Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:33, 9 July 2022

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Reconstruction add new reconstruction request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

Shortcut:
WT:RFDN

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

Scope of this request page:

In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt

Templates:

{{rfd}}
{{rfd-sense}}
{{rfd-redundant}}
{{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}

April 2018

Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris

In my opinion these need to be all deleted as they were taken without credit to the author from: https://yaghnobi.wordpress.com/online-yaghnobi-lexicon/, unless someone wants to contact them and ask for retrospective permission. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.

асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."

хоҳак vs. "V. English: want. Tojiki: хостан."

панир not in source

нун vs. "N. English: bread. Tojiki: нон. Etym: Tajik?."

хварак vs. "V. English: eat. Tojiki: хурдан. See: жавак."

тиреза vs. "N. English: window. Tojiki: тиреза. From: Tajik."

пун vs. "Adj. English: full. Tojiki: пур. Etym: Yaghnobi, from Tojiki?."

панч vs. [pantʃ] Quant. English: five. Tojiki: панҷ. Hom: панч2. / N. English: key. Tojiki: калид. Syn: калит; Hom: панч1.

зивок vs. "N. English: language. Tojiki: забон."

– Gormflaith (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @Metaknowledge Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge Could you take care of this please? It's months later and nothing has been done. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I really don't have the time nor the energy nor the interest to do this all myself. I told User:Victar (and this applies to you too): if you go through and mark them all with, say, {{delete|Mass deletion of entries per RFD}}, I will finish the job and delete them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся

Russian. These are not suffixes: the preceding а is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another а-final suffix like -ывать (-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just -ущий (-uščij), -ющий (-juščij). Guldrelokk (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to -ущий, -ющий.

Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?

@Benwing2, Wikitiki89, Atitarev, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. ука́зывающий (ukázyvajuščij) = ука́зыв (ukázyv) + -ающий (-ajuščij). The stem is -казыв- (-kazyv-), not -казыва- (-kazyva-). And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: Why do you think the stem is not указыва- (ukazyva-)? It is present in all forms of the verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For verbs yes, better examples are: де́лающий (délajuščij) = "дел-" + "-ающий", призыва́ющий (prizyvájuščij) = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stem of делать (delatʹ) is дела-, the stem of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыва-: that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?

Or are you suggesting we should apply the POLA? --Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This logic would require doubling all suffixes: for example, the agent noun of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыватель (prizyvatelʹ), which has a suffix -тель (-telʹ) with the same а in front of it. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (process forms. A-OK) - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-аемый

Russian. Same goes for the passive participle. уваж-ать, уваж-а-ю, уваж-а-емый. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание (-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение (-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние (-nije) and -ение (-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание (-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать (pisatʹ), пишем (pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

мажемый (mažemyj) does not exist, for example, if only as an extreme occasionalism. It is not grammatical. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the active participle: note how писать (pisatʹ), пишу (pišu) has пишущий (pišuščij). So to summarise: -ющий (-juščij) only occurs after а when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its а like писать (pisatʹ), it would be уважущий (uvažuščij). On the other hand, -емый (-emyj) only occurs after those stems in а which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if уважать (uvažatʹ) could lose its final а, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.

I think that -ание (-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to -емый (-emyj); I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый (-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consistent with what I learned when I learned this language's grammar. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

porta-

Italian. See also Talk:porta-.

Pace the Italian wiktionary, this is not a prefix but a verbal compounding form. Although I find it unnecessary (we could put the list of compounds at portare), I'm ok with keeping the entry itself since it exists in other dictionaries; see Treccani for example.

Note however that Treccani does not describe porta- as a prefix, as opposed to pre-. Saying it's a prefix makes as much sense as saying cutthroat is cut- + throat, or killjoy is kill- + joy, or spitfire is spit- + fire.

Category:Italian words prefixed with porta- needs to be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam 08:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I

Support deletion, though I’m fine with keeping it different from a prefix, too. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments here and here. @GianWiki, Ultimateria? Imetsia (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete it. — GianWiki (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of the entry itself, but I still believe the derived terms should be considered compounds. Ultimateria (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

anh hai

Vietnamese. Tagged by 2405:4800:52a7:99c:4104:f793:b3d:b0c0 but not listed. Comment: "SOP; compare bác hai, chị hai, cậu hai, etc." SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find that "anh hai" is used outside of the family context as well; I am yet to find analogous ways of using the other "family relation + hai" expressions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Mxn, PhanAnh123): This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

odiatus

odiandus

Latin. This together with inodiatus and perodiatus are taken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another look odiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in Forcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. odiato) based on the verb odiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from odīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.

--Brutal Russian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.

Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.

I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. — This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talk • contribs) at 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?

-80.133.110.139 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō (“salmon trout”) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?

It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs

I think the following uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοεργέω (agathoergéō) created by RexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault of Module:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν (agathoergoûmen) not *ἀγαθοεργέομεν (*agathoergéomen), ἀγαθοεργῶσι (agathoergôsi) not *ἀγαθοεργέωσι (*agathoergéōsi).

list

ἀγαθοεργέοι (agathoergéoi)
ἀγαθοεργέοιεν (agathoergéoien)
ἀγαθοεργέοιμεν (agathoergéoimen)
ἀγαθοεργέοιμι (agathoergéoimi)
ἀγαθοεργέοις (agathoergéois)
ἀγαθοεργέοιτε (agathoergéoite)
ἀγαθοεργέοιτον (agathoergéoiton)
ἀγαθοεργέομεν (agathoergéomen)
ἀγαθοεργέον (agathoergéon)
ἀγαθοεργέουσα (agathoergéousa)
ἀγαθοεργέουσι (agathoergéousi)
ἀγαθοεργέωμεν (agathoergéōmen)
ἀγαθοεργέων (agathoergéōn)
ἀγαθοεργέωσι (agathoergéōsi)
ἀγαθοεργεόντων (agathoergeóntōn)
ἀγαθοεργεοίτην (agathoergeoítēn)
ἀγαθοποιέει (agathopoiéei)
ἀγαθοποιέειν (agathopoiéein)
ἀγαθοποιέεις (agathopoiéeis)
ἀγαθοποιέεσθαι (agathopoiéesthai)
ἀγαθοποιέεσθε (agathopoiéesthe)
ἀγαθοποιέεσθον (agathopoiéesthon)
ἀγαθοποιέεται (agathopoiéetai)
ἀγαθοποιέετε (agathopoiéete)
ἀγαθοποιέετον (agathopoiéeton)
ἀγαθοποιέῃ (agathopoiéēi)
ἀγαθοποιέῃς (agathopoiéēis)
ἀγαθοποιέησθε (agathopoiéēsthe)
ἀγαθοποιέησθον (agathopoiéēsthon)
ἀγαθοποιέηται (agathopoiéētai)
ἀγαθοποιέητε (agathopoiéēte)
ἀγαθοποιέητον (agathopoiéēton)
ἀγαθοποιέοι (agathopoiéoi)
ἀγαθοποιέοιεν (agathopoiéoien)
ἀγαθοποιέοιμεν (agathopoiéoimen)
ἀγαθοποιέοιμι (agathopoiéoimi)
ἀγαθοποιέοιντο (agathopoiéointo)
ἀγαθοποιέοιο (agathopoiéoio)
ἀγαθοποιέοις (agathopoiéois)
ἀγαθοποιέοισθε (agathopoiéoisthe)
ἀγαθοποιέοισθον (agathopoiéoisthon)
ἀγαθοποιέοιτε (agathopoiéoite)
ἀγαθοποιέοιτο (agathopoiéoito)
ἀγαθοποιέοιτον (agathopoiéoiton)
ἀγαθοποιέομαι (agathopoiéomai)
ἀγαθοποιέομεν (agathopoiéomen)
ἀγαθοποιέον (agathopoiéon)
ἀγαθοποιέονται (agathopoiéontai)
ἀγαθοποιέου (agathopoiéou)
ἀγαθοποιέουσα (agathopoiéousa)
ἀγαθοποιέουσι (agathopoiéousi)
ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō)
ἀγαθοποιέωμαι (agathopoiéōmai)
ἀγαθοποιέωμεν (agathopoiéōmen)
ἀγαθοποιέων (agathopoiéōn)
ἀγαθοποιέωνται (agathopoiéōntai)
ἀγαθοποιέωσι (agathopoiéōsi)
ἀγαθοποιεέσθω (agathopoieésthō)
ἀγαθοποιεέσθων (agathopoieésthōn)
ἀγαθοποιεέτω (agathopoieétō)
ἀγαθοποιεέτων (agathopoieétōn)
ἀγαθοποιεόμεθα (agathopoieómetha)
ἀγαθοποιεόμενον (agathopoieómenon)
ἀγαθοποιεόμενος (agathopoieómenos)
ἀγαθοποιεόντων (agathopoieóntōn)
ἀγαθοποιεοίμεθα (agathopoieoímetha)
ἀγαθοποιεοίμην (agathopoieoímēn)
ἀγαθοποιεοίσθην (agathopoieoísthēn)
ἀγαθοποιεοίτην (agathopoieoítēn)
ἀγαθοποιεομένη (agathopoieoménē)
ἀγαθοποιεώμεθα (agathopoieṓmetha)
ἀγερέει (ageréei)
ἀγερέειν (ageréein)
ἀγερέεις (ageréeis)
ἀγερέεσθαι (ageréesthai)
ἀγερέεσθε (ageréesthe)
ἀγερέεσθον (ageréesthon)
ἀγερέεται (ageréetai)
ἀγερέετε (ageréete)
ἀγερέετον (ageréeton)
ἀγερέῃ (ageréēi)
ἀγερέοι (ageréoi)
ἀγερέοιεν (ageréoien)
ἀγερέοιμεν (ageréoimen)
ἀγερέοιμι (ageréoimi)
ἀγερέοιντο (ageréointo)
ἀγερέοιο (ageréoio)
ἀγερέοις (ageréois)
ἀγερέοισθε (ageréoisthe)
ἀγερέοισθον (ageréoisthon)
ἀγερέοιτε (ageréoite)
ἀγερέοιτο (ageréoito)
ἀγερέοιτον (ageréoiton)
ἀγερέομαι (ageréomai)
ἀγερέομεν (ageréomen)
ἀγερέον (ageréon)
ἀγερέονται (ageréontai)
ἀγερέουσα (ageréousa)
ἀγερέουσι (ageréousi)
ἀγερέω (ageréō)
ἀγερέων (ageréōn)
ἀγερεόμεθα (agereómetha)
ἀγερεόμενον (agereómenon)
ἀγερεόμενος (agereómenos)
ἀγερεοίμεθα (agereoímetha)
ἀγερεοίμην (agereoímēn)
ἀγερεοίσθην (agereoísthēn)
ἀγερεοίτην (agereoítēn)
ἀγερεομένη (agereoménē)
ἠγαθοποιέεσθε (ēgathopoiéesthe)
ἠγαθοποιέεσθον (ēgathopoiéesthon)
ἠγαθοποιέετε (ēgathopoiéete)
ἠγαθοποιέετο (ēgathopoiéeto)
ἠγαθοποιέετον (ēgathopoiéeton)
ἠγαθοποιέομεν (ēgathopoiéomen)
ἠγαθοποιέοντο (ēgathopoiéonto)
ἠγαθοποιέου (ēgathopoiéou)
ἠγαθοποιεέσθην (ēgathopoieésthēn)
ἠγαθοποιεέτην (ēgathopoieétēn)
ἠγαθοποιεόμεθα (ēgathopoieómetha)
ἠγαθοποιεόμην (ēgathopoieómēn)

There might be other cases to deal with, so I named this thread generally. — Eru·tuon 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō). To do: uncontracted forms of ἀγαλλιάω (agalliáō), ἀγανακτέω (aganaktéō), ἀγαπάω (agapáō) maybe, ἀγείρω (ageírō). — Eru·tuon 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. RexPrincipum (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexPrincipum: I'm haven't heard of uncontracted forms ever being used in Koine (except in short verbs like πλέω), but if you can find any evidence of them, I'd be glad to see it. — Eru·tuon 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to |dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But ἀγαθοεργεῖν (non-contr - contr) in 1 Tim. 6.18. Akletos (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

grattis i efterskott

Swedish. SOP, "grattis i efterskott". — sur jec tion ⟨?⟩ 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the lack of an entry for i efterskott or indeed efterskott I suggest holding fire on this. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an entry for i efterskott ("in arrears"?), the Swedish Wiktionary doesn't have one even though it tends to be colloquial. --83.253.32.49 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

efterskott = efter (“after”) + skott (“shot”), similar to Nachhinein = nach (“after”) + hinein (“into, in”), cp. im Nachhinein? Hence: grattis i efterskott (“'congratulations afterwards', 'congratulations after it happened')”)? Looks like SOP, but lacks efterskott and/or i efterskott which is needed before deletion. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

zoals gewoonlijk

Dutch, zoals (“as”) + gewoonlijk (“usually”). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual English expression is as usual, short for as is usual, so the word usual is an adjective. The similar expressions as always and as before use adverbs. I think the word gewoonlijk is also an adverb, so the word-by-word translation (as usually) is somewhat unidiomatic. So this is not an open-and-shut SOP case. --Lambiam 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zeker moet het hier blijven. ;-) - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 04:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is gewoonlijk (also?) an adjective like gewöhnlich? nl.wt has it as adjective and with inflection and as adverb. If so, it could (also?) give: zoals gewoonlijk (“as usual”). --幽霊四 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@幽霊四 It is both, but I think it is more commonly used as an adverb and deadjectival words suffixed with -lijk are usually primarily adverbs. The inflected adjective gewoonlijke is for instance rather easy to attest. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingo_Bingo_Dingo: We also have as usual. Is the Dutch expression really more soppy than the English one? Fytcha (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is. 1: this form strongly suggests an adverbial interpretation, which is a much less unusual and more productive construction that the English as usual is; 2: just about any Dutch adjective can be used as an adverb, so the substitionability is much higher. If this is kept, why not a whole slew of equivalent attested expressions? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Old English pseudo-prefixes

See WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:

(1) Those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes:

Prefix	Corresponding free lemma	Prefix category
ang- (“narrow, tight, vexed”)	ange (“narrow, tight”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with ang-
Angel- (“English”)	Angel (“Anglen (district in Schleswig)”)
Bryt- (“British”)	Bryt (“Briton”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with Bryt-
car- (“sorrow, sadness”)	caru (“care, sorrow”)
carl- (“male”)	carl (“man”)
eald- (“old”)	eald (“old”)
ealdor- (“origin”)	ealdor (“elder, parent; life, eternity”)
feoh- (“cattle”)	feoh (“cattle”)
feor- (“far”)	feor (“far”)
feorran- (“from afar”)	feorran (“from afar”)
folc- (“people”)	folc (“people”)
ful- (“full”)	~~ful (“full”), full~~	~~Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-, Category:Old English words prefixed with full-~~
fyrn- (“ancient, former”)	fyrn (“former, formerly”)
fæderen- (“paternal”)	fæderen (“paternal”)
fǣr- (“sudden; hostile”)	fǣr (“sudden danger, peril”)
gador- (“united”)	gador (“together, united”)
galdor- (“magic”)	galdor (“magic song, enchantment”)
ġearu- (“ready”)	ġearu (“ready”)
ġeō- (“former”)	ġeō (“formerly”)
ġiestran- (“yester-”)	ġiestran (“yesterday”)
hēafod- (“head, main”)	hēafod (“head”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with heafod-
hēah- (“high, main”)	hēah (“high”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with heah-
healf- (“half”)	healf (“half”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with healf-
hund- (“hundred”)	hund (“hundred”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
hund- (“dog, hound”)	hund (“dog, hound”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
īdel- (“empty, vain”)	īdel (“empty, vain”)
lād- (“leading”)	lād (“course, journey; leading, carrying”)
lah- (“law”), lag-	lagu (“law”)
lang- (“long”)	lang (“long”)
lēas- (“false”)	lēas (“false”)
lēod- (“people, nation”)	lēod (“people, nation”)
lēof- (“dear”)	lēof (“dear”)
līġ- (“fire”)	līġ (“fire”)
lyft- (“air”)	lyft (“air”)
lȳt- (“small, little”)	lȳt (“little, few”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with lyt-
lȳtel- (“small, little”)	lȳtel (“small, little”)
lǣċe- (“doctor”)	lǣċe (“doctor”)
læt- (“slow”)	læt (“slow”)
mēdren- (“maternal”)	mēdren (“maternal”)
mere- (“sea”)	mere (“sea”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with mere-
met- (“measurement”)	met (“measurement”)
mete- (“food”)	mete (“food”)
middel- (“middle”)	middel (“middle”)
mōnaþ- (“month”)	mōnaþ (“month”)
morþ- (“death”)	morþ (“death”)
mǣġ- (“kin”)	mǣġ (“kinsman”)
mæġen- (“strong”)	mæġen- (“strong”)
mæġþ- (“kin”)	mæġþ (“family, clan, tribe”)
mǣl- (“time”)	mǣl (“time”)
nēah- (“near”)	nēah (“near”)
nīw- (“new”), nīƿ-	nīwe (“new”)
oft- (“often”)	oft (“often”)
riht- (“right”)	riht (“right”)
rīm- (“number”)	rīm (“number”)
rūm- (“wide, spacious”)	rūm (“wide, spacious”)
sīd- (“wide, spacious”)	sīd (“wide, spacious”)
simbel- (“always”)	simbel (“always”)
singal- (“continual, perpetual”)	singal (“continual, perpetual”)
stæl- (“theft”)	stalu (“theft”)
wēa- (“evil, woe”), ƿēa-	wēa (“misfortune, evil, woe”)
wēas- (“chance”), ƿēas-	wēas (“by chance”)
wēden- (“insanity”), ƿēden-	wēde (“raging, mad”)
wer- (“man”), ƿer-	wer (“man”)
wīd- (“widely”), ƿīd-	wīd (“wide”)
wīf- (“woman”), ƿīf-	wīf (“woman”)
wīġ- (“holy”), ƿīġ-	wīġ (“idol, image”)
will- (“desire”), ƿill-	willa (“desire”)
yfel- (“evil”)	yfel (“evil”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with yfel-
þeġn- (“service”)	þeġn (“servant”)
þēod- (“public”)	þēod (“people, nation”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with þeod-
þweorh- (“cross, opposite”), þƿeorh-	þweorh (“cross, tranverse; adverse”)

(2) Those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure:

Prefix	Corresponding free lemma	Prefix category
aġēn- (“again”) (wrongly found at aġēn, without hyphen)	āġēn (“towards, against; again”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with agen-
āweġ- (“away”), āƿeġ-	āweġ (“away”)
betwēon- (“between”), betƿēon-	betwēonan (“between”)
betwux- (“between”), betƿux-	betwux (“between”)
dūne- (“down”)	dūne (“down, downwards”)
~~eal- (“all”), eall-~~	eal (“all”), eall	Category:Old English words prefixed with eal-
efen- (“equal, even”)	efen (“equal, even”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with efen-
eft- (“again, back”)	eft (“again, anew; back”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with eft-
fēa- (“little; poor, lacking”)	fēa (“few”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with fea-
fela- (“many, multi-”)	fela (“many”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with fela-
foran- (“front”)	foran (“opposite, in front”)
hinder- (“behind”)	hinder (“after, behind”)
maniġ- (“many”)	maniġ (“many”)
miċel- (“large, great”)	miċel (“large, great”)
middan- (“middle”)	midd (“middle”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with middan-
niþer- (“below”)	niþer (“below”)
onġēan- (“towards, against”)	onġēan (“towards, against; again”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with ongean-
onweġ- (“away”), onƿeġ-	onweġ (“away”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with onweg-
samod- (“together”)	samod (“together”)
sel- (“rare”), seld-	seldan (“rare”)
self- (“self”)	self (“self”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with self-
sundor- (“apart”)	sundor (“apart”)
ūtan- (“on the outside”)	ūtan (“on the outside”)
wan- (“lacking”), ƿan-	wana (“lack”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with wan-
wel- (“good, well, very”), ƿel-	wel (“well”)
ǣr- (“before”)	ǣr (“before”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with ær-
þri- (“three”)	þrī (“three”)
þrim- (“three”)	þrīm (“dative of þrī (“three”)”)

(Notifying Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine): Please let me know what you think, esp. of the 2nd category. Few of these prefixes, esp. in the first group, have corresponding categories like Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-; for those that do and we agree to delete, I will empty the categories before deleting the prefix. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.) --Lambiam 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck eal(l)-, efen-, and self- out of the list (as kept) per my rationale above. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

ᠨᡇᡉᠷ

Written Oirat.

ᠨᡇᡇ᠍ᠷ

ᠨᡇᡆᠷ

As far as I may be concerned about transliterating the w:Clear script, these orthographies are all false and, due to this, the entries shouldn't be kept. HeliosX (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ᠨᡇᠷ

Taking into account the transliteration from the Clear script, it has occurred to me that the orthography wouldn't be wrong here. HeliosX (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeliosX: What is going on here? I don't understand you at all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First and last one are deleted, as they were tagged by the entry's creator (obviously created in error). @LibCae could you confirm that the other two are also incorrect, so we can close this? Thadh (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I’m late :( The first variant was attested in Pozdneyev’s printed dictionary (although it’s not enough unless we find it in a manuscript). Should we keep the spelling for a while? The second one should be incorrect. LibCae (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ᠨᡇᡆᠷ (nuor). This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the problem with ᠨᡇᡇ᠍ᠷ seems to be related to attestation, I am going to send it to WT:RFVN. This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

onca

Translingual. Sending this back to RFD. It can't be used on its own, and in fact it can only be used in Panthera onca. We have deleted these before; see Talk:mume. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user. --Lambiam 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of which can be covered at the Panthera onca page. This is basically a cranberry morpheme that has no meaning outside of this one binomen. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered at Panthera onca, but that is of no avail to a user who looks up “onca” (unless they are savvy and persistent enough to click What, lynx here?). I still don’t see the benefit of deletion. --Lambiam 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in Panthera onca ({{only in|mul|Panthera onca}})? Then people can find the species (and etymology etc.) if they just search for the epithet. --Bakunla (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect as suggested above. Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect, this should discourage people from adding it again. Thadh (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can also be found in the synonym Felis onca. --RichardW57 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name Felis onca, then was transfered to the genus Panthera, which automatically changed the name to Panthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/daliþō

If there are no non-North Germanic cognates, this should be moved to an Old Norse entry. @Knyȝt --{{victar|talk}} 23:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? @victar — Knyȝt 09:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Knyȝt: Because it can be formed by dalr +‎ -ð, making it's existence in PG questionable with no other cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@victar: That would render a **dald, which cannot be the ancestor of the descendants listed. The PG -i- is needed for the umlaut. — Knyȝt 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Knyȝt: Fair point, so an unattested ON *del, from *daljō + -ð, which actually fits better semantically. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/gawihtiją

Could just as easily be a PWG *ga- +‎ *wihti (“weight”) +‎ *-ī construction, no? @Holodwig21, Rua --{{victar|talk}} 04:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if such formation were productive in PWG but I'm incline to vote delete as I think this formation may be likely PWG. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kroonen reconstructs it for PG, though. —Rua (mew) 09:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kroonen reconstructs a lot of stuff that probably didn't exist in PG, like Latin borrowings into PWG, not to even mention PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

-erlei

German. Neither in common understanding nor etymologically analyzed so. See -lei, of which this is a duplicate created by a Briton of moderate German proficiency. -lei is a noun, by spelling a suffix and only for the reasons that follow a derivational suffix. Identically functioning synonyms are -gestalt (diesergestalt, welchergestalt etc., which one does and would not create as one knows well the noun Gestalt, but even less so one would create -ergestalt), -hand (solcherhand, mancherhand … from Hand), -art (mancherart, welcherart … from Art), -schlacht (allerschlacht; retained from Middle High German -slaht, -slahte, obsolete as the noun is not used in New High German, only Geschlecht). The part in between is the inflectional ending -er of adjectives in the feminine genitive singular (no entry for it here; it is to be seen as interfix -er- with a different etymology when recognizing the succeeding part as suffix, the interfix is else mostly from neuter plural noun inflection endings).

The syntactic category of what results is originally attributive noun phrase, which can also come in front of a noun in German as is well known; also adverbial noun phrase. With the living nouns such formations can also come after the noun and thus disprove that they are adjectives since attributive adjectives in German need to precede the noun; such formations would just not be spelled in one word. Männer solcher Art ←→ solcherart Männer, and no reason why not: solcher Art Männer. The same is not bearable for -lei which does not have a corresponding independently of this construction used noun, one will hardly say: Männer solcher Lei (except perhaps in very early New High German), and only therefore and because they most frequently precede nouns while attributive noun phrases more often succeed nouns, in German, formations with all the said morphemes are considered adjectives.

But the recognition of the noun as a morpheme is yet well alive, as some nouns in such suffixes are independently alive and the feminine genitive singular adjective ending is still used. So -erlei is a dispreferrable analysis (an understanding not employed by the language community) and therefore -erlei added to -lei after the former had been created is not an “alternative form” but no real form altogether. And of course and at least Category:German words suffixed with -erlei should be emptied and its content pages put to Category:German words suffixed with -lei. Fay Freak (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorize and (when Category:German words suffixed with -erlei is empty) Delete (and also the empty cat). May I suggest adding an etymology section to -lei that also explains how this is got to be suffixed to genitive forms of adjectives so that -erlei is a recurring ending? --Lambiam 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither in common understanding [...] analyzed so" isn't correct. -erlei is present in several modern grammars (including Duden and PONS, see the entry for a bit more). So at the very least, -erlei should exist and point to -lei. --2003:DE:373F:4031:3515:67E:BD2C:B01B 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Retired_language_articles/Sunda–Sulawesi_languages. This one was based on original research and has no verifiable sources. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subgroup is a spurious Wikipedia artifacts based on a misreading of Figure 2 (p. 431) in this paper, so the corresponding proto-language is also spurious. And FWIW, most reconstructions in Category:Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi_lemmas wouldn't even reproduce the correct reflexes in the putative descendants of "Sunda-Sulawesi" if the non-existent subgroup were taken at face value. See also my arguments here: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March#Sunda-Sulawesi_Language_Group. –Austronesier (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reine des abeilles

French. As a native speaker, I see this lemma has a sum of parts. A proof is the TLFi does know this word. Yet if we look at reine, we can read: "2.a Animal, végétal, chose qui domine, l'emporte sur les autres au sein d'un groupe, dans un lieu donné, par ses qualités propres. [Chez les insectes sociaux (fourmis, termites, guêpes et surtout abeilles)] Femelle féconde unique d'une colonie, d'une ruche. Reine d'abeilles, des abeilles; reine termite. Les fourmis sont en grand émoi: L'âme du nid, la reine est morte (Rollinat, Névroses, 1883, p. 234). J'ai plus d'une fois, comme tout amateur d'abeilles, fait venir d'Italie des reines fécondées (Maeterl., Vie abeilles, 1901, p. 61)." This mean that we can "reine des fourmis", "reine des termites", etc. In the example given by TLFi, the text only use "reine" (bold is mine). Pamputt (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this should be deleted, but I did add the relevant sense to reine. Ultimateria (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is queen bee; “queen bee”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. French abeille means "bee". How would I know this is the way of putting it in French? In Czech, we say včelí královna rather than *královna včel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

رأي

Arabic. Rfd-sense: “2.1 (derogatory) a subjective opinion perceived as unfounded or invalid”. Redundant to sense 2 “an opinion, a view” --176.224.125.73 13:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

أراك لاحقا

Arabic. SOP. — This unsigned comment was added by Fenakhay (talk • contribs).

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

(Notifying Atitarev, Benwing2, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, ZxxZxxZ, عربي-٣١, Fay Freak, AdrianAbdulBaha, Assem Khidhr, Fenakhay, Fixmaster, M. I. Wright, Roger.M.Williams, Zhnka): It's been two years already. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha: SOP, not idiomatic, but one of several possible literal translations. Fay Freak (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's an SOP but can be kept as a phrasebook entry. I have converted it to a phrasebook entry and made some fixes. Keep. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems impeccable then, according to our current inclusion criteria. Fay Freak (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: Thanks. Calling the nominator for any further input: @Fenakhay. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/gallô

Since all of the descendants from this have been moved over to *gallǭ, I think this can be deleted. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. *gallô is the ancestor of the OE form, and *gallǭ the rest. --{{victar|talk}} 02:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this discussion @Leasnam: had said: "I've moved *gallō to *gallǭ, since the West Germanic descendants are weak. I've also added the descendants of *gallô to *gallǭ. I think we can delete *gallô."

But it looks like English gall and its ancestors were deleted about a week ago from *gallǭ. DJ K-Çel (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on whether we want to keep the *gallô page solely for the lone Old English galla. Or we could consider the OE term a gender change from Proto-West Germanic *gallā f from Proto-Germanic *gallǭ and place it there. Leasnam (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

חנות משכונות

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN.

all'attacco

SOP for Italian "to the attack." If it's yelled out, or if it has an exclamation point at the end, it could become a command to "attack!" But this itself is not a lexical feature, so the term shouldn't be included as an entry. Imetsia (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t we have phrasebook entries for war commandos like this? Fay Freak (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: I agree with Fay Freak. P U C – 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 08:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, that and the other (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that as an adverb it's not a lexical feature by itself. (Andarono all'attacco is just "They went to the attack"), but I would keep is as an interjection. It's actually a feature of "a [article] [something]", used generally as an interjection to alert people of something. It's also found in all'arrembaggio yelled by pirates before attacking a ship, al ladro yelled by someone who's getting robbed, al lupo yelled by the boy who cried wolf. All of these could just be interpreted as a request to go "to the ~", and that's much likely the etymology, but it's not perceived anymore like this, as showed by other cases like al fuoco (lit. to the fire) yelled to alert people of a fire, which actually implies the opposite meaning, to run away. Catonif (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeh₂ǵos, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bazъ

“Transformed” Pokorny stuff, ominously sourced by the Leiden school.

