Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:11, 24 November 2023

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

Shortcuts:
WT:RFVE
WT:RFV:en

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

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

atew
PEQVI
kimnel
kibblings
kerasine
juba
jollyhead
janglery
jadery
Jack-a-Lent

Scope of this request page:

In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

March 2023

subclade

Rfv-sense: sense 2: "(genetics) A subgroup of a subgenus or haplogroup"

I see evidence of a general sense, but didn't have the patience to determine whether "a subgenus of" should be part of the definition or whether this definition is a duplication of or a subsense of def. 1 (which I just added and which seems abundantly attestable). DCDuring (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern taxonomy is based on cladistics, so subgenera should all be clades- by definition. The taxonomic literature is full of articles explaining why subdivisions at one rank or another aren't natural clades and are therefore invalid. The only way this sense wouldn't fit under sense 1 would be if there was a subdivision of a genus that wasn't itself a clade, i.e., containing part, but not all of more than one clade. As for haplogroups, they would presumably be clades, but I'm certainly not well read at all in the literature that discusses haplogroups, so I don't know if subclades are part of the terminology.

This has all the markings of a guess by someone skimming through a subject they knew nothing about- which describes a great deal of SemperBlotto's work in the life sciences. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article with this definition, which was already used in the oldest revision from 2013. It cites a source, but this source is from 2022, so possibly subject to citogenesis. An earlier source (Aulicino, Emily D. (2013 December 19) Genetic Genealogy: The Basics and Beyond‎^[1], Author House, →ISBN, page 13), possibly contaminated by the Wiktionary entry from 2009, was briefly used but removed as being a vanity press publication. --Lambiam 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very implausible that subclade and superclade would be used other than in deixis, ie, not in reference to a specific rank of taxon. DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian tea

Two plants: The first one's taxonomic name doesn't come up anywhere except Webster's 1913 dictionary. The second one is weird, as it claims it is used to make a drink in Austria. Good luck searching for this ... Van Man Fan (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was just a typo (or maybe a scan error) for L. pseudothea, but i couldnt turn up anything associating it with the phrase we're looking for. As for the other plant, .... i found the phrase "Brazilian tea" for related species,[2][3] but not this one. it might be a name for the genus as a whole, but I couldnt find anything listing Stachytarpheta mutabilis in particular, let alone defining it as the one and only Brazilian tea. —Soap— 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will not find credible cites that support any specific concoction being the one and only Brazilian tea. The most common referent for Brazilian tea seems to be maté (Ilex paraguariensis). It is hard to find uses for other referents in running text, though there are mentions galore, often in tables, in handbooks, dictionaries, enyclopedias, and other reference works. DCDuring (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to our discussions have opined against use in tables as providing valid cites. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "running text" being a requirement for valid attestation in WT:ATTEST. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantially altered the entry, adding mate as a definition, and making the Lippia and Stachytarpheta definitions subsenses of a more general definition. I can find support for a Stachytarpheta definition, but not for a Lippia definition, though L. pseudo-thea is native to Brazil and used for an infusion. IMHO, the Lippia def. really needs {{rfv-sense}}, but the others do not. I would claim widespread use for the mate def. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I just love RFVing taxonomic terms like this, as Wiktionary does so damn well at fleshing them out! Long live DCDuring! Van Man Fan (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you would probably love even more is citing, correcting, referencing, and illustrating vernacular terms like this. The biggest frustration is that use of the terms in tables is not accepted as citing the entry. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

goby

Rfv-sense: def. 1: A gudgeon, such as Gobio gobio."

This is an easy mistake to make as the type genus for Gobiidae (def. 1)) is Gobius. Only we and those who seem to be copying us, have this definition. Etymologically gobio is an inflected form of gobius ("gudgeon"), but gobius has been appropriated for fish that somewhat resemble gudgeons, but are not very closely related.

I am not sure how to find instances of use of this mistaken def. or whether to call it mistaken. It can be found in aquarium, fishing, and wildlife references, but we don't seem to deem such occurrences as mentions not uses. DCDuring (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, I think.
I can also find goby used in the names of various other fish which Wikipedia assigns to the family Oxudercidae, not Gobiidae, but on closer inspection Wikipedia seems to regard those families as interchangeable. E.g. Freshwater Fishes of North-eastern Australia has Stenogobius psilosinionus as bare "goby", and Awaous acritosus (which Wikipedia says is in the order Gobiiformes, family Oxudercidae), Chlamydogobius ranunculus (WP: order Gobiiformes, familyOxudercidae, subfamily Gobionellinae), various Glossogobius species (WP: order Gobiiformes, family Gobiidae), Mugilogobius notospilus (WP infobox: order Gobiiformes, family Oxudercidae, subfamily Gobionellinae; but Wikipedia article body says family = Gobiidae), Psammogobius biocellatus (WP: family Gobiidae), two Redigobius species, Schismatogobius species, Sicyopterus lagocephalus, and Stiphodon alleni as varieties of goby (e.g. "Roman nose goby", "tadpole goby", "false Celebes goby", "rabbithead cling-goby", "Allen's cling-goby"). I can also find a book which refer to Kessler's goby as being in Gobio, but this is outdated as it has been reassigned as Romanogobio kesslerii. - -sche (discuss) 16:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try to have large derived terms sections for vernacular organism names like goby with taxonomic names to suggest that any organism called 'X goby' might be called 'goby' by simply dropping the first part of the "correct" full vernacular name, which is often not really commonly used. In this case I haven't added a broad sense of goby referring to the current range of taxonomic families and genera. BTW, I also try to have derived terms for basic taxonomic names like Gobius. I will look at this particular entry and the issues you have raised about it more closely. DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goby is particularly fecund in producing derived terms. Fishbase lists more than 500 used in Australia. DCDuring (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes look good enough to me. I'll have to think about how to either tell users or let them figure out for themselves that this is a second-rate use of the term. (Maybe it isn't.) DCDuring (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

suffusion of red

I am adding another RFV for the English word suffusion, sense 4, a flush of red color on the surface of an object. It's possible that both this and the unfilled French sense are both medical senses, perhaps specifically meaning a suffusion of blood in both languages, visible from the surface of the skin in some cases if someone has a particularly serious infection under the skin. Thats just a guess though. I wasnt able to turn up anything obvious in which the word suffusion by itself in English refers to blushing or subcutaneous bleeding or anything else that could turn skin red, nor could i find reference to inanimate objects turning red without the word red being juxtaposed to make it clear. This sense has been present since the entry was created in 2005. —Soap— 11:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sely

OED provides post-1500 cites for only the following senses:

Wikt 7 = OED 5: innocent, harmless
Wikt 9 and 10 = OED 6a: pitiable; helpless
Wikt 12 = OED 7a: insignificant, trifling
Wikt [missing sense] = OED 7b: frail, worn-out (OED also includes "crazy" in this gloss - not sure what sense of crazy they mean!)
Wikt 1 and 8 = OED 8: foolish, simple, silly

The following senses are Middle English only:

Wikt 4 = OED 2: fortunate, auspicious
Wikt 2 = OED 3 and 4: spiritually blessed; pious, holy

The remaining Wiktionary senses (3, 5, 6, 11) are absent from OED. This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: I'm sceptical that it'd be conceptually possible to attest all our senses distinctly from each other. - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I added one cite to the citations page, but it seems impossible to tell whether it means "wretched", "lowly", "weak", or "innocent" (or possibly other senses we have). - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me this clearly belongs to our senses 9 and 10 (which overlap), since he is being heaped with sorrows and we are supposed to feel pity for him. OED has a cite talking about "seilie poore wretches" which it puts under sense 6a. Also the full book shows that the text is a modernised-spelling edition of a work from 1555; not a 19th-century text at all. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't a cite with a modernized spelling be shown with the modern edition's date? DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

give

"(slang) To exceed expectations. Your outfit is giving!" I tried some searches and couldn't find any "outfit is giving" (other than longer phrases like "your outfit is giving me a heart attack" which don't count). Equinox ◑ 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this, though I took it to be ellipsis of a broader slang use of give we don't seem to cover yet, which is saying an outfit, action, etc is giving Wednesday Addams, giving boho, or giving Ted Cruz during the 2021 Texas weather crisis, etc, itself a shortening of it's giving [me] Wednesday [vibes]. (The Atlantic has an article about this, "'It's Giving': A Gift to Language".) I'm looking for cites, but as you say most hits are longer irrelevant phrases. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an Elle cite of the other/longer slang use, "it's giving [x]", to sense 1.5 alongside "it's giving [x] vibes". As I said, I've also heard bare "it's giving.", and can find enough examples on the raw web to confirm it's real — e.g., the first of the few hits for google:"outfit is giving girl" are longer phrases of the other slang sense, "this outfit is giving girl boss" [vibes], but the last hits are indeed this RFV'd sense, "This outfit is GIVING, girl!", in comments on tiktok videos — but I have not gotten the sense that it's common enough to meet CFI yet. (Urban Dictionary's top definition will cover it for anyone who looks it up, if we don't.) - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed quite hard to search for, although it's commonly used online. I've added two uses in a tabloid (by the same author but quoting different people). It is used here (page 8) to illustrate the concept of code-switching between language varieties. Einstein2 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This absolutely exists and -sche is on point, it's shortened from positive uses of sense 1.5. Bare "is/it's giving" without anything following it can be found e.g. by googling "giving fr". I'm not sure this is old enough for it to have leaked into any source that is considered durable on Wiktionary, but I have no doubt there is a small army of basic bitches working on remedying this as we speak, give it a year or two. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider: does this exist in other forms, e.g. "that outfit [which you had on yesterday] gave, girl!"? "that outfit is gonna give!" (If not, is it really best considered an inflected form of give still, or an (?)adjective giving?) - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche I can find examples of "so giving", "giving asf" on Twitter so I support the adjective interpretation. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lif

Rfv-sense: The fibre by which the petioles of the date palm are bound together, from which various kinds of cordage are made. It is probably (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the etymology. Most English uses are mentions or italicised, but there is probably enough to pass RFV, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. A simpler gloss would be just "date palm fiber".

