour of creating nothing but Yamphu entries (the Yakka page creation was 9 days eatlier). By the way, @This, that and the other: you seem to have your language codes switched. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have fixed the codes here. The two codes couldn't be any closer... This, that and the other (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

⚤

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Translingual. Rfv-sense: "Heterosexual". Plausible, but I'd like to see citations. For what it's worth, Emojipedia calls it the "Bisexual Sign". 98.170.164.88 07:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

⚪

The Unicode standard does mention it: [268] (not sure it counts as a use technically). Would still be good to have quotations of use, I think, as we generally require them for emojis. 98.170.164.88 07:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unicode annotation for both. Both also in e.g. D.R. McElroy (2020) Signs & Symbols of the World: Over 1,001 Visual Signs Explained. The only question would be which of several Unicode rings corresponds to the intended meaning, but that's where the Unicode annotation comes in. Plausible some might use it for bisexuality, since there is no Unicode character for that, but sure you didn't confuse it with ⚥, which is botanical bisexuality? Also, these are not emojis. kwami (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The white circle displays as an emoji for me, the interlocking gender signs do not. I guess Emojipedia has entries for some symbols that aren't technically emojis. And I am certain they are referring to this character and not another with their "Bisexual Sign" label: [269]. Twitter has results for both meanings, apparently a slim majority of "bi". 98.170.164.88 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

With some hopefully better refs, we could definitely add the bi meaning to ⚥, then.

The white circle displays as an emoji for me too, and badly, but then whichever font my browser is choosing for these things is screwy. There are a number of symbols, such as the signs of the zodiac, which are not inherently emojis but have emoji alts. This is one of them. kwami (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's a whole previous 2016 discussion at Talk:⚤. "Bisexuality" apparently refers to a botanical meaning in this context, not an LGBT meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Bisexual" in the botanical context (hermaphroditic "perfect" flowers or plants) are represented by ⚥. Unicode only has "heterosexuality" for this character. If we only have Emojipedia as a ref, I'm afraid this fails. I'll rv. myself and remove it, pending someone finding a RS. kwami (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found something similar in Nixon & Düsterhöft (2017) Sex in the Digital Age, p. 150, where they say,

"Another common symbol used within bisexual spaces are the interlocking male and female gender symbols. These symbols are taken from the astrological symbols for Mars and venus and intertwined to signify men attracted to men, men and women attracted to each other, and women attracted to women. This symbol is frequently shown in black, but is also commonly shown in pink, blue and purple."

There is no illustration, but the wording suggests they mean the quadruple symbol

rather than ⚤. kwami (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

☼

Alt symbol for 'sun', but not sure ever used in astron, astrol. or alchem. kwami (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

tandayag

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Stricnina For the word tandayag, I can't find the adjective sense you put in any dictionary or source. Could you source it? Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

brigā

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Gaulish: Is there any evidence that this existed as a distinct word? It appears to be the same as the element -briga, which is said in sources such as Matasović 2009:77 to be only attested as part of compound toponyms. So, this should be moved to Reconstruction:Gaulish/briga. — 69.120.66.131 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Btw, see this discussion for some related info, such as Latin toponyms with this "suffix" that were borrowed from Celtic, some of which should probably be listed in the event that a reconstruction page is created. Note that these are -brīga in Latin, with long ī, unlike the short i currently transcribed at brigā (which might just have been a baseless assumption on the part of the entry creator). — 69.120.66.131 22:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

retuuttaa

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Finnish. Rfv-sense: to scrape by. — This unsigned comment was added by Brittletheories (talk • contribs) at 10:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC).Reply

It's in the Kielitoimiston sanakirja ("vaivalloisesta elämisestä, toimeentulosta tms.: kituuttaa, retustaa"). Do you really want me to find three quotes for it? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cited — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-kept — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

evvasilia

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Italian. Very few ghits, one potential hit in BGC (the rest look like duplicates or mentions). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Italian term appears to have been introduced by Bartolomeo Cavalcanti,^[270] who writes that this is the term for “absolute monarchy” used by Aristotle. So one would expect this to be the transliteration of an Ancient Greek word, but no commonly used transliteration schema would produce vv or even a single v. (See e.g. it:Aiuto:Greco antico.) There are two places where Aristotle uses a term that is conventionally translated as “absolute monarchy”: at the end of Book III Ch. xiv^[271] and the beginning of Book III Ch. xvi^[272] of Politics. However, the term Aristotle uses is παμβασιλεία (pambasileía) (See the term in LSJ.) The term evvasilia is a believable transliteration of Modern Greek *ευβασιλεία (*evvasileía), but this word appears to be nonexistent, and if it existed, it would indicate a benign monarchy. The most plausible explanation is that Cavalcanti made a mistake. --Lambiam 07:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