The beech isn’t in the range (!) of the Proto-Indo-European homeland.
The Slavic page is properly *bъzъ. The Serbo-Croatian descendant does not count for *bazъ because Proto-Slavic *ъ generally gives a in Serbo-Croatian, the Russian and Ukrainian given are obscure dialectal forms, as well as the Bulgarian, which are unstressed while Bulgarian has suffered vowel reduction and Bulgarian а (a) and ъ (ǎ) are very close; ominously one gives an Old Church Slavonic only for *bъzъ. The current Slovak form which I added, apart from being anomalous as a feminine, can also be from ъ, this can be seen *dъždžь → dážď and the variation for *čexъlъ. Against the evidence from all Slavic languages one cannot posit such a byform, more easily *bazъ is an etymologist’s fabrication to shoehorn all into an Indo-European-etymology. Which does not work anyhow because the Slavic words mean elder, not beech. These plants are not confusable.
- The page is in ESSJa, ’tis true, but apart from the entry’s age as I have noticed often, they do not take a stand for every entry in their Proto-Slavic dictionary, which is but hypothetical. They apparently create some index files, here motivated by Pokorny, and look what they can find to support the form, then they publish all anyway if the result is negative. See the RFD already filed for the adjective *bazovъ in WT:RFDO, Useigor did not understand this and created bare objectionable entries this way.
Proto-Germanic *bōks means “book” but there is yet no proof the Germanic peoples used beechbark writing or anyone else as opposed to birchbark writing. And how can *bōkō (“beech”), different paradigms, be from the same Proto-Indo-European form? There is something unaccounted. The existence of that word also conflicts with *bʰeh₂ǵʰús (“arm”) giving *bōguz, as the consonant outcome differs and because “the slot is filled” i.e. the alleged word for a tree is too similar to a word for the arm for both having existed.
- Also the sound correspondence is not necessariy, I see that PIE eh₂ can give (with and without acute) ō, there is *bʰréh₂tēr → *brōþēr, *wréh₂ds → *wrōts, but it depends on ablaut and more typical is the result ā or a, e.g. *séh₂ls → *saltą, *stéh₂tis → *stadiz. Also considering the actual sound value in PIE [a] given at *bʰréh₂tēr. This additionally decreases the likelihood of PIE origin.
Albanian bung is very tentative and random as always.
Armenian բոխի (boxi) has been thrown out of the equation meticulously after the creation of the PIE, much reasoned at its entry.
Where is the Gaulish word attested? Probably fishy if it is claimed to be only Gaulish but not retained in other Celtic languages. What do the other Celtic languages have? With such things I am accustomed to have the suspicion that it is somehow conjectured from unfathomable placenames.
The Latin word may be an early borrowing from Northwest Greek φᾱγός (phāgós), like even mālum (“apple”); as Italy was Greek-settled and the beech is found in Italy only at some places and not right at Rome, only somewhat outwards. Whereas the beech is very frequent in the Proto-Hellenic area. In Latin likely a foreign word. I say this also from general impressions about substratum origins of Latin plant names, after having dealt with many Latin plant names and their origins.
This is well a loanword after Proto-Indo-European when Germans, Italians/Romans and Greeks took new settlements judging by analogy. Remarkably the Slavic words *bukъ and *buky are Germanic borrowings for some reason, apparently because the Slavs settled right at the Northeast of the distribution of the beech, of course also Hungarian bükk (“beech”) is loaned. So if not even the Slavs before expansion (3rd century CE) had a word for the beech, the Proto-Indo-Europeans hadn’t either; if the Slavs borrowed this word, the Germans and Greeks and Romans did it likewise earlier. The correct etymologies for the German and Greek words are “borrowed from an unknown source common to [Greek|Proto-Germanic]”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: agreed. This has always been a dubious reconstruction, made worse by shoehorning more descendants to it, and further comical by reconstructing it with *-eh₂-. Also see {{R:ine:HCHIEL|86}} --{{victar|talk}} 18:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. So I have found it is actually a debunked canard since half a century ago, called beech argument. It might have went past the Soviet theorists. In Krogmann, Willy (1954) “Das Buchenargument”, in Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen (in German), volume 72 1./2, →DOI, page 13 it is expounded how the Gaulish name is derived by reconstruction, from placenames. It is to be added that the literature finds it problematic that the Greek word means an oak and not a beech. Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Where else would "book" come from — This unsigned comment was added by 72.76.95.136 (talk) at 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It says where it possibly comes from. Often explained as in Germanic from the word for beech, which last is a word borrowed from somewhere. I do not need to have an explanation for or know everything to disprove an etymology. Your argument is none. Otherwise aliens built the pyramids because “how else”. Fay Freak (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several invalid arguments here.

1) “Transformed” Pokorny stuff, ominously sourced by the Leiden school." -- This is frankly just rude, not reasoned. Kroonen's dictionary is extremely respectable (even if one disagrees with it) and tested by peer-review, unlike this nomination for deletion. The reconstruction is cited by philologists in other "schools" than Leiden. Check out e.g. Ringe (Pennsylvania/Oxford). Wiktionary should be reflecting the general scholarly consensus, not novel, non-peer-reviewed proposals of independent-minded contributors.

2) "beech not in homeland" -- irrelevant, as many words change in meaning over time, and with different environments in different geographical locations

3) "yet no proof the Germanic peoples used beechbark writing". No, but Germanic peoples' first contact with "books" would probably be Roman writing-tablets, which were often made of beech wood. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindolanda_tablets)

4) "Latin word may be an early borrowing from Northwest Greek φᾱγός" -- Even if that is true, that still leaves Germanic (NW Indo-European) and Greek (S Central Indo-European) as cognates, which is generally regarded as sufficient to support the hypothesis that it is ancestral to both of those branches. But what on earth is "an unknown source common to [Greek|Proto-Germanic]" other than the common ancestor of the European side of PIE?

Signed: an anonymous academic peer-reviewer, who is a tenured Professor in a Philology Faculty (no, not Leiden). But the decision about whether to delete the page or not should be taken on the merits of the arguments alone. 82.132.228.243 11:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the argument that “the slot is filled” i.e. the alleged word for a tree is too similar to a word for the arm for both having existed" is unreasonable, because homophony and doublets are actually perfectly common phenomena cross-linguistically. 94.196.220.242 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are rude and not reasoned, okay?

Bare editors are stricter about meaning differences than I am, e.g. I presume @Metaknowledge mildly not amused about this lumping beeches and elders and what not. To reconstruct we need to pin down a more or less vague meaning, which these equations do not meet, and formally it is a scarecrow greater than many reconstruction pages we decided to delete, just not on first glance, but after a review of the possibilities (possibilities are hard to assess for the casual observer by magnitude, hence all those antivaxxers; our judgement needs specific training for the assessment of specific possibilities, so even if you are a professor in one area you may stay without insight in a closely related area and ignore its possibilities even though these should influence the decision).

We all have read very odd things that are peer-reviewed, as some academics have built parallel universes to make a living. And the beech argument is one of it, not a respected theory any more (if I understood respect correctly as being more than being constantly repeated out of courtesy and the university habit of citing everything that is available) but a fringe view, certainly not adding, in the traditional meaning of science, to our knowledge, but you are right that the decision about whether to delete the page or not should be taken on the merits of the arguments alone, since you yourself know your colleagues enough to distrust them.

It is symptomatic though that a tenured professor in philology fails to consider the presence of unknown language groups before Indo-European; that’s how one regularly comes up with reconstructions that should never be made: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, if you only know Indo-European, “everything” is from Indo-European. It is partially not your fault, given that the other language groups of Europe are scatteredly or not at all attested, and partially it is your fault in so far as you never deal with language areas where well-documented languages have stood in manifest contact (the usual case with the bulk of scholarship about Greek and Germanic and Germanic languages, you know those who live in a Germanic country and study Germanic do kind of a cheap thing, and if a European classical language is added this only opens the horizon a little).

Different semantic fields of a language have various propensities to contain borrowed terms, plant-names are especially notorious in it. If I was only an Indo-Europeanist I would hardly know but in the Semitic, Turkic, Iranian languages half of them (I exaggerate but little) are certainly loans from each other or other less-known or completely unknown language groups; e.g. another Wiktionary professor saw that خُلَّر (ḵullar) is surely borrowed and likely Hurrian but for the Greek ὄλυρα (ólura) the mainstreamers fail to do anything but speculate Indo-European (native or “pre-Greek”) origins although with the Near East data they should have classified it as wanderwort. However about every second time I open a Greek etymology Beekes claims a Greek word to be pre-Greek: while the intrinsic value of this label is close to zero due to the multifariousness of the frequent Pre-Greek claim, the idea of unknown sources of borrowings has been defended very well and is being concretized while we edit Wiktionary etymologies more and more.

So we pray you, Professor, to register and solve words occasionally, and especially if to disprove people as rude and uneducated as me. The more you learn of this dictionary business the more you realize that there is a thin line between daring comparisons—adding to our knowledge by maverickism—and academic dishonesty. And IPs are evil. After all you already do not rely on the majority of the comparisons on which that PIE “reconstruction” is made, if Germanic and Greek are left: In our experience the farer away a reconstructed historical language the more descendants one needs, and for PIE two are regularly (without very good reasons) not enough, while for Proto-Slavic not rarely one is enough—if a term must have been formed in Proto-Slavic, e.g. *mězgyrь, while for PIE there are too many millennia in between of what could have happened and we do not know that *bʰeh₂ǵos must have been internally derived in PIE (usually between Arabic, Iranian and Turkic and often inside their language groups themselves we know where a term was formed and hence whence borrowed by our understanding the internal morphologies of the languages: all things you do not know for this term).

This is all to say that, in comparison to more certain etymologies, here you know absolutely nothing. But you should somehow be confident about a reconstruction rather than many mismatches and coincidences and alternative scenarios (and I have engaged in shaky reconstructions out of excitement, but this is so shaky that it crumbles apart the more you think about it—if it were better I would come to maintain this PIE term: obviously I come correct in thinking about reconstructions, you will hardly deny this experience in having a consistent and carefully weighed approach about reconstruction entries). Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:ru:Буковый аргумент, the modern range of w:Fagus orientalis falls inside the Proto-Indo-European homeland. And its range several millenia ago might have been broader than today. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

latet anguis in herba

Is it lexicalised in Latin (if yes, should it possibly be moved to anguis in herba?), or was it only created because it's the origin of the English idiom? @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak. P U C – 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase can be found in Latin texts, mostly literally as in Virgil, but sometimes with the verb in conjugated form.^[1][2][3] These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb.^[4] --Lambiam 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC, Lambiam:It seems like the idiomatic part is the noun phrase, while the verb can be omitted without loss of meaning, which seems to be the ultimate criterion for determining an idiom. It's obviously an allegory originally, and a good allegory is always ripe for becoming proverbial; nevertheless, I think this only happened after Erasmus, as it isn't found among his proverbial mountains of proverbs. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

⦙, ⧝, ⧜

Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.^[5][6][7] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol _⧜ is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. --Lambiam 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. @Erutuon? P U C – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History > 00-002 and 00-094. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

νεκρο-

Ancient Greek. Unneeded, νεκρός (nekrós) is perfectly sufficient. P U C – 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, certainly an odd one out in CAT:Ancient Greek prefixes. This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)

As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether -lending technically is a suffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that -lending rather than -landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an entry for -lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The given sense (both for Bokmål and Nynorsk) does not cover all uses; see innlending and utlending. --Lambiam 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. Supevan (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)

As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw This isn't a duplicate; there are two entries. Don't delete it.__Gamren (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looked identical so I thought it was a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/gamal-

As @Dbachmann wrote in the entry in 2017, this was not really a word in Proto-Semitic, but rather a wanderwort that had spread from Arabia by the dawn of the Common Era. No serious modern lexicon of PS includes this word. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How will we avoid the lengthy cognate lists? Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I imagine that a Proto-Arabic is the ultimate source of the wanderwort. We could therefore conceivably host everything in a separate list at جَمَل (jamal), although this would require a good explanation to make it clear that we're not talking about attested Arabic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the Old South Arabian cannot be from Proto-Arabic, innit? And the Ethio-Semitic forms will also be earlier borrowings from the times when the Ethio-Semitic speakers settled in Southern Arabia. Similarly Modern South Arabian, a niece-language group of Old South Arabian. Host at Reconstruction:Undetermined 😆? Fay Freak (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: You make a very good point. There's also Proto-Berber *a-lɣəm, which is thought to be a very old borrowing from a Semitic source that underwent metathesis, and is apparently the source of Hausa raƙumi and various other words. Now, this is a very unorthodox solution, but what if we created a page like Appendix:Semitic wanderwort gamal (or an alternate title; I'm sure there's a better phrasing) to discuss the problem, stick in a couple references, and host the descendant list? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is there a reason the list couldn't just be in the etymology section of one of the words (e.g. Proto-Arabic) with an appropriate qualifier, like "the ultimate origin [of this proto-Arabic word] is a Semitic wanderwort which was also the source of [... ... ...]" ? - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Granted, it may not have existed in PSem., but I think that it better to have a central entry and explain its existence in the reconstruction notes or etymology. Should be moved to PWS though. --{{victar|talk}} 22:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Reconstruction:Proto-West Semitic/gamal-, which at least is better than having it at PSem. @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak --{{victar|talk}} 23:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure that it can be safely reconstructed to PWestSem, and I don't see any references for that statement (besides the lazy authors who simply consider it to be PS, which we know is untenable). We know it is a wanderwort; I suppose a defensible lie is better than an indefensible one, but I was hoping for a more honest solution. Note to closer: all the incoming links still have yet to be fixed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's a solution -- I still stand by my original reasoning to keep -- but since this is only found in WSem. it belongs as a PWS entry, regardless. --{{victar|talk}} 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-srice

French suffix, apparent alt form of -trice but unused. Ultimateria (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the syllable onset sr- even possible in French? --Lambiam 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be possible as an onset cluster if it's preceded by a vowel. We have listing for six French nouns ending in -srice, all actually in -ssrice: successrice, prédécessrice, intercessrice, assessrice, professrice, possessrice. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I find all of these jarring. I'd consider them nonstandard. P U C – 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding their jarringness, can they be attested? --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one (prédécessrice) is actually suffixed. I agree with your point below and suggest sticking with -rice. Whose category, incidentally, has only 3 pages compared to 23 at -trice. Ultimateria (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If professrice is analyzed as profes + -srice, shouldn't we then not also have -drice (used in ambassadrice) and -trice (used in actrice and inspectrice)? --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a mistake. Modern French doesn't allow such a cluster, in onset or between two syllables (with /s/ as coda and /r/ as onset), so if you're dealing with Middle French you should use "mfr". If they were used in Middle French, the fricative of the aforementioned cluster would have undergone a fortition leading to /tr/ in Modern French. Also the productive feminine agent noun-forming suffixes are -eur (without any distinction with masculine, given that the latter acts as the neuter), -eure (almost never used but recently coined by the Academy, although no institution can ever rule a language) or -euse (the regular feminine form of "-eur"), and the ones which forms standard feminines of the words above are definitely -eur (by far the most used, though indistinguishable from the masculine without context) and -eure (somewhat better according to the said Academy). Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems a little silly. ~~The only attestations i can find for the words that end in ssrice are indications that they are incorrect forms for which correct forms already exist.~~ The etymology proposed for them (based on the existence of a Latin form) looks sketchy, too, because they are almost certainly neologisms based on the existing masculine form. Finally, splitting ss in the middle doesn't make any sense when they always act as a single letter in French, so the suffix, if these terms are attested, would be -rice. (cf. masculine -eur).SteveGat (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find some attestations for some of the words, but the proposed suffix remains frivolous. French wiktionary doesn't have it, and the words there that end in ssrice are proposed to have the suffix -rice, based the -eur/-rice pair. In any case, this suffix should be deleted. SteveGat (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Btw, Wiktionary distinguishes between [[Category:French words suffixed with -rice]] and [[Category:French words suffixed with -trice]], but Wiktionnaire doesn't: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Mots_en_fran%C3%A7ais_suffix%C3%A9s_avec_-rice (only a sub-category for -cultrice). Thomas Linard (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

gangaba

There is no indication this is Latin, it is only known from one mention in Quintus Curtius Rufus 3, 13, 7 which is “Gangabas Persae vocant humeris onera portantes.” – “The Persians call those who carry burdens on their shoulders gangaba”. Fay Freak (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the ancient Persians spoke a Latin dialect – but the historical linguistic evidence argues against this – the cited passage is actually a clear indication that this is not Latin. --Lambiam 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think current practice is to keep hapaxes mentioned as being from foreign languages in ancient languages, as there is no good alternative way of including them without tons of speculation on the base form and base language. The entry should, however, reflect that it is simply mentioned as a foreign word as opposed to being a word that was actually in use in Latin. If we delete entries like these, we miss out on some of the most interesting mentioned words from antiquity (my personal favorites are μέδος and haliurunna). So yeah, keep, please. I have edited the entry to reflect its foreignness to Latin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnemosientje: Not sure about such practice, the majority of comprehensive reference works omit them, being thus strict as including what really belongs to a language, like the σαπάνα (sapána) I yesterday found and most of these names in Dioscourides – should we add those thousands of – often insecurely read – names from there? And I account for the space being unlimited here. I’d rather avoid this kind of entries, if feasible, without tons of speculation. @ZxxZxxZ: does it remind you of any word? Maybe we could mention it on some Neo-Persian word as its oldest attestation; also we need translations for porter (I only know (hammâl). These entries stay misleading and have properties of ghost words, if they are titled “Latin” and are in descendant lists as Latin, and even have pronunciation sections like normal Latin word as haliurunna has; maybe haliurunna should actually be presented as Gothic, gangaba as Old Persian, while σαπάνα (sapána) as undetermined? That would be much truer. But in any case we also need to categorize such lacking entries somehow.

I mention that it seems like taxonomists have built moth names on this porter word: Mamerthes gangaba, Elachista gangabella. Fay Freak (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added all I found, and couldn't found anything related in Middle Persian, though this is probably from some other Middle Iranian language. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that these words need some place to stay, and especially in antiquity it often is hard to determine what exactly was the donor language. We can't be sure how well the antique authors knew from which language a word really derives. For example, the haliurunna word may not be Gothic proper at all (what if it's Vandalic instead, or some other EGmc language? Antique authors regularly conflated them with Goths), the word medos I mentioned is of uncertain origin, etc.; their forms are determined by how respectively a Latin and Greek writer made sense of these words they heard, they are therefore in terms of form probably not (exactly) as they would have been in their source language. Thus, it is not a bad solution per se imo to just keep such words at the language of the text in which they are attested, while clarifying that they are supposed to represent words from some other language. Perhaps "Undetermined" could be a solution, I have not thought about that much. I mainly just want them to have entries, as they are often (etymologically and otherwise) very interesting words. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the pronunciation from haliurunna btw, you are right that it made little sense — Mnemosientje (t · c)

I've seen a dictionary (w:Dehkhoda Dictionary) that actually includes hapaxes. But also it's a good idea to include such pages in the categoriese of the language of origin: σπάκα is the only directly known Old Median word, mentioned in a Greek text. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many dictionaries do; L&S for example, which is a Latin dictionary linked on the gangaba entry, includes it, as it does many other hapaxes of non-Latin origin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that we should use this occasion to remove that antiquated rule that says a hapax is only good if it comes from Festus, Nonius Marcellinus or Saint Isidore. It's obvious, as evidenced by this discussion, that nobody abides by it. Also a general cleanup of the dusty WT:ALA would be good. --Biolongvistul (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move all such hapaxes to an appendix. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appendixes is where words go to die, it is much preferable to just have them in mainspace where they'll actually be found by people looking for them. Again, it's hardly unheard of for Latin dictionaries to list such Latinised foreign hapaxes among more standard words (with an appropriate disclaimer, ofc), and there is no reason why we shouldn't. They're far too interesting to relegate to an appendix, imo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hîr

Min Nan. Quanzhou dialect not actually used to write (full) POJ. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

degjôj

Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is dëgjoj". We do have an entry for dëgjoj, but degjôj is labeled {{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form degjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX, PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is this spelling attested in writing anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a pronounced form? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

กลัวเหมือนหนูกลัวแมว

Thai. Tagged but not listed by @Octahedron80 as "SOP". If it's a simile, can we get a literal translation?__Gamren (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

การชยันโต

Thai. Tagged by @Octahedron80 with the reasoning "ชยันโต only used as verb in speaking". Created by @Miwaki Sato.__Gamren (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to post here :P --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M’, M’., M.’

Latin. Minor typographical variations. DTLHS (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M'.. --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I would certainly have thought a redirect was more appropriate than a delete for each.
- M'.#Variant spellings lists five variants. @Lambiam do you intend
  1. M’ , M.’ , M’. all redirect to M'. ? In which case shouldn't M' and M.' also redirect to M'. ?
  2. I would say rather that M’ redirect to M' , and M.’ to M.', with only M’. redirecting to M'. .
As to what the typographical symbol is see this cited source:
One archaeologist asserts that the stroke after the M is a well-known abbreviation for the prænomen Manius; but this is generally M❜ ; a small comma-like figure being introduced after the M.

The "small comma-like figure" in the source is different from a comma and from an apostrophe, but I'm not sure what it is, how widespread the use of such a distinct symbol was, or whether it would matter to Wiktionary.

Jnestorius (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe ’ to the same with a straight apostrophe ', so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either. --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “ꟿ” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “M_’”. --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manius (praenomen), citing various sources, says the name was originally abbreviated with the five-stroke M, and later abbreviated as M + the apostrophe-like thing. Given the source above and other sources I see when I search for things like "Manius, abbreviated" or "abbreviation of Manius" which say M' was the standard abbreviation of Manius (including ones talking about how that was easy to confuse with the abbreviation M. for Marcus), I take this to mean both abbreviations were found in period, whether in inscriptions or elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Re “it is general practice […] to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.” — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That's just what I was going to say. When I click on the red link I’m I am not taken automatically to I'm. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pre~~text~~mise. --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain stuff I did in 2019. I can't remember what I did last Tuesday, mate. Equinox ◑ 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lols --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft- or hard-redirect to whatever form(s) we decide to make the lemma (of this version of the abbreviation, as distinct from the five-stroke M version). - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

d'un certain âge

SOP: "un certain âge" (which can also be used with other prepositions: "à un certain âge", "passé un certain âge"), "un certain temps", "un certain nombre", etc. 212.224.227.168 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certain is quite idiomatic here and is a euphemism for 'older'. It has this meaning only when used before (and not after) 'âge'. In "un certain temps", "un certain nombre" the meaning is much vaguer and does not imply a larger quantity but on the contrary a small one (as per the TLFI: exprime le caractère particulier difficile à préciser ou la faible mais réelle quantité). It is also referenced in the TLFI (at 'âge', not at 'certain'): (Être) d'un certain âge. Ne plus être jeune.

It shouldn't at least be deleted before adding these acceptations of 'older' and 'small and undefined' to the "certain" article. Or maybe create "un certain âge" as a phrase? - Olybrius (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

d'un certain âge certainly has some claim to idiomaticity, but I don't think it deserves an entry. It should be a usage example at certain (which indeed is missing the sense we're talking about).

"certain" doesn't mean "older", it means "quite high/big". That might not be entirely relevant, but "vieux" doesn't collocate with "âge" in French, you can't say "*vieil âge" ("old age" would be "grand âge" or "âge avancé").

No one here suggested that certain by itself means “older“. I dispute that it means “quite high/big”. Used as a determiner, the meaning is basically the same as for English. --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)¨[reply]

@Lambiam: All right, "quite high/big" maybe isn't a good gloss either. I believe "(quite) some" is closer to the truth.

Regarding the other part of your message, well, how should I interpret Olybrius' first sentence? ("Certain is quite idiomatic here and is a euphemism for 'older'. It has this meaning only when used before (and not after) 'âge'")

What I meant in my answer is that not only does "certain" not have that meaning by itself (is this grammatical?), it does not have that meaning in combination with "âge" either. "older" is simply not a good gloss.

Anyway, what do you think should be done with this entry? 2A02:2788:A6:935:E553:100B:D4FC:35E4 14:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that certain per se carries a connotation of “quite some”. It is the context in which it is used that may imply this – or not, depending on that context. In many cases, “un certain nombre de” is best translated as “a number of”. In “il faut un certain temps à un corps quelconque pour traverser d’un point A à un point B”, it merely means that a body cannot travel instantaneously from A to B; the time needed may, however, depending on the case, be measured in femtoseconds or in eons. However, it cannot be denied that most uses of the expression d’un certain âge serve as a euphemism for “middle-aged or even older” – not just “middle-aged” as the current definition reads. In view of such cases as “atteindre un certain âge“, perhaps the lemma should be un certain âge, with a usex involving d’un certain âge and a label marking it as a euphemism, and then d’un certain âge can redirect there. --Lambiam 21:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Now I wonder: are you yourself d'un certain âge? 2A02:2788:A6:935:319E:F100:EA75:8B13 22:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't agree that "certain" imply a small quantity. When, for example, someone says "Ça fait un certain temps que je me pose cette question", they mean that they've been asking themselves that question for quite some time (i.e. for a rather long time). 212.224.227.168 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the exact same expression exists in English: "of a certain age". (see Lexico, Collins). 212.224.227.168 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't need the preposition of. For example, “Once you reach a certain age, everything after that is downhill.”^[8] Same in French: “Lorsque vous atteignez un certain âge, vous commencez à penser que vous êtes vieux.”^[9] --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete therefore. Fay Freak (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like this is the original fixed phrase, and the other variants (including of a certain age) are derived from it – Jberkel 11:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proponent, or at the very least move to (un) certain âge. @Jberkel, what do you mean by "other variants"? P U C – 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that the shorter variants are all later usages, and less specific. But that's speculation. – Jberkel 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-redirect to certain âge. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jberkel. We can have an additional entry for "certain âge", but if it's derivative of a longer phrase, both should be kept. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms

(Notifying Atitarev, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, ZxxZxxZ, عربي-٣١, Fay Freak): An IP marked the following forms for speedy deletion:

All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on Module:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in w:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like تسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا (sāʔū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active of جَاءَ (jāʔa) is given only as جَاؤُوا‎ (jāʔū) (not جَائُوا (jāʔū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ (yajīʔūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna)).

A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna).

I couldn't find the verb سَاءَ (sāʔa) but it has أَسَاءَ (ʔasāʔa). Barron: the third-person masculine plural past active is given as أَسَاؤُوا (ʔasāʔū) and the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative only as يُسِيئُونَ (yusīʔūna). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached out to the IP user but I am not sure they will engage in a discussion. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء (ʔ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ (ʔ), but ؤ, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ (ʔ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا and correct to شاؤوا even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). — This unsigned comment was added by Mahmudmasri (talk • contribs) at 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)‎.[reply]

November 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁óytos

Germanic *aiþaz is often cited at being an early Celtic borrowing. Regardless, given how it's disputed, a PIE entry isn't warranted. @AryamanA --{{victar|talk}} 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I remember that one has argued not without reason that this is a Celtic borrowing, and the likelihood of a Germanic-Celtic isogloss in comparison to a borrowing heavily speaks against this reconstruction. Fay Freak (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to *h₁ey-, which in any case ought to mention at least Celtic *oytos. A loan is a likely possibility, and these details would be better discussed somewhere else such as on the PG and PC pages (and the latter does not even exist yet!). Note though also Greek οἶτος (oîtos) as another suggested cognate. --Tropylium (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two words don't warrant a PIE reconstruction. Highly speculative. Ghirlandajo (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin SOPs?

-12:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.43.61 (talk).

tace tu

I dunno, the only other obvious variation on this is tacēte vōs, which can be treated as its plural version. It's not as idiomatic as "fuck you", but maybe like "shut it". Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vota vita mea

Are we treating mottoes as SOPs? There's a suckton of them in Latin, obviously, and I'm unsure of how to decide which ones to keep. Ditto for the next two below. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vitam impendere vero

Delete all, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additions: — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.43.61 (talk) at 18:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I would suggest this be retained, if only because I had cause to look it up and found it useful. A book on the Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer uses the phrase, citing Juvenal, as an epigraph for the volume. It was translated by T. Bailey Saunders (New York; A.L. Burt Publishers), probably very early 1900s, for those interested in finding it. Seems like it has enough historical value to be worthwhile to keep. Sychonic (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

iuniores ad labores

laus Deo

This one = thank God, I wouldn't want to cross the dude. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all SOP Latin mottos. These belong in an appendix or in Wikipedia. This, that and the other (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

an sein

German. SOP: just an (adjective, predicative only) + copula sein. --2003:DE:371B:BD06:1404:1693:E7A8:CED2 12:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ansein with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by an sein. (Compare ansein at the German Wiktionary.) -- — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~In light of IP editor's comments: send to RFV. — Dentonius 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Keep — Dentonius 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is ansein really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:

Ansein (n.),
ansein as OCR-error of an sein (preposition + pronoun),
mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").