I doubt the alternative form lief exists outside mentions though, so I am listing that under a separate heading. This, that and the other (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this, I'm struggling to verify this as a naturalised English word. I'd like a second look if possible. This, that and the other (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lief

This, that and the other (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Ácrata de guerra (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

offset

Noun? (but I can't parse the definition; it does not sound nouny): "away from or off from the general locations and area where a movie’s, a film‘s, or a video’s scenery is arranged to be filmed or from those places for actors, assorted crew, director, producers which are typically not filmed." Equinox ◑ 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect someone got confused by the adverbial sense which matches this definition (which was missing and which I added, along with the missing adjective of the same meaning.) As for a true noun, the closest I could find was:

2012, Brian J. Robb, A Brief Guide to Star Wars:
Daniels provided his dialogue from off-set for the benefit of the other actors.

which has a hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cluster

Rfv-sense ~~"To cover (something) or provide with clusters of things."~~, "To cover or provide with clusters of things." Apparently added by @Sgconlaw by editing an older "To cover with clusters", by itself a bit ambiguous, but nothing compared to this, where I have absolutely no idea where this would be used. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED has both these senses. The intransitive sense only has one cite: "clustering with all variety of verdure". The intransitive sense, likewise, is typically attested as "clustered with" - searching Google Books for older texts seems to turn up a few likely cites? This, that and the other (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of those match the definition I gave (especially the "cover" part) - maybe they could work for "to furnish or decorate with clusters of things"? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this for the transitive sense anyway in favor of rewording it - the 'intransitive sense' you mentioned is however not intransitive. "to be clustered with" is passive use of the transitive verb, not a use of the intransitive one. "be clustering with" would count, though... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other has mostly replied, but I should just point out that the sole quotation in OED indicating the intransitive sense "To cover or provide with clusters of things" was "Stupendous crags, clustering with all variety of verdure" rather than a construction with "be clustering with", so that does appear to be intransitive rather than transitive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian

Sense: “A user of or someone who spends a lot on Discord.” Added under adjective by 149.20.252.132 on 11 April with the edit summary “Legit a thing”. J3133 (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the entry into two etymology sections, moved the challenged sense under a Noun header and created Citations:Discordian. Discord uses the term both on Twitter and its Support website. I've found one use in an online magazine. Might be citable from Twitter or other online sources. Einstein2 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pasch

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of cites. I'm not convinced the "Easter" definition is actual distinct (see the citations for it). I would suggest merging it with sense 1. I created an additional sense as well. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oyan

This was added by User:DCDuring. I have since put three citations on the citations page.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history says Simplificationalizer added the entry. The 2022 cite is for Central African oyan. DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So? If WP is to be believed, oyan is nothing more than a synonym for linsang in the context of the Poiana genus. This, that and the other (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users treat Central African oyan as an idiomatic expression, not Central + African + oyan. The instances of oyan being called the same in meaning as linsang are (almost?) always mentions rather than uses. A large portion of similar non-English words applied to organisms don't seem to be truly incorporated into English. At best they need some kind of label to indicate the usage context, eg, {{lb|en|zoology}}, even if it is "popular" zoology. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pal

Verb: to be friends with. The example given uses "pal around", which is a real verb. I don't think "pal" alone is. Equinox ◑ 09:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to get it cited, but it does appear to be much less common than pal around, with which it is synonymous and so I've changed the definition accordingly. lattermint (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But they're all pal with, so should this be moved to pal with? Or at least add an inline qualifier "with with". —Soap— 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i have the same request regarding pal around. i had thought maybe "pal around supervillains" etc would be common, but it seems its really pal around with as well. —Soap— 16:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that when used with "with", "with" is part of the prepositional phrase together with whatever object follows. And the verb itself is intransitive, so the direct usage with an object (in, as you've mentioned, "pal around supervillains") isn't applicable. As for usage without "with", you could say "They pal around together all the time", or "Let's pal around sometime". lattermint (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

puissantness

probably just used once by Ascham It is probably (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears here as a gloss for Italian poderosità, itself a rare word according to Treccani. I'm not much of a fan of using glosses as evidence for RFV though. This, that and the other (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: the all-Puissantness of the Pope. Another cite of questionable application... This, that and the other (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two 21st-century works using the word: [7], [8]. Einstein2 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is meant as a nonce-word error in the first one though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

teeny

Rfv-sense: fretful; peevish; cross Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the EDD here [[9]] under the second teeny (adjective). A Lancashire word. Leasnam (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lots of luck in your senior year

This is a catchphrase of Joe Biden (used since at least the 1970s). However, everything I can find are mentions of him using the expression in speeches. Einstein2 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more explanation of the "definition": "A sarcastic insult". To whom? Used by whom? Based on what (eg, senior ("over 80"))? Is it derogatory by reason of ageism? This almost would be worth a speedy. DCDuring (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the linked NPR article, Markel (who played w/ Biden in high school) says that it's “not exactly an insult, but it's a gentle rebuke, put it that way[.] [...] Good luck in your senior year ... if you get there[.]”. And, according to a comment in the Democratic Underground, it's been used by other people. [1]

[1] I suppose that Biden's old football coach would have also said it.

ETA: According to a comment by Biden on Trump's repeal of Obamacare, it was used in yearbooks. Anyone have a copy of old signed yearbooks? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the Wikipedia Library, you can try E-yearbook.com . I find hits, but nothing unambiguous: [10], [11]. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that it's sort of like an implied minced oath: instead of just sarcastically saying "good luck!", a phrase that just about any US high school student would recognize as an ubiquitous and meaningless platitude is substituted- the implication being that the extra part was substituting for some rude and vulgar term of address. The person saying this might not have a specific term in mind, but that wouldn't be necessary for the joke. I once heard someone from a similarly squeaky-clean background say "Merry Christmas!" when they stubbed their toe, which is along the same lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't come up with a better definition, we should remove the definition entirely. Can we find usage that unambiguously supports any definition? DCDuring (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lexically, it's just a sarcastic variation on "good luck!", similar to the way some people sarcastically say "good luck with that" to imply that "that" is absurdly impossible. The rest is more of something to be read between the lines. Another consideration is independence: can we find usage that's not Joe Biden or people quoting or discussing Joe Biden's use of the term? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

sexatrigesimal

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

No verifiable citations. "Category:en:Thirty-six" or "en:Category:Thirty-six" does not exist here or on Wikipedia. Wikipedia article w:Thirty-six exists, but does not mention "sexatrigesimal". This appears to have no actual basis. – .Raven (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are irrelevant for verification. kwami (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then (1) a Category should not have been cited when creating that page — (Created page with "==English== ===Etymology=== {{prefix|en|sexa|trigesimal}} ===Adjective=== {{en-adj|-}} # Based upon the number thirty-six Category:en:Thirty-six") — and (2) since it was so cited, that citation should have been verifiable; but no such category was found, and the article of that name doesn't mention this word. Nor was the "Citations" tab filled in with anything at all. Ordinarily I would have expected this page to be speedy-deleted inside a day. It's been up a week, and RfD is a slower process, giving you time to cite RSs, to prevent that. Will you do so? –.Raven (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This community can be a bit rough sometimes. As I understand it, the expectation is that the person who nominates a word for deletion will do so only after taking the time to be sure that the entry can't easily be patched up in order to qualify to remain listed in the dictionary. In other words, we're expecting you to have done the things you're now asking us to do. That may just be an unwritten expectation, since I dont see a description anywhere at WT:RFD or the add-new-entry button saying what I'm saying. So we can't hold that against you. Nonetheless, please understand that nobody here is compelled to hop to it and try to rescue these words you're nominating. Neither are we in any rush to delete them .... speedy deletion is used when there is an urgent need to remove a page, which I dont see here. Lastly, I agree these would be better placed at WT:RFV, but I dont hold that against you either since I've been around here a long time and I've only recently gotten to understand confidently what goes best where. Best wishes, —Soap— 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "… we're expecting you to have done the things you're now asking us to do." — (1) I searched and did not find RSs (e.g. "The major actual English usage of [undevicesimal] appears to be in multiple pages of xen.wiki, not an RS."), which is why so much time elapsed between these three deletion requests. (2) I was not asking you, but specifically kwami, who created these pages, thus should have listed citations in the tabs for that purpose. If kwami doesn't want to rescue the pages kwami created, then by all means speedy-delete them. Okay? – .Raven (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@.Raven When an entry is created, the default edit summary simply copies the wikitext of the created page. So the reference to "Category:en:Thirty-six" in that edit summary was not an attempt at citation; it appears there because the creator chose to put the page in this (nonexistent) category as a matter of categorisation. In fact, the entry was created without citations, as is typical on Wiktionary. Citations are often only added when the entry is brought here to RFV.