A book discussing Cavalcanti’s treatise,^[273] unfortunately offered only in snippet view, contains a note that reads:

“249, 12–13 chiamata da lui evvasilia (chiamato da lui παμβασιλεία)”.^[274]

This and the surrounding notes are obviously meant as corrections to Cavalcanti’s text. --Lambiam 10:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The term occurs in a quotation of Cavalcanti (not an independent use) in the entry Regno of the 1849 edition of the Dizionario politico, nuovamente compilato ad uso della gioventù italiana.^[275] Cavalcanti’s text is not crystal clear and may create the incorrect impression that Aristotle imputes good things to this absolute monarchy. In fact, only Plato is to blame for venting the luminous thought – which he puts in Socrates’ mouth – that one-man rule by a superbly wise and good ruler is a Good Thing. However, Plato does not assign a name to this ideal absolute form of governance. The misunderstanding that Cavalcanti stated that evvasilia was a name used by Aristotle for a Good Thing found its way into the Grande dizionario della lingua italiana,^[276] and probably crept from there into the May 13 episode of the TV game show L'eredità. It is a comedy of errors. --Lambiam 13:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

dacnomania

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Italian. Rfv-sense: "an excessive or unbridled enthusiasm for killing". I doubt the editor meant to add this under Italian, but it's doubtful all the same... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This was added repeatedly by users who have an obssesive thinking^[277] of killing. --Lambiam 06:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

gouine

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Portuguese. "Someone who prefers non-penetrative sex." – Jberkel 21:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

All sources are in Portuguese ^{(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)} Tazuco (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

कल्काञ्जन

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sanskrit. —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

አስራአንድ

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Amharic. There is ዐሥራ፡አንድ and ዐሥራንድ, but I can't find any evidence of this exact spelling. Thadh (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

wrength

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This form doesn't appear to exist in Middle English, which only knows the form wrengðe (the word is a Early Middle English hapax). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

basilic jaune

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

@-sche (Notifying PUC, Jberkel, Nicodene): I can't find any reference to "basilic jaune" as a specific plant outside of Wiktionary. If we are to keep this, we need to specify which plant is being referred to and include citations. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why, I see it also in use; “specific plant” amongst basils usually means a cultivar, of which there are lots, very low-level taxonomy which at the time this term existed was poorly treated. My guess would be lemon basil, Lua error in Module:parameters at line 828: Parameter "noshow" is not used by this template.. Fay Freak (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lemon basil smells like lemons. It doesn't look like lemons at all- it's green. It's been quite a while since I did any serious reading on basils, but I'm not aware of any yellow cultivars. Of course, basils are one of those plant groups that has a gazillion variations (purple, white variegated, dwarf, bush, "blue", anise, lemon, cinnamon, clove, etc., etc.,) so a golden variegated form wouldn't surprise me. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, in that "use", it's hard to say whether the "onguent" or the "Basilic" is "jaune". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apparently this was on the Wanted Entries list that used to be in everyone's watchlists and I saw it used in old books and so added it. If it's only SOP for a basil that happens to have turned yellow (as some do when dying, etc), whoops. (Certain longtime users did have a tendency to add crap to that list, which more than one other longtime user like me credulously created.) - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Merkels Fachkraft

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

German. 19 results on Google and 0 on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: I assure no cap it is extremely common in speech, in certain circles to understand, but suppressed due to taboo, however also understood when e.g. people talk about certain incidences to journalists. (It naturally has become rarer though since the Scholz government, if it is not just my impression because of my digital detox.)