--2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally "to be" + adjective. Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is in my German textbook. RealIK17 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ansein doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure pass me the salt is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective an can be used with other verbs too, like machen. How do we feel about creating an machen, aus sein, aus machen etc.? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): To have more natives' opinions. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suyá ŋó

The entry ŋó is simply a rendition of Suyá. The spelling ŋó does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the page ngô already exists. Degoiabeira (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a barely attested language like this, I feel like a single attestation in a single source might be enough for us to keep it at least as an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ანგელოზივით

აღმოსავლეთისკენ

აღმოსავლეთისაკენ

მათთვის

So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: ანგელოზი-ვით, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ, მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean 미국에서 (migug-eseo, “from America”) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa, Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში (-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით (-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ (šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarkoid: Why do you suggest deletion if the only problem is that the definitions are imprecise? We can treat them just like any other form-of entry. No? Dixtosa (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?

Now, is there any reason for deletion? Dixtosa (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰews-

Schwebeablaut isn't a root "variant", it's an environmental change. --{{victar|talk}} 00:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gl̥h₁éys

Not enough evidence, most likely did not exist; one used *múh₂s instead for all kinds of mice. The nominated word, somewhat varying by form in literature, is also claimed on the basis of some Iranian forms, which however have two much more likely explanations I mentioned at Arabic جُرَذ (juraḏ, “rat”) (an Iranian stem related to biting and stinging etc. (semantically Russian куса́ть (kusátʹ), if it is not clear from an English horizon) and a Semitic borrowing from a widespread Semitic stem related to gnawing). Looking at the edit history @Victar has removed an alleged Indo-Iranian reconstruction allegedly descending from this Proto-Indo-European, likely without explanation because it is obviously baseless, before someone re-added the Sanskrit words गिरि (giri) and गिरिका (girikā, “making hills, a mouse?”) again, which apart from a new formation from the word for a hill may also be a borrowing like other words (from which we have Bengali ইঁদুর (ĩdur) etc., “from a lost Vedic substrate language”). Munda forms ɡoɖo ~ guɖu are not farther than the alleged Indo-European cognates. g + either r/l are too common consonants. Then, how has the paradigm given for the Indo-European page any relation to the paradigm of the Sanskrit word or the paradigm of the Latin word glīs, which has the stem glīs- or glīr-. Ancient Greek γαλέη (galéē) means a mustelid, which is an animal not that similar or not all confusable or confoundable. I realize that Latin mūstēla (“weasel”) contains the word for mouse, but it does so because the weasel eats mice, but the weasel is no mouse by utmost historical phantasy, they had and have to be kept apart. So the glossing of the Indo-European page “mouse, dormouse; weasel” is impossible – no language can use one and the same word for mice and weasels. The Thracian άργιλος (árgilos, “mouse”) is not similar at all and needs other explanations, which it has, mentioned in the linked article Studies in Thracian vocabulary I–VII. Fay Freak (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it might be a conflation of substrate words. But suppose it didn't exist in PIE―then why are the supposed cognates so similar? Sheer coincidence doesn't seem to be an option, so they would have come from related substrate/adstrate terms that had diverged semantically in their own distant past. It simply pushes back the question further into an unreconstructible era. Just because two animals don't seem "confusable" doesn't invalidate an etymological connection between words for them. Far stranger shifts have happened in far shorter time than the whole history of Indo-European. Also, the original term might have been an adjective or some other unspecific label that would have been applicable to various animals (cf. *bʰerH- (“brown”), the supposed root of both bear and beaver; similarly semantically divergent substantizations are par for Indo-European linguistics). So your semantic arguments don't really hold up. If there were no formal problems with the phonetics, the cognate set would hardly be questionable. Likewise, some questionable items being formerly part of an etymology have no bearing on the present state of the etymology, nor do tentative, less-supported connections to other language families like Dravidian or Semitic, unless of course the evidence for those etymologies is stronger (in this case, it clearly isn't). The differing paradigms are an important question, but nothing unresolvable; most can be regarded as different ablaut variants of an i-stem, and the question of the exact form of the original noun (or other nominal) is at that point almost irrelevant to the validity of the etymology. Thus the only really worthwhile criticism here is on the phonetic grounds. ― 69.120.66.131 01:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Clearly” the evidence for Semitic and Munda origin of the Indo-Aryan terms are stronger—what does “supported” even mean? No, but coincidence is a stronger option, due to the ubiquity of the consonants in the game, and on the Arabic page I have offered a better derivation for the Iranian part. Anyway you admit that a noun is formally not reconstructible nor even any root of any defined meaning. The original might have been this, might have been that, or: there were multiple unrelated originals. You have a Greek and a Latin and Sanskrit word of bare different meaning. The Thracian is a meme speculation.

Now I also see the Greek and Latin derived from *gelH-, on Proto-Slavic *golъ, underline how arbitrary the assumptions underlying the Indo-European reconstructions of these words are. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reconstruction looks highly dubitable and is not supported by mainstream linguists. Delete. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vạt áo

Vietnamese. Sum of parts.

người thợ

Sum of parts.

Múa Ba Lê

Sum of parts and spelled wrong. (Should be lowercase, see ux at ba lê.)

bẫy chuột

Sum of parts.

All tagged but not yet listed. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "vạt áo" is a SOP. vạt is never used on its own to mean vạt áo, and the former is never used to describe any items of clothing that aren't tops. I think the definitions at vạt will need to be revised. --Корсикэн-Уара (юзэр толк) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can say vạt áo dài, which should be parsed as [vạt] [áo dài] (áo dài flap), not [vạt áo] [dài] (long flap). It’s true vạt is probably followed by áo in every single instance of it, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it a unit.

The other entries are 100% SoP though, so delete. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Notifying Mxn, PhanAnh123): Open for quite some time now. --Fytcha (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ad locum

Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:373f:4069:b534:361e:8aeb:9907 on 22 December, not listed: “SOP?”. J3133 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I wasn't familiar with this one before, but If I hear convincing arguments to keep, I'll take a closer look. — Dentonius 17:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's standard textual critics' jargon that's found its way into many if not all European languages together with things like q.v. and op. cit.. Google "grotius ad locum" and you'll find plenty of occurrences in early Latin prints. Brutal Russian (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Translingual???? This, that and the other (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

forene

@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The English verb unite is also used as a euphemism for the sexual act: [10], [11] – not a reason to add this as a new sense. --Lambiam 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Halmahera-Cenderawasih/wakaʀ

No descendants listed. Page creator is no longer active at Wiktionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference gives three reflexes of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *wakaR for "SHWNG", which is another name for Halmahera-Cenderawasih: Babuza wā, Windesi "war" (Wikipedia treats Windesi as a dialect of the w:Wamesa language with the language code wad, while we treat wad as the language code for Wandamen, which Wikipedia says is the name of another dialect of Wamesa) and Ansus woa. Of course, we don't have entries for any of those and Blust is known to have regularized orthographies elsewhere in the same work to make comparison easier, so I wouldn't use it as a source for the terms themselves.

I would note that the Proto-South Halmahera-West New Guinea index lists wakaR, and a suffixed form *wakaR-i (with four more reflexes). Of course, it has similar indexes for proto-languages that probably don't exist, such as Proto-Western Malayo-Polynesian, so it would be nice to have some source to back this up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

နမောတဿ ဘဂဝတော အရဟတော သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ

1. This was created as "Mon-Pali"; Ungoliant changed the header to Mon, but did so in error: it's Pali. 2. This is a phrase used in a Buddhist context. However, it's not lexical as far as I can tell. @Bhagadatta —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create Pali entry, keep and soft-redirect as Burmese script form of said entry. This is a major set phrase in Theravada Buddhism and should be kept just like 南無阿彌陀佛／南无阿弥陀佛 (Nāmó Ēmítuófó).--Tibidibi (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge, Tibidibi: Okay I suppose that can be done. Now every constituent word in that phrase has a Mon entry and they are all given the meaning "Buddhism". Is it correct and if it is not, could you fix that? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhagadatta, the relevant entries are နမောတဿ which is the Mon writing of Pali namo tassa (“homage [be] to him”), ဘဂဝတော (bhagavato) which is Pali bhagavato (“to the fortunate one”), အရဟတော which is Pali arahato (“to the worthy one”), and သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ, which is Pali sammā sambuddhassa (“to the Supremely Enlightened One”). They should probably all be soft redirects to Pali.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibidibi, Metaknowledge: Thanks for the info. Just to clarify, should the Pali soft redirects be added in addition to the preexisting lemmas or should the Mon entries be converted into Pali soft redirects? Because if we do that, then these entries will lose the pronunciation and etymology etc as they should be at the main entry.

Anyway I think we should keep the phrase entry and keep ဘဂဝတော (bhagavato) and အရဟတော and delete နမောတဿ because namotassa has no meaning or relevance which cannot be gauged from its constituent parts namo (homage) and tassa (to him; dative) and thus does not warrant an entry. Also delete သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ for the same reason. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 09:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhagadatta, I think we can keep the audio in the Latin-alphabet Pali entries, just labelled as {{q|Thai Mon pronunciation}}. Pali is read differently by every Theravada culture, and ideally every Pali entry would have a transcription or audio for the traditional reading in every Theravada country. (This can probably be automated, but I know very little about Pali.)

@エリック・キィ, Octahedron80, do you happen to know if any of these Buddhist terms are words in actual Mon, or are they reserved for Mon readings of Pali text?--Tibidibi (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we do not say lone portion of the verse anywhere; no one says "namotassa" or "bhagavato" etc in conversation except mantra. Each portion should be split into their relevent words. And in the end, they are pure Pali language, not Mon language. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with converting this to a Pali entry, the main entry of which should be at namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā sambuddhassa. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibidibi: You mean for every province, don't you? This sound clip is representative for neither Burma nor Thailand. I suspect you would need an entry for every lowland SE Asian L1, and quite possibly for British and Californian English L1s. And do you really want an entry for every inflected form? A regular masculine noun has 16 forms, and a verb has about 80 masculine participial forms alone! RichardW57 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhagadatta, Mahagaja: The word boundaries are not as clear-cut as one would like. The majority choice seems to be for "sammā sambuddhassa" to be one word, but its written both ways in Latin script and in Thai script. Now, "namotassa" is a sum of its parts in the same way as "coalmine" is. But, if it is to be translated as "homage to him", it makes sense as a univerbation. Keeping it as a unit is common (but not the majority choice) in Burmese script text on the web, and I notice that my Tai Khuen Pali sample writes it as one word. Determining word boundaries is awkward - sometimes it is clear that spaces are mere aeration! RichardW57 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardW57: Fortunately, redirects are cheap, as is {{alt sp}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibdibi, Bhagadatta, Mahagaja, Octahedron80 I wonder if this phrase might be 'multilingual'. It's rather like hallelujah and allah akbar. I've just found another example. In the Burmese-authored English language web page [12] which says in a throw away remark that နမော ဗုဒ္ဓါယ သိဒ္ဓံ (namo buddhāya siddhaṃ, “Homage to the Buddha; Success!”) (or is is it 'homage to the completely enlightened one'?) is Mon. The contexts for it are associated with Burma and Cambodia. I think it's Pali, but I'm not sure it isn't slightly substandard Sanskrit. (The form of 'buddhāya' looks wrong for Pali to me, but perhaps I haven't mastered the rules for the choice of dative singular form.) I have found the phrase in a larger Pali context, and the first two words carved in stone in Sanskrit. RichardW57 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

جعل عالي الشيء سافله

“SOP, add as an usex to the main verb lemma”. — فين أخاي ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 02:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sense given as idiomatic sense seems rather non-composite to me? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Allahverdi Verdizade It's a Qur'anic idiom, literally meaning "to make the top (or height) of sth its bottom (or low)", hence "to overturn", hence "to raze; to annihilate; to exterminate; to eradicate" as of cities and other localities, peoples and nations, and so on. The problem here is the question of whether every Qur'anic collocation merits a separate entry, considering that such phrases are often quoted in countless discourses and contexts. One could say that these phrases are so popular that they have become somewhat proverbial (perhaps akin to love conquers all), but that may be easily generalized to every widespread sequence of words regardless of composition, be it from holy books, movies and shows, philosphers, or somewhere else. One could think of The Matrix, Stars Wars, Game of Thrones as examples of this: someone who is familiar with these programs may, perhaps subconsciously, "quote" them in their speech, such as red pill or, more markedly, its alteration, black pill.

I personally think that "quoting something", in itself, is too fluid a standard, much more than the existing SoP criteria, even if the quotation arguably borders on "proverbs". Roger.M.Williams (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger.M.Williams: The problem is not about quoting; after all, we do have red pill as an entry! What we want to determine is whether someone unfamiliar with the Qur'anic usage could come across this in Arabic and correctly interpret its meaning in a modern context. (I think the answer is probably yes, but I am open to the possibility that it is no — in which case we would want to keep it.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 09:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Latin/consutura

Appears to actually be attested, though in New Latin, not Vulgar Latin. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: [13], [14], [15]. Should we interpret the New Latin use as "inherited" from Vulgar Latin? Otherwise, there are basically two homographic lemmas: a non-attested Vulgar Latin one, reconstructed from its descendants, and a re-invented one in New Latin. --Lambiam 10:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazarasp, Lambiam The word isn't attested before the 14th century or so (DMLBS). We can't very well say that the Medieval Romance forms derive from New Latin, where the word is in fact reborrowed/calqued from Romance. Therefore these are separate, and the Proto-Romance (Vulgar Latin) entry has to stay. Brutal Russian (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree; I would expect just one entry, which could explain that the word is inferred from Romance terms to have existed in Vulgar Latin but is not attested until later recoined in New Latin. By comparison, AFAIK we don't and shouldn't have separate reconstruction entries for attested terms in other languages (say, English or Ojibwe) where they can be inferred to have existed at some period before their actual attestation; we don't even have separate etymology sections for English words which existed in early modern English (Latvian, etc) and were later independently recoined in modern times. (OTOH, we still have a redundant reconstruction entry on lausa.) What do we do in comparable situations in Chinese or Hebrew? AFAICT we don't have any reconstructed Hebrew or Chinese entries, which suggests we may be handling "late (re)attested" words in those languages in mainspace only, as I would expect. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this has been moved to Reconstruction:Latin/cosutura (without n) and changed to derive from *cōsō, an unattested variant of cōnsuō. On one hand, this could all be handled in the mainspace by just mentioning the hypothetical n-less forms in etymology sections without spinning off whole entries, and I think such things are handled that way in situations were an n-form is attested earlier than an n-less variant; OTOH, it's now at least less stupid than having both *consutura and consutura... - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

جي

This is not a suffix in Standard Arabic. — فين أخاي ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 10:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "Standard Arabic" is defined chiefly in terms of the case system, the conjugations, and the traditional grammars that come with both, one may find very many "dialectal" words that become "standardized" by adding the appropriate case markers when used, and with them whatever productive combination-forms and derivational patterns in the vernaculars, such as this very segment. Since its function is recognizable and it is fairly productive, I do not see why it cannot be classed as a "suffix".

The whole "informal" tag for Arabic entries, which I have been trying to remove gradually, albeit with some resistance from disgruntled IP's, is to me utterly absurd: the employment of the case system itself strips any supposed "informality" from speech, regardless of the lexicon. How could a word like بُوسَة (būsa) be "informal" when declined in the manner characteristic of speeches and books? And, to me, the use of this segment is analogous to it. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger.M.Williams, Fay Freak: The term بَلْطَجِيّ (balṭajiyy) is borrowed from Eastern dialects to MSA. The suffix is nonexistent in Standard Arabic whatsoever, which is the opposite of the prefix كَهْرُو (kahrū) in that it is productive and largely used. The suffix جِيّ (jiyy) can't be considered as such just because it is found in some borrowed words from dialects or other languages. Should we consider تِلِ (tili) (in تِلِفِزْيُون (tilifizyūn), تِلِغْرَاف (tiliḡrāf) and تِلِفُون (tilifūn)) an Arabic prefix because it is found in some borrowed terms, even though it was never treated as such in the borrowing language? — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between the dialects and the literary language is very often blurred when vernacularisms are "adjusted" to fit in the conjugation and declension systems. You are speaking of "MSA" and the "dialects" as if they were almost antipodal (perhaps like Chinese and Swedish), but if you scour through modern news articles and opinion pieces, you will probably notice that very many of them are written in some "standardized vernacular", while some have whole paragraphs that are entirely composed in the syntax of the vernacular. The more starkly "dialectal" elements are interrogatives and other like particles, and when those are excised, you end up with a composition that is lexically "dialectal" yet grammatically "standard".

So my question is this: is this segment used in vernacular and/or literary formations on the model of the borrowings? If yes, then I deem it to be productive in some language. The question whether this language is the literary language or a dialect assumes that the two do not spill over each other at all. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is under no circumstances. It probably pops up too often in literature, though then not being as unmarked as it is now labelled (probably jocular? one hasn’t labelled it so on the other hand because it would be misleading because in basilects it is normal). Some words containing it are clearly part of the general standard, though one would have to seek examples where it’s not only by surface but the formation has taken place in literary use. بَلْطَجِيّ (balṭajiyy) clearly is manifestly general Arabic but not formed in it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on whether this suffix belongs in standard Arabic, but I do object to the ad-hoc post-Classical label. Most of the terms in Category:Arabic terms derived from Ottoman Turkish would deserve the same label, and adding the label should automatically put it in a category (somewhere under Category:Arabic_terms_by_usage, or Category:Post-classical_Arabic by analogy to Category:Post-classical Old Armenian or Category:New Latin). Would modern senses of words derived from classical roots deserve the same label? That is a lot of change to make. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vox Sciurorum: It does categorize if one writes the classical lowercase. Incomplete module data. Fay Freak (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the label to lower case, but the generated category contains only the one term so this is still a one-off solution as currently implemented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vox Sciurorum, Roger.M.Williams: I have fixed the module data aliases, which @Brutal Russian had brucked four months ago. Now you can add the label in arbitrary capitalization and hyphenation as intended. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a clutz! I'm wondering though, why is it that the current alias substitution works even tho it's still different from the "Pre-classical" of the category field. Is it that the first letter only is case-insensitive? Why does categorisation even care what's written in the label if the category is unchanged?? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brutal Russian: I thought you would understand: The dataset is called post-classical. To this argument of labels the aliases have to be mapped; of course everything is case-sensitive. display makes that all appear uniform. Fay Freak (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: Right, so I should have changed display. Brutal Russian (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

كهربجي

— فين أخاي ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you wanted to move it to a dialect entry. Egyptian–Sudanese Arabic would be appropriate. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenakhay, sending these to RFD is not an appropriate way to handle an entry that obviously exists. In general, we should avoid bulking up a forum like this this with entries that obviously shouldn't be deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

دكانجي

— فين أخاي ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 10:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₃ew-

This and the two below newly created below are of too poor quality. --{{victar|talk}} 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "poor quality"? Is the issue with the entry or the reconstruction itself ? Leasnam (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ǵeh₂r-

Ditto. --{{victar|talk}} 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be saved, but moved to *ǵar- —caoimhinoc (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Reconstruction:Pictish/ᚚᚓᚅ

Reconstructed on the basis of some Scottish place names, but there's no reason they have to be specifically Pictish as opposed to some form of Brythonic. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I had no idea until now that anyone was trying to include Pictish in Wiktionary: it seems a bit of a crazy endeavour, but certainly doesn't seem appropriate for this word... Alarichall (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of other terms like this now in Category:Pictish lemmas. The whole thing strikes me as a mess. As intrigued as I am and as much as I'd love to see more on Pictish, we probably should RFV/RFD for most if not all of them. Each one seems to rely on a single author's work, not least due to the fact that there's not complete scholarly consensus about what Pictish even was or where it was spoken. And I agree the Pictish status of the reconstructions is questionable. For comparison, the reconstructed Pre-Greek vocabulary is arguably more cohesive and well-defined, and, like the toponyms in question with respect to Pictish, it is tentatively associated with a language known to have existed: Minoan—as well as also largely limited to a single author, yet we have no entries for it. — 69.120.66.131 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

chirurgie de réassignation sexuelle

chirurgie de réattribution sexuelle

French SOP. Imetsia (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, SOP. P U C – 19:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. The English term sex reassignment surgery isn't SOP, so neither are these. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the crux here is whether réassignation and réattribution make this SOP; the polysemy of sexuelle is certainly not relevant. That these are SOP is neither clear nor explained. The definitions do not have a clear link to sex or gender, nor do the definitions of reassignment or reattribution make clear what is SOP about the nominated phrases. Here's a thought experiment, could a French speaker from one or two centuries ago infer the meanings of these phrases? I strongly doubt she could. As these terms surely look like calques from English, the odds are also real that they are jiffies in French usage relating to sex. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the thought experiment is meaningless: we don't write the website for French speakers from 1821. Yellow is the colour (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the thought experiment is that it is a simple heuristic tool that can help one detect jiffies and that it is one safeguard that prevents one from making the "literally translates the English, must be SOP" fallacy. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as we have sex reassignment surgery, of which this is essentially a word-for-word translation. If we are going to debate this at all, better to debate it in English where we can all weigh in. This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

посланець аллаха

Seems as SOP as Allah's Messenger would be in English. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't very SOP. Without real-world knowledge of Islam, how is anyone supposed to know who Allah's Messenger is? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is easy: It’s always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete? --Lambiam 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust a delete with a lean and hungry look. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.

In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.

As such, keep, and ideally also include Allah's Messenger (if that is indeed an often-used term). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Muhammad is the main messenger of all messengers of Islam. — This unsigned comment was added by Adamdaniel864 (talk • contribs) at 06:56, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC).[reply]

erop lijken

SOP. This is use of a prepositional dummy object that no doubt looks arcane to non-native speakers but it is barely lexical. I think it is adequately treated by the entries lijken and lijken op (my preference would have been to cover both at lijken, the current situation exaggerates the differences between the two uses). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ervan uitgaan

Analogously, ervan uitgaan and the misspelling ervanuit gaan are redundant to uitgaan van. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): Any opinions? Open for 269 days. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fytcha, Lingo Bingo Dingo, redirect? Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fytcha, yes redirect/delete seems fine. --Azertus (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, just lijken op + het and uitgaan van + het. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-West Germanic variants

Without any {{rfd}}, @Rua deleted the following entries:

The Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law is an areal feature of Proto-West Germanic. Since we don't consider North Sea Germanic its own language, but instead a part of a dialectal continuum, reconstructing such variants should be a valid practice. We actually had this same argument here Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/March#Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/-ōjan, where Rua again deleted the entry without discussion. @Mahagaja, Leasnam, Metaknowledge --{{victar|talk}} 14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need separate pages for these if we already have pages for their older forms with n + fricative. There's nothing wrong with saying Old English mūþ is directly from Proto-West Germanic *munþ; alternatively, we could say "from older {{m|und|*mų̄þ}}, from {{inh|ang|gmw-pro|*munþ}}. At the very most, the red links above could be hard redirects to their n-ful equivalents, but honestly I'm fine with keeping them red links. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is nothing wrong with Old English mūþ, from Proto-West Germanic *munþ, but neither is there anything wrong with ... from Proto-Germanic *munþaz or conversely, in my opinion, ... from Proto-West Germanic *mų̄þ, *munþ, which I think it's more informative to the user in that it shows that *mų̄þ was a dialectal variant of PWG. --{{victar|talk}} 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that still doesn't mean *mų̄þ has to have a separate page. We can write from {{inh|ang|gmw-pro|*mų̄þ, *[[munþ]]}} or from {{inh|ang|gmw-pro|*munþ|alt=*mų̄þ, *munþ}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, could do ... from Proto-West Germanic *mų̄þ, *munþ, but I don't see any valid reason for *mų̄þ not existing, just as Old English *-hæd, *brænnan, and *mixian exist. --{{victar|talk}} 17:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see the point of those either. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you don't see the point of any alternate reconstruction entries, we're probably not going to be on the same page about that, lol. I guess the question you need to ask yourself is, "what's the harm"? --{{victar|talk}} 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the harm is having information spread across multiple pages instead of consolidated in one place. The reasons we have for avoiding hard redirects in mainspace and for having separate entries for alternative forms and alternative spellings in mainspace just don't apply to Reconstruction space IMO, largely because each Reconstruction page is langauge-specific, unlike mainspace pages, which are (at least potentially) multilingual. There's just no reason not to treat all allomorphs of a reconstructed form together in one centralized location. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: Restore Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/mų̄þ and you'll see there's no duplicate information on it. I would definitely dispute *V̄̃ being an allomorph of *Vn. If that was the case, we would see more random vacillation in PWG's descendants. We also acknowledge *į̄ in common WG. --{{victar|talk}} 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "allomorph" imprecisely to include dialectal variants. And yes there is duplication: Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/mų̄þ told me that *mų̄þ is the North Sea Germanic variant of *munþ, which is exactly the same thing that Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/munþ#Alternative reconstructions already tells me. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple, these forms are not Proto-West Germanic. The nasal-spirant law is a specific Ingvaeonic change, therefore post-PWG. Projecting it back to PWG is nonsense. What source do you have that this sound law applied in PWG? —Rua (mew) 09:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a non-sequitur. There are sound changes affecting a part of a language without the language being split (“areal features”), because one isogloss is not enough for a language split and because this is just how innovation works (language changes start somewhere instead of as a law Deo volente). Like why do our Proto-Slavic forms reflect Slavic second palatalization if it isn’t even present in Old Novgorodian? It is not nonsense unless it gainsays aught.

Therewith I do not argue though that the nasal-spirant law was in effect in Proto-West Germanic already, only that I see no sound reasoning here.

However I have an idea that makes me tend to assume it is posterior. Due to the nature of the change and typical behaviour of later West-Germanic topolects, the likelihoods are that the change is posterior. The West-Germanic topolects northwest of what would become High German have a penchant, increasing with time, for simplifying sequences of obstruent plus stop, compare ld → ll, ft → χt as from *kraftu. For this assumption of posteriority to work we admit a Proto-English, Proto-Frisian and Proto-Saxon language bundle preceding the attested language stages which latter expose the nasal-spirant law, i.e. the law would have operated in the Dark Ages after PWG and before Old English, Old Frisian, and Old Saxon—which does not make it less likely. Moreover, the change being posterior is suggested by it not even complete in attested times in the topolects affected by the law, that is, if we have attested forms with nasal, e.g. Old Frisian forms listed at *munþ. Fay Freak (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure Old Frisian mond, mund are from some Old West Frisian varieties that were influenced by Old Dutch, so they don't contradict the law. Thadh (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that probably is so, by reason that such a common term rarely has stable variation. The argument works better with rarer words, words less likely to be borrowed. Fay Freak (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

péché philosophique

Unsure this means sodomy and not just philosophical sin Yellow is the colour (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it does mean philosophical sin; the corresponding article on the French Wikipedia has the title Péchés philosophique et théologique. Rather than deleting it, the definition should be fixed, accompanied by a box “ English Wikipedia has an article on: Philosophical sin ”. This is a somewhat technical term of (moral-theological) art, not a simple SOP. --Lambiam 00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lean keep (but modify the definition) per Lambiam. The meaning is "sin that is sinful on moral/ethical grounds but that is not offensive to God", so philosophical/philosophique stands for "moral as opposed to theological" in a very particular way. No online English dictionary has a definition for philosophical that comes even close to explaining this distinction. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sense philosophical sin; the question is now if the first and formerly only sense should be deleted. I’m happy with Delete, but perhaps someone feels this should go to RfV. --Lambiam 09:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Where did you add the sense? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I must have forgotten to commit my change; now truly added. --Lambiam 16:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/krūci

This entry invents a completely new phoneme, that I have not seen in any sources, in order to reconstruct an entry. I know that Wiktionary gives some leeway for its own research, but a whole phoneme goes too far IMO. This is definitely something that needs to be sourced. —Rua (mew) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Saxon, Old High German, and Old Dutch forms could maybe point *krūtsi, if I'm remembering the relevant historical developments correctly. The Frisian form is apparently a borrowing from Low German; if it was native, we'd expect *crēce. The OE form should maybe be excluded; unlike the other Gmc. forms; the consonantism may point to a loan from a dialect where Latin -c- before front vowels gave /tʃ/, not /ts/. If Old English crūċ is removed and Old Frisian crioce is relegated to borrowing status, a case could be made for the page to be kept as *krūtsi. ~~This would be a sensible adaptation of pre-Old French /ˈkrut͡se/ into the late common WGmc. phonological and morphological framework.~~ Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC

Could it be that Proto-Germanic and Proto-West Germanic had phonemes only occurring in loanwords? Like the voiced postalveolar fricative occurs in German only in loanwords but in most familiar items like Orange and Garage. No doubt either the Proto-West Germans were able to pronounce [t͡s]. You have not seen it because of restricted use then, and by reason that Indo-Europeanists like to deal with inherited terminology rather than to sully themselves with language contact. Fay Freak (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, on second thought, the logic I employed further up is somewhat shaky; Dutch/Low German -s- isn't necessarily reconcilable with Low/High German -ts-. Additionally, the pre-OF form would be /ˈkrot͡se/; the note at kryds about the vocalism in /uː/ (> later /yː/) pointing to a late date of borrowing is spot-on. If the borrowing was late, it's not necessary to posit a common WGmc. source; separate borrowings in each WGmc. language could've easily resulted in similar phonological forms. In short, the WGmc. "cross" words seem to be separate, but interlinked borrowings from after the common WGmc. period (though this isn't watertight). However, the idea that some of the Germanic forms are borrowings from others is worth considering (Old High German → Old Saxon?). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WG would have most certainly come into contact with Latin speakers that began to palatalize velars. The question in my mind isn't *if*, it's *how* we deal with these words. Using *c as a stand-in for an otherwise foreign sound is probably the easiest way to go about it. Compare also *unciju, which which has some interesting Old English variants. To quote what I wrote on the talk page, "1) even if the term entered one branch and quickly spread throughout WG, it's impossible to pinpoint the source, and 2) we're calling Frankish PWG so even if the word was adopted into Frankish and spread from there, that's still PWG yielding the word in every branch." --{{victar|talk}} 16:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really address the issues that I raised (I never said anything about the palatalisation of velars being a problem!), which mainly concern the vocalism (which could be seen as indicative of a later loan) and the discrepancy in the consonantism. Positing a PWG *c to cover for the discrepancy left me a bit skeptical with only one example, but now that you've found another, I'm a bit more open to the idea. You'll need to find one or two more to really convince me, though. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis)

By the way, shouldn't *unciju be ōn-stem *uncijā? Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazarasp: Here's a fun one: *palancijā. As for the ō-stem, I was going by Köbler. --{{victar|talk}} 01:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OHG and Old Frisian both have ō-stems, but Middle Dutch and OE both have a ōn-stem. This kind of stuff makes me suspicious that they're seperate borrowings. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, that's WG for you. --{{victar|talk}} 05:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little details like these are important if the basis for assuming a common source is tenuous in the first place. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazarasp: ō- and ōn-stems were effectively merged by late Old Dutch, so you can't base any conclusions on that. This merger likely affected other dialects in the area, as we can see that modern German has it too. —Rua (mew) 08:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, though I probably should've checked that; I'm not too well-versed in what happened to the Gmc. continental breakfast. That still leaves the OE form difficult to explain, though. Of course, such a problem can be sidestepped if we see them as seperate borrowings (as we probably should; at the very least, the OE form is not easily connected) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*strūcijō (“ostrich”). --{{victar|talk}} 05:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case people missed it, there is a ongoing discussion on the take page: Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/krūci. --{{victar|talk}} 16:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a related entry *krūcigōn, derived from this noun. Leasnam (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, I note that the assumption that the word is “clearly Christian vocabulary” is not without doubt. Primarily this relates to a kind of punishment, applied to slaves, and one damn well imagines that Romans made Germans acquainted with it even in the 1st century CE, so just for hyperbole and indifference argument I point out that it could be Proto-Germanic no less than postdating Proto-West Germanic. The real etymon of this verb is crucifīgere, from crucī (af)fīgere, in Medieval Latin written crucifīcāre (which is also in the TLL from some gloss, together with cruciāre). Formally, the common haplology points to proto-date, as also the parallel with German predigen, Old English predician, Old Saxon predikōn from which the North-Germanic forms like Danish prædike, Swedish predika, Icelandic prédika, Norwegian Nynorsk preika are derived, as obviously the Christians vexed man with preaching from the very beginning, “very far before the religion itself started to become a thing”. Fay Freak (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it's worth, the EWN calls it an "old Germanic borrowing" (so likely before Old Dutch) and the NEW vaguely calls it "a word of the conversion", which could mean a quite early date in relation to the Franks. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this paper https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2971774/view which deals with describing and dating various sound changes of the Latin dialect that West Germanic speakers would have been in contact with. It uses Germanic borrowings as part of its data as well. This seems very useful for figuring out how old they are, based on what Latin sound changes they have carried over. In 3.23 and 3.24, three changes are discussed that would have produced an affricate /ts/:

From Vulgar Latin /tj/: 2nd century. Reflected also in Gothic, e.g. 𐌺𐌰𐍅𐍄𐍃𐌾𐍉 (kawtsjō).
From Vulgar Latin /kj/: not found in early Germanic loanwords, late enough for the velar to feed into the West Germanic gemination, e.g. Old Saxon wikkia (< vicia). Velars from Germanic feed this in Old French, e.g. Proto-West Germanic *makkjō > maçon.
From Vulgar Latin /k/ before front vowel: not found in early Germanic loanwords either, e.g. Proto-West Germanic *kistu, *kaisar. Again, Germanic loans into Old French feed this, e.g. cion. Attested in inscriptions from the 5th century onwards.