As for "RSs", that is a Wikipedianism - we work on the basis of attestation. See the first few sections of WT:CFI.

And as for the word itself, it may be citable from online sources, but there is one hit in GBooks and nothing in GScholar. The form hexatrigesimal should be citable (two uses in GScholar). This, that and the other (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: Thank you! – .Raven ^.talk 03:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth observing that this term would be citable from non-durably-archived sources if anybody was inclined to collect some and start a vote. This, that and the other (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wandwork

Sense 2: not the use of a wand in magic spells, but "The purpose or role of a wand (or any other instrument or tool) as an individual part constituting in the formulation of the inner workings or structure of a spell". Seems very unclear, ungrammatical (constituting in"?) and probably redundant. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have thought "consisting of" was intended, but even that is needlessly wordy. I think the underlying distinction is valid: the wand is used not only for spells but also for the "inner workings" of, e.g., Wicca to draw in the air symbols like the pentagram in the ceremonial preparation of a sacred space for religious rituals... which is too much detail for a dictionary entry, but does make "the use of a wand in magic spells" too restrictive. Perhaps adding "or in [mystical/religious] rituals" would make just one 'sense' feasible. – .Raven ^.talk 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xertz

Is this real? —Mahāgaja · talk 22:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of this user's recent creations need attention. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Citations:xertz with a couple of cites but the term barely appears outside of "fancy words"-type lists. Einstein2 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two durably archived cites (one Usenet and one book) and four Twitter cites. This would need a vote in order to be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

double rainbow

Sense 2: "The LGBT community". It has exactly one citation, which looks very speculative to me. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it just means LGBT broadly ... the rainbow has been a symbol of S Africa since the ANC took power. This page links it to multiple meanings, but I think it's important to note that the pride flag we're familiar with is listed last. —Soap— 21:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

goodgeon

unattested alternative spelling Tbilsi Fin (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likely just about keepable, although the label is wrong. [12] (sense 6) [13] (nautical sense) etc. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

air

Rfv-sense: "to discuss varying viewpoints on a given topic". This is defined as an intransitive sense but the only quotation uses it transitively. Perhaps this just needs rewording to something like "expose to public view" (cf. OED2 sense 5a.)? Einstein2 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spane

In a bunch of dialectal dictionaries, and with some other spellings. No evidence of spane in Modern English Skisckis (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some uses you can glean from this [[14]], it may be difficult to read, but it shows uses from the 16th-19th century, in case you may not have already seen these. Leasnam (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

buck breaking

Newly added sense: Internet slang: "A situation where white males dominate black males in any context." Equinox ◑ 11:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

assurgent

Rfv-sense for the noun, "(heraldry) A man or beast rising out of the sea." I think it's only an adjective; compare WT:RFVE#aspectant. I'm listing this here rather than just changing the POS because (1) it's been listed as a noun for seventeen years, and (2) maybe someone will add a non-heraldic noun sense (searching for the plural suggests one might exist). - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

non-heraldic noun sense turns out to be existent but hard to attest, short of combing through every use of assurgent and hand-pick the non-adjectival ones out. For the general noun sense "one who rises", OED has just one quote from The Botanic Garden. I managed to find another quote, which amounts to two. I've added them to the entry.

Almost every English result of the form assurgents on GBook is a scanno, except the ones from the following source, which uses the word as a noun regularly:

2021, Gino Zaccaria, The Enigma of Art: On the Provenance of Artistic Creation, Brill, →ISBN, page 295:
Every assurgent is self-clearing: in assurgency, every assurgent disconceals itself as already constituted in itself and for itself.

But assurgency seems to be coined in this book specifically as a rendering of Ancient Greek φύσις.

The only other non-scanno GBook hit of assurgents is from a self-published book [15], which reads "an assurgents^[sic] of life" with the meaning somewhat unclear. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

poiuytrewq

Expressing boredom? It's doubtful whether this would count under WT:CFI ("conveying meaning"), but even finding quotes for this definition isn't going to be easy. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember we already have at least one similar entry for a "keysmash" expressing boredom, but I forget what it is. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

asdfghjkl? くぁwせdrftgyふじこlp? - -sche (discuss) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pooptard

Two senses. Zero GBooks hits. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly citable from Twitter and Usenet, but I don't think it has a stable meaning. Pretty much every use on both Twitter and Usenet relies on context. We could perhaps keep this page if we reduced its meaning to a general term of abuse. —Soap— 10:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bevile

Rfv-sense. The definition given is "(heraldry) A chief broken or opening like a carpenter's bevel." Most hits of "bevile" in relation to heraldry are about the family name Bevile and their heraldry. I can find a handful of hits of lowercase common-noun bevile in relation to heraldry, see Citations:bevile, but it is not immediately clear to me that they mean "a chief broken or opening" as opposed to "a bevel" / "alternative spelling of bevel". (bevilled I can find.) - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, in the 1842 cite it seems to be an adjective, probably = bevilled, modifying a chief, whereas the Air Force cite seems to mean either a bevel or the sort of 'notch' representative of it. Defining bevile itself as a noun meaning "a chief broken open" seems unsupported. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

transregionate

Just used by Holinshed Skisckis (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unexpectedly, found two quotes and one mention, all 19-20c., in which it's used as a verb; this isn't in OED, or any other dictionaries I checked. I've put the quotes at Citations:transregionate. I can't find any cites for the postpositive adjective sense other than the one 16c. attestation (it should be credited to William Harrison though). 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 14:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see out

To outlive. Equinox ◑ 17:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this used with reference to someone (e.g. a parent or enemy) or something (like savings) "seeing", i.e. lasting until and past, someone's death—Citations:see out—but I'm not sure to what extent that's a separate sense as opposed to sense 2. Cites like this and others at google books:"I will see him out" world are also about death and technically do involve outliving someone, but IMO they're better handled by something like an "also figurative" label on sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see separate metaphorical senses like this out of Wiktionary. Maybe the OED could convince me otherwise. DCDuring (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added examples of the ?figurative? use under senses 1 and 2. I suppose sense 3 can be deleted in favour of handling this as figurative use of 1 and 2? - -sche (discuss) 15:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 3 removed in favour of being handled as figurative or specialized use of senses 1 or 2. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dynametrical

All the hits I see refer to the dynamometer Skisckis (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawai`i

Hawai`ian

These seem like weird mispellings of Hawaiʻi and Hawaiʻian that use a backtick instead of a Hawaiian okina, but they're extremely difficult to search for. Theknightwho (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of my holy crusade to document Wade-Giles, I found cites for Hawai'i and Hawaiʻi, paralleling the vulgar and orthodox forms of Wade-Giles-derived words with spiritus aspers in them. But I've never looked for this backtick before. I think I've seen it, and maybe one of the examples at Hawai'i is a backtick- I remember seeing something like a backtick at least once or twice when I was looking for those cites. This is a matter of finesse and skill. I will look for this over the coming weeks. (Or someone will immediately find it below, putting my pompus ass to shame.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho Trying to distinguish between all the apostrophe-like characters used to represent glottal stops is doomed to failure- it's not something that OCR does very well. The only reason we lemmatize Hawaiian with ʻokinas is because it's prescribed for the language and Unicode has a codepoint for it (well, technically it's a turned comma, but Unicode treats it as the same thing as the ʻokina). Written Hawaiian only dates to the last two centuries and was invented by missionaries, so it's not like there's a long and hallowed tradition for that specific glyph.