But have you searched the plural? Apparently not. The singular is rare since the talk usually goes about collectives (hence even the singular is found collectively in the instances on the web), perhaps it should be moved and I believe this a misunderstanding. Fay Freak (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well this is problematic since the usual way to talk about one is einer von Merkels Fachkräften but this is hardly a bearable pagetitle. Fay Freak (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see a few hits for the plural (btw both book hits and many web hits are just the plural, not einer von ~). As far as the POS, would it work to move this to Merkels Fachkräften (pl.), and view einer von Merkels Fachkräften as [einer] [von] [[Merkels Fachkräften]]? To compare another entry I just saw, in both "I'm hanging with the boys" and "I'm hanging with one of the boys", the entry can be "the boys" without needing *"one of the boys" or *"the boy"/"boy", which mean other things. But whether this idiomatically, lexically means what the entry says is also very questionable, compare e.g. Putins "Befreier", Putin's "liberators", are these idiomatic two-word phrases to be defined as "Russian soldier invading Ukraine" or is it better to view them as sarcastically using and quoting the specified person's word? - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good analogy, if the boys is valid then Merkels Fachkräfte should be the entry page, although you see a few times there is a singular, I don’t know whether this should teach us anything. I of course leaned upon towards it being lexicalized. It was odd to observe how e.g. electric Jew, German Elektrojude, also was just a sarcastic figure and then because one repeated after another with some regularity it was a set term. It is the same criterion by which one decides whether something has passed from one language into another: As long as people dont take over the term she-bagging from their consumed German content into German it is not German but English and the German quotes stay ranged under English since you can arbitrarily borrow anything from a foreign language into your speech if you can rely upon people sharing the same language background, for instance when programmers talk to each other, and three people perpetrating an innovation independently from their language community does not make a word. Fay Freak (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

YUL

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

French. Meaning Greater Montreal, apparently derived from the IATA code for the airport (which is under Translingual). Theknightwho (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

schiferito

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian. Converted from a speedy by an IP with the comment "word is not in use in Italian language, but only occurs as hapax legomenon in a jocular Youtube video" — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

[1] Demokratik Modernite, volume 10

[2] Serxwebûn, May 2012

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 3,718: / Line 3,718: @@
 :::Ok, I see a few hits for the plural (btw both book hits and many web hits are just the plural, not ''einer von ~''). As far as the POS, would it work to move this to ''[[Merkels Fachkräften]]'' (pl.), and view ''einer von Merkels Fachkräften'' as ''[einer] [von] [[[[Merkels Fachkräften]]]]''? <small>To compare another entry I just saw, in both "I'm hanging with [[the boys]]" and "I'm hanging with one of [[the boys]]", the entry can be "[[the boys]]" without needing *"[[one of the boys]]" or *"[[the boy]]"/"[[boy]]", which mean other things.</small> But whether this idiomatically, lexically means what the entry says is also very questionable, compare e.g. <tt>Putins "Befreier"</tt>, <tt>Putin's "liberators"</tt>, are these idiomatic two-word phrases to be defined as "Russian soldier invading Ukraine" or is it better to view them as sarcastically using and quoting the specified person's word? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
+:::: Good analogy, if {{m|en|the boys}} is valid then {{m|de|Merkels Fachkräfte}} should be the entry page, although you see a few times there is a singular, I don’t know whether this should teach us anything. I of course leaned upon towards it being lexicalized. It was odd to observe how e.g. {{m|en|electric Jew}}, German {{m|de|Elektrojude}}, also was just a sarcastic figure and then because one repeated after another ''with some regularity'' it was a set term. It is the same criterion by which one decides whether something has passed from one language into another: As long as people dont take over the term {{m|en|she-bagging}} from their consumed German content into German it is not German but English and the German quotes stay ranged under English since you can arbitrarily borrow anything from a foreign language into your speech if you can rely upon people sharing the same language background, for instance when programmers talk to each other, and three people perpetrating an innovation independently from their language community does not make a word. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 00:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 == {{l|fr|YUL}} ==

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

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English: difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:37, 30 May 2022

July 2017

The Slavic Latin contributions of 89.172.183.48

February 2018

July 2019

Latin manuculus: Attested or not?

August 2019

Latin odeō, odīre; podeō

September 2019

Old French plaigne and descendants

October 2019

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectives

November 2019

octavius, octarius

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologisms

December 2019

Old English andwyrdan, andwirdan "to present"

January 2020

February 2020

March 2020

centiampère (Dutch)

April 2020

KBC / ABC

Old English wesan (“to feast, consume”)

kanker (Dutch)

May 2020

June 2020

German "Suffixes"

July 2020

New Saxon Spellings

August 2020

Russian згра

More symbols from Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B block without any clearly meaningful definitions

September 2020

denk (Afrikaans)

October 2020

November 2020

dada (Dutch)

daven (Dutch)

December 2020

Jeju terms for modern concepts

schalk (Dutch)

Imme f