Since PWG is considered to have ended around 400, this places it before the palatalisation and therefore forms like the one being discussed here are an anachronism. It is of course possible for Vulgar Latin /tj/ to end up in PWG as an affricate, but I find it unlikely that speakers would treat this as its own phoneme, since to their ears it would have sounded like a sequence /ts/ (compare how western European speakers nowadays hear Slavic c). So if we do want to denote this sound, I think a sequence *ts should be used and not *c. —Rua (mew) 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ending PWG at the 5th century excludes Frankish, and since we merged Frankish into PWG, that date needs to be pushed forward. --{{victar|talk}} 00:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of Wiktionary following a different standard from what is linguistically agreed upon. Wiktionary should be a linguistic source. —Rua (mew) 13:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Academics don't even agree that there was a single Proto-West Germanic, let alone on a date when all its descendants diverged. I feel like we keep having the same conversation about finite PWG vs. a WG continuum. If a dialect absorbs a word and it spreads through the dialects, that's still the language absorbing the word. --{{victar|talk}} 19:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

منتظر ... بودن

This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.

I propose a hard-redirect to منتظر.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ainijaz

With an unknown etymology and only Old Norse einir as a descendant, this entry should be deleted. @Rua --{{victar|talk}} 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Latin term is a borrowing, though from another Italic language, so you can’t well reconstruct from it but other things than inheritance become more likely for the other languages as well. The Old Norse may be back-formed from a compound with ber, Icelandic einisber, borrowed from the Latin jūniperus in the form *iēniperus we have as the Vulgar Latin form, which is already suggested by Schiller-Lübben 1875. Fay Freak (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in brodo

Italian SOP, "in broth." Imetsia (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In broth" does not fully convey the notion of having been cooked in broth, rather than merely being served in broth. I think of tortellini in brodo more as a light soup that contains pasta as a filler, than as being “pasta in a broth”. --Lambiam 11:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how semantically significant the distinction you're making is. As a second point, there do exist dishes "in brodo" that are just served in broth, rather than cooked in it (see this for example). Imetsia (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam? Imetsia (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this shows (perhaps) that the term can also be used in an &lit sense. But note that the recipe requires the broth to be boiling hot (brodo bollente), which is (I think) essential for the success of this recipe. --Lambiam 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an &lit sense, then the other definition (the one including "cooked in broth") would have to be "figurative or idiomatic." Is it really the case that the addition of this one "cooked-in-broth" detail renders the phrase figurative/idiomatic? As for the second point, that just presents a moving target and a distinction without a difference. That sort of hair-splitting can be (and has been) used to justify keeping just about every entry (here's just one example among many [Dentonius arguing about "friction" that isn't implied in the term]).

As a sidenote, I was able to find other recipes of food "in brodo" that are just served, as opposed to cooked in, broth: [16], [17]. Imetsia (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the term has a qualifying label (of pasta or rice). Scrippelle are neither. Are there examples of pasta or rice in brodo in which the starchy ingredient is not cooked in the broth in which it is served? --Lambiam 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Why are "scrippelle" (or really just "crespelle") not pasta? We define pasta as "Dough made from wheat and water and sometimes mixed with egg and formed into various shapes..." If you follow the first recipe, those are precisely the ingredients used, and the product is then folded into a particular shape, to make the scrippelle. Imetsia (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The crespelle of the recipe are essentially crêpes (thin pancakes); the Wikipedia article Crêpe lists crespella as an Italian name for a thin crêpe. Pasta is not just any of wheat-and-water based dough; it is a type of food that, unlike pancakes including crespelle, is not cooked on a hot surface. On the Italian Wikipedia, the article Crespella is not in (a category descended from) Categoria:Pasta. --Lambiam 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep - seems reasonable. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Latin/retina

Contra the provided Grandgent (1907) reference, which states, "A few that must have existed are not attested at all: *refusare, Substrate V, 234; *retĭna = ‘rein’, Substrate V, 237", the term is actually attested in a 10th-century example given by the Du Cange dictionary (which I assume it did not occur Grandgent to consult in this case). I suggest deleting the Reconstruction:Latin/retina entry, using the actual Early Medieval Latin entry retina instead as the etymology for all the relevant Romance language entries (e.g. Spanish rienda, French rêne). While it is true the attestation is fairly late, from the 10th century, such a late attestation doesn't mean the word didn't have an earlier existence.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 00:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate question: the etymology we give at "retina", "An abbreviation of the Classical retināculum n", looks suspicious to me: do any other words ending in -culum/-cula have "abbreviated" forms that are inflected like non-abbreviated first declension words? I'm not sure, but could it instead be an alternative formation directly from the the verb retineo?--Urszag (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag: Yeah, very much. In fact, both the Trésor de la langue française informatisé and the Coromines & Pascual dictionary explain rêne/rienda as a deverbal derivation of retineō, not some kind of "abbreviation" of retinācula. I'll change the entry accordingly. I imagine User:I'm so meta even this acronym, who added the etymology, was thinking of "back-formation" from the apparent -cula diminutive.

(That said, I find the explanation vaguely, mildly attractive, considering retināculum is attested in classical written Latin with a similar meaning, even though I can't think another example of back-formation applied on a diminutive...)--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 05:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I just looked at the etymology of English "retina", and it looks quite wrong, considering "tunica retina" does appear attested in medieval Latin. The Corpus Corporum website gives examples from Gullielmus the abbot's De natura corporis et animae (11th century) and Roger Bacon. I don't know why it's called Vulgar or why it has an asterisk... I wonder what the OED has?--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 05:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OED says “post-classical Latin retina (13th cent. in British and continental sources) < classical Latin rēte net (see rete n.) + -īna -ine suffix4, so called on account of its finely fibrillar texture resembling a net”. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw: Thank you. That was helpful to edit the current English etymology and add the relevant Latin entries (which were completely absent until now).--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 17:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser be etre shi: My thoughts: 1) if it was formed from the verb, it must have been both before the shift of accent on the root and before the connection with the verb was no longer felt, otherwise it would have followed the shift of accent; 2) this makes the backformation proposal quite appealing; 3) as a matter of principle, I don't believe it's possible to list clearly inherited Romance terms as inherited from Medieval Latin, which is a parallel language to these varieties and not their parent. Which recalls the problem of lack of definition of Medieval Latin on the website. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brutal Russian: Those are pretty good points. The lack of accent shift is pretty noticeable. And I agree it depends on how we define Medieval Latin, and the model of what Romance languages come from what... I imagine you're familiar with Roger Wright and the related "communication verticale" literature that tries to model (or explores the question of) early medieval Latin and early "pre-literary" Romance as registers of a single language, and for a longer period of time at that if it's Hispano-Romance and Italo-Romance too. I tend to personally prefer that view to the other of calling post-classical words attested in early medieval Latin "Vulgar", even marking them with an asterisk while also quoting them, all because Romance is taken to be parallel varieties to early medieval Latin.

At any rate, you've basically convinced me about the back-formation, and made me more conscious that this complaint has more to do with the model in my head than anything else (and the model in my head is definitely not the only one; early Romance as parallel to medieval Latin is a commonly-used view). I suppose it's okay to leave the Reconstruction:Latin entry there.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 00:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

voulez-vous coucher avec moi

RFD'ing the French. Not a useful French phrasebook entry. In fact, I might even say this is a valid English phrase, a kind of humorous or pseudo-faux-French or something like that. Passed RFD in 2007, but things were different back then. Indian subcontinent (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maybe one for the Hungarian phrasebook. – Jberkel 09:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the chorus of the 1974 hit “Lady Marmalade” (Voulez-vous coucher avec moi, ce soir? Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?), the only French in the otherwise English lyrics. (Pardon my French.) It is valid French, but as a phrase mainly known in the Anglophone world. In French it is just as euphemistic as English “I want to sleep with you”, but not an idiomatic phrase. Finding out whether it is a “useful” French phrasebook entry needs some further investigation in the field, but the use as such is obvious (in the spelling “voulay vous couchay aveck moy”) in John dos Passos 1921 novel Three Soldiers.^[18] --Lambiam 12:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very iconic phrase; I'm sure some people want to look it up as a whole. Fytcha (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested user is blocked infinite.--220.100.56.65 05:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fare la fronda

Italian SOP. The meaning is just limited to the sum of its parts, and does not mean "to plot" in any broader way. Imetsia (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Wiktionary gives fare la fronda as idiom with the sense “to oppose in a covert way”. Is the secretiveness implied in the meaning of fronda, or were the editors of the Wikizinario mistaken in writing “in maniera occulta”? --Lambiam 11:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the secretiveness is implied in the meaning of fronda. For example, the Devoto-Oli defines fronda as a "covert movement of tenacious opposition" (emphasis mine, and this is obviously a translation of the Italian definition). Imetsia (talk)

In that case I think the definition in our entry fronda needs to be adjusted. --Lambiam 15:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Is the definition good enough now? Imetsia (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it somewhat. I would keepit SemperBlotto (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dare spettacolo di sé

Italian SOP as dare spettacolo + di + sé. Imetsia (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know. We have English make a spectacle of oneself as English idiom; can one generalize this non-reflexively in Italian and say something like ha dato spettacolo di sua suocera in an idiomatic sense of someone having made a fool of their mother-in-law? --Lambiam 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a few "dare spettacolo" + "di/del/della" + [Noun] on Google. But these are few and are typically in the form "dare spettacolo di" something's grandor, power, etc. (using the first definition of "dare spettacolo"). But I would point out that dare spettacolo in itself means "to make a spectacle of oneself." The added "di sé" just emphasizes that. Saying "ha dato spettacolo di sua suocera" is as ungrammatical in Italian as saying "he gave a spectacle of himself of his mother-in-law" would be in English. Imetsia (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a few unambiguous examples? Those I see where the spectacle is that of the maker themselves, it just means "to show off", "to put on a show" with generally a positive connotation ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). I also wonder if, in existing cases, the second sense of dare spettacolo is not simply a straightforward sarcastic use of irony (like when someone remarks “that was hilarious” after hearing someone tell an insipid joke that falls flat with the audience), which would mean it does not qualify for inclusion. --Lambiam 15:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I fully follow your argument, but I have updated the entry to reflect transitivity, the di preposition, etc. As the page now reflects, dare spettacolo can be used with "di" to mean "show off" or "put on a show" with generally positive connotations (but not always positive, e.g. [24]). I still think the "di sé" is just to add emphasis - "rafforzativo" as it would be said in Italian - to the second sense of "to make a fool of oneself." So the entry is still SOP as far as I can tell. Finally, I really doubt that the second sense is a sarcastic use of irony. Imetsia (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Old English/ynne

No reason to assume this term survived into OE outside of the compound ynneleac which is inherited from WG *unnjalauk. --{{victar|talk}} 07:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is one attestation as yna, the genitive plural of *yne (“onion”). I've added it to *unnijā. It's listed as one of the Alternative forms of *ynne. Perhaps we simply need to move it to a non-reconstructed entry (?) Leasnam (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it *unnijā and not *unnjā as it is in *unnjālauk ? I would expect *ūnijā (ancestor of yne, ene) and *unnjā (ancestor of ynne). *unnijā appears un-etymological, as the latin does not have a double n, but double n in GMW-PRO results later from gemination caused by j Leasnam (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Please move and delete. And thanks for catching my typo. --{{victar|talk}} 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/maginōn

@DerRudymeister This is just a variant of *maganōn that might not even go back to PWG. The descendants should just both live on there. --{{victar|talk}} 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar I'm not sure why you would want to create one page when both verbs and also the nouns that they derive from, have distinct descendants (either having or lacking the umlaut). I'm also not sure which one of them is the 'original' form, what makes you think that only *maganōn would be a valid reconstruction? If you want to keep *maganōną/*maganōn this creates an inconsistency in the fact that we have a PGM page for the noun *maginą, so we should change this to *maganą and list both variants there also. --DerRudymeister (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰruHg-

Iffy semantics, janky root shape. --{{victar|talk}} 05:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything wrong the semantics. The root shape is rare, but compare *bʰuH-. De Vaan says "The restriction to Gm. and It., and the pervading zero grade, may cast doubts on a PIE origin; yet there is no decisive argument against it"; we can certainly add a note along those lines too, but I see no reason whatever to delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I see here is a Latin verb fruor (“to enjoy”) with several deverbal nouns, and a total left field guess of Germanic *brūkaną (“to make use of”) being related to it. The connection is worthy of mention in an etymology, at best, not a full PIE root. --{{victar|talk}} 01:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar: Our entry for fruor is lacking, but its meaning is actually quite close to that of uti, utor (“to use, to make use of”). L&S even glosses it this way: "to have the use and enjoyment of a thing, to have the usufruct". 2A02:2788:A4:205:4172:C92D:3A2E:3CF 13:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Ancient Greek φάρυγξ (phárunx) and Old Armenian երբուծ (erbuc) are from this root, then it is attested in two more families. --Vahag (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added these roots, but I could have done it wrongly. Please check. I'm minded to close this as keep unless @Victar comes back and says something. This, that and the other (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

kawu

All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entry kawu, and two other entries kauo and kawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings of kawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at gawoo (and possibly also gabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per AndreRD's detailed explanation. Gawoo is the spelling and already appears in the Wiktionary. Native-title (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the Barngarla lemma warradya too, as the correct form is warraidya. Native-title (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nhìn hơi lúa

I think the meaning isn't obvious enough to be SOP. Perhaps if hơi lúa is a standalone compound then the SOP claim could be warranted, but I couldn't find evidence of this (apart from a song lyric). lúa does not seem to have the meaning of plain or shabby on its own. "Looking like wild rice" or "looking like steamed wild rice" do not obviously mean "plain-looking" or "look rather shabby." If I'm wrong then let me know.

So shouldn’t this be listed instead at Requests for verification/Non-English? --Lambiam 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits here more, since the phrase is certainly attested, but it's just another exemple of the construction of nhìn hơi + adjective, for which nhìn hơi ngố, nhìn hơi ngáo, nhìn hơi mệt, etc can also be listed. The construction is productive and the phrase nhìn hơi lúa is not idiomatic (not any much more than the other examples listed above). lúa can also be used as an adjective meaning "bumpkinish, peasant-looking".PhanAnh123 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PhanAnh123, if that is so, could you create this adjective sense? Can’t find it in other dictionaries. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

llayang

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN.

ragù bolognese

ragù napoletano

Arguably SOP in Italian. Although the particularities are not clear from the terms themselves, one can gather that it is "ragù (in the style of the) Bolognese/Neapolitans" (see a similar argument at Talk:High German consonant shift [once it's archived there at least]). In any case, it's material better suited to a cookbook than a dictionary. Imetsia (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does the same SOP reasoning apply to Bolognese sauce? --Lambiam 07:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But note that Bolognese also has the definition of "(of a pasta sauce) made from minced veal, pork and beef, onions, garlic, tomato, bay leaf, carrot and celery and wine." So, as I see it, it's SOP either way. Now that I look at it, the Italian entry for bolognese also has this "of a pasta sauce" definition - and that's probably an even stronger argument that ragù bolognese is SOP. Imetsia (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stare con i piedi per terra

Italian SOP. Should at the very least be moved to con i piedi per terra. Note also that there are stare con i piedi sulla terra and avere i piedi per terra with the same meaning. Whether we should add these as alt forms, create a new sense at terra, or something else is up to debate. But I think it's clear this term should be removed as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure where this definition belongs. Ultimateria (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this, and creating an entry for con i piedi per terra makes the most sense to me. — GianWiki (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about piedi sulla terra, with piedi per terra as an alternative form (or the reverse)? In any case, I think we should have an entry, and not only a sense at terra. Compare French garder les pieds sur terre / avoir les pieds sur terre. 212.224.230.114 16:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like probably the best solution. Imetsia (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a general pattern with idioms that typically combine with a very limited number of synonymous verbs in what is essentially an verb + adverb structure. It seems quite arbitrary to break up that structure given that it constitutes an idiom - we probably wouldn't want to break up any other verb+adverb. In this case however a Google search shows that it's most often used as coi piedi in terra, or con i, and combines with a very wide selection of verbs, theres even a book title with volare; other verbs like avere takes it without the conjunction, however. Frankly I think it would be easier if we didn't delete the extended idioms as SOPs (as Imetsia has been doing), because an idiom that contains an idiom still remains an idiom and doesn't become a SOP. Making them alt forms seems the optimal solution to me. Brutal Russian (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moche à chier

French: SOP Indian subcontinent (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 18:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the IP below at nul à chier (whom I assume is PUC) is correct. Imetsia (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC Thoughts? Vininn126 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructed Latin

The following "Reconstructed Latin" entries are not actually reconstructed. Both are attested in Latin.

1) scepticus 2) absedium — This unsigned comment was added by The Nicodene (talk • contribs) at 06:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@The Nicodene: If they're attested, please cite them on their entries. --{{victar|talk}} 08:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"scepticorum", google books:"sceptici" "et", google books:"scepticus" "et" turn up both capitalized and uncapitalized citations from the 16-, 17-, 18-. 19- and 2000s, although many suggest a definition more like "sceptic" (n. or adj.) than the entry's current definition "the sect of skeptics". For absedium, I find only a very few modern examples, some of which call it out as an error, like this and

1916, Archivio per la storia ecclesiastica dell' Umbria, volume 3, page 424:
Parmesius Michus ad absedium (3) Saxarię mansit, / Et magnum bellum a latere dextero dedit, / Et per vim terram Saxariam indixit (4).

PS, we're missing declension information and an inflection table at obsidium. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns an issue that comes up repeatedly: #1, #2. absedium is Medieval Latin, which is a language that postdates the emergence of Medieval Romance languages. If it also seems to underlie some Romance forms, then the reconstructed entry must stay unless the Romance formes are clearly borrowed from Medieval Latin. The problem is that no Romance descendants are given at *absedium, only two borrowings. The entry might be entirely in error and in that case should be moved and converted into mainspace Medieval Latin. Compare asedio, which leads to asediar which appears to be borrowed from Medieval Latin. In that case absedium would be a Medieval Latin borrowing from Medieval Romance such as that Spanish form. Du Cange has absedium as well as obsedium.

L&S gives Scepticī as an entry, but this is in fact erroneous since the word seems to be attested in the Greek script in the PHI corpus. It wouldn't be in TLL in any case because it's a proper name and these currently go up to the letter D. It doesn't seem to be attested in Medieval Latin either, so it should be moved to mainspace as a New Latin word. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If it also seems to underlie some Romance forms, then the reconstructed entry must stay unless the Romance formes are clearly borrowed from Medieval Latin": I disagree, for reasons I express in the RFD of Reconstruction:Latin/consutura, above. (We don't have separate entries or etymology sections for every time a nonce is re-coined, either, or for early modern English use of foobar as a survival from Middle English vs modern revival / borrowing of it from Middle English, etc.) The one entry can explain when it was attested. For etymology sections to be able to link to the term with an asterisk, one could either use piping (*foobar) or make scepticus a redirect, but I see no reason to duplicate the content. - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I put citations at Citations:scepticus (and there are plenty more to be found using the searches linked above), so if someone would like to fix the definition (and add the right temporal label), that entry can be moved to mainspace. - -sche (discuss) 17:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Reconstruction:Latin/scepticus to mainspace given that it is amply attested. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₄órǵʰis

@Victar, Mnemosientje, displaying *h₄ (whose phonetic value or coloration isn't mentioned), whereas we only use 3 laryngeals here. Nothing links directly to this page but a redirect not using *h₄. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is *h₃erǵʰi-, which seems unlikely since the Hittite word doesn't start with ḫ. Is there any reason not to reconstruct *h₁órǵʰis? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahagaja would you like to take care of this so we can close the RFD? This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other: Done. I've moved it to *h₁órǵʰis. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fai come se fossi a casa tua

Italian SOP, "do as if you were at your own home." Less of a fixed phrase in Italian than just a translation of the English. Imetsia (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely is a fixed expression, and I’m not 100% sure it’s a SOP. The meaning isn’t literal, no-one expects you to take that sentence literally. On the contrary, if you did behave as if that was your home, it would be strange indeed. Sartma (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Keep. — GianWiki (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to fare come se fosse a casa sua. 212.224.230.114 16:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sugata

The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by @咖喱饭) currently (26 June 2021) given for Pali sugata is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses. "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Wörterbuch#Hyponyms

All terms listed there are SoPs in my opinion. All redlinks, but the section would have to be blanked. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"hyphenated compounds" like Volapük-Wörterbuch are, but still could pass due to WT:COALMINE. --17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Could, but let’s not make it come that far. WT:COALMINE also has exceptions. Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included, a requirement for any inclusion. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included"{{citation needed}}.
While the formation is trivial (language name + Wörterbuch), i see multiple points for inclusion:

It's "all words of all languages". These are words.
And they are single words, no multi-word terms or "spaced compounds". So for non-native there's also the problem of properly dividing Englischwörterbuch into it's parts.
The sections shows which terms exist, and which do or might not. (e.g. Klingonwörterbuch and Klingonischwörterbuch do not exist.)
Englischwörterbuch (etc.) could be both: 1. A monolingual, purely English dictionary like OED, or 2. a bilingual English-German/German-English dictionary. Maybe also 3. a bilingual English-French/French-English dictionary (same with other languages), but that might be trickier to attest.
There's no reason for exclusion, SOP doesn't apply.
There are two general problems, but that are general problems, and WT's bad entry layout is to blame:
1. Many terms are both derived terms and hyponyms (e.g. Englischwörterbuch is derived from Wörterbuch and a hyponym of it). So properly they would have to be listed twice (like in Haus). An additional section "Derived hyponyms" would reduce repetions. (And as for "Derived hypernyms", "Derived synonyms", "Derived antonyms": there aren't as many as there are derived hyponyms.)
2. It would be sufficient to only have "Englischwörterbuch (“English dictionary”)" inside of Wörterbuch. (As for the ambiguous meaning, there could be a general usage note or it could be added.) Then people could also find it and its meaning, and there would be no need for an (almost) useless entry.

--09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3721:3f99:5d35:2806:5b06:d485 (talk).

It's unfortunate that this is framed as a deletion discussion. The basic issue is that this is a Hyponyms section in an entry, not a list of all possible dictionary entries with the element "-wörterbuch". Yes, those would all be hyponyms, and CFI doesn't forbid entries for them (however useless most of the entries would be), but all single-word members of Category:German lemmas (69,246 entries) and Category:German non-lemma forms (211,074 entries) are hyponyms of German Wort- it's "all words in all languages", not "all words in all Hyponyms sections".

I would argue that including terms with -wörterbuch in them in this section is unnecessary clutter- no one who knows what a hyponym is would have any trouble determining that these are hyponyms, and anyone with any sense could figure out how to find them without consulting this section. In a case like this, the Hyponyms section should be reserved for terms that aren't so obviously marked as hyponyms, and if all possible hyponyms include -wörterbuch, then there shouldn't be a hyponyms section. After all, with thousands of languages having German names, it would probably be physically impossible to include all possible hyponyms- so any list would be incomplete. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though there’s no point in shewing them as derived terms / hyponyms, some of them can be added as usage examples. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does WT:SOP (and more broadly WT:CFI) really pertain to the individual entries of such sections of articles? I thought it only applied to articles as such and it is thus fine to create permanent redlinks in such sections. Fytcha (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, makes no sense to clutter the page unnecessarily. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no clutter (the section is collapsed by default) and they would just be moved to Derived terms instead of Hyponyms so where's the benefit? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stavangers

Genitive forms are not used in Norwegian Bokmål on Wiktionary, there are no specific templates for it, it is not included in any main entry (in the inflection) and as far as I can see, this is the only noun which actually has an entry for it (though it is not even linked from the main entry).

If we're going to include genitive forms then we need to change the entire inflection table and include them for every noun in every form, or we could just delete this one and continue as usual. Supevan (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same with endes Supevan (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Supevan I found a number of Norwegian genitive entries actually: akrobatenes, akrobatens, akrobaters, alles, allverdsens, barnets, blingsenes, blingsens, blingsers, brødblingsenes, brødblingsens, brødblingsers, dagsens, datidas, datidens, dels, dømes, endes, faens, fjells, Herrens, høves, jodlerens, jodlernes, jodlers, kvelds, laugas, laugenes, laugets, laugs, livsens, martyrs, mors, møtes, nausts, reptilas, salgs, saus, sengs, sjøs, spotteres, spyds, Stavangers, steins, synderes, ugagns, ugudeliges, vertsmaskinenes, vertsmaskinens, vertsmaskiners, vertsmaskins

Unfortunately there is no {{wgping}} for Norwegian, but I seem to remember User:Donnanz being interested in this language... This, that and the other (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember being guilty of entering genitive forms in Norwegian - as all you have to do is add "s" (no apostrophe is used) it would be rather futile. But other editors may have a different opinion. DonnanZ (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnanz, @Supevan Is the Norwegian -s a clitic, like English -'s? If so, I would suggest mirroring our handling of English -'s and deleting all of these genitive form-of entries with a note added at WT:ANO. This, that and the other (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same as the English -'s, we just don't use the apostrophe in Norwegian. Most of these entries are pointless..