More to the point, this is an English entry, and the ʻokina is specifically Hawaiian. If there is usage for the backtick, it probably is just a rare misspelling or an OCR error- neither of which is worth having as an entry. I think we should have English altform entries for the apostrophe and ʻokina spellings, and redirect the backtick spellings to the apostrophe spellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz Exactly my sentiment. Let’s give it a few days to let this discussion conclude, but my current inclination is to do what you suggest. Theknightwho (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: "extremely difficult to search for"
Geographyinitiative: "I will look for it over the coming weeks."
@Chuck Entz: "doomed to failure- it's not something that OCR does"
The Three Cites found in a day: Am I a joke to you?
Descriptivism does not care about the roadblocks thrown up by Google or OCR. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative It's less about roadblocks and more that I'm not sure it's intended as a different character. We can find examples of Greek Α or Cyrillic А being used as Latin A (and vice-versa), but that doesn't warrant creating separate entries, because the user didn't intend them to be something different. Theknightwho (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho That's above my pay grade--- sounds like an RFD issue. I don't do the thinking part, I just look for stuff. I will look for a few more.
But I will say this: To me, any English speaker who goes out of their way to use anything other than ' (straight apostrophe) or ’ (basic curl) in their running text has the requisite intent to create an alternative form. Diversity of apostrophes is absolutely LOATHED both on Wiktionary itself and by the typographical-industrial complex (lol). If you use anything but those two apostrophes, you're gonna get an internet comment section worth of sand kicked in your face. And there apparently seem to be such cases of authors going out of their way to use the backtick, at least for Hawai`i. So I would preliminarily support keeping this in an RFV or an RFD, pending some kind of cultural-linguistic investigation to figure out the mindset behind why this backtick form is out there. The investigation would look into whether this is purely some accomodation to keyboard issues or is perhaps in some situations a bona fide expression of authorial intent-- the intended form they wanted to write, maybe an "alternate ʻokina" or a "layman's ʻokina".
Or if I've misunderstood everything, nevermind! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) (Modified)[reply]

From my point of view, the backtick has an established (although deprecated) use as a representation of the opening quotation mark (cf. Wikipedia: "As surrogate of apostrophe or (opening) single quote"). I've seen some old-fashioned people who routinely write (or wrote) quotes `like this'; they aren't going out of their way to do it, that's just how they were used to representing quotation marks. (I have the impression it didn't look as bad in some old software.) Therefore, I would not see "Hawai`i" as a contrastive alternative to "Hawaiʻi", but just an alternative representation of the same sequence of graphemes, used by people who find it more convenient to type the character as ` or who aren't familiar with the correct codepoint to use.--Urszag (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And my follow up to this kind of "merely an convenient accomodation" theory might be: that this usage could have "started out" that way, but later bloomed into something with a real cultural connection and real cultural use (or perhaps nascent use?). Check those cites, because we're not talking stale stuff here. The Twitter account of the Governor of Hawai`i uses it: Office of the Governor, State of Hawai`i. So I would urge caution, open-mindedness, and an appreciation for diversity as wise. Get in, we're breaking the status quo. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed, but the header in the first tweet uses the left single quotation mark, not the backtick: "Office of the Governor of Hawai‘i". That's evidence for exactly the phenomenon that Urszag is talking about. The League of Women Voters of Hawaii also uses the straight apostrophe and the left single quotation mark. I'm guessing that's from different people working on different parts of the page, which could be interpreted either way. The YouTube video consistently uses the backtick. The NPS page uses the backtick in the body, but the apostrophe in the sentence at the end. The Surf Art page uses the backtick when referring to the island, but the right single quotation mark in the name of the University of Hawaii. The comment sections of the NYTimes Learning Network blog mostly use the backtick, but some commenters use the right single quotation mark or the turned comma/okina. Taken as a whole, there's usage that can't be explained as OCR errors, but it's also all over the map as far as which character is used. It looks more like no one really knows the right character, so they use whatever they have handy. Not particularly compelling one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(~See the 15 something cites at Citations:Hawai`i.~)
Thanks for your comments.To me, what Chuck has just said immediately above this comment may mean that there's a possibility that Hawai`i is a legitimate alternative form. If you can say "Not particularly compelling one way or the other." are you going to delete the entry? I'm no expert on these discussions- RFV/RFD/RFurmom. I know nothing of Hawai`i. But it seems like (consistent with a bona fide, honest-to-God openness to Wiktionary reflecting the sources and/or a descriptivist ethic) you'd want to get to "compelling that this is mere convenience" if you wanted to delete this entry given the 15 cites at Citations:Hawai`i. I really don't have much more to say on these things; I will keep trying to watch out for more cites. If you delete the entry, I totally understand. (Final comment from me) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we're on the best terms and, since it's you, sorry to get involved but since GI asked for my opinion and it's a general request for general comments:

My own opinion would be to keep it for exactly the reasons under discussion. Some people absolutely do use this form and they should be gently guided (sometimes proscribed... alternative form of...) to the entry with the correct okina. Same thing with a version that uses a standard English apostrophe. Right now it says Alternative spelling... but a version of the entry with an Etymology section would be something along the lines of using the English apostrophe mark to represent the Hawaiian okina and it should really redirect as an alternative form of the version with an actual okina rather than just directly to the unmarked Hawaii.

Sure, someone typing English A for Greek alpha shouldn't have that listed in Wikipedia and it's not on us to fix that issue. On the other hand, this is for English users within English trying to understand where this mark came from. If we only have the okina entry and remove the (much more common) apostrophe and backslash entries, computer searches won't necessarily make the connection and the users won't be able to figure out what's going on. — LlywelynII 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should definitely be a way for people to reach the okina entry other than having to type (or copy-and-paste) that character. Many English users will not be aware of the okina and would misread it as an apostrophe or backtick. —DIV (1.145.8.61 12:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

@Geographyinitiative Apostrophic ruminations aside Hawai`ian is still not cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drzewieccy

As a plural of the Polish surname Drzewiecki in English. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This ECHR case clearly uses this plural in an English text:

The applicants, Maria and Zdzisław Drzewieccy, are Polish nationals […] On 16 May 1998 their son, Mr Piotr Drzewiecki, was involved in a road traffic accident.

Also this: [16] However, in both cases, the referents are native Polish people (not, say, Polish Americans), so perhaps this is really a use of the Polish term, not the English one.

We need to clarify CFI as it concerns names, specifically, what it means for a name to belong to a language. We don't know what we are doing on this front. For now, I would be satisfied to delete the English entry even if a third "use" could be found. The Polish entry is more than sufficient. This, that and the other (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely agree we need to think through how to handle when names belong to which languages. OTOH ... I acknowledge we kind-of have been trying to sort out that question for years, and still haven't, because it gets complicated fast. In this case, someone looking up Drzewieccy could understand it from the #Polish entry even if there's not an #English entry, but what if English-language texts were using a similar -y plural of a Russian surname, like "M. and I. Putiny and their son A. Putin"? The Russian entry is at Пу́тины (Pútiny) so Putiny is unintelligible without an entry. And we do include, say, Smiths as the plural of Smith. And/but in French it'd be different (Poutiny). If both were attested, would the act of transliteration make something like Putiny more keepable than something like Drzewieccy? What about if the name were spelled in Polish with diacritics but English dropped the diacritic but kept the -y? Mehhh.
For given names we gesture at a not-well-defined distinction between ~"was born in an English-speaking country where their birth was recorded in English and in Latin letters" (which makes it an "English name from Russian" or whatever, like Sasha) vs "was born in countries where it would've been spelled in e.g. Cyrillic and then transliterated" (like Yaroslav), or both (Vladimir), which matches your "native Polish" vs "Polish Americans" distinction here, but (although not in this rare name's case, yet in other cases) names in fiction then complicate things again... if English authors populate non-Earth fantasy or sci-fi worlds with the occasional Yaroslav (or use a 'non-English' plural for their surnames), with no indication the characters are considered to all have birth certificates saying Яросла́в, is that still a "transliteration" or is it now a name? (Do we try and cleave off "names used in fiction" as a third thing distinct from real names and transliterations of names? But then, are we also splitting Harry into "A real given name" and "A fictional given name"? No, that's probably not wise.)
Sorry, thinking aloud! - -sche (discuss) 14:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that English never uses a plural X with "Mr. and Mrs. X", so I suspect an error. The quote seems to be an English summary of a case involving events entirely within Poland, so the person who wrote it may have copied the name of the parents from the case title, "DRZEWIECCY v. POLAND", without noticing that it was a plural. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

girl rented overnight

~~An offensive term. Please add the "offensive" template Wonderfool69 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think Wonderfool was smoking something when they posted that message. Let's start again with a generic RFV message Not disrupt (talk)

purple triangle

I searched "the purple triangle(s)", "is a...", "was a...", "are...", "were...", "purple triangle(s)" + camp or Nazi, and added the only cite I could find; everything else was the SOP sense "a triangle which is purple" (e.g. "the purple triangle was the symbol used for fundamentalists including Jehovah's Witnesses"). - -sche (discuss) 06:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quote. There seems to be a third use here, although the text doesn't specify whether it refers to Jehovah's Witnesses. Einstein2 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, since it's in the context of the Holocaust, I suppose we can assume it means this (or at least, a broadened version of this, if we want to change it to "a JW or fundamentalist Christian" or something). I suppose sense 2 barely passes (so, I've dropped sense 1 and labelled sense 2 as rare). - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 2 passed (sense 1 failed). - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

easselgate

easselward

eassel might also be Scots instead of English. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gimmal

Rfv-sense: A quaint piece of machinery; a gimmer. - not sure how a piece of machinery could be quaint in the first place. OED2 has doubts too Wonderfool69 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The patent literature is full of devices we might view now as quaint. DCDuring (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pilk

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition sucks, but I heard this term in a Pepsi ad. Got some news buzz, so it is attestable. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was used even before the Pepsi ad. Wd-Ryan (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's real, here (see c. 0:33 and 1:02) is a whole cooking show episode on how to make "pilk carnitas and pilk queso fresco", here's an ABC news story "Pilk and cookies: Pepsi wants you to drink soda mixed with milk this holiday season" and here's a more recent one headlined "Fish eye ice cream and pilk: Unusual food trends from around the world". I suppose it's a question of whether to accept online news site uses (of which there is no shortage). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I typed up the citations. It's just a question of whether to accept internet news cites (one of the cites I added is a youtube cooking show and not news, but there's plenty more news-media uses where the other two came from). Meh. - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vorny

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

trispast

Rfv-sense: verb. Middle English only. OED has a cite from the 1300s only. This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

failscade

failcascade

Apparently jargon of those who play EVE, a specific online game. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't fuck in the factory

This seems to be exactly like #never change a running system (except spicier): an English idiom only ever used by Germans, and consequently, only appearing as mentions in German texts. Not sure what to make of it. This, that and the other (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

culmination tunnel

All I can find are a couple of Wikipedia articles about German tunnels, mirrors of those articles, and a couple of our mirrors. ~~Nothing at all hints at the "vagina" sense.~~ This, that and the other (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whoop whoop pull up can you enlighten us? This, that and the other (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the vagina sense, so I can't help with that. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 11:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops, that was WF in one of his less fine moments. I'll speedy that sense. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yanan

Rfv-sense- I don't know how to look for this and I couldn't find it myself. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Einstein2 Awesome job finding stuff! The 1901 and 1902 cites are not sufficiently independent for my taste, but I will look around for some more. Thanks!! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap with the Chinese place name makes this hard to search for. The three quotes I've added to the noun sense probably count as only one use (if we are being generous, we could count the 1948 quote too, although it probably refers to the same Baptist Mission Review article, even if not stated explicitly). Meanwhile, I could attest a rare adjectival sense. Einstein2 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

accordion

"(figurative) A set of items (concepts, links, or otherwise) that can be packed and unpacked cognitively, or their representation as a set of virtual [computer science?] objects. See also telescoping." There is nothing in GBooks for e.g. "accordion of ideas" or "accordion of concepts". Equinox ◑ 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"accordion of memories" or "memory" has a sufficient number of independent hits on GBook ([17]; [18], in an extended metaphor; [19]; [20], in an extended metaphor; [21]). This probably can't be considered as a lexicalised metaphor, though, and I'm not sure if this is what the editor who added the sense had in mind. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

abstorted

Used to have only two quotes, one of which –

1855, Edward Nichols Dennys, The Alpha, or first principle of the human mind:
He has abstorted the Lightning from the clouds

– shouldn't be regarded as a wordform of the adjective lexeme abstorted, but one of the verb abstort. This left only one quote, and I managed to find another; one more quote needed for CfI. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alternatively, maybe give all three of these quotes to abstort, and rewrite the abstorted entry so that it's simply treated as a participle? 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out there is no entry for abstort in the OED. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

aphobia

I cannot find uses of this term to refer to fearlessness; virtually every single use I see is in the asexual/aromantic-hating sense. The only use I've seen that even looks like it could mean this is this, but even of this, I'm not entirely sure. The etymology is sound; it could in theory refer to fearlessness, but I cannot find much evidence to suggest that it ever did in practice (interestingly, I did see one source defining it as a 'fear of nothing', a sense not in the entry). I'm having a hard time finding uses of this term at all pre-21st century; Google Books gives me results that say 'a phobia' (two words, and clearly talking about phobias), and hardly any instances of 'aphobia'. Adam9007 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in your first link can be read in full here. The aphobia there does seem to refer to an absence of fear (extended by the author to mean a lack of conscientiousness; a tendency to abuse recklessly) with regard to surgery. (I've added the quote to the entry.)

I haven't been able to find any other quotes of aphobia meaning fearlessness (not even in early glossaries), which I honestly didn't expect, as ἀφοβία is rather well attested in Greek sources. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's occurred to me that the 'fear of nothing' referenced in the second link could have been intended to mean a lack of fear; however, that's just a glossary, so we can't rely on that. I've found a few uses of the term as part of a compound word, but these do not seem to refer to a lack of fear, but quite the opposite: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Adam9007 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah, the -a- is just excrescent in those (viz. acting as the connective schwa, from -o-, originally in Greco-Latinate compounds). No relation to a- (“without”). 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 21:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a few cites where this is mentioned as the Greek word for a battle trance of fearlessness, but it's italicized or introduced as "known as..." and then later explicitly "translated". Compare cisphobia (where only the gender-related sense but not the chemistry sense is attested) to transphobia (where the chemistry sense is attested) for another case where an expected sense is surprisingly not attested. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pantaphobia

"A total absence of fear", from pant- +‎ aphobia (< Gr. ἀφοβία, or equivalently a- +‎ phobia). Seems to only crop up in early glossaries, and later dictionaries quoting that. On the other hand, there are extensive sources noting pantaphobia as "fear of everything", from panta- +‎ phobia, = pantophobia. Pantaphobia "a total absence of fear" is exceedingly rare even in mentions, and pantaphobia "fear of everything" seems to exist primarily in mentions as well (but possibly quotable? I haven't looked very hard). 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the ‘fear of everything’ sense with quotes, however I couldn't really find cites supporting the ‘fearlessness’ sense (despite being included in M-W Medical). Einstein2 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-it-all

Has no definition, and no example beyond know-it-all, which I can't possibly believe was formed by adding a suffix "-it-all" onto "know"! @Soap. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this mostly because Spanish -lotodo exists and at the time I was pretty sure I could at least turn up hits for eat-it-all. I do think that know-it-all can be analyzed as know + -it-all, and that the -it-all suffix should be analyzed as a unit. I could explain why if anyone is interested, but it's not important for this RFV if we can't turn up more examples. Still, since know-it-all is amply cited, I'm not sure how exactly I would go about verifying this suffix in isolation? There will never be three cites for -it-all because it can't stand alone as a word. But there are three cites for know-it-all and there could be many more. Thanks, —Soap— 05:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather defend both this and -all at an RFD. Expecting me to find three cites for -it-all in isolation is an impossible hurdle because people don't normally use bound morphemes that way. By the same logic we could delete -o-. I assume that's not your intent. But, if we accept that a use of a word with an affix counts as use of that affix, then this passes automatically because know-it-all exists and has three cites. Best regards, —Soap— 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that three cites of a term makes a suffix pass automatically. One term is not enough to make a suffix. J3133 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read through WT:CFI extra-carefully just to make sure I wasnt missing something, and I see nowhere any indication that a suffix would need to pass a higher barrier than a full word. Indeed, the CFI criteria dont mention affixes at all, so I wonder if this RFV should even be here. If we decide to go forward with it, though, I'd say it's cited, as three uses of know-it-all imply three uses of -it-all. If we say otherwise, then we're making up a new policy on the spot, and applying it retroactively to a pre-existing discussion. —Soap— 11:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: DCDuring mentioned needing there^{[sic – meaning three]} terms instead of only one, which was my point (“one term is not enough”). Do you not agree? J3133 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to it if it's an existing policy that we've used in RFV before and just never written down. I will look for more words, ... do-it-all clearly fits the pattern. I've held off on eat-it-all because Im not finding it in the sense I expected .... but I'm fairly confident I can find another word. I only ask that someone write into the CFI page that an affix subject to RFV needs to pass the test of being used in three distinct words, and that those three words do not need to have three cites apiece. In other words, that we don't need two layers of RFV's. As this is how I understand the reply to my other statement below. Thanks, —Soap— 12:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We would need at least there terms that use -it-all. I don't think that we need those terms to be supported by three cites each. DCDuring (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Im pretty sure I could find two other words within the next month if they're not bound by a 3x3 criterion. For example, do-it-all exists, and has much the same meaning as hacelotodo. But I don't want to yield so easily, as this isn't in our CFI policy at all, and if we're making up policy on the fly, at the end of the month people could just say that it isn't enough and we're going to delete the page anyway. Our current CFI page makes no mention of needing anything more than three cites for a given word, and makes no mention of affixes at all. I'd say that either affixes should be treated as words, in which case this passes solely through know-it-all, or this should be moved to RFD as should -all. Thanks, —Soap— 11:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've used this approach before. It is a matter of treating a morpheme just as we treat a word. A truly productive affix would have lots of nonce uses that would not justify entries. DCDuring (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you, as above. I trust your word that we've used this before. I only ask that it be written into the CFI page using words very similar to yours above, so that people will be clear on how to handle cases like this in the future. —Soap— 12:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DCDuring that we need three instances of a putative suffix being used (if all we have are three cites of the term foobar-baz, there's no reason to have an entry -baz because it doesn't exist independent of foobar-baz). And it would need to be being used as a suffix and not a (collocation of multiple elements of a) compound, blend, etc; I agree with Equinox that know-it-all is not a use of a suffix -it-all; as with e.g. google books:"a show-it-all", it looks like know/show + it + all, not know + *-it-all — compare forget-me-not, which is not forget + *-me-not! - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I've written, and I still strongly oppose deleting -all as I've said below, but when I created this page I was sure eat-it-all would be easy to find cites for, and it's clearly not the case. It's the name of an ice cream company I remember from childhood, still in use as a label but long since defunct as a company. But it stuck in my mind somehow and I was sure that it would be the translation of Fr mangetout and Sp comelotodo. In fact, it seems the best translation for those words is eat-all. And Sp lo isnt a perfect semantic match for Eng it anyway. So, while with show-it-all (thank you, -sche) and know-it-all we have two words, and I found a few people using do-it-all, I'd rather just let this go. If people decide to keep it listed anyway, I won't oppose that, but I've essentially lost interest. —Soap— 12:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-all