However some of these forms use the archaic genitive forms, and live on in specific expressions. "Sjøs" for example is from the set expression "til sjøs" (to the sea), you would always have the genitive -s here, no matter what. Same with (til) fjells, kvelds, fots, salgs, sengs, dømes and dels. Those entries should definitely exist, but the rest is a bit like having English entries for "cat's", "hamburger's" and "London's". Supevan (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Supevan. DonnanZ (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I'll tag a few for deletion, and if there is no objection, we can delete the rest after a short delay. This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

snil

This is a misspelling of snill, meaning kind. Supevan (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

การสีซอให้ควายฟัง

This idiom does not add การ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

การฆ่าช้างเอางา

This idiom does not add การ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thẻ lên máy bay

SoP. Requested by @PhanAnh123. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mettere via

Borderline SOP in Italian with senses 2, 3, 5, or 6 of away (I think these senses also hold for the Italian via). We have the English put away, but that has a number of other senses that render it non-SOP. Imetsia (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Benwing2, GianWiki, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma): Is this really SOP? Any thoughts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also encourage people to look at some of my other RFD nominations, some of which have gone on for months without sufficient comments by others to either keep or delete. Imetsia (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imetsia, Fytcha "set aside" and "put aside" have several meanings, which meaning does "mettere via" correspond to? Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the meaning is the one expressed by the first sense of put away, that is “to put (something) in its usual storage place; to place out of the way, clean up”. — GianWiki (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ความกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง

การกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง

This idiom does not add การ- or ความ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

aquí hay tema

Spanish: Not convinced this is the best lemma. Perhaps hay tema or haber tema is better. Queenofnortheast (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Metaknowledge, Ultimateria, Koavf): Thoughts on this? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, haber is the infinitive for hay, so that could be a lemma-tized form of this turn of phrase. I've never heard it before and the English definition is infinitely more confusing than the Spanish phrase, so if anything, I'm inclined to delete without some durable source and what is to me an intelligible definition in English. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this one, but it seems to be a set phrase. Variations in tense don't turn up many results. I guess keep. Ultimateria (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

د هغۀ, د هغې, د هغوی, د ... په منځ کې, د ... وروسته, خوځنده انځور, دويم ځل, بل ځل, ورځ په ورځ

SOPs. Not sure about ورځ په ورځ though. SAb54iudwe1 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

dans

RFD "in, into (from outside, to inside)". The example given is mettre l'argent dans la poche, but this reflects the semantics of the verb mettre, not the preposition dans. Not in fr.wikt or larousse.fr.--Tibidibi (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 02:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take out the "(from outside, to inside)" as overly specific, but our entry definitely needs to indicate that dans means not only "in" (statically) but also "into" (with motion). So either merge with sense 1 or keep. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja, does je l'ai mis sous la table mean that sous should have a motion-related definition? It feels that the motion is just part of what the verb mettre means. The same goes for other verbs that intrinsically imply motion.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily have to be separate gloss line starting with #, but there should be at least either usexes or quotes showing both motion-related and static definitions. It's not a given that these will be the same in French, as they can be different in other languages. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, but why should English have the same sense at in? How do we distinguish such separate senses from praegnans constructio? Fay Freak (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

storico dell'arte

Italian SOP. Though we have the English art historian, the extra preposition in the Italian entry (as I've argued before) makes it SOP. Imetsia (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence. What about storia dell'arte? The situation, I think, is similar to French: histoire de l’art (“art history”) seems to me to be definitely entry-worthy, historien de l’art (“art historian”) less so, but I'd be hard pressed to articulate why. P U C – 21:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vier

RFD of the noun section: "a sign for or representation of four", "the value four, e.g. as a score" and "(uncountable) a group of four". Unremarkable variations on the numeral definition that don't deserve a separate noun section. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. English four, German Vier and Italian quattro also have a listed noun sense. Deletion of the noun section will also remove the information that this is a de word that has a plural on -en. --Lambiam 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lambiam. Morgengave (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edit the definitions if you will, but if it has a plural, then it is a countable noun and this section needs to exist. This, that and the other (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

apostolisch vicaris

Dutch, "vicar apostolic", SOP of apostolisch (sense 4) and vicaris (sense 1). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd understand the meaning from the components. A vicaris is not, in general, a titular bishop, and apostolisch also does not imply bishopric. --Lambiam 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam But a vicar is often enough a substitute for a bishop, and a vicar apostolic in a sense is also a substitute for a bishop. I agree it's not a slam-dunk though. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A vicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the apostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament of holy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. --Lambiam 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

poëticus

Deleted by Benwing (@Benwing2) on 5 July 2019 without discussion: “Bad entry title”. It should be undeleted, as there is no consensus on “the inclusion or exclusion of attested forms featuring trema” (Wiktionary:About Latin § Trema; see Talk:onomatopoeïa (2015, when the note was added)). J3133 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't link to a Latin page with that name. The software strips out diacritics. Latin poëticus is the same page as poeticus. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to link to onomatopoeïa, though. --Lambiam 10:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only by using a bare link instead of {{l}} or its allies. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a choice to strip out tremata. We don't have to do that for Latin. I agree that @Benwing2 made a mistake in not discussing this first, but I abstain on the actual issue of undeletion. We do need to have a discussion that decides the fate of these entries for good. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene): AG202 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AG202 Thanks for resurrecting this. Personally I think the forms with diaeresis should remain deleted, but I will defer to the Latin community as a whole. However, I oppose undeleting unless we remove the stripping of diaeresis in Module:languages/data2. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why we have a Latin entry onomatopoeïa as a soft redirect to onomatopoeia – and even also a category solely dedicated to this weïrd spelling – when, in its absence, users searching for the trematized form will be led directly to onomatopoeia. The alternative form is, moreover, senseless, since ei cannot be monosyllabic, so there is nothing to be disambiguated; we also have no entry deïnde. IMO we are better of without it. I merely brought this up as a counterexample to the statement that it is not possible to link to a Latin page with that name. --Lambiam 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apunite created a section here (WT:RFDN), “Restore onomatopoeïa, poëticus and poëtica”, on 15 May 2020 (before mine): “• Unright deletion without RFD. / • Talk:onomatopoeïa ended in "Keep".” J3133 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hagastaldaz

Duplicate of *hagustaldaz. --{{victar|talk}} 19:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Rua, Wikitiki89, Benwing2, Mnemosientje, The Editor's Apprentice, Hazarasp): Thoughts on this? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha I personally think hagastaldaz is probably garbage and that any terms that appear to require such a reconstruction are later re-formations of hagustaldaz, but I'm not a Germanic languages expert. Benwing2 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now, I don't see any reason for deletion. --Astova (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/šawmān-

A homegrown reconstruction by Fay Freak, which attempts to tell a story that can unite all the Semitic words for "dove". The unfortunate fact is that they are probably not actually related; an irregular Akkadian reflex, then an intentional misuse of the (not widely accepted) sound law proposed in Al-Jallad (2015), then a strange shift in Arabic from /h/ to /ħ/ because the latter is more "lovely", then an even stranger shift in Northwest Semitic to /j/ because that phoneme is "popular"... Even the maximalists in the Semitic reconstruction game don't let their imagination run away with them as wildly as this. As I have mentioned before, protolanguage reconstructions should be a serious attempt at documenting the common ancestor of attested languages, not a playground for our hypotheses in historical linguistics that no Semitist has endorsed, despite extensive attention to this group of words. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And he qualifies of unlikely a reconstruction, *yawn-, which would perfectly work for Northwest Semitic and was posited by Kogan and Militarev in a chapter specifically on animal names. Is there a taboo about doves in Semitic cultures which would account for irregularities from a common etymon? Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. I, for my part, found the forms more likely related than not, influenced by the acquaintance with taboos about animal names. Otherwise various terms for the dove are atomized without etymology, which is itself doubtful. Fay Freak (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Akkadian correspondence is not irregular. The most obvious examples for the correspondence are given, but it does not look like you even cared to read.
You should elaborate why the sound law of /ʃ/ to /ʔ/ is misused or not widely accepted. It is absurd to claim that the sound change is not widely accepted—maybe the exact formulation isn’t, but this subtracts nothing of its applicability here. /h/ to /ħ/ occurs in Arabic sometimes, as with examples referenced, this is not “strange”. Compare also *purḡūṯ-, where Arabic بُرْغُوث (burḡūṯ) is “strange”, yet true. I stress that one often has to search for sources of contamination for Semitic etymologies. For the sound change of leading /ʔ/ to /j/ there are not few examples, compare Classical Syriac ܝܗܠܐ (yahlā) from *ʔahl-, or Old Armenian յիմար (yimar) borrowed from a form which began with glottal stop. As /w/ became /j/, the very distinction of the whole group of weak consonants in initial position became less relevant in Northwest Semitic at various stages.
It was good that imagination was running wild a bit. I do my reps wild like an animal too to get a beast body. One has think like a Biblical patriarch a bit, and sometimes one has to sit down and tell a story 🔦. Not everything that can be seen is obvious, and not all that cannot be immediately seen cannot be seen at all. But all I told has analogues, confirmation of regular occurrence! I say, you get flustered by a great array of information too fast. So I do not see any actual argument, only insults for a great work that but combines insights endorsed by Semitists. Where is the “attention” anyway? Do you call Militarev and Kogan’s proto-stage variation Proto-Semitic *yawn-at ~ *wānay- (“dove”) attentive? You see I took great care. An unusual extent of, which was needed. Fay Freak (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "irregular", I mean it as a term of art. Not that it is unpredecented — although these are rare! — but that it does not follow the regular sound correspondences established by the comparative method. As for Al-Jallad's sound law, you need only read the paper to see that it doesn't apply to this word! (I said it's not widely accepted because the thought that it's morphologically conditioned still seems to be the mainstream idea; in that case, your application would still be a misuse, of course.) When you invoke multiple irregular sound changes to unite disparate forms, you are working against Occam's razor and it increasingly appears that you are justifying these sound changes by the fact that the semantics match, rather than because the sound changes are especially plausible. You say above that it's "doubtful" that the terms could be "atomized without etymology" — as I have told you before, our null hypothesis should be that there is no relation between any two given terms, and we should force ourselves to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there is indeed one. You can work out however you like, and you can post your "great work" on a personal page, but we are trying to present solid reconstructions of Proto-Semitic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty solid reconstruction here. You are setting up a false dichotomy of regular and irregular sound changes here, an outdated 19th century view of “sound laws”. “Irregular” and “regular” aren’t terms of the art, but subjective categories. The English and German strong verbs are called irregular, but to those who reconstruct Germanic they are regular categories.

Occam’s razor is also no law in humans, they like to do defy rules and make things complicated. I thought I disentangled it?

Obviously I read Al-Jallad’s and did not “see” (whatever that metaphor means) that it might not be applicable here. Nor do I know what “morphologically conditioned” is—sounds pretty esoteric. It’s just a sound shift that is known to happen bar certain constraints, boom.

I didn’t force anyone. It is still left to the readers to doubt the form. But it is also to their convenience. This is the most orderly attempt of connection of the terms, without which manaman is left confused, cognates here and there with sound changes explained here and there. I would need anyway to mention examples of sound changes and it would be really messy to do that at the individual languages, so at some point the Proto-Semitic unification developed naturally. I chose the most likely form. More likely than a null-relation too. Not biased in the beginning towards a null-relation—methodological anarchism. Fay Freak (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are intentionally missing the crux of the issue here. You say it is "left to the readers to doubt the form", but that's not how the dictionary works! We ask them to trust that all our mainspace entries are correct, rather than ask them to doubt (and though we have mistakes, we aim to eliminate them). A reconstruction is not truth, and we have a warning template to that effect, but we still ask readers to trust that we have presented them with something that is, beyond reasonable doubt, what we say it is. This may be "the most orderly attempt of connection of the terms", but it is still incredibly unparsimonious, and that is probably why, for example, Militarev & Kogan didn't try to unite them. You know full well they weren't ignorant of these terms, but they did not consider them to be related. I find this intriguing enough to merit discussion in an etymology section (probably under an autocollapsed box to save space), but we simply can't go around claiming these tenuous connexions as indisputable Proto-Semitic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Militarev & Kogan didn't try to combine them because they did not have the Amorite form, they were ignorant of this form—which comes right between the other Northwest Semitic and the Arabic form, plus this was already sixteen years ago before various treatises on certain sound changes like this š → h → ʔ one. This was what made me think. Then I found Rescher connecting the Akkadian with the Arabic, knowing even less forms. Militarev and Kogan in all seriousness postulate the form as one of some “complex protoforms accounting for both type of reflexes” (SED vol. 2 page L), they did unite them! For all them even less substance was sufficient to see a family. Where was the reasonable doubt? The way people copy starred forms they saw somewhere it makes little a difference whether we just mention a starred form in a collapsible side-note in the individual language or in new page, reason looks bleak anyway. But aesthetics look served better the way it is. Of course I think whether a Proto-Semitic page exists here is merely a detail. (After people voted for Proto-Albanian pages, in which you did not weigh in by your vote … you recognize that you idealized reason a bit?) Fay Freak (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were indeed ignorant of the Amorite form, but it is a bit dangerous — we can only assume its meaning and its status as a genuine Amorite word, given the cultural mobility of names. It adds another line of support, but not enough to reduce the tenuous nature of the reconstruction as a whole. Militarev in particular is given to motivated reasoning, so my point was that this connexion was too much of a stretch to even make it into the SED — that is a measure of how unparsimonious it is. I didn't vote regarding Proto-Albanian because I don't know anything about it; I do know about Proto-Semitic, and that's why I am careful to ensure a consistent level of security in our reconstructions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Latin/-idio

Tagged as an alternative form of *-izō however I do not believe the particular variant -idiō comes wholly from the same Graeco-Latin or direct Greek source. This looks potentially like a Germanic/WGmc loan (*-itjan) swept as a classical suffix. Can this be looked into ? It seems rather late that a new Greek-derived suffix with an even more outdated Greek-like pronunciation would suddenly appear as *-idiō in Mediaeval Europe especially in light of the already existing -izō (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam I'm having trouble understanding the motive for deletion; it sounds like this is more of a request to clean up the etymology (WT:ES). As for looking into it, I'm not sure whether this is within @Urszag's realm of interest? This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know, cleanup of the etymology is probably better than deleting and then recreating basically the same entry with a different etymology and different alternative forms section (or none at all). Let's go ahead and do that instead. I'll change the tag. Leasnam (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at WT:ES#Reconstruction:Latin/-idio. Leasnam (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

immagine di sé

Italian SOP. Imetsia (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; French image de soi sounds like a set phrase to me. P U C – 12:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It definitely is a SOP. Sartma (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is as legitimate as its definition self-image, I think. Both are borderline. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combinations of dar and fazer

In the case of dar, these examples (some perhaps prematurely, created by me) might be SOP if we consider them instances of the sense of "to carry out a physical interaction with something", though the description "(with the indirect object taking em or an indirect objective pronoun)" probably needs to be amended. They often can be substituted by single verb that means the same thing "dar um beijo"=="beijar". In the case of fazer, I think they simply have the sense of "to do; to execute; to perform" or a similar one of "to be the cause of". I don't think they are much different from "fazer pão", "fazer cimento" or any other combination of "fazer" and a noun, but they have some caveats, so I thought about bringing them to discussion.

Keep, some are idiomatic, like tener sentido and tener sexo in Spanish. Ffffrr (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffffrr Just to clarify, but I haven't proposed to delete all combinations of dar and fazer. fazer sentido is indeed idiomatic and does not figure in the list below. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dar um malho

SOP, per above. Same as malhar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dar um susto

SOP, per above. Same as assustar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dar uma queca

Not completely sure about this one. Literally translates to have sex. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fazer a barba

Literally, to shave, synonym of barbear. SOP, if we consider the sense "to arrange; to clean up; to tidy". - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fazer a cama

SOP, if we consider the sense "to arrange; to clean up; to tidy". - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are idiomatic enough to keep. If dar or fazer can mean "have any interaction with", then that sense is broad enough to deserve a definition. Ultimateria (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except dar uma queca (because of its surprising verb - one might assume it means give a fuck), now that including collocations in noun entries is explicitly supported by policy. This, that and the other (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SOPs in Category:Hindi compound verbs with base verb करना

Hindi: X करना

समर्थन करना (samarthan karnā)
सहायता करना (sahāytā karnā)
साफ करना (sāph karnā), साफ़ करना (sāf karnā)
हस्तमैथुन करना (hastamaithun karnā)
शर्म करना (śarm karnā)
श्रम करना (śram karnā)
शिकार करना (śikār karnā)
विश्वास करना (viśvās karnā)
विनती करना (vintī karnā)
रक्षा करना (rakṣā karnā)
मालिश करना (māliś karnā)
मदद करना (madad karnā)
प्रयत्न करना (prayatna karnā)
प्रतीक्षा करना (pratīkṣā karnā)
पूजा करना (pūjā karnā)
परवाह करना (parvāh karnā)
निवेश करना (niveś karnā)
नाश करना (nāś karnā)
नफ़रत करना (nafrat karnā)
दफ़न करना (dafan karnā)
तैयार करना (taiyār karnā)
तरक़्क़ी करना (taraqqī karnā)
चोरी करना (corī karnā)
गान करना (gān karnā)
कोशिश करना (kośiś karnā)
काम करना (kām karnā)
इशारा करना (iśārā karnā)
घृणा करना (ghŕṇā karnā)
तारीफ़ करना (tārīf karnā), तारीफ करना (tārīph karnā)
ठीक करना (ṭhīk karnā)
जादू करना (jādū karnā)
टंकण करना (ṭaṅkaṇ karnā)
ज़िद करना (zid karnā)
चर्चा करना (carcā karnā)
घोषणा करना (ghoṣṇā karnā)
ग़ुस्ल करना (ġusla karnā)
ऐश करना (aiś karnā)
आवृत्ति करना (āvŕtti karnā)
आराम करना (ārām karnā)
इनकार करना (inkār karnā)
आरंभ करना (ārambh karnā), आरम्भ करना (ārambh karnā)
संभोग करना (sambhog karnā)
सेक्स करना (seks karnā)
हासिल करना (hāsil karnā)
स्थापित करना (sthāpit karnā)
स्पष्ट करना (spaṣṭ karnā)
अलग करना (alag karnā)
अध्ययन करना (adhyayan karnā)
अनुसंधान करना (anusandhān karnā)
अंत करना (ant karnā), अन्त करना (ant karnā)
उल्टी करना (ulṭī karnā), उलटी करना (ulṭī karnā)
हड़ताल करना (haṛtāl karnā)
उपभोग करना (upbhog karnā)
आश्चर्य करना (āścarya karnā)
आमना-सामना करना (āmnā-sāmnā karnā)
अभिनय करना (abhinay karnā)
सत्यापन करना (satyāpan karnā)
स्वागत करना (svāgat karnā)
आदर करना (ādar karnā)
आक्रमण करना (ākramaṇ karnā)
ख़त्म करना (xatma karnā)
अस्थिर करना (asthir karnā)
अधिसूचित करना (adhisūcit karnā)
अगवानी करना (agvānī karnā)
इलाज करना (ilāj karnā)
इकट्ठा करना (ikaṭṭhā karnā)
अपहरण करना (apahraṇ karnā)
अनुवाद करना (anuvād karnā)
इंतज़ार करना (intzār karnā), इन्तज़ार करना (intazār karnā)
सेवा करना (sevā karnā)
इस्तेमाल करना (istemāl karnā)

Assamese: X কৰ

Bengali: X করা

অনুবাদ করা (onubad kora)
তর্জমা করা (torjoma kora)
ঘৃণা করা (ghrina kora)
ঘৃণা করা (ghrina kora)
বিশ্লেষণ করা (bisleśon kora)
বিশেষ করা (biśeś kora)
বিশেষ করা (biśeś kora)
প্রমাণ করা (proman kora)
শিক্ষা করা (śikkha kora)
অনুভব করা (onubhob kora)
পছন্দ করা (pochondo kora)
বন্ধ করা (bondho kora)
অনুরোধ করা (onurōdh kora)
অপেক্ষা করা (opekkha kora)
নিষিদ্ধ করা (niśiddho kora)
প্রশ্ন করা (prośno kora)
ব্যবহার করা (bêbohar kora)
ডিফ্র্যাগমেন্ট করা (ḍiphrjagomenṭo kora)
টাইপ করা (ṭaip kora)
জ্বালাতন করা (jalaton kora)
আচরণ করা (acoron kora)
চুম্বন করা (cumbon kora)
ঘেন্না করা (ghenna kora)
মাত করা (mat kora)
হস্তমৈথুন করা (hostomōithun kora)

Gujarati: X કરવું

Magahi: X⸱𑂍𑂶𑂪

Nepali: X गर्नु

Punjabi: X ਕਰਨਾ

ਟੱਟੀ ਕਰਨਾ (ṭaṭṭī karnā)

Sindhi: X ڪرڻ

@Svartava2 What is your criteria regarding which are SOP and which are not? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch: I guess you're thinking that I selectively nominated some of them; not like that, I actually got some urgent work so I had to stop my rfd nominations in between. Above I've made the list of my nominations so far, I'll add more to it since this isn't all, there are more sops there. Do you think any of those in the above list is non-SOP? Svartava2 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: They do appear to be selectively nominated because not every term in the category has been nominated. Wouldn't many of the ones that are not nominated yet such as डाउनलोड करना, ट्वीट करना and कलर करना be SOP as well? Although most of these terms are SOP, they were probably created because of their usefulness similar to Wiktionary:Phrasebook. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch I already told you that the above list is incomplete, I'll add more to it later. I'm not convinced they should be kept just because they're common and useful in speaking. If one encounters, say, समर्थन करना (assuming they don't know the meaning), and knows about the verb करना, it's only natural that they would look up for समर्थन rather than the whole since it isn't idiomatic with a non-SOP meaning. Obviously there have been terms that have been deleted due to them being SOP despite their commonness. Svartava2 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: Thanks for the clarification. So assuming समर्थन करना is deleted, it should not appear in the derived section of समर्थन and could be featured as a usage example at समर्थन, right? The entry for समर्थन already has a usage example for X (को) समर्थन देना, and ~~X (को) करना~~ X (का) समर्थन करना could be added alongside it if coverage for समर्थन करना is still needed. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch: right, it shouldn't appear in the derived terms of समर्थन but no problem in giving it as a usex. its entirely up to the editor if they want to add that but I would probably not do that because करना is possible with almost anything. i would instead prefer to make a usage note at करना. (p.s. it would not be […] को समर्थन करना it'd be […] का समर्थन करना) Svartava2 (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: The copy-paste typo/error is exactly why that information should be featured/added to समर्थन with {{+posto|hi|का|means=to}} even if समर्थन करना is deleted .

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Should the same 'policy' extend to Urdu (Special:WhatLinksHere/کرنا) and other languages, or should the editors of those languages decide/be pinged?

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch: I'm mainly concerned about Hindi and Urdu SOPs (I also tagged a few Urdu pages) but yes I think this should extended to other languages. the editors of those languages shud be pinged because they'd obviously know better. Re: that information should be featured/added […] — I don't think so, since it's (mostly) directly translated into english; eg का आदर/समर्थन करना = do respect/support of, की सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना = do help/wait of, से नफ़रत करना = do hatred from, पर आक्रमण करना = do attack on, etc. with adjectives it's mostly को - को बेकार करना, को अलग करना, को हासिल करना, etc. —Svartava2 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: For the following examples:

[object] का आदर/समर्थन करना - to respect/support [object]

[object] की सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना - to help/wait for [object]

[object] से नफ़रत करना - to hate [object]

[object] पर आक्रमण करना - to attack [object]

although the meaning of each postposition is debatable, it might be helpful to show which postposition (का/की/को/से/पर) goes with which word using {{+posto}}:

का/की: Genitive case (षष्ठी विभक्ति)

को: Accusative/Dative case (द्वितीया विभक्ति / चतुर्थी विभक्ति)

से: Instrumental/Ablative case (तृतीया विभक्ति / पंचमी विभक्ति)

पर: Locative case (सप्तमी विभक्ति)

आदर/समर्थन करना - to respect/support {{+posto|hi|का}}

सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना - to help/wait {{+posto|hi|की}}

नफ़रत करना - to hate {{+posto|hi|से}}

आक्रमण करना - to attack {{+posto|hi|पर}}

The purpose of {{+posto}} is to show which postposition (case/विभक्ति) goes with which term. If there are entries of the form X करना, {{+posto}} would go on the definition line. However, if there are no entries of the form X करना, how would this information be displayed? As you said with adjectives it's mostly को, this information may not be needed.

@Svartava2 Kutchkutch (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch Re: it might be helpful to show which postposition (का/की/को/से/पर) goes with which word using {{+posto}} — but it is obvious. I know English translations which we obtain directly by translating the Hindi are kinda weird — "to do support of X" because of the existence of verbs like "support" so it's generally directly said "to support X" — but that doesn't change the fact that it directly translates. friend's help = मित्र की सहायता, मित्र की सहायता करना = to do friend's help = to help […] friend. So it is obvious. Svartava2 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anisht dev, Bigballlover69, Inqilābī, Msasag, Taimoorahmed11 It has been proposed that the Assamese, Bengali, Magahi, Punjabi and Sindhi terms in the collapsable boxes above should be nominated for deletion as an extension of the Hindi/Urdu nominations. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anisht dev, Bigballlover69, Inqilābī, Msasag, Taimoorahmed11 Kutchkutch (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lean on keeping all these verbs (more familiar with Hindi/Urdu and Bengali). They are compound verbs but they single units, words included in dictionaries. Not unlike Persian/Tajik "kardan" verbs (see e.g Category:Persian_compound_verbs_with_کردن. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: Then, even the Persian category is full of SOPs. I don't think their entries in other dictionaries should bother us. The problem with SOPs is just that one can have endless list of FOO + करना and it is certainly not feasible/worthwhile to include ALL such combinations where they can be derived from its components. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: I understand the concern but we don't have any limitation on the number. Deleting them will remove useful information from users. Japanese verbs, which are simply formed by FOO + する (suru) have been handled - please see Category:Japanese suru verbs (currently at 8,244 entries, far from complete). Unless someone provides a way to incorporate करना (karnā) into a template for compound verbs (e.g. noun + "karnā" to form a verb in the same entry) and converts existing verbs to use that structure, the entries should be kept. Knowing which FOO can form such compounds is also important to users. Is the number of Hindi "karnā" verbs less than 500? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., I would support a new structure (similar to how Japanese suru-verbs are handled) on the verbs listed above, also for Persian "kardan" verbs. The list should be checked carefully, of course for pure SoP's (case by case) or where it's more than just (one) "FOO" + "karnā". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: Can you show which important information will be removed if we delete all these? If it would be specific, i.e. if only a certain terms could form compound verbs with "karnā", I would agree with you to keep these; but it isn't so, because ANY term can form such compounds. Only a few terms like डाउनलोड करना appear non-SOP to me, because if SOP, it would be [(object) को] डाउनलोडेड करना ([(object) ko] ḍāunloḍeḍ karnā) (using accusative case) = to make (object) downloaded or [(object) का] डाउनलोड करना ([(object) kā] ḍāunloḍ karnā) = to do downloading of (using genitive case). So such terms should be kept, but others deleted. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: Which important information? All of it! You want to remove verb entries with their English translations. I am not convinced that any FOO can form FOO + "karnā" pair and work, even if the combination can be predictable and easily understood. Published bilingual dictionaries provide the pairs - they don't need to be split into separate entries as they are. Entries can be centralised by their main parts but this work needs to be done. This work was done (after discussions) before Category:Japanese suru verbs came about. This is not very different, believe me, if you may not be familiar with the Japanese grammar.

I have cast my vote and expressed my opinion with a constructive suggestion, so let's allow this RFD to take its course. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@atitarev: well then, can you provide a single example of a FOO which can't pair with karnā? I'm saying, ANY combination would work and grammatically etc. be correct. It may be rare or unattested but it would work. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: If you're so confident about this, I may soften the position but it still doesn't feel right (I said "I lean on keeping"). We are denying users a huge number of common verbs, which they can find elsewhere. Perhaps an enhancement to headwords should be added, like "can form a verb ("meaning"). In any case, some replacement/substitute should be thought out (not an RFD discussion) or a descriptive appendix. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: I like your solution for these using an appendix page with detailed rules, exceptions, examples, usexes, quotes, other dictionary entries, etc. etc. Then these entries could be deleted/soft-redirected to the appendix page. The appendix page could be linked from the page करना itself. Maybe I should start working on it. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 09:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: I have created a very simple Hindi template {{U:hi:karnaa}}, which can be added to every term, which uses करना (karnā) under "usage notes". I've added usage notes to the first word on your list - समर्थन (samarthan) (which forms the RFD'ed समर्थन करना (samarthan karnā)). The template, wording and parameters can be improved. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Svartava2, AryamanA, Atitarev, Kutchkutch Let's please slow down a bit. This is not the first time this discussion has happened. In September 2020 we had the same discussion esp. between me and Aryaman, and decided to keep compound verbs involving करना. Unfortunately this discussion is no longer in RFDN, and I don't know where (if anywhere) it moved to; I think User:Justinrleung archived it, perhaps a bit too aggressively. But it's in the history, see [25]. I originally was the one nominating for deletion but I have changed my mind based on the fact that the translations are often not obvious, e.g. for शर्म करना (which literally means "to do shame") it's far from obvious to me why it means "to be embarrassed, to feel ashamed" and not "to embarrass, to shame". Aryaman also pointed out that in cases like डिलीट करना, the first component has no meaning by itself. Benwing2 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: It's archived at Talk:खड़ा करना. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung Thanks. However, that only includes one of the four discussions, and not the main one. Benwing2 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: What other entries were RFD-ed but kept? I am not familiar with Hindi and only archived discussions because they were struck out and idle for more than a week. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung It looks like it moved here: Talk:कपड़े पहनना. I absolutely would never have found this; this suggests we may need to rethink the concept of archiving RFD discussions. I wonder if we shouldn't instead have RFD separated by month, similarly to the Beer Parlour. Benwing2 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: Well, they're always archived to the talk page of the relevant entries, so that if someone were to create something that was deleted before, they would easily be able to access the reasons why that particular page was deleted. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung Right, this works in the specific case of a single entry being deleted, but totally fails if the RFD discussion is more general. Benwing2 (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: I am okay to slow down but it seemed to me these entries were going to be deleted and everyone was fine with it. Thanks for bringing up. We need to call other Hindi editors (Notifying AryamanA, Benwing2, Smettems, Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Msasag, Svartava2, Getsnoopy): and Urdu editors (Notifying Taimoorahmed11, RonnieSingh, AryamanA, Kutchkutch, Svartava2): , at least. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, long time no see. Thanks for the ping @Atitarev. I think this list of proposed deletions is absolutely unacceptable. I have not read all of the discussion but I will references points that stood out to me. Here are my arguments for the retention of conjunct verb entries:

It is not predictable which verb will combine with a noun/adjective to form a conjunct. The most common are करना (transitive) and होना (intransitive), but other ones are possible as well, and sometimes these two common ones are not both possible.
Syntactically, these constructions behave as units. You cannot separate the noun/adjective from the verb like you can with objects (which have relatively free word order), and you can't put case marking or determiners on the noun component. This makes it totally different from phrases which can easily be tested to be SOP.
Often their meanings are non-compositional, i.e. not immediately obvious from the components. For example, ठीक करना (ṭhīk karnā) can mean "to repair, fix" which is not clear from just ठीक (ṭhīk, “okay, fine”). So this is useful for learners.
Borrowed English verbs are meaningless without the verbal component in the conjunct, as Benwing pointed out. I have no idea what the part of speech of e.g. डिलीट (ḍilīṭ) would be in isolation, nor how to define it.
As KutchKutch pointed out, the case marking of subjects and objects to these conjunct can vary. Some like गुस्सा होना (gussā honā, “to be angry”) require a dative subject, and it's not obvious whether one has an accustive, genitive, locative, or comitative (से) object. Especially for learners, this is useful information, and I strongly disagree with what Svartava claimed in their reply to KutchKutch.
To add on to the last point, many Hindi dictionaries list these conjunct verbs under the noun/adjective they are formed from, only due to lack of space and convenience to the reader. We do not have space constraints so it's nice to have full entries for these with all our goodies (e.g. conjugation tables, IPA, etymologies for unusual conjunct verbs), as well as sufficient linking and short glosses in the "Related terms" section of the noun/adjective component entry.
Also, here are some examples of nouns that cannot take the light verb करना (karnā): सुबह (subah, “morning”), ज़बान (zabān, “tongue”), धोती (dhotī, “dhoti”), जेब (jeb, “pocket”), आर्यमन (āryaman, “my name”). You can't just throw it on any noun/adjective. Even if you could, the other points (the case marking/meaning is not obvious from components) is sufficient reason to keep.