"Relating to the whole of something. catch-all, end-all". Not a suffix. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it isnt a suffix then what would it be? It creates nouns from verbs. And although all can be a noun, it isnt a noun in the sense that's used here, since the all in "catch-all", "cure-all", and so on is the object of the verb, not the agent. If this were a simple compound, then "all" would be the head, so "catch-all" would need to mean "an all that catches", and so on, which is not what it means. I oppose deletion on grammatical grounds, but this seems like an RFD question more so than RFV, because as above, how would we turn up three cites for -all in isolation? Best regards, —Soap— 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out – that "[i]f this were a simple compound, then 'all' would be the head, so 'catch-all' would need to mean 'an all that catches'" isn't particularly true, in terms of V+(Pro)N compounding in English. There is an inherent error to this argument, viz. a compound is a lexicalised object and cannot be analysed phrasally. But more importantly, please consider the following six (Group A):

pickpocket, not "a pocket that picks," but "one who picks pockets";
daredevil, not "a devil that dares," but "one who dares the devil";
spoilsport, not "a sport that spoils", but "one who spoils the sport (=entertainment)";
killjoy, not "a joy that kills", but "one who kills the joy";
breakfast, not "a fast that breaks," but "one that breaks the fast";
pastime, not "a time that passes," but "that which is done to pass the time";

and the following (Group B):

singsong, "a piece of verse" < "an instance of singing a song" = "song singing";

and the following (Group C):

go-ahead, "an utterance of 'go ahead!'"

If V+N compound could only be parsed as "N that V", then none of the above would be valid compounds, and -pocket, -devil, etc., by your reasoning, would have to be considered as suffixes. (Along the same line, V+ProN compounds like do-little, do-nothing, know-nothing also exist and conform to Group A, as well as say-so, which conforms to Group B. If -all should be analysed as a suffix it would only seem fair for -nothing, -little, and -so to also follow suit.) This is obviously infeasible. Catch-all, know-it-all, etc., in fact follows the exact same wordformation pattern as those in Group A; I don't particularly see why they shouldn't be analysed as compounds as well.

Cheers, 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Im familiar with endocentric compounds. I see a few differences between those words and the words using -all and -it-all. I'll just treat Group A together:

These compounds always omit a linking word. In all cases but the first, the patient is indefinite, so the missing word is the. Nobody says *break-the-fast.
These compounds always have the second element as a noun, whereas -it-all and -all end with what I would prefer to call a determiner, although I guess there is some debate about that. However this point may be irrelevant so I wont stress it.
Most importantly, though, in these compounds, both morphemes are fixed. breakfast is a word familiar to anyone, but outside of ad-hoc coinages, nobody says *makefast or *breakmeal. By contrast, -it-all and -all can attach to multiple words. Only one morpheme is free. I admit that this helps me understand why it is important, as stated above, that -it-all cannot pass CFI just based on know-it-all. Maybe this paragraph is the only really important thing in my reply, but I want to make clear why I'm being so insistent.

As for the others .... Group B just looks like another instance of the Group A pattern to me. I guess it's not endocentric, but it is head-first, which is the most relevant characteristic of English endocentrics as it is the one that's shared by constructions such as know-it-all. As for Group C, I'd say it's just a lexicalized quote; it's not a compound at all, any more than thank-you is.

That's all I have to say for now. Thanks for reading, —Soap— 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply :^) On point 2: I'd say all and it all are both pronominal in this case.

You raise a point in point 3; how do you feel about the nothing in do-nothing, have-nothing [22], know-nothing, get-nothing, and good-for-nothing, though? Going by your argument, -nothing should also be considered a suffix. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 13:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say -nothing qualifies as a suffix, yes, although your last word is another lexicalized quote, and doesnt form a set with the rest. Perhaps being two syllables long explains the scarcity of examples. If naught weren't archaic, perhaps we'd have more words like dreadnought.

Regarding the pronouns ... if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds, even endocentric ones. But I get the impression there are more than two sides here, and we have as many opinions as we have people in this thread. —Soap— 18:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, good-for-nothing doesn't fall in with other verb-headed -nothings, that was on me; but I don't get why you'd classify it as a "lexicalised quote." (Also – circling back a little – I don't know if compounding necessarily excludes lexicalised quotes, but maybe we are operating under different theoretical frameworks.)

I also fail to see why "if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds". All, it-all being pronouns doesn't say anything against catch-all, know-it-all being exocentric compounds, per Bloomfield's definition of endo- and exo-centric compounding.

I'm sorry that I'm probably dragging this discussion unwelcomedly long; I didn't have time to properly respond to your previous reply, and I keep being distracted by the smaller points we're making. Mostly I'm just really confused as to why you would insist that know-it-all, catch-all and do-nothing are stem+suffix constructions, when they are semantically and syntactically motivated in the exact same way as daredevil and pickpocket. (the point 1 you made in your previous reply was a non-argument, as English pronouns like all or nothing cannot take determiners in the first place.) 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 22:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is a very interesting discussion. If you feel the discussion is too long I'd be happy to continue it somewhere else, perhaps at a slower pace. I'd like to leave this thread be for at least the next few days, as I'll be somewhat more busy. Thanks for talking, —Soap— 07:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion above, I understand that three words using this as a suffix are enough to get it through CFI. We could use catch-all, cure-all, and overall. The last has no hyphen, but as it is a noun, and does not mean "an all that is over", it can only be using the same -all suffix as the other two words. More examples can be found ... there is an expression the end-all be-all, though I don't know how often those words are untethered. Collins lists cover-all, with or without hyphen, to describe a similar garment to overalls.

As for the original question of why this is a suffix, I think I've amply addressed that above. —Soap— 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have coverall. We just didnt list the hyphenated spelling. So we have four words using this suffix as a suffix now, and I think this should be considered cited and I'm going to leave it be, as there's nothing more I should need to do. Thanks, —Soap— 07:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree that this is cited. Nothing of what you said above demonstrates that this is a suffix. P U C – 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just part of a pattern of fossiling sentences with a non-finite form of the verb: pissabed and lie-abed aren't evidence for an "-abed" suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are a sign of a healthy community. In some online communities, people form into cliques and anyone can predict the winner of a policy discussion from the get-go because the same people always win. I'm glad we're not like that here. However, I still think these RFV's are in the wrong place, as they were simply RFD's by another name, and as such, I realized it would make no difference if I were able to come up with 300 cites instead of just 3, since the same people could continue to say that they aren't being used as suffixes. If we count this as the RFD that I believe it is, I'm outnumbered 4 to 1, and I expect both this page and -it-all to be deleted. I think that's wrong, and still feel that with a proper RFD it may have attracted more attention, but there are more important things to focus on right now so I am going to move on. Best regards, —Soap— 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

special

Noun: law: "A person appointed specifically to examine a single event or issue." But the two examples are adjectival ("special master" and "special prosecutor") and both have their own separate entries, as it happens. So is it a noun? Can there be legal "specials"? Equinox ◑ 02:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a dumb entry, which normal users, at least, don't need a dictionary entry to understand. Almost any adjective attributively modifying a noun in an NP be used informally, especially colloquially, without the noun to refer to the NP. RfD? DCDuring (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything points to this sense having been added by a simple mistake under Noun instead of Adjective, where this special sense is missing. --Lambiam 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "everything" still doesn't seem sufficient to justify deleting the definition at this PoS or moving it elsewhere. That would require the contributor to acknowledge it as a mistake and move it. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-breed dog

On a separate point, I have heard a mixed-breed dog being referred to as a special. I wonder if that is verifiable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As in "Singapore Special", "Darwin special". Equinox ◑ 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gunboat

Slang for "a couple of large shoes". A quick search suggests that gunboat parade might possibly be naval slang for a shoe inspection, or some such thing. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stintance

Obsolete nonse word. Not even used in a famous work Ñobody Elz (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a second use (on citations page). This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dansant

"Dancing", in heraldry. I did spot a number of references (in English) to thé dansant, but only one cite of this heraldic sense, which I added to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

herbert

RFV of the sense meaning ‘pervert’. There’s some stuff online, especially on Urban Dictionary, mentioning ‘Herbert the Pervert’ from Family Guy but I can’t find any uses. It would be good to find quotes to support the sense of ‘foolish person’ that I added at Citations:herbert too. The first time I heard this was IRL yesterday when an elderly lady I know did something stupid and said about herself, “What a herbert! What a twonk!”, so it can sometimes be used about females not just males but that might be hard to prove. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The foolish person sense can be found in dictionaries (GDoS: “a simple person”, COED: “an undistinguished or foolish man or youth”). It seems to be an extension of the first sense in the entry (“working-class youth”), although I'm not sure if it's distinct enough to warrant a separate definition line. Einstein2 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I'll try and see if I can find the books that Green's Dictionary quotes on Google Books and add them. It looks like the 'working class youth' sense came later though, in the Punk era, while the dictionaries that you've linked to suggest that the 'foolish person/man/youth' came about in the early 20th century, or in the 1960s at the latest. I'd say the senses are distinct too. I suppose it's possible that the Punk era word came from the 1969 Star Trek episode The Way to Eden, where the 'space hippies' describe those not in their group as 'herberts', thus basically using it as a synonym of 'square' (though you'd expect to find usage of the term in early 70s America before it spread to late 70s Britain in that case). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An online slang dictionary has "Noun. An ^[sic] dull objectionable person. E.g."He's a real herbert, he watches the news and weather on TV all day." This definition fits better with my recollection of the usage I've heard, eg, that bloody herbert than either of our definitions. I think of herbert as UK, possibly also Aus./NZ. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quotation using the "pervert" sense from the song D is for Dangerous by the Arctic Monkeys. I don't really see how it could mean anything else considering the context of the line. FishandChipper (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now fully cited. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that two of the quotes support the definition. "Dirty herbert" is a pleonasm if the definition is correct. It does not unambiguously support the meaning given. The "D is for Dangerous" lyric seems to support it, if you listen to most of it. DCDuring (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "dirty pervert" would be equally pleonastic, and occurs very commonly. I can't tell if cites support sense either. Equinox ◑ 23:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The cites do not support the definition unambiguously. Is the term in widespread colloquial use with that meaning? DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware of this meaning, which is why I challenged it to begin with, so I suppose that means it isn’t a widespread term but the last two quotes do seem convincing to me. This is because the 2012 one not only uses the word ‘dirty’ to describe Paddy Considine but also accuses him of being ‘corrupting’, thus supporting the sense that he is a pervert. Furthermore, the 2018 quote not only refers to the person described as a ‘Herbert’ as ‘filthy’ but it does this in the context of the referent (the ‘Herbert/Herbert’) being a character in a futuristic world (so not a punk or a modern-day chav) who is accused of having sex with an underage girl. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 cite is consistent with the first definition of herbert, labeling PC as being lower class as well as 'corrupting' and 'dirty'. I certainly could be mere pleonasm, but it is not unambiguous. DCDuring (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how the sci-fi uses, either Star Trek or the Morin novel offer any value as cites of use a current terrestrial environment. DCDuring (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there’s a fictional race of people called ‘herberts/Herberts’ to cause confusion then I don’t really see why not. I suppose the PC quote isn’t unambiguous and the whole situation is complicated by ‘dirty’ and ‘filthy’ (and ‘corrupting’) being polysemous but I’m personally convinced. I’ve added several uses of ‘herbert’ as a term of abuse to Citations:herbert and I could even add some more just by searching under “dirty/filthy/stupid/silly herbert” or “these/those herberts” with a Google Advanced Search but the exact meaning isn’t always clear. I’ve provisionally categorised them under a “foolish person” definition but perhaps we could create a non-gloss definition of “a term of abuse” instead to cover them?

The first definition doesn’t seem quite right, by the way. It seems like the word ‘herbert’ originated as a mild term of abuse, often used affectionately, for children (something like ‘scamp’ or ‘cheeky monkey’) prior to the punk era (as the Spike Milligan quote demonstrates) and then it came to mean something like “an annoying person, especially a working-class one who is a punk (in the musical/cultural sense)” before then being used as an insult more widely. It can be a derogatory but not neutral or complimentary term for the working classes, like scum of the earth rather than salt of the earth. I can’t see any clear evidence at all that it’s used to mean something like ‘square’ (a boring/unfashionable/conservative person). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve now created a generic sense to cover contemptible people who may or may not be perverted. I still think the pervert sense deserves to pass, in fact the meaning in the other quotes is at least as clear (perhaps more so) than in the Arctic Monkeys one, but I wouldn’t object if the community decides to fail this and moves the cites to the new sense instead. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

inveckée

cf. invexed below

Alas, I can only find two cites of inveckée, and they have opposite meanings: one means doubly enarched (so e.g. a chief inveckée has inward curves coming into it and taking bites out of it, like "nn"), the other means invected (with curves outward, like "uu"). If someone can find a third cite these could perhaps be combined into a definition that mentions it's variously defined as having the curves outward or inward. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED2 cites two more uses. Einstein2 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I would have objected to combining so many disparate spellings (inveckée, envecky, enueckie...) but these days I don't care to object, although I will leave it to someone else to actually call it cited.) I have combined the senses and put all the cites on the citations page.) - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

invexed

cf. inveckée above

I can't find this, either. (I can, however, find invecked and invected.) - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found two books using envexed, but with a different and unrelated sense (~"having been vexed"); note that Google Books reports a lot more than two hits for "envexed" but most of them turn out to be "en- [different column] vexed". - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mounted

Rfv-sense: adjective: "(heraldry) Raised on steps, generally three, as a cross." This is quite plausible, as a cross can certainly be described as having been mounted on three steps, but I haven't been able to find mounted as an adjective, as in "a mounted cross" or "a cross mounted argent" or the like, only "a cross mounted on three steps" which is IMO a use of the verb to mount. - -sche (discuss) 01:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

percussant

percussed

Rfv-sense "(heraldry) Bent round and striking the side, as a lion's tail." It's mentioned in dictionaries but none of them cite any uses, AFAICT, and I can't find any uses which appear to be heraldic or lion/tail-related either, I can only find a more general sense. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

restriall

"(heraldry) Divided barwise, palewise and pilewise." This is a misunderstanding by Chambers of Hugh Clark saying "RESTRIALL, an ancient term for barry, paly and pily": Guillim says restriall means "able to abide the stresse and force of any triall" and says piles, pales, bends, and barres are examples of restriall bearings (rather than restrial meaning "simultaneously barry, paly, and pily"). But the only uses of the term I can find are by John Ruskin, and the Middle English Book of St Albans. It may be findable, though: there are a lot of spellings (restrial, restryal, restryall...), they get scannoed a lot of ways (Refirial, Rejtriall, reftriall...), and I'm sure there are some I haven't thought of to search for. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening. The cites provided are, in order: a mention, Middle English, a mention in a glossary, John Ruskin (a mention), John Ruskin again (but a use this time). So we only have one usable cite. @-sche This, that and the other (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree (and said so above)... and Ruskin may not mean what we define the term as meaning, since several of the other cites clarify that barry/paly/pily is just one example of restriall arms, not what restriall means. I wonder what the etymology is; it resembles a blend of "resist" and "trial"; perhaps if we knew the etymology we might identify other likely spellings, but as it is I think this fails. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