So yes, strongly oppose these proposed deletions. (These apply to Persian as well btw.) Why would you want to remove entries when there are still so many more to make in these languages? I'm pretty sure the arguments I have outlined are a good rebuttal to the claim that these are SOP--there are special properties of these constructions that require a full entry to describe. The templates like {{U:hi:karnaa}} are going to lead to loss of this useful information, and moving stuff to appendices will make it basically inaccessible for lay users. —Aryaman^A ^{(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 05:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AryamanA: Thank you for joining the discussion. I was worried that no Hindi speakers expressed their concern and assumed it was OK by them to delete all those compound verb entries. I am sure @Svartava2 will have more to say on the subject.

Then my suggestion to incorporate करना (karnā) into the entry without it still stands. Please examine the Japanese entry like 勉強(べんきょう) (benkyō). Please not it has two sections - noun and verb (with their translations and inflections). The verb section includes the する (suru) part, which is attached to the noun and acts pretty much as Hindi करना (karnā), et al. Do you like the idea - to do the same or similar to Hindi entries? Also calling @Benwing2:. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev, AryamanA This sort of approach is possible but I'm not sure why it's preferable to the existing approach. If there is concern that speakers will look for an expression like ठीक करना (ṭhīk karnā) under ठीक (ṭhīk), we can put ठीक करना (ṭhīk karnā) under ==Derived terms==. I for one would not expect to find ठीक करना (ṭhīk karnā) under ठीक (ṭhīk), and it seems strange to me to list 勉強(べんきょう) (benkyō) as a both noun and verb when it's really only a noun. In English, for example, we list take on, take in, take out, take aback etc. as such instead of as subentries under take or on/in/out/aback. Also keep in mind that in Hindi there are multiple possible light verbs that can form compounds of this sort; करना (karnā) is only one of them. See Category:Hindi compound verbs by base verb. So for example for ग़ायब (ġāyab) we'd have to have subentries for both ग़ायब करना (ġāyab karnā) and ग़ायब होना (ġāyab honā), and in some cases there would be several subentries. Benwing2 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AryamanA, Benwing2, Atitarev: I have not nominated the English loanword + करना entries for deletion, for exactly the reason you have stated above. For ठीक करना (ṭhīk karnā), it is basically equivalent to "make [object] fine/okay/in good condition" so that term strikes me as an SOP. Regarding the examples you pointed out of nouns which won't go with करना: yes, it is indeed illogical to say, for example, जेब करना (jeb karnā), but is it really impossible and grammatically wrong? Even if we soften it for the noun ones, then too the adjective ones should be deleted. I'm more on the fence for keeping entries like आरंभ करना (ārambh karnā) because it's an exception, being used more frequently with को (ko) (accusatively) rather than का (kā) which would be correct grammatically and more directly translatable: "to do आरंभ (ārambh, “start/beginning/commencement”) of"; so there's a deviation. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to consider that these verbs are fixed collocations which translate as single words in English, and this is English Wiktionary. There's a difference between saying any adjective like नया, अच्छा and ग़लत with करना than with these fixed ones. As for the nouns, it is worth noting that since Hindustani verbs are a closed class, any verbs that are loaned from Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit are verbal nouns compounded with करना or another verb. Similar verbs in Persian and Turkish have entries on the Wiktionary. RonnieSingh (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RonnieSingh: My point of any adjective stands, and it is inclusive of the above adjective you point out above. I'm going to prove it with quotations:

रोशनी बनकर जियो, page 17:
ऐसा लगता है घर को नया कर दिया
तुमने आकर यहाँ क्या से क्या कर दिया
aisā lagtā hai ghar ko nayā kar diyā
tumne ākar yahā̃ kyā se kyā kar diyā
It seems you have made the house new
Coming here, you've made what into what
सबका साथ सबका विकास, page https://books.google.com/books?id=tDSgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT123 url:
5 साल ही उसको कार्यकाल मिला था, लेकिन वह अपने राज्यकाल में ये दो चीजें अच्छी करके गया था।
5 sāl hī usko kāryakāl milā thā, lekin vah apne rājyakāl mẽ ye do cījẽ acchī karke gayā thā.
He got tenure only for 5 years, but during his reign he had made these two things good.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 2 is not used by this template.

So yeah, I stand by my earlier statement: every adjective can go with karnā, even if it be illogical, senseless, but grammatically correct with the accusative को. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 11:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thank you for proving my point with examples. As I was saying using an ordinary adjective with करना isn't the same as using an adjective like ठीक, जारी or साबित. With adjectives that appear in fixed constructions, there is a specific meaning to the verb, while with other adjectives it's just a transitive inchoative of the adjective. Since no direct idiomatic translations of them exist, you translate them into English as "to make wrong", "to make good", "to make new", but verbs "to repair", "to issue", etc. exist. I'll remind you that this dictionary is in English, so, for example, while looking for, say, जारी on Wiktionary when used with the verb करना in context of say currency, one might not directly understand from the adjectival meanings listed under the entry. This may lead to a mistranslation. RonnieSingh (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnie Singh: If, for example, साबित करना (sābit karnā) translates into English as one word, it does not in itself merit inclusion despite being SOP. "make the currency in issuance" = "issue the currency" so make in issuance/in force = issue, so the former is usually not used or uncommon but the literal and SOP equivalent of जारी करना (jārī karnā). Such SOP expressions of adj + karnā are used all the time in Hindi, but it is just that an English phrase like "prove the (object)" is much more common than "make the (object) proven" which directly translates into Hindi as: (object) को साबित करना (ko sābit karnā), so there's obviously no idiomaticity. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2 The word साबित is hardly at all used adjectivally, and used very much more commonly in the set phrase साबित करना. In fact, it would be even idiomatic to say साबित {की गई, हो चुकी, हुई} बात rather than just साबित बात to mean "a proven thing". As for जारी नोट "current note(s)", it does not mean the same thing as जारी हुए नोट which means "issued notes". By your logic, the English entry make right shouldn't exist because it's a make + adj construction and thus an SOP. RonnieSingh (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RonnieSingh: I do think make right shouldn't exist as an English entry and I've RFD'd it. जारी means both "in issuance" and "in force, current, in use". Here are some examples of साबित outside of करना/होना verbs used adjectivally:

Law and General Studies, page 157:
न्यायालय उस तथ्य को साबित तथ्य के रूप में धारणा करने को बाध्य है
nyāyālay us tathya ko sābit tathya ke rūp mẽ dhārṇā karne ko bādhya hai
The court is bound to regard that fact as a proven fact
शहला मसूद हत्याकांड में जाहिदा, सबा सहित चार को उम्रकैद:
साबित आरोप: जाहिदा परवेज ने आपराधिक षड्यंत्र रचकर शहला मसूद की हत्या की योजना बनाई।
sābit ārop: jāhidā parvej ne āprādhik ṣaḍyantra rackar śahlā masūd kī hatyā kī yojnā banāī.
Proven allegation: Zahira Parvez planned the murder of Shehla Masood by hatching a criminal conspiracy.
लाल किले के प्राचीर से प्रधानमंत्रियों के भाषण, page 153
… यह एक साबित बात है कि आजकल के बड़े हथियारों से दुनिया के सवाल हल नहीं होते, खाली दुनिया तबाह होती है।
… yah ek sābit bāt hai ki ājkal ke baṛe hathiyārõ se duniyā ke savāl hal nahī̃ hote, khālī duniyā tabāh hotī hai.
It is a proven fact that modern big weapons do not solve the problems [lit. answer the questions] of the world, but only destroy the world.
—Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 09:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AryamanA. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

strava

medos#Hunnic

kamos#Hunnic

All those 'Hunnic' lemmata are attested only in Greek and Latin texts. strava is probably a Slavic term (cf. *sъtrava), medos may be Germanic. We cannot know if they were used by the Huns. The best would be to create entries for the terms as Greek or Latin (cf. strava) and explain the situation. Please also take a look at the work referenced in the entries (p.452) where the notion that these are Hunnic words is rejected (!). --Akletos (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the whole “Hunnic” language from the language data. Fay Freak (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Akletos. Per my stance at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#gangaba, delete the 'Hunnic' but add/keep an entry under the language of the text in which these words are encountered; compare μέδος. But if we delete the Hunnic language from mainspace entirely, it might be worth having an appendix or some other means of listing words believed to possibly be from this otherwise unattested language. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should create categories like "Terms reported as (LANG1) in (LANG2)"? Or do they already exist? Akletos (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t exist, and an appendix would be better, as in known languages such as Thracian and Dacian which use to be attested in unreliably transmitted textual loci. The ghost-word appendices seem to be most fit: Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. Instead of “dictionaries including this word” we would have “authors declaring/discussing this word“. Fay Freak (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strava and medos are RFD-deleted (converted to Latin entries at strava and medus), but someone who knows more Greek than me will need to figure out what to do with kamos, noting that the sole attestation of this word is in Greek script. This, that and the other (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

biancheria da letto

biancheria intima

Italian SOP. Imetsia (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it more likely that the sense of underwear is a clipping of biancheria intima? Furthermore, what's exactly the sense of intimo that makes biancheria intima a SOP of biancheria and intimo? With the current definitions, I can only favour keeping biancheria intima. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~RFD-kept~~ —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Notifying Benwing2, GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Sartma): Reopened (Semper is an inclusionst; the second vote only applies to half the RFD, leaving the other half as no consensus). Pinging the Italian-working-group contributors to get a more representative population of votes. Imetsia (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete biancheria da letto, abstain on biancheria intima. Ultimateria (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor deleting biancheria intima if the word intimo as an adjective has the meaning "related to underwear" and this sense is added to Wiktionary; otherwise it seems non-SOP. I abstain for now on biancheria da letto; the equivalent in Portuguese roupa de cama feels like a fixed expression to me (non-SOP), although I am not a native Portuguese speaker (or native Italian speaker), so I would defer to the native Italian speakers. Benwing2 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2:

Done. I've added that sense to intimo. Imetsia (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

2A0

Note that all of these exist in the translingual section already. I see little to no value in having language-specific entries for these; the only language-specific data is the pronunciation which could surely be derived from the letter name and the number entry. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#A1. --Fytcha (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created these entries while I was alphabetically creating entries from the Norwegian dictionary, where these are present. I think they are useful as they have the Norwegian pronunciation + some link to Bokmålsordboka, Riksmål dictionary, Norwegian lexicon and Wikipedia. Some of them even have other definitions, A4 has a definition unrelated to the paper size for example. Supevan (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to nominate the non-paper-format-related definitions. I'll change that straight away. Fytcha (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may be language-specific aspects (pronunciation, inflections). We currently have no entry for Dutch, but note that the entry A4 at the Dutch Wiktionary gives a gender and a pronunciation and lists plural and diminutive forms as well as several derived terms. --Lambiam 11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in practice these terms are attested in all modern languages in use by societies with a need for office supplies, so the entry could eventually become quite long, with endlessly repeated etymologies and definitions. The orthography, etymology, definitions, and related terms are common to all languages, while inflections, pronunciations (of little importance for this set of terms, as Fytcha says) and derived terms differ. There are good arguments for creating all the language entries as well for merging them up to a single Translingual entry; I tend to prefer the latter approach. I like the way the pronunciation section is set up at Homo sapiens, for example. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are covered by translingual. The pronunciation can be moved there. Theknightwho (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha, Supevan, Lambiam, Theknightwho I reformatted A7 along the lines of Homo sapiens, as a pilot project before converting them all. Any thoughts? This, that and the other (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: It's an interesting idea and I'm not per se opposed but I think the idea of allowing different pronunciations in a translingual entry should be discussed in a BP first because I can see why some would oppose it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other, Fytcha: I like it, but I think we should make such sections collapsible (in the same manner as translations). Theknightwho (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

سقى

RFD-sense "(transitive) to give water to, to quench the thirst of, to hydrate". Tagged but not listed (diff). --Fytcha (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale not given, but it does appear redundant with the sense above. An Arabic speaker should simply merge them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chữ trung quốc

Tagged but not listed (diff by @PhanAnh123). Also, tagged as Tai Dam instead of Vietnamese. --Fytcha (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxn What do you think? SOP or not? Note that we do have English Chinese character. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wrong case (should be chữ Trung Quốc) and SoP (doesn’t mean Hanzi, but rather “Chinese script”, which usually means Hanzi but could have broader meaning). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

anh cả

Vietnamese. Tagged by Special:Contributions/2405:4800:52a7:99c:4104:f793:b3d:b0c0 but not listed (diff). --Fytcha (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case. Viewed alone it is SOP, but the fact that this term is apparently only used in Northern Vietnam is an interesting and important detail that would be lost if this was deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quán cà phê

Tagged by Special:Contributions/115.78.232.29 but not listed (diff). --Fytcha (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cafés serve more than only coffee. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

леле мори мајко

мајко моја мила

Macedonian, tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying Dimithrandir, Горец, Martin123xyz): Any opinions on these? Are these WT:SOPs as is claimed in the RFD reason? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"мајко моја мила" is SOP, but I'm not sure about "леле мори мајко". Gorec (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

n'y

Tagged but not listed (diff by @HeliosX). --Fytcha (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'ay

Tagged but not listed (diff by @HeliosX). --Fytcha (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some like this were kept in 2008 (Talk:j'ai) but I'm not really sure why. Delete as transparent, predictable contractions. This, that and the other (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

баярлаа

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). Reason given: "Phonetic respellings should be handled differently". --Fytcha (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by @Crom daba. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as {{alt form|mn|баярлалаа}} or {{misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}} --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crom daba, LibCae, Fytcha: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: Sorry, I have absolutely no knowledge of Mongolian. I was just listing the tagged entry. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-саан

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). --Fytcha (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-наа

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). --Fytcha (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

michewakan

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Hk5183, the article's creator). --Fytcha (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hakihakan

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Hk5183, the article's creator). --Fytcha (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hempes

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Hk5183). --Fytcha (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hk5183: Can you please provide a rationale for deleting? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be preferable to have this page be a redirect to another page for this word, which is located at hèmpës.Hk5183 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche, can you comment on this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. It's a question (like with Old English vs modern French, etc) of whether we want diacritics in the pagename, or only in the headword. They're frequently provided in linguistic reference materials, but my understanding was that they weren't required in ordinary writing (like with Old English macrons etc), so I created the pagenames without the diacritics. However, "linguistic reference materials" outnumber "ordinary writing" (which is often now consciously linguistic, coming from revitalization efforts, etc), so there's also a case for going ahead and putting them in the pagename. I recall this coming up before, in a discussion about whether modules should strip diacritics from links. Looking now, I see the module says the decision was "Don't strip diacritics from entry names, per WT:Grease pit/2020/May." So I guess these should be moved/merged to the diacritical forms or deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nữ cai trị

Tagged but not listed (diff by @PhanAnh123). --Fytcha (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SoP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not SoP as cai trị doesn’t mean ruler and nữ isn’t exactly productive. It’s very rare, so may need to be sent to RfV though. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

dir-

Latin. This prefix doesn't really exist; the two verbs said to be derived from it are just regularly rhotacised forms with dis-. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other We have many other examples of alternative forms of prefixes caused by no-longer-predictable sound changes, which is exactly the case here, so I would vote keep. (BTW I realize now I forgot to get to your request for Latin module documentation; I'll try to get to it tomorrow, going to bed now.) Benwing2 (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a real prefix, not needed in etymologies, and nobody will go looking for it specifically. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Benwing. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gecielfe

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN#gecielfe.

tyan#Azerbaijani

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN. 10:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bibikati

Tagged but not listed by Useigor (talk • contribs) with the comment below. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably descendants are recent and not Proto-Slavic:
Russian бибикать "to beep": First attested in 1969–1970 according to ruscorpora. It is absent in:
Dahl: Dal, Vladimir (1903) “бибика”, in Толковый Словарь живого великорусскаго языка [Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language] (in Russian), 3rd edition, volume 1, товарищество М. О. Вольфъ, page 210
SRNG: ^{The template Template:R:ru:SRNG does not use the parameter(s): page=289}
vol=2 Please see Module:checkparams for help with this warning.“бибик”, in Slovarʹ russkix narodnyx govorov [Dictionary of Russian Dialects] (in Russian), Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 1965–
Bulgarian бибикам "to beep" is absent in:
Georgiev: see "Further reading"

Gerov: Nayden Gerov (1895) “биба”, in Рѣчникъ на Блъгарскꙑй язꙑкъ. Съ тлъкувание рѣчи-тꙑ на Блъгарскꙑ и на Русскꙑ. [Dictionary of the Bulgarian language]‎^[26] (in Bulgarian), volume 1, Plovdiv: Дружествена печꙗтница "Съгласие.", page 40

Gerov: Nayden Gerov, Тодор Панчев (1908) “бибанъ”, in Допълнение на българския рѣчникъ [Dictionary of the Bulgarian language]‎^[27] (in Bulgarian), volume 6, Plovdiv: Печатница "Трудъ" на Петко Бѣловѣждовъ, page 23

I have no opinion myself. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be safely deleted. I found the correspondance worth noting, but I should have write it down in Sandbox or under the etymology section of Bulgarian бибикам (bibikam). The derivations in *-kati are still productive in all Slavic languages, so it is more likely a recent formation. My bad... Безименен (talk)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kusti

Attested only in Balkan Slavic, of unclear origin (as marked with references under Bulgarian куда (kuda)). Proto-Slavic entry is probably unnecessary, since it is not attested in other languages. I created it in hope that more users would see it and may add a cognate from another branch, but it has stayed like that for 2 years. On that account, it is far-fetched to keep it any longer. Безименен (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably denominal in those dialects that have it. Fay Freak (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sözcüyüm

Misspelling of homophonous sözcüğüm, which already has its own entry. --Lambiam 12:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not rather be "I am a spokesperson"? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am against lexicalizing predicative forms that happen to be formed from a one-word predicate. In a sentence like sadık bir sözcüyüm (“I am a loyal spokesperson”), the parsing is sadık bir sözcü +‎ -yüm. It is a purely non-lexical aspect of Turkish orthography that these predicative suffixations form “words” written without space, forms that do not by themselves carry a meaning – even though the constituents do – but can only be interpreted in a given context. --Lambiam 15:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Wiktionary's general inclusion policy is very space-centric (probably because what people want to look up is heavily influenced by where spaces are); we also have tons of German "SOP" nouns. Then again, Turkish is agglutinative and there is very little use in listing these endless combinations as full articles. Would we really want oldukların, olduklarından, olduklarında, olduklarındaki etc. for every verb that these forms are attestable for? I'd of course say no. However, I'd be fine with listing such forms within the lemma's declension/conjugation section by use of a template. That way, when searching for such a word, the lemma shows up in the search results. You should maybe also consider bringing this up in the BP so that we can write it into WT:About Turkish and make it binding (so that they can be speedied in the future). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More predicative forms: [28] Seems like the accelerated form gadget adds predicative inflections to -lAr forms. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Module:accel/tr ceased to exist on September 9, 2018. --Lambiam 10:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MhmtÖ (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

штири

@ZomBear, Russianrye, PetrGruko, Vedac13, Atitarev, Useigor, Tetromino, Fay Freak I don't know who the Rusyn editors are here so I am pinging the people who worked on штыри and штири, along with a few other likely suspects. What seems to have happened is that User:Vedac13, User:PetrGruko and User:Russianrye created шти́ри (štýry, “four”), marking it as Prešov. Recently, however, User:ZomBear created an entry under шты́ри (štŷ́ry) with the same meaning (marked as regional), and marked шти́ри (štýry) for speedy deletion. I don't know much about Rusyn but this looks fishy; I suspect there are competing standards for Rusyn spelling, which may have political ramifications. Benwing2 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd say send to RFV. Thadh (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2, Thadh, ZomBear: Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".

Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source шты́ри (štŷ́ry) — Horoszczak, Jarosław (1993) “шты́ри”, in Перший лемківско-польскій словник [First Lemko-Polish Dictionary]‎^[29] (in Polish), Legnica: Stovaryshynia Lemkiv, page 248

I did not come across in Rusyn dictionaries шти́ри (štýry). --ZomBear (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kináva and kinava

The correct dictionary form of the Romani word is kinel, which already has its own entry. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YukaSylvie: is kináva an inflected form of kinel? Vahag (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the first-person singular present tense of kinel. YukaSylvie (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

ܐܬܘܪܝ

Classical Syriac.

Tagged by @Antonklroberts, but not listed due to unfamiliarity with the template. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonklroberts Could you please explain why you think this entry should be deleted? If the reason is "it doesn't exist", we deal with that through Requests for Verification: WT:RFVN and the {{rfv|syc}} template. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

दस करोड़, दस लाख

Hindi. Not covered by CFI: WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals. I usually speedy these SOP numbers per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/January#Non-English_entries_that_don't_meet_WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals but I didn't feel comfortable doing so this time because 1. the number system is markedly different from the languages that I'm familiar with and 2. the article was created by a sysop. (Notifying AryamanA, Atitarev, Benwing2, Smettems, Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Msasag, Svartava2, Getsnoopy, Rishabhbhat): . — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not speedy; different number system does not mean that it isn't decipherable by its components and it isn't one word. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's proof of them being used figuratively as 'very large number'. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I think CFI's allowance for deleting numbers is too strong, but in this case if you have any idea what a lakh and a crore are, the expressions "ten lakh" and "ten crore" are completely transparent, so I am not opposed to deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishabhbhat, Svartava Would you consider any of the following uses to be idiomatic/figurative for 'very large number' rather than the SOP meaning?

जानकारी के अनुसार आज जिले भर के बाजारों में लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई।

दस करोड़ों की लागत से बनाया आधुनिक तकनीक का डबल लेन ब्रिज में पांच सालों के भीतर ही दरारें पड़ गई।

योरप में कितने ही ऐसे कला-प्रेमी पड़े हुए हैं जो उनमें की एक-एक तस्वीर के लिए दस-दस लाख पौण्ड तक देने को तैयार हैं।

बाकी दस करोड़ों की आबादी में कितने ही बूढ़े, कितने ही मरीज, कितने ही डाकू, कितने ही भिखमंगे, कितने ही साधु शमिल हैं।

ऐसा गोल्डन लिफाफा दस लाख लोगों को भेजा गया है।

मारुति सुजुकी गुजरात प्लांट में दस लाखों कारों का उत्पादन हुआ पूरा

सौ करोड़ रुपये से कम बिक्री-राशि की दशा में निकटतम सैकड़ों, हजारों, लाखों अथवा दस लाखों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है। (ii) सौ करोड़ रुपये या उससे अधिक बिक्री राशि की दशा में निकटतम लाखों, दस लाखों अथवा करोड़ों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है।

ये कार्यकर्ता आने वाले नब्बे दिनों में हर दिन दस लाखों बिल्डिंग्स में जाकर लोगों के स्वास्थ्य की जानकारी लेंगे

खत्म होगी मुसाफिरों की मुसीबत, हाईवे के लिए दस करोड़ों राशी स्वीकृत

Even if they are deleted as SOP, it may still be helpful to keep [[दस]] [[करोड़]] & [[दस]] [[लाख]] at Module:number list/data/hi and the translation tables at one hundred million § Translations & million § Translations. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch: Even in these sentences, in the first one - लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई - the use might not be figurative: it translates to nearly ten crores of purchasing. I don't think that even the figurative use for "large number" should be enough to keep it because in any case it would translate to "ten crore(s)" even when figuratively and the meaning (from the components) and figurative use is obvious. —Svārtava (t/u) • 03:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutchkutch: Yes, whenever a term is deleted as SOP, I always relink its translation to its parts (instead of removing it) as every sysop should, so nothing would be lost there. The question only is whether this term merits a full entry by itself. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

יהדות אורתודוקסית

Hebrew.

Sum of parts: (יהדות + feminine form of אורתודוקסי). — This unsigned comment was added by Sartma (talk • contribs) at 09:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, reasoning below. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 15:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"below" refers to Talk:יהדות רפורמית — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

יהדות רפורמית

Hebrew.

Sum of parts (יהדות + feminine form of רֵפוֹרְמִי). — This unsigned comment was added by Sartma (talk • contribs) at 09:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The names of specific movements within a religion aren't SOP, they're names. This is like saying "Roman Catholicism" is SOP. Ridiculous at best. Keep. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 15:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

יום השבת

Hebrew.

SOP. Sartma (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

יום שבת

Hebrew.

SOP. Sartma (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a synonym. This reminds me of semantically redundant forms like Assamese ৰৌ মাছ (rou mas) and অজগৰ সাপ (ozogor xap) that are useful & worth keeping as synonyms. Pinging the creator of the entry, @Ruakh. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

طماطمة

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN. 02:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

حواط

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN. 02:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

halb-

German, per Talk:halb-, not a real prefix. Supposed derivations are instead compounds with halb. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete per the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wieder-

German, not a real prefix. Supposed derivations are instead compounds with wieder. Many compound verbs with wieder can actually be written with a space, even in the infinitive. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a prefix in wiederholen, which is completely untrennbar? --Lambiam 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: No. By that token, fremd- would be a prefix too by the existence of the untrennbare conjugation of fremdschämen, or recht- because of rechtfertigen. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On one hand, lemmings have this one: de.Wikt, DWDS and a number of books refer to the google books:"Präfix wieder-" / google books:"prefix wieder-"; I also see books which refer to its OHG predecessor as a google books:"Präfix widar" / google books:"prefix widar" (though some of these seem to have a different idea of what a "prefix" is than us). OTOH, analysing words formed with it as compounds seems to work. One book says there were cases where the semantics were different, at least in OHG, as in widerfahren vs widar fahren=zurückfahren, but that seems to correspond to modern wider vs wieder so it's still not clear we need wieder-. Meh. - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja, Fay Freak, Jberkel: Any opinions on this and the ones above and below? I always appreciate your inputs. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha: The requirement for something written together is traditionally lexicalization, the having become an idiom. A circumstance to be memorized by input and hence occasionally to ponder about when writing if you are not sure whether you just invented an SOP combination or it is a rarer idiomatic combination, I have experienced specifically in using wieder. So all of wiederentdecken, wiederkehren, wiedertaufen have been SOP terms of adverb plus verb at some point—until the point that people picked it up, which of course differs by centuries: you might see that that literal sense of kehren for instance is now tendentially archaic while wiederentdecken belongs to an era of oftener inventions. So none has been formed by prefixation. Correct is {{univerbation}}. Fay Freak (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

r-

German. Not a prefix. The supposed derived terms are clippings. You can't just reanalyze the part that remains after clipping as a new affix if that affix has never occurred outside of these clippings. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It wouldn't surprise me if 'r could be attested as a clipping of her (compare 'n), and I suspect 'rein is attested as a variant of rein (ety 2), but those are clippings as is rein etc, as you say; they don't readily translate into a prefix r-. I moved the list of "derived terms" to the related terms section of raus to preserve it somewhere; we could put pointers at the other entries. - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German zuordnen

Rfd-redundant: (Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): 7 senses? My creativity stops after 1... — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful if you identify (here and elsewhere) which senses you find redundant. For the purpose of translating from language X to language Y, it may be good to provide an Übersetzungspalette of near synonyms, since some are more appropriate in some contexts while in other contexts other translations work better. See the range at Leo. --Lambiam 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Many of the redundant senses have already been quietly removed/changed in the meantime (alongside the {{rfd-sense}} templates), though I still think that zuordnen only has one sense. I agree that usually a sense should contain more than just one word in order to clarify which sense of the English translation is meant exactly (what does e.g. "to refer" mean in the article zuordnen?), but that's not the issue here. There's a clear difference between:

zuordnen:

and

zuordnen:

to assign, allocate, ascribe

I can explain the difference in case somebody doesn't know what it is. As it stands, there seem to be large-scale errors related to senses in German articles (which is extremely discouraging to me). I don't think there's a systematic way to find them all...

While we're at it, there are more large-scale errors in the German category: protologisms / SOPs (User_talk:Hans-Friedrich_Tamke#Some_points_regarding_your_recent_edits, ...) and translations (diff, diff, Special:Diff/63168437/63119234, ...). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These translation may cover what for you is one sense, but allocate and ascribe are not synonyms in English. If it is said that a work has been ascribed to a maker (as in a number of other works are ascribed to the Master of the View of Saint Gudula on the basis of a style comparison, translating dem Meister von Sainte Gudule werden durch Stilvergleich noch einige andere Werke zugeordnet ), you cannot replace the word by allocated. There is a clear overlap between allocate and assign, perhaps some but less clear between assign and ascribe, while the third edge completing the triangle is not clear at all. In a context like that of the Master of the View of Saint Gudula, attribute is a synonym of ascribe, but also not of allocate. --Lambiam 15:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple glosses of one and the same sense need not be synonymous; they usually are when separated by a semicolon but when they're separated by commas they usually serve to circumlocute the foreign word in question; here, they signify that the German word is in a sense a hypernym of (the right senses of) the given English glosses. Moreover, zuordnen does not lose or gain senses depending on which language it is being defined in. Apart from specific circumstances like subsenses or senses labeled (figurative) and/or (by extension), different senses should occupy pairwise disjoint regions in the semantic space. The word in question only has one sense and it roughly corresponds to "to establish a relation between two non-empty sets" but as most readers are more interested in practical translations rather than razor-sharp philosophical demarcations, we ought to try and provide English words that cover the identified region (region in the mathematical sense) as well as possible. While this can be done perfectly in the case of number words (zweiundsiebzig = seventy-two), technical jargon (Benzyladenin = benzyladenine) and the likes, it isn't possible in general, neither here. The English glosses that serve as circumlocutions belong on one line as long as they approximate the same sense, the same semantic region. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the entry, dropping "ascribe" (not a good general translation, even though it works in some contexts: "assign" is better, think, as it works in both those and other contexts), "dedicate" and "refer" (which again seem like translations that would only work in certain specified contexts and are better covered by the remaining more general translations, no?). We could give examples of 'more specific' situational/contextual translations via usexes. Our colleagues at the German Wiktionary and DWDS perceive two senses (the Duden only really explicitly covers the first of them), although I can see how even those two could be combined. - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German Maus

Rfd-redundant money sense, already at Mäuse. Which one should be kept though, the plural only sense at Maus or the separate and easily overlooked definition at Mäuse? (Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the money sense is only used in the plural as currently stated then it should only be there, as it has a distinct etymology, it is rather related to Moos, also Moses und die Propheten after the story in the parable Rich man and Lazarus blended with Moneten, relating Moyses, etc. Fay Freak (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iff the money sense has a different etymology and only occurs as Mäuse, then as Fay Freak says, it belongs as Mäuse, since it's then only coincidence that it's spelled the same as an inflected form of Maus. Even then, it'd be helpful to have ===See also=== * Mäuse (“money”) at Maus, since for someone who sees it in a text and knows Mäuse is (normally) the plural of Maus, there's nothing to suggest the semantic info is at Mäuse this time as opposed to it being like Dublonen, Groats, Guineen, Zechinen, Galleonen (in Harry Potter), etc, etc, where even when the plural is what one has encountered in a particular text, the singular is where one looks to find the definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

специальная военная операция

Russian. SOP. Vininn126 (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; This just means "special military opiration", which isn't literally "war", it's just interpreted that way. Thadh (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could potentially be interesting for its descendants (diff). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can list such descendants, if so desired, as a calque without listing their original as an entry. --Lambiam 12:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shumkichi (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to keeping it if the term has become used as an obvious set-phrase euphemism for war, or for the specific ongoing one, and not as a generic term for a "special" operation. Usage notes should indicate whether the term is used by supporters or detractors of the operation, and whether there is a satirical connotation as there is in the German descendant. Quotations would be welcome. 70.172.194.25 17:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although this demonstrates the cynicism and dishonesty of the Russian government, I think it's an SoP and not a term we need to keep. We already have a more common colloquial term спецопера́ция (specoperácija, “(military) special operation”). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone steals a cellphone and then claims that they “found it on the ground”,^[30] we are not going to document a sense “to steal” for the verb find on the ground. The meaning of an utterance is what the speaker intends it to mean to their audience, also when they are lying. Only when people start to use a phrase as a wink-wink joke, as happened for fall off the back of a lorry, knowing that their audience will get it, does the euphemistic or otherwise veiled sense deserve an entry. There is no evidence of the phrase специальная военная операция being used with the intention that the audience hears “war”. If such evidence emerges later, with uses spanning at least a year, we may then consider including it. --Lambiam 11:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Ten jaki sprytny. Brawo, odkryłeś, jak działają idiomy. Jedyny problem z tą konkretną frazą jest taki, że nie ma przywileju czasu i nie wiemy, czy będzie używany w przyszłości. Ale już jest używany jako idiom. Nie pozdrawiam. Shumkichi (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement of uses spanning a year comes straight from our criteria for inclusion. A temporary exemption for “hot words” is possible, but still requires evidence of idiomatic use; as far as I can see, such evidence is currently not available. --Lambiam 23:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: You're of course right that this expression doesn't mean "war, invasion" and thus isn't idiomatic but to circle back to the previous point, I don't see where we can list the descendants if there's no entry for the original article. Maybe introducing something like a descendants hub (analogous to translation hubs) is an idea. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that, I thought that these terms described as descendants were used ironically and as such deserved their own entries. But it appears that they are merely unironic straightforward translations of the Russian phrase in all its SOP-ness and, if meeting our CFI at all, only because of Siberian coalmines. Putin talks about недружественные страны, which is translated as unfreundliche Staaten. These are the countries that have imposed sanctions (see also Список недружественных стран (Россия)), but this is no reason to define the meaning of недружественная страна (nedružestvennaja strana) as a euphemism for “a country that imposes sanctions” and list unfreundlicher Staat as a “descendant”. --Lambiam 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha Umm, excusez-moi, but the phrase does mean "war, invasion"; ever heard of this little thing called "euphemism"? The very nature of idioms is that their individual components put together are not to be taken literally but figuratively. Shumkichi (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shumkichi: As Lambiam said, the difference between bathroom and специальная военная операция (specialʹnaja vojennaja operacija) is that the former is used with the intention that the non-euphemistic meaning is received while the latter is not. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha ????????????????????????? bathroom is not an idiom, lol, it is literally a room to peepee and caca, and bath in

And I don't understand your argument. You literally said yourself that a NON-euphemistic meaning is NOT intended for the Russian word; in other words, it is a euphemism for war. Shumkichi (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shumkichi: Bathroom is an euphemism, which was my point. I don't see how idiomaticity makes a difference but sure: the difference between pass away and специальная военная операция (specialʹnaja vojennaja operacija) is that the former is used with the intention that the non-literal meaning is received while the latter is not. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FytchaNo, it's not an idiom, its main meaning is to take a bath, grrrrebfdsjhmvjsfgvbmszbzsdfjsdvb. It can have a secondary, nonliteral meaninng that's closely related to the main one, that's all.

"the difference between pass away and специальная военная операция (specialʹnaja vojennaja operacija) is that the former is used with the intention that the non-literal meaning is received while the latter is not" - what do you mean by that? Nothing makes sense in your weird argument. You die, you don't literally pass away, it's always gonna be idiomatic. The same goes for the Russian word, it's always gonna mean war. How is the non-literal meaning not received with the second one? Who cares what the original intention of Putin's was, lol? It's also used by other people, you know that? Shumkichi (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a figurative sense, and also because the German calque has got its entry. The SoP rule should not apply to every term: one could as well delete Первая мировая война as SoP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence the term (or, for that matter, its German calque) is used in figurative sense? If it is not used in a figurative sense, I feel we should not keep it as a figurative sense. Our entry for Первая мировая война is also not kept as a figurative sense. --Lambiam 23:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Since the special military operation has turned into a conflict, the term no longer is SoP. This term is as entry-worthy as the hot words slava Ukraini & heroiam slava. And by ‘figurative’ I mean non-literal, and a non-literal term of such significance that meets CFI is certainly a valid entry. And indeed, this coinage could become a historical term like Великая Отечественная война. The Ukrainian conflict has had a great impact geopolitically, and it’s only fitting that we lexically keep up with current affairs, that is, tommorow’s history. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putin’s “special military operation” has been an armed conflict from the moment it started. Repeating that the term is not SoP and entry-worthy does not make it so. In uses outside Russia we typically see the term enclosed in quotation marks, like here. This echoes Putin’s words. In sources based inside Russia the term is used “as is”, as seen here, simply parroting Putin’s words without a hint of irony and not as a euphemism. We should keep up with current affairs, but not proactively. Kenneth Adelman infamously wrote articles with Cakewalk in the title, proclaiming that “demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk”.^[31] We know how this turned out, and Adelman’s prognosis has been much derided.^[32][33][34] It was semi-predictable that the idiomatic sense of the term cakewalk would inherit an ironically inverted sense, but this simply did not happen, and expectations that in the course of tomorrow’s history the term under discussion will gain another sense than what Putin chooses to convey to the Russian people are based on crystal-ball gazing. --Lambiam 20:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lambiam. P U C – 10:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It feels a bit too early, but it's an interesting case of Newspeak that might be worth documenting. – Jberkel 10:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lambiam. This reminds me of WT:Tea room/2021/December#"fake_news", discussing whether Trump's use of "fake news" to refer to info which is actually true was a different sense: no, and if someone hawks a fake as a "genuine Rolex", it doesn't mean we should have a definition # fake at genuine. As I opined in the Tea Room, "sometimes people use words to be dishonest or otherwise wrong, and that doesn't normally change the dictionary definitions of the words", or as Lambiam put it, "The meaning of an utterance is what the speaker intends it to mean to their audience, also when they are lying." If people pick up the phrase and use (3x in durable media) "fake news" to mean "real information", or "special military operation" to mean—to convey to their audience— "war", then we can reconsider. (I see we do have "police action", but that one has over a century of use behind it, in reference to various wars.) - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a noun entry. If it exclusively refers to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then this is a proper noun and should be treated as such. We have no indication that it actually means "war, invasion" outside of that. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

مولود حديث

Arabic. SOP --2001:16A2:EA80:FD00:DD89:7AE6:CEA2:6B9E 20:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

em se tratando de

Recently created by @Munmula, but isn't this just a SOP? Furthermore, the definition is already included in tratar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed something, but I've never seen such a construction being used outside this phrase, at least not in Brazilian Portuguese. "Tratando-se de" would be a SOP, but the preposition at the beginning makes it all weird in my opinion. - Munmula (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you might indeed be right and some sources do refer it might be a Gallicism. But what about the similar construction "em que se trata de"? Would you say that too would be a preposition? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It functions as one, just like when it comes to. Is it idiomatic? It is far more common^[35] than em que trata-se de.^[36]— This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 09:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)‎.[reply]

@Lambiam You forgot to sign. As for your comment, the first of your examples is more common because the second is not considered correct. Dependent clauses imply proclisis should be used instead of enclisis. I don't think commonness would be a good argument there, though that doesn't imply you aren't correct about it being idiomatic. Sarilho1 (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In Portuguese, enclisis ("trata-se") is not used after relative pronouns like que or negative words like não or nunca, with the proclisis ("se trata") being used instead. I'm also unsure about what to do, but I think we can all agree we're not dealing with a mere SOP and this deserves some entry of its own. Munmula (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the best option. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Körnchen Wahrheit

I think that this is not a lemma but rather a sum of parts LinguisticMystic (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, weak delete. There is also Körnchen Realität, but as well kernel of reality. And we have English entries grain of truth and with a grain of salt, inconsistently, against Körnchen Salz. Fay Freak (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as strong collocation. I don't think we can replace Wahrheit with related nouns (**Körnchen Lüge, **Körnchen Wissen, **Körnchen Sicherheit; not even **Körnchen Unwahrheit, unless for comical effect). One can replace Körnchen with Stück or Stückchen, but this is less idiomatic than Körnchen Wahrheit. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There're also Fünkchen Wahrheit, Funken Wahrheit, Quentchen Wahrheit (Quäntchen Wahrheit), Tropfen Wahrheit, Tröpfchen Wahrheit. Hence: Delete, but add an example or a note to Wahrheit, unless this word can be exchanged in a similar way. --學者三 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are a few idioms, and also I don't really see how it's SOP. Truth is a countable thing that comes in kernels now? Vininn126 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

بسهولة

Arabic. SOP. --2001:16A2:E636:6C02:BD5F:3C08:7161:ABC8 22:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so, looking at the etymology: keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inqilābī: Perhaps think less and know more: As I have just uttered explicitly on hands down, Arabic resorts to prepositional phrases to describe circumstances that in other languages are expressed by adverbs. Their number as well as transparency is thus high, but I have even deemed the German mit Leichtigkeit sum of parts, which is idiomatic in a certain sense but the Arabic isn’t even in that sense. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, SoP rules seem to be quite rigid. It does, however, occur to me that such entries are useful for the translation at the least. But never mind, the ongoing collocation vote probably seeks to rule out the significance of such entries. Anyway, could you show me a precedent for a similar term being deleted? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

dãy núi Atlas

Vietnamese, SoP, same creator (Protegmatic). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No more SOP than Atlas Mountains. 70.172.194.25 18:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gà chọi

Vietnamese, SoP, same creator (Protegmatic). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Old Portuguese/africão

Reconstructed entry with no derived terms. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘no derived terms’— I think you meant descendants. But unfortunately, seeing as the term used in Modern Portuguese is africano, a cultismo, the unattested Old Portuguese word has no descendants. The entry looks legit, tho’ a reference would have been better. Keep for now. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If aflicão is attested (it has a quotation), why does it claim to be an alternative form of a merely reconstructed word? 70.172.194.25 00:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, a rarer form of a word assumed to be oftener in another but unattested form can be attested and against direct corpus evidence assumed the alternative form of an unattested form. But the same question has occurred to me and it is still left: the actual attestation situation against this speculation. Fay Freak (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the word is only attested as a glaring hypercorrection. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gendarmerie royale du Canada

French. Per the deletion of Royal Canadian Mounted Police. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apparently there is consensus to note include these type of the things. Note United States Space Force / Space Force with a lot of deleted links recently created by IP. It has been argued at Talk:United States Army that Royal Air Force can be kept because the name does not say which air force it is (which may be doubtful). Fay Freak (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Јованка Орлеанка

Ioana d'Arc

ジャンヌ・ダルク

Jeanne d'Arc

聖女貞德

Following the deletion of English Joan of Arc (proper noun). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese term ジャンヌ・ダルク (Jannu Daruku) has no other meaning than the name of the historical person. As written in WT:NAMES, particularly WT:NSE, we must delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

plus ultra

Latin. Sum of parts, even if given a proper definition. This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it’s a phrase and motto, not an {{&lit}} def. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a motto doesn't make a phrase entry-worthy. We don't have an entry because you're worth it defined as "Advertising slogan of L'Oréal". Plus, what would the definition even be? "Personal motto of Charles V (1500–1558)" is an encyclopedic detail rather than a definition. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a rally to go “beyond”, to go explore beyond the known borders (“where no man has gone before” :) If this gets deleted, why would non plus ultra be kept?. – Jberkel 08:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is sum of parts. It should be treated as English, maybe? Like other mottos (see: e pluribus unum). non plus ultra is not a motto. Sartma (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

de lunatico inquirendo

Latin. From RFVN:

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

Apparently used here: [37]. 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]

A very literal translation would be something like "[sc. mandatum = a writ] concerning (the) lunacy that is to be investigated" - that is, "a writ to investigate lunacy" - exactly what it says on the tin. This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sum of parts. — This unsigned comment was added by Sartma (talk • contribs) at 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

taklit etmemek

Turkish. I converted from {{d}} to RFD since I don't know what is going on here. Note from nom: "this negative form is already in the conjugation table of taklit etmek." - TheDaveRoss 14:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish is an agglutinative language, which means that the line between inflection and derivation is blurred: instead of separate words, Turkish uses affixes and clitics. If you created an English entry for any of huge numbers of @Sae1962's Turkish single-word forms, it would be speedied on the spot as uselessly SOP. The almost infinitely expandable morphology of Turkish is the reductio ad absurdum for the Translation Hub approach.

@Lambiam has been working hard to chip away at this mountain of unnecessary minutiae, but it really requires some kind of massive industrial-scale operation. This was someone who was completely blind to SOP and utterly lacking in lexicographic common sense- but extremely prolific. Their deleted contributions are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,800 pages, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I can understand why someone would want to speedy this. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on {{d}} because the entry does not have any purposes anymore and become useless. If someone wants to see the negation, they can go directly to taklit etmek conjugation table. Lagrium (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a search term it is implausible. The conjugation table of taklit etmek has 346 different forms. I think there needs to be some specific reason to have an entry for a non-lemma form, such as ambiguity or also having a non-verb PoS. An example is çıkar, which has both. This one is unambiguous and completely regular. --Lambiam 14:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MhmtÖ (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted and I'm going to flush the rest of [38] down the toilet as well. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

abajurlu, abajursuz

The suffixes -li/-lı/-lu/-lü and -siz/-sız/-suz/-süz can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example: şekerli kahve = “coffee with sugar”; şekersiz kahve = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning (tatlı = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective (ünlü = “famous”). --Lambiam 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MhmtÖ (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

abambulō

Latin. Perfect and supine forms are not attested in sources:

Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supportive of the argument behind this deletion. Because Latin has such a well-understood morphology, we have a practice of including the complete set of inflections for Latin words even if some forms are not directly attested. In the case of abambulō, these are the only possible perfect and supine forms; if attestations were encountered, there is no doubt whatsoever that these would be the forms in use, not only in terms of this being a first-declension verb, but also as a compound of ambulō. Moreover, there's no semantic reason why the verb would lack a perfect or supine stem. Therefore, the forms should be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I agree with @This, that and the other. Sartma (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

abambulātūrus

Fake participle formed from the fake supine of abambulō above:

Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

abnatō

Latin. Perfect forms are not attested in sources:

Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above This, that and the other (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

abnatātūrus

Fake participle formed from the fake supine of abnatō above:

Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

accantūrus

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN#accanturus.

accantus

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN#accanturus.

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/Hrugʰís

Szemerényi, Oswald (1967) “Славянская этимология на индоевропейском фоне”, in В. А. Меркулова, transl., Вопросы языкознания (in Russian), number 4, page 23 after other references concludes that this has been borrowed separately into the subgroups of Balto-Slavic we reconstruct as *rugís (before Slavic palatalizations obviously) and thence into Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF. and Proto-Germanic *rugiz from the Thracian word *wrugya transcribed in Greek as βρίζα (bríza), if not a related word of the Trümmersprachen nearby.
Wikipedia about the cultivation of rye: “Domesticated rye […] is absent from the archaeological record until the Bronze Age of central Europe, c. 1800–1500 BCE.” Fay Freak (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

för sen

(Swedish) SOP, just like its English translation. Glades12 (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This, that and the other (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

barrio chino

Spanish. Looks SOP to me Zumbacool (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

eliminatoria a doble partido

Spanish. eliminatoria a doble partido and eliminatoria de ida y vuelta. two-legged tie survived English RFD, sadly. Maybe Spanish is different Zumbacool (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a non-aficionado of soccer this term definitely isn't a sum of parts. There's a lot of usage. I vote keep.--Hekaheka (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

después de ti

Spanish. Sounds awkward in Spanish. We'd rather say tú primero. Zumbacool (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/pīpaną

Proto-Germanic. It is probable that the Germanic word for "pipe" doesn't go back to Proto-Germanic; unlike the page says, Old Norse pípa is in fact attested, but it is late and scarce. This would seem to point to a borrowing from Medieval Latin and/or Middle Low German. (It also may be worth noting that when I created *pīpaną, Proto-West Germanic didn't exist, so the only option I had was to create the gem-pro entry.) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eén

Dutch. Unless it has a different meaning or grammatical use from the uncapitalized version, we don't have separate entries for capitalized versions of words. I suppose the point is to show that when één gets capitalized the first é loses its diacritic mark, but still it seems unnecessary. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thadh (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen after deletion when a user searches for "eén"? --Lambiam 06:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when someone searches for a long s, a capital, a Cyrillic letter instead of a Latin one? People should know the basic orthographic rules of the language they are looking up, otherwise we need to include also Eérder (éérder), Eérst (éérst) etc., and all those lower-case forms as well, because people might think there's a distinction between a letter with or without an acute in Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there is a lexical distinction between éérder and eerder, but there appears to be a disambiguating, lexically significant distinction between een (indefinite article or numeral) and één (just numeral). --Lambiam 06:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thadh. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vernice di fondo

Italian SOP for "primer paint". Ultimateria (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

porta secondaria

Italian SOP for "postern", "back door/gate". Ultimateria (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of these could probably be speedied as Angelucci entries. Imetsia (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

curvar-se

Portuguese. Reflexive form of curvar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question. We have quite a few such lemmas, such as dobrar-se, endireitar-se, prostrar-se. Should these all be deleted, or is there some deletion rationale that applies specifically to curvar-se? --Lambiam

@Lambiam. Sorry, I didn't noticed the question sooner. I do think that if one is deleted, all of them should. But maybe we should open a different discussion to fully set what policy should be set? - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarilho1. See a similar issue below for Italian: § essersi. I suppose a general discussion can be held on when to include and when not to include such cliticized forms. For a mesoclitic, see § gözlenebilmek. I see that Spanish reflexive verbs such as inclinarse are listed, but not as lemmas but as verb forms. --Lambiam 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tehdä kärpäsestä härkänen

Finnish. I don't think this is idiomatic. Other verbs may be used as well, e.g. tulla (“to become”), muuttua (“to become”), kasvaa (“to grow”) such as in: Älä anna kärpäsen tulla/muuttua/kasvaa härkäseksi. I have added an entry for härkänen, which I hope will be sufficient. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't tehdä kärpäsestä härkänen the original form of this idiom, which would mean any uses of härkänen outside of it with other verbs would be secondary (WT:JIFFY)? Both NSSK and KTSK only list tehdä kärpäsestä härkänen under their entries for härkänen. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True but they still list härkänen and give this phrase as an example under it. Both dictionaries, especially KTSK, quite often "define" a word by giving a usage example and nothing else. I believe one of the prime functions of a dictionary is to be useful for a person who sees a word they don't know. If such person sees e.g. a sentence Tässä on nyt tainnut tulla kärpäsestä härkänen they are more likely to try to find an entry for härkänen than one for tehdä kärpäsestä härkänen. Also, härkänen is often inflected. Placing an inflection table under tehdä kärpäsestä härkänen would be a non-standard way of presenting it. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if tehdä kärpäsestä härkänen is the original phrase, it should be kept just for that reason and härkänen should mention in its etymology that it was originally only used as part of that phrase and that other uses are more recent. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the oldest usage of härkänen that I could find in BGC[39]. It dates back to 1886 and is from the book "Suomalaisia kansansatuja". It seems that the word härkänen is used there to refer to an ox. I would bet this meaning is the original one, but only the figurative usage remains. First reference to "kärpäsestä härkänen" is from 1916. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suomen murteiden sanakirja seems to list an old figurative use of härkänen outside the expression: " Sana pääsee suusta kun kärpänen, sitten tullee isoks kun härkänen." That being the case, perhaps this phrase isn't original after all, so leaning on delete. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

Does that old citation pre-date the first use of the expression, or is it simply derived from it? Otherwise, WT:JIFFY still applies. I'm tempted to err on the side of caution if we don't know, with WT:LEMMING being a bit of a tie-breaker.
If it does pre-date, is it attestable as being used in that way outside of of the modern idiom to our usual standard of 3 cites? If not, then I think WT:JIFFY still applies because the term still wouldn't meet WT:CFI until the coining of the term.
I'm not sure that minor variations of the verb matter. I've heard "create a mountain out of a molehill" and "build a mountain out of a molehill", for example.

Theknightwho (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in the Suomen murteiden sanakirja (a dictionary of Finnish dialects) has no date and thus it is impossible to know how old it is. LEMMING doesn't apply, since Finnish monolingual dictionaries do not have an entry for this phrase (because they have few multiword entries to begin with; all figurative phrases are listed as usage examples). The use of tulla or other verbs could be considered a separate saying that uses the same word, but I'm sure there are more variants too that use kärpänen and härkänen together in some way. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

intoa täynnä

Finnish. Sum-of-parts; täynnä (“full of”) can also be used with ilo, suru, riemu, etc. @Hekaheka as creator. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(The term translates literally to "full of zeal".) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better as a collocation? Vininn126 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can take any noun referring to an emotion, take the partitive (singular) form and add täynnä to it. There's nothing special about this particular one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ferme ta gueule

Unlike ta gueule/vos gueules or la ferme which are idiomatic, this is merely a conjugation of fermer sa gueule. Maybe rather than delete, just turn it into a verb form like ferme-la ? --Olybrius (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? Are there other examples of entries of French multi-word verb forms? We don't even have such very colloquial forms as va-t’en or [tu] t’en fiches. IMO even the inclusion of the lemma fermer sa gueule is dubious; why is it not just the sum of fermer +‎ sa +‎ gueule – more vulgar than fermer sa bouche, but just as understandable? --Lambiam 11:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not a question for this thread, but why don't we include conjugations of French multi-word verbs? Theknightwho (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t do so in general for English either (carried over, rose and shone, wash themselves). --Lambiam 14:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's more down to no-one bothering, isn't it? I've seen plenty of them knocking around, and I don't think there's any advantage in excluding them, to be honest, particularly where they may be a more common form. Either we do all forms properly or we don't. Theknightwho (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

se désargenter

French. Thought we didn't want these reflexives Zumbacool (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can follow the lead of French lexicologists and not include them as separate lemmas; this is a regular and predictable verb form of désargenter. The French Wiktionary lists (for example) se désartérialiser as a pronominal form of désartérialiser. (Also, the conjugation table is incomplete for these pronominal forms. If a set of Francophone silver-plated dishes starts to discuss their deteriorating condition, using such forms as nous désargentassions, the gerund they should use is en nous désargentant.) --Lambiam 07:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such forms belong to the base verb with {{lb|fr|reflexive}}. Pinging @PUC. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Rosario

SoP, right? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Just as SoP as (attestable^[40]) Holy Rosary in English. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 07:36, 10 June 2022.

banal na Rosaryo

SoP, right? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – see above. --Lambiam 07:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GBN

Translingual, supposedly meaning the ISO 3166-1 three-letter code for Great Britain (the island).

This is factually wrong, because GBN is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK are GB and GBR, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.

It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would be GB-GBN.

@Urhixidur - could you please let me know where you got this information from? Theknightwho (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's wrong. Perhaps the mention of "GBN" was seen here, not realising that this actually refers to GB-GBN. This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted that (and the table on Wikipedia that actually says GB-GBN) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codes EAW, GBN and UKM in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event, GBN alone is clearly not correct. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses of GB-GBN in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made. This, that and the other (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

شابة

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

صدغ

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

ذراع

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

قدح

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@AdrianAbdulBaha What is the reason you think these entries should be deleted? This, that and the other (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list. AdrianAbdulBaha (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DZ

Translingual. Rfd-sense: "dz, in calculus, notation for the differential of a variable z". First of all, this is (almost?) never capitalized. Secondly, it is SOP since you could find attestations for d + [any Latin or Greek letter] in the sense of a differential. 70.172.194.25 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both reasons stated. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as SOP as “n+1”. --Lambiam 08:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

כְּדֵי

Hebrew. The page name has nikud which does not conform to the guidelines in WT:AHE. Furthermore, the entry already exists under כדי. If the entry link doesn't work, use this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D6%B0%D6%BC%D7%93%D6%B5%D7%99#Hebrew Taokailam (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Lambiam 08:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Old English/giestranmorgen

Old English. Like *ofermorgan, this is most likely fictitious; yestermorrow is first attested as late Middle English yestermorow (in Caxton's 1481 The history of Reynard the Fox), and there's no cogent reason to think that it existed any earlier. The adduced German gestern Morgen doesn't prove anything, as it could've easily been independently formed; c.f. modern English yesterday morning). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Latin/circa

Attested. See circa#Latin. @Nicodene --Gowanw (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging: @Brutal Russian, PUC, Benwing2, Erutuon. --Gowanw (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw If you believe that the Vulgar Latin reconstructed noun *circa is attested, despite the cited sources on that entry, then find a citation or attestation. Nicodene (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene: Niermeyer, Jan Frederik (1976) “2. circa”, in Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden, Boston: E. J. Brill, page 180: “fossé autour d’un château — castle moat. Castrum, cercas et menadas suas. De Marca, Marca Hisp., app. col. 1083 (ch. a. 1041)” --Gowanw (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw The quote shows cercas and not *circa or *circas, so that already fails the first test. And what was "Attested. See circa#Latin" supposed to mean, when that entry contains no mention whatsoever of such a noun? [Edit: the user added the Medieval Latin noun 2.5 hours after this comment and copy-pasted my citations and descendants.]