atheist

Rfv-sense "(proscribed) A person who does not believe in any religion (not even a religion without gods)". This could be a really interesting sense for atheist if it exists (three cites). I'm trying to imagine how to look for it- something about communists in China throwing off Confucianism or something? Really interesting one. Don't dimiss it out of hand, because I think have seen this discussed before. I found something close to this in Taiwan: [23] "Taiwanese-American hip-hop singer Stanley Huang's (黃立行) new album has triggered protests from the religious community because the title song is about atheism, a Chinese-language daily reported yesterday. […] It's not clear who has been offended by the tune, but most Taiwanese are Buddhists or Daoists. A small number are Christians, Muslims and atheists." Here's an atheist discussion on the topic of Taoism [24] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is the way a lot of people use the term. Whenever you see "atheist" listed alongside "Buddhist" and "Christian," is this not the adjectival analogue to this sense? I would reword the definition, though. Rather than "A person who does not believe in any religion" (because it's not a lack of belief that religions exist), I would say "A person who is not an adherent to any religion" or something along those lines. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy I think you're saying that atheist can be a synonym for nonreligious, is that right? If so, where do we find cites for that? I think it is possible. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: I added a couple cites. Do you think they fit the definition and are clear enough to be distinguishable from the other senses? If so, I'm fairly confident I can find more like them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my money, the 5 cites at the citation page more clearly prove that 'atheist' can mean 'non-religious', not just 'someone who doesn't believe in a God/deity', than the 2 you've actually added as they starkly contrast atheists with religious people who don't believe in God (such as Buddhists and Jains). In any case, I don't think any of the senses we have are at all uncommon or merit the label 'proscribed' - they're just hard to disambiguate. Based on those 5 cites alone let's call this cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs in deities do not exist, the definitions miss what actually happens. Gods cannot be conceptualized and accordingly have no seat in anyone’s mind. Were it otherwise, we would have to speak of medically relevant delusions (the psychological fact of persistingly adhering to an idea in spite of it being incompatible with empirical data), but the intuition here is correct that it is factually inappropriate to pathologize. They are indeed indirect references to what someone, a particular group, demands in a behaviour throughout man’s life. You would be yourself an autist if you assumed that people actually mean what they claim.

Nowadays in developed countries those who continue to practice religion have a general awareness that they are phoneys, but it works. So contrary to how discourse makes it appear, choice of religion is secondary to previously fostered social convictions. The occurrence patterns of religiosity, i.e. communication that indicates allegiance to a god of choice, have been studied in their environments with the observation of their being “determined by the need to moralize others and ultimately by the level of social trust (i.e., what people think of others’ level of cooperation)”. Consistent with this observation, that everyone is directed towards in practice, Wiktionary already defines the particular sense of “belief” in question as “religious faith” and the sense of “faith” as “a religious or spiritual belief system”, probably not even circularily referring to the same sense of “belief”: the system character is substantial, the religiosity or spirituality accidental. Hence, religion is the adherence to a cult, by definition structured around supernatural entities. You can thus define an atheist as someone not believing in a cult, i.e. the value systems espoused by it. Do you really think that people are that decided about particular meaning restrictions as provided in our dictionary entry atheist when they use the word? The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive.

Consequentially, freedom of religion is incorrectly comprehended as someone’s freedom “to carry out any practices in accordance with those beliefs”, since people don’t even causally act on beliefs which don’t exist, and such specific provisions cannot be a mere general power of competence on religious grounds. So in spite of the more popular definition, containing a confused causality, the minority definition in legal literature is more accurate, according to which freedom of religion is only freedom to perform ritual acts, exercitium religionis and devotio domestica, which has been defined since the Peace of Westphalia. E.g. of this legal literature calling it thus restricted: Johannes Hellermann (1994) “Multikulturalität und Grundrechte – am Beispiel der Religionsfreiheit”, in C. Grabenwarter, editor, Allgemeinheit der Grundrechte und Vielfalt der Gesellschaft: 34. Tagung der Wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der Fachrichtung „Öffentliches Recht“‎^[25], Stuttgart: Boorberg, pages 129–144; Lua error in Module:quote at line 884: |date= should contain a full date (year, month, day of month); use |year= for year. While it is in any legal opinion that religion as opposed to weltanschauung is distinguished by making reference to deities or at least transcendental reference, so I repeat that belief in a deity is accessory to religiousness and the distinction in our entry nonsensical. Fay Freak (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak You write: "The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive." Would this mean that mean that the other senses are religious terminology within Abrahamic religion? I don't propose Wiktionary should label them that way, but I feel that's what the implication of your statement would be, perhaps. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Freak, I don't mean to be harsh, but can you try making your point more succinctly? Beyond the philosophically and sociologically dubious claims and the off topic commentary, what lexical point are you trying to make? I don't know what your intentions are and it could well be that you mean very well, but be aware that you often come across as just trying to show off how smart you are and it's exhausting to wade through the cruft to decipher what's of actual value for the rest of us. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy: I pointed out that so-called religious beliefs or beliefs in deities are embedded in religious systems and accessory to them, which are themselves accessory to habituations of humans to social conversation and thus what persons believe in is not actually gods but religions which bring their points, about what men should do, forward by the figure of gods. If people claim they ascribe truth to their god it is actually to manipulate people in the desired direction as they believe in the commandments and recommendations structured around the particular god figure and thus ascribe truth to them; value judgments and factual claims are treated the same in general language: Fact–value distinction. And perlocutionary speech acts also use to look exactly the same as any statement. The gods a religion has are just brand variations: Like if I like to wear A Bathing Ape because of the qualities and fits and designs and flex and attitude transmitted by items etc. I believe in that ape and the A Bathing Ape® and BAPE logos and their powers—what does that even mean? It is a breviloquence for what I exactly believe in, that this is the top brand to wear. Religion is also presented in the demeanours of people like clothing, rather than being believed by anyone only in its naked main character. Hence “A person who does not believe in any religion” is the only definition of atheist. Because people don’t believe in gods, as only symbolic for the complete religion. It wouldn’t make sense to say, e.g., I believe in the Christian God, without ascribing some traditional properties to him which then serve as a guideline to behaviour and then make an ingroup and outgroup; and even if you believe in only some kind of God then you have an ingroup of religious people and outgroup of nonreligious people, people see similarities between him who believes in a god and them who don’t: as this is still a distinction in how people operate, it was a requirement to be categorized as gottgläubig to be in the SS.

You could instead add a particular language rule, gloss or usage note, to “believe” as applied to the brands created by religions, but then the “true” linked in its first definition “to accept as true” has enough diverse meanings. If people believe in this or that god, they accept his system as “genuine; legitimate, valid” or “fair, unbiased”. So don’t people comprehend gods as “conforming to the actual state of reality or fact”? In spite of being meaningless due to facts and reality never being some otherworld, which itself would have to be interconnected with the real world, the idea pops in, only to reinforce the religion by motte and bailey; in no case the alleged beliefs in gods are exclusively in them without even their religions. The quotes given for the “belief in god” senses of atheist can easily be analyzed as “somebody who does not support, i.e. consciously furthers the practical effect of, the religion of a particular brand having the god X”. And agnostic is someone who is doubtful or uncertain what he does of religious teachings. Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Andrew implied above, this is unhelpful gibberish that just makes a long page longer. Nobody is going to get any meaningful information out of that. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: I make the claims extra-easy for Equinox: Nobody is advancing deities without religion. When arguing something with reference to gods specifically vs. their religions, adherents of them play motte and bailey. Ultimately the goal is to further or reject a religion. If the context of quotes is broad enough we may witness this lack of the former meaning in each individual case. Why is a Christian according to Wiktionary one who “believes in Christianity”, a whole religion, or one “who seeks to live his or her life according” to the founder’s church while an atheist can be one merely rejects any deity of the religion? This distinction is contradictory and contrafactual—an atheist is conceptualized by the language community as someone who does not ascribe to a religion even if people aren’t that explicit about it as I can. People aren’t that exact and speak in figures. (Elaborated in detail.)

So we should change the definitions of “atheist” to e.g. after our current structure “A person who does not ascribe [or adheres] to a religion”; subsense strict: “one who rejects all religions”, broader sense: “one who doubts whether he should follow one”, loose sense: “one who is unaware of the reality of religions”, uncommon sense “a person who does not ascribe to a particular religion (but may ascribe to another one)”. Religions are supported like football clubs. They all believe very much in their teams. And because they have been so pervasive, we have this term for outsiders. Fay Freak (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it. Equinox ◑ 05:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what the heck is going on with the translation tables (the ones that have a bunch of translations, not the ones I just added). I added a qualifier to the first one (so that it corresponds to a definition), but the second doesn't have a corresponding sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out and (hopefully) fixed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current citations, except for perhaps the Taipei Times one, do not seem to unambiguously support this sense to me. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Muqanna Which other sense(s) do you think they could fall under? Note that Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in a god, yet they are listed alongside atheists in a couple of the current quotes. Or do you think there's a better way of wording the definition that captures this sense better? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy: Buddhists in most parts of the world do in fact "believe in deities or gods", as sense 1 has it—see the whole wp article on Buddhist deities—so listing atheists alongside Buddhists is not proof of much. Sense 1 also fits fine for the Beaman and Seidman quotes. I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording of the sense if it can actually be verified, but as far as I can tell what the quotation selection actually seems to be getting at atm is atheist meaning "an opponent of