Cercas is, straightforwardly, a borrowing from Catalan; cf. the menadas right next to it (etymologically minātās). Latin documents from 11th-century Catalonia are chock-full of Romance words, for which see e.g. the Manual of Catalan Linguistics, chapter 10. Nicodene (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene: Attested vulgarized Latin is still attested. To cite it as a reconstruction is inaccurate. @Metaknowledge, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Rua --Gowanw (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw If only what you had was actually Vulgar Latin, rather than a mid-11th century Medieval Latin text with Romance loanwords. You do understand that the Oaths of Strasbourg were written two centuries before, yes? There is no 'Vulgar Latin' by this point: there is Romance.

Vulgar Latin *circa is mentioned, with the asterisk, by the TLFi and Coromines and Pascual. You may direct any complaints to them. Nicodene (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of Category:Medieval Latin. --Gowanw (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw What about it?

Edit: I see you have decided to change 'attested Vulgar Latin' to 'attested vulgarized Latin'. You are right to (quietly) acknowledge the difference. The Vulgar Latin that etymological dictionaries refer to is the language from which Romance had developed by, at the very latest, 842 CE, and likely long before. It is not the same as Latin from the second millennium with loanwords sprinkled in. Nicodene (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene: Please read Wiktionary:About_Vulgar_Latin#Spelling. On the project, we adjust vulgarized Latin to conform to classical spellings, regardless of the vowel quality at the time of attestation (Tagging @J3133). I was trying to point out that if you look at the entries in Category:Medieval Latin, like parricus, the word very likely existed pre-ML, but is only attested later. Regardless, the entry for it -- and perhaps most importantly -- its descendants, reside at a Medieval Latin entry. --Gowanw (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a loanword from Catalan cerca, not Vulgar Latin. J3133 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@J3133: 1. Where it's taken from is inconsequential. 2. Correct, it is only attested in ML. --Gowanw (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I.e., Cerca, not circa. Read Nicodene’s reply below. J3133 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw Please read Wiktionary:About Vulgar Latin#Spelling yourself and notice that the policy applies to Vulgar Latin (which, as it notes, mostly refers to reconstructed entries) and not to Medieval Latin, nor to "vulgarized Latin", whatever that is supposed to mean. Both of the sources that you cited were, fittingly enough, Medieval Latin dictionaries.

Even the policy page that you have cited contains the same chronological observation that I have made above: 'By the time the first texts were written in the vernacular around the 9th century, they were no longer recognisably Latin, but had already evolved to become the individual Romance languages in their early forms.'

As for your observation that the term in question 'very likely existed pre-ML, but is only attested later' - you have just explained why I, along with the aforementioned sources, provide the Vulgar Latin form with an asterisk. Nicodene (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Romance noun doesn't descend from the Latin adverb / preposition; they should not be confused.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 22:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. It would be confusing to mention the same word once starred and once unstarred, or link at different places. It’s still the same word even if in all attestations it is borrowed from its descendants, I don’t take the position that because language B descends from an earlier state of language A any words in B which descend from A but are only attested from later or even causated by B we should star the attested word—it is quite arbitrary, depending on our chronolect cut and whether we are sure a word existed at a certain time, thus motivating us to star a word only by a factor in (a) different language(s); for example, hypothetically, why do we have to have a starred Latin *birra (“beer”) if the Italian turns out to be very early in the vulgar tongue of Italy? Instead, you have to be explicit about this peculiar situation, at the unstarred entry—the starring practice is a rough idea and not made for this. Fay Freak (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone not versed in Latin, if this entry is Vulgar Latin, shouldn't it have that label? Or am I misinterpreting something? Sorry it's kinda confusing to follow. AG202 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary treats any reconstructed Latin entry as 'Vulgar Latin' (coded as VL.; in this case {{m|VL.|*circa}}). In practice, most of the entries are more precisely Proto-Romance, Proto-Italo-Western Romance, etc. and often labelled as such, one way or another.

@Fay Freak I don't think I understand. Does Wiktionary allow intentionally wrong derivation sequences? And what would be wrong with noting this on the starred entry? 'The Romance form subsequently surfaced, in the plural form ⟨cercas⟩, in a single Medieval Latin document in 11th century Catalonia, alongside other borrowings from Romance.' Nicodene (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene: This all does not solve the issue that we have two entries and the asterisk is not specific for such a situation, where some reader might wonder why we “still have a starred link when the term is entered as attested”. We don’t make “wrong derivation sequences” therefore, in so far as we regard the overall situation. Instead, the word is partly attested in a language and partly not, odd! Cutting all into additional languages like “Proto-Romance”, “Proto-Italo-Western Romance” etc., conceptually or by actual language headers, won’t help but only introduce complication. Fay Freak (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Proto-Romance' and such are optional labels buried within the reconstructed entries (and if you don't like them, I really would not mind removing them). The only thing that displays in a descendants or etymology section is 'Vulgar Latin', with an asterisk. The real division is between what is reconstructed for the era and what is actually attested.

Anyway, if there existed an etymological dictionary describing even one of the Romance words as 'derived from Medieval Latin circa "enclosure"', I would not mind adding it as such, even without an attestation and despite the other aforementioned points. Nicodene (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene: That’s why we don’t write this. We write e.g. “derived from Vulgar Latin unstarred word that is attested in Latin but later”, per my suggestion. It is an interesting take that you think that the star should be used because of it not being attested in Vulgar Latin specifically. But we can of course express the same thing more circumstantially like “derived from a Vulgar Latin term only attested later as word that is attested in Latin but later”, and yet the issue of having two pages seems weighty enough for me to overlook this detail of linking a Vulgar Latin word unstarred in spite of it being attested but later. Some jokester may also point out that Italian and Spanish is Vulgar Latin so this is all too trifling: the major point is too link Latin starred if completely unattested and unstarred if anyhow attested rather than reconstructed, according to which our division of mainspace and reconstruction space is made, a dichotomy which hardly can be made perfectly further fine-grained: the stars are for the whole language, not its subdivisions, which we unify. Unless you want to introduce another sign to solve a Wiktionary-specific problem: Suppose we link Latin 🪅circa, using the piñata to mark to the system that it should link the mainspace and to the reader of etymology sections that the word is not attested within the mentioned sublanguage but the whole language, so we can have but one page and technically totally correct derivation sequences. Fay Freak (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'It is an interesting take that you think that the star should be used because of it not being attested in Vulgar Latin specifically'

It isn't 'my take': the aforecited etymological dictionaries specify 'a Vulgar Latin *circa'. Really the entire RFD is invalidated by that, but here we are.

'But we can of course express the same thing more circumstantially like “derived from a Vulgar Latin term only attested later as word that is attested in Latin but later”'

'From Vulgar Latin *circa 'enclosure', corresponding to the Romance borrowing cercas found in a later Medieval Latin text' would seem fine to me.

'and yet the issue of having two pages seems weighty enough for me to overlook this detail of linking a Vulgar Latin word unstarred in spite of it being attested but later. Some jokester may also point out that Italian and Spanish is Vulgar Latin so this is all too trifling

Needless to say, I have the opposite views on what is 'trifling' here and what is 'weighty'.

'the major point is too link Latin starred if completely unattested and unstarred if anyhow attested rather than reconstructed, according to which our division of mainspace and reconstruction space is made, a dichotomy which hardly can be made perfectly further fine-grained: the stars are for the whole language, not its subdivisions, which we unify.'

While we're at it, let's go ahead and delete the Vulgar Latin *miraclum 'mirror' (which might as well have been spelled *miraculum) and move all the descendants to Latin miraculum 'miracle', since the latter is attested and since Wiktionary doesn't have time for these trivial distinctions. We even have one (1) attestation of a Medieval Latin mirale with the sense of 'mirror'. So what if it's a late borrowing of Occitan miralh? Details, details... It's all just Latin in the end anyway. Nicodene (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Latin/miraclum should absolutely be deleted. @Nicodene, you seem to be stuck on how you would do things and not how the project does things. --Gowanw (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw No, it absolutely should not be. It is not the same thing as Classical Latin miraculum 'miracle' just because both derive from the Latin verb mirari (“gaze at”). It means 'mirror'. Cf. the DCVB, which clearly distinguishes the reconstructed Vulgar Latin term (marked with an asterisk) from the Classical Latin term. Just because you, personally, don't understand or don't care about the difference does not mean it should be deleted from Wiktionary. Nicodene (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware we can have multiple etymologies on a single page, correct? --Gowanw (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw You're aware that one of the terms is reconstructed, correct? How do you imagine having them on the same entry? Lying by pretending that miraculum 'mirror' is attested in Latin? Nicodene (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By his logic the reconstructed template itself should be deleted as it isn't how the project does things. Oigolue (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is being missed is: we have one single header for Latin, which is why standardize *all* Latin entries to Classical Latin. @Nicodene, you created your reconstruction as **miraclum, but it's just syncopated variant of miraculum. What you're reconstructing is not the form, but the meaning and etymology, and for that purpose, they should be in a single entry. --Gowanw (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowanw I wonder what gave you the impression that putting a reconstructed and unattested noun in an attested entry is anything resembling standard practice.

'you created your reconstruction as **miraclum, but it's just syncopated variant of miraculum'

Wrong. It is simply another way of writing *miraculum 'mirror', which is a reconstruction (and not even mine). The difference has already been explained to you. Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away. Nicodene (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't having multiple etymologies on the same page, the problem is that catalan mirall and its cognates come from vulgar latin *miraclum, not classical latin miraculum. As you can see they are different forms, also written differently, not just the same word with different etimologies or some kind of alt form or whatever. It's not about how @Nicodene or i or anyone would do things, it's about how Romance and Latin linguistics do it. And they do it just the same way we do and everyone on this page did for Vulgar Latin terms until you started this, without having solid knowledge of the topic, which is what you have proven for days on many answers and edits related to this. And if Romance and Latin linguistics do this it's for a reason, not bc they just want. You may know the project well, but without fundamental knowledge about a certain topic, you can't know how this topic can adapt to the project and vice-versa. Oigolue (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thank you. Yeah, I don't even think this entry is categorized as "Vulgar Latin" without the label, unlike *palatium. That's personally where my confusion arose. AG202 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

extrem

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): German adverb. I thought we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we? I see nothing at WT:ADE forbidding it. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahagaja: Because every German (and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters Category:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German (or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. – Jberkel 11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable with sehr (“very”). Rightly we also list derbe (adverb), and also others linked on Thesaurus:sehr. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:

w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.^[11]"
w:de:Adjektiv#Syntaktische_Funktion: "Die Wortart Adjektiv ist unabhängig von ihrer syntaktischen Funktion.^[4]"

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha It's probably worth defining what adverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: Usually, Adverb refers to a lexical and Adverbial to a syntactic category:

2016 December 17, Peter Eisenberg, Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik‎^[41], Springer, →ISBN, 6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches, page 204:
Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
(please add an English translation of this quotation)

As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:

2016 February 16, Wolfgang Imo, Grammatik: Eine Einführung‎^[42], Springer-Verlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 78:
Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektiv klein kann z.B. nur attributiv (das kleine Auto, der kleine Junge etc.) oder prädikativ (Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.) verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (das monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier) oder adverbial (Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.) verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.).
(please add an English translation of this quotation)

Maybe creating Category:German adjectives that cannot be used predicatively and Category:German adjectives that cannot be used adverbially is an idea worth considering. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with -ly, or are they far more common than that?

To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g. schnell) are of course to be included.

I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (adverbiale Adjektive) to be adverbs.

Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced that klein cannot be used adverbially.

2014 January 29, Melanie Thomas, Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901‎^[43], Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 97:
Russell wird im Punch durchgehend winzig klein gezeichnet.
(please add an English translation of this quotation)

How is this not an adverbial use? The reason why his examples don't work is because they are semantically absurd. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, this usage exists in English as well, though it's generally informal: "eat healthy", "fit snug" etc. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.

The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia as Participium coniunctum and for German as Prädikativum#Freie Prädikativa, leading us to the term depictive as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.

Where as in the German example “klein gezeichnet” it is a resultative, covered by Prädikativum#Resultative Prädikativa. Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the reason one cannot say *Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc. is the same as why one cannot say *The car drives small. The boy runs small. – what would it mean? --Lambiam 08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: Thank you for the links, interesting. In that case, the book is probably right in asserting that klein cannot be used adverbially. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with copulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after going large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be inchoative. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaning in a ... way. For example, o güzel bir şeydir means “that is a nice thing”, and aferin, çok güzel yaptın means “bravo, you have done it very nicely”. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people: The people have three worries: that the hungry will not be fed, that the cold will not be clothed, and that the tired will not get rest.^[44] In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense for rich and poor, and also for hungry, in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry for cold, but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally: meyve olgunlaşacak “the fruit will ripen” next to olgunlaşacak meyve “the fruit that will ripen”; bu meyve olgunlaşmaz “this fruit won’t ripen” next to bu olgunlaşmaz meyve “this fruit that won’t ripen”. --Lambiam 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here. Binarystep (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Delete per Fytcha. Binarystep (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I take it then as a predictable that you’d support listing the entirely predictable noun sense^[45][46][47] of predictable? — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Lambiam Bad example, because those show predictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural predictables. In fact, predictability is a total red herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why extrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - ripen is a copulative verb in English, too. Theknightwho (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with predictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here noun) than the most typical one (here adjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign adverb to in brief and under the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase come in from the cold as a verb, verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about olgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.

I read too quickly with the Turkish example - they seem like participles. Theknightwho (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Binarystep: It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Binarystep: Are you going to address this point? Why exactly are you in favor of including something that doesn't exist per the majority of the experts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I don't always remember to check back on discussions. Reading over this again, it's pretty clear I was wrong. Binarystep (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is terrible reasoning. Vininn126 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses. Nicodene (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a balance, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nato-jäsenyys

Finnish SoP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The hyphen works like a space in making it obvious what elements this compound consists of, and a reader can look up the individual words from there. Glades12 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen being a word separator is not a valid argument for Finnish entries (because it is often used e.g. to separate two words in a compound if the latter word begins with the same vowel that the former one ends in, as in linja-auto). But still delete here, as it's a transparent compound of a proper and common noun. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cerca

Frivolous RFD. Du Cange, whom Wiktionary widely cites as an authority on Medieval Latin, has a dedicated entry for this term (already cited on the entry). Nicodene (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene Yes but ... Du Cange IMO is a questionable source. Benwing2 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

propriété chimique

chemical property

chemická vlastnost

रासायनिक गुण

French. Completely SOP, as the English chemical property is. P U C – 21:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The English entry as well. Nicodene (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and while we’re at it, also Czech chemická vlastnost, French propriété chimique and Hindi रासायनिक गुण (rāsāyanik guṇ). --Lambiam 09:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all collocations. Vininn126 (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm torn on whether the English entry should be retained as a translation hub - are there any languages in which the common term is not SOP? Theknightwho (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMO the English entry as well. I usually support translation hubs, but here it seems all translations are SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball-deleted. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

essersi

SOP. I can't find a specifically reflexive entry for this verb in any dictionary. essersi is extremely common e.g. in reverso.net, but all examples are of the form essersi PAST-PARTICIPLE, where si is simply raised up from the past participle and attached to essere. Benwing2 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does SOP apply considering that some forms are written without spaces? Even if it always appears an an auxiliary, we have entries for forms like wouldn't, which is an auxiliary where the semantic negation generally can be seen as applying to the main verb. If kept, the definition might need to be adjusted to indicate that this is not used by itself but only occurs in larger constructions. Urszag (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag Good point. However, if this is the case, then pretty much any transitive verb in Italian can have a reflexive entry for it that does nothing but define it as the reflexive equivalent of the base verb, which seems pointless and is definitely contrary to the way that we currently handle Italian verbs. Benwing2 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a larger point here about morphology that is written without spaces but is entirely predictable, cf. Turkish or Arabic. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic applies to a large number of inflections that are entirely predictable and do nothing but define themselves as the X equivalent of the base lemma. Where do you draw the line? Theknightwho (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a policy question that has never been answered – perhaps also because it is difficult to phrase an applicable and coherent policy. When we say “all words in all languages”, I (choose to) interpret that as “all lexical terms”. That includes in my perception terms that are written with a space, while excluding some that are written without a space, although attestable. Some languages don’t use spaces anyway, so being spaceless is not a usable criterion. An example of an SOP spaceless term is the Turkish noun boşluksuz, which is regularly formed as boşluk (space) +‎ -suz (-less). This is attestable in this sense through actual uses,^[48][49][50] but if it was not, that would purely be so by accident: any speaker of Turkish will understand it immediately and not consider it in any way peculiar, its meaning being precisely the sum of its parts. We can contrast this with the equally regularly formed boşluk = boş (empty) +‎ -luk (-ness). Its saving grace is that it has a specialized meaning not fully covered by “emptiness”. If we are to include boşluksuz, why stop there? Why not boşluksuzluk (“spacelessness”)? I assume that a user looking up a term in a foreign language will not be looking for an isolated word picked from a document they cannot understand anyway, but has enough basic understanding of the language to interpret the text if they know the meaning of this specific term, unknown to them, just like ESL learners may need to look up druthers in the sentence, “But if you had your druthers, you wouldn’t use women at Frank Lee at all, right?”^[51] and then, having seen our definition, will understand the sentence. Any TSL learner will learn the suffix -suz early on, and will see that boşluksuz is formed like boşluk + -suz; if they encounter the word oruspusuz and do not know its meaning, it is because they don’t know the meaning of orospu. --Lambiam 17:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at the end of the day, it just boils down to whether we want to have a dictionary that can be used by absolutely anyone for anything or rather one that requires some basic knowledge (A1~A2) in a language to act as a complete reference. What speaks for the former is that there is legitimate use for a service like that. I have seen people on here say that they do use Wiktionary as a tool to translate foreign texts by looking up every single word on Wiktionary.

Our current treatment is that almost anything written without spaces goes (in languages whose orthography uses spaces). Notable exceptions are Latin -que and Turkish predicatives (and perhaps Turkish -ir -mez forms; they're written with a space but they are not SOP, their predictability comes from the scheme they belong to, see Talk:aşar aşmaz). On the other hand, there is a strong consensus (one that I personally strongly agree with) that we retain German "SOP" compounds (see WT:ADE#Criteria_for_inclusion). It we were to attempt to formulate cross-lingual rules for exclusion (excluding all "words" belonging to a certain derivational scheme), I'd start with the following criteria:

The scheme must be 100% predictable in terms of morphology, phonetics, semantics and syntax
The scheme must be applicable to every word of a certain PoS
The scheme must be applicable by anyone possessing only fundamental knowledge in a language (very subjective, I know, but nevertheless I think it's a good criterion; if only experts could analyze a certain scheme then we'd be a dictionary for only experts in that language)

If any criterion is violated by a particular scheme, no form belonging to that scheme is excluded (any policy that allows half the derivations to be included but not the other half is absurd in my eyes).

To discuss some examples:

Inflectional schemes (for all PoS) in most (natural!) languages are included by their failure to meet 1 and 2 (because there usually is some kind of irregularity)
Inflectional schemes for some constructed languages (apart from nominal plurals schemes because they fail to meet 2 thanks to the existence of uncountable nouns) are excluded
Turkish predicative forms, -siz, -le (and probably a whole host more) are excluded (-lik however is included by failing to meet 1: the construction can have multiple meanings but not all meanings are invoked in every single derivation)
German compounds are included by their failure to meet multiple criteria: the irregular interfixes, the often more restricted meaning than what follows by the constituents, the difficulty to split them into the constituent even for people that have some fundamental knowledge etc.

The second criterion would have to be further relaxed (to "every word of a certain PoS or a subclass thereof") to be applicable to essersi (namely reflexive verbs) but note that at that point, Turkish (along with every other language with 100% regular plurals) plurals are also to be deleted.

I also want to point out again that MediaWiki is fundamentally the wrong software to build a dictionary with. If we had a better software, we could generate virtual pages on the fly whenever somebody looked up essersi or boşluksuzluk (see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/January#Should_we_have_entries_for_Turkish_predicative_forms? for more thoughts on this point).

Pinging also @Surjection because I'm curious about the perspective of a speaker of a different highly agglutinative language. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha I’m broadly in agreement with your points, and would support a proposal to make that part of CFI - at least after a bit more discussion to iron out any kinks. Another exception (that fits your criteria) is that we exclude English possessives ending -'s, but we don’t exclude plurals despite 95% of them following the schema -s. Theknightwho (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2, @Lambiam, @Fytcha, @Urszag, @Theknightwho: apparently there is an archaic essersi that's a pronominal intransitive verb (the only verbs with pronouns attached that's worth having in a dictionary, since their meaning can't be immediately derived by the sum of their parts) and meant the same as essere but with a '"valore intensivo" (intensive meaning). I never heard of this verb before looking it up two minutes ago. I don't think the current definition of essersi refers to this verb though. The current essersi is just essere + si and has no place in a dictionary, like @Benwing2 said above. It's a pure SOP and can be deleted. Sartma (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sartma, Benwing2: WT:SOP only applies to multi-word expressions (either spaced or hyphenated but not concatenated). The issue with essersi is a different one. We have in the past deleted "put-together things" that are written without spaces but such considerations should be done on a per-class basis, not on a per-word basis. Either exclude all such words or none. And whatever the consensus ends up being, it should be documented in WT:AIT. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha, Sartma My thoughts are this:

If we really put every form without spaces in Wiktionary, it will start to become unusable in some languages due to the proliferation of non-lemma junk.
The problem with essersi is not only that it's entirely SOP but that it's not even a constituent in most cases. Some examples from context.reverso.net (quoting the first 8 examples without any filtering):
Qualcuno potrebbe essersi ispirato al killer del camion frigo.

Deve essersi trovato sotto la pioggia.

Potrebbe essersi prelevato il sangue per mesi.

Chiunque potrebbe essersi rintanato in quella fattoria.

I danni sembrano essersi limitati all'addome inferiore.

Quel tipo sembra essersi pentito veramente.

Deve essersi rifugiata nel seminterrato fino alla riapertura.

Potrebbero essersi finti volontari dei soccorsi.

Cioè il killer potrebbe essersi tagliato mentre l'aggrediva.

In every one of these examples, si is raised from the following past participle or even further (see clitic climbing). The first example is from ispirarsi (“to be inspired”). The second example from trovarsi (“to be found”). In the third, the si is not even a logical part of the verb prelevare (“to withdraw”) (and there is no non-SOP verb prelevarsi) but is a sort of reflexive of possession (I don't know the proper term) that is logically attached to sangue (“blood”). You might compare it to Latin -que or -ve, which are lowered from their logical position and attached to the first word of the following constituent, or to English 's in a friend of mine's car; in none of these cases is the clitic attached to the constituent it is logically part of. Benwing2 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: I agree with everything you wrote. (On a side note, the si in prelevarsi ("to take blood from oneself") is just the normal reflexive pronoun ("to/for oneself"). From an Italian point of view, it's not really attached to sangue, it's more about the action of "taking blood" being done by the subject for the subject, so on a logical level it goes together with the verb.) Sartma (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha: That's very true. It's not even an actual SOP. It's just the combination of the auxiliary verb essere + the pronoun of a following pronominal verb... delete. Sartma (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No double voting. Imetsia (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a word you might run across and might want to look up, in a language not known for agglutination (unlike Turkish or indigenous American languages). It's not a clitic either, unlike -'s or Latin -que. I don't really buy the arguments about proliferations of non-lemma forms - that might be the case for other terms in other languages, but this verb only appears to have 13 single-word forms (5 persons of the infinitive + 5 persons of the gerund + 3 imperatives), unless I am missing something. This, that and the other (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the points made above. Imetsia (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

doversi, potersi

Same issue as above with essersi. Benwing2 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2: It is indeed the same issue if the si comes from a pronominal verb, and it's a proper SOP with impersonal "si": si deve ("it's necessary") and si può ("it's allowed/ok"). Sartma (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ixil-ixila

Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--Santi2222 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

שֵׁכָר

Hebrew. Nikud (vowel points) shouldn't be indicated on page names, see WT:AHE. Cannot move to שכר because it already exists.

I turned this into a request for speedy deletion, since it's obvious that this entry must be removed (no need for discussions). Sartma (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has two senses. The sense “intoxicating, strong drink” is represented at שכר by “liquor, intoxicating drink”, but the sense “beer” given at pointed שֵׁכָר is not represented at שכר. Is this second sense for real, or is it an overly specific application of a generic sense “alcoholic beverage”? Since the term occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible in coordination with יין (yáyin, “wine”), it is (at least in Biblical Hebrew) not just any alcoholic beverage, though. In Numbers 28:7, the KJV translates this as “strong wine”. And present-day wine (typically 12–14% ABV) tends to be stronger than beer (typically 6–8% ABV). The usual Hebrew word for “beer” is the loan word בירה (bíra). --Lambiam 11:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gözlenebilmek

Turkish. 100% regular feature of the language. The inclusion-worthy form is gözlenmek. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any Turkish verb can be made into a potential “to be able to ...” by adding a suffix to the stem. This suffix can be combined with many other suffixes, such as for the passive and causative, giving a combinatorial explosion of completely regular potential forms. In this case the entry does not even have a definition, so I think it can be speedied, but in general I feel such words, formed in a highly synthetic and agglutinative language by regular suffixation, with completely predictable meanings, spelling and pronunciation, should not be included as separate entries. Ideally, we should instead have a “word decompiler” or “word study tool” (see WT:Beer parlour/2022/January § Should we have entries for Turkish predicative forms?), which may be useful for many languages. --Lambiam 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still remember a phonetics class at UCLA 35 years ago where Dr. Bright gave a word from an American Indian language having 13 consonants and no vowels. He translated it as "I saw those two women come this way out of the water". If one only has experience with Indo-European languages, one can remain blissfully unaware of the lexical black hole that agglutinative languages represent. Basically, subjects, objects, adverbs, prepositions, auxiliaries, and a plethora of particles can all potentially be part of the same word, depending on the language. And these aren't languages with no spaces: although there are certainly a number of one-word sentences in such languages, they still have lots of multiword sentences in a structure that any European would recognize. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: For reference, I am against deleting infinitives that have been derived with the reflexive, reciprocal, causative or passive interfixes. A Turkish grammar that I used to use had a special name to group these four together. The argument basically is that these are (sometimes) unpredictable. The causative is morphologically unpredictable whereas the reciprocal is sometimes semantically unpredictable (think konuşmak), and an interfix -İn- is unpredictable in that it's not clear whether it is the reflexive or the passive. They also feel a lot more like new words to me (unlike the negative or potential infinitives). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these should in principle be includible, but we should discourage adding rarely seen verbs such as öldürtülmek and sahnelettirmek (which have incomprehensible definitions; and what is an “intrusive” form?). Where does it stop? Why not sahnelettirilmek, sahnelettirilişmek, ...? So to be included, they should still be attestable. --Lambiam 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Yes of course, attestability is a prerequisite. I am, however, in favor of retaining these forms so long as they're attestable because for me they don't fall into the same bucket as -Abil. And I don't think I've ever heard "intrusive form". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kapı yapmamak

Turkish. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If deleted, a search will find the lemma kapı yapmak, just like searching for kapı yapmadı and other forms of the verb will do. --Lambiam 11:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ангельску

Rfd-redundant. Since the usage is only as a part of па-ангельску, should ангельску be kept as a separate item? -- Jarash (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is there to make it clear to manaman whoso asks himself and searches that it is only used as part of that expression, so it is hardly even an item, but a redirect. Fay Freak (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarash, Fay Freak: There is nothing redundant here. Originally I had to create a few similar Russian entries to cater for allowed situations like "Я говорю по-английски, немецки, французски" ("I speak English, German, French") instead of "Я говорю по-английски, по-немецки, по-французски.". In the first example the prefix по- (po-) can be dropped to avoid repetitions. Belarusians works the same way in such cases. As @Fay Freak explained, it is simply a soft-redirect to a lemma and proper form. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2,741: / Line 2,741: @@
 :{{ping|Nicodene}} Yes but ... Du Cange IMO is a questionable source. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 02:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
-== [[:propriété chimique#rfd-notice-fr-|propriété chimique]] ==
+== <s>[[:propriété chimique#rfd-notice-fr-|propriété chimique]]</s> ==
+=== <s>[[:chemical property#rfd-notice-fr-|chemical property]]</s> ===
+=== <s>[[:chemická vlastnost#rfd-notice-cs-|chemická vlastnost]]</s> ===
+=== <s>[[:रासायनिक गुण#rfd-notice-hi-|रासायनिक गुण]]</s> ===
 French. Completely SOP, as the English {{m|en|chemical property}} is. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 21:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@@ Line 2,751: / Line 2,754: @@
 :'''Delete'''. I'm torn on whether the English entry should be retained as a translation hub - are there any languages in which the common term is not SOP? [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 12:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 :'''Delete.''' IMO the English entry as well. I usually support translation hubs, but here it seems all translations are SOP. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 02:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
+* '''Snowball-deleted'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 07:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 = July 2022 =

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Reconstruction add new reconstruction request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English: difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:33, 9 July 2022

April 2018

Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся

May 2018

August 2018

October 2018

February 2019

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs

April 2019

November 2019

December 2019

Old English pseudo-prefixes

January 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

June 2020

July 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeh₂ǵos, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bazъ

August 2020

⦙, ⧝, ⧜

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)

September 2020

October 2020

M’, M’., M.’

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms

November 2020

Latin SOPs?

Suyá ŋó

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

April 2021

Proto-West Germanic variants

May 2021

June 2021

Reconstructed Latin

sugata

July 2021

د هغۀ, د هغې, د هغوی, د ... په منځ کې, د ... وروسته, خوځنده انځور, دويم ځل, بل ځل, ورځ په ورځ

August 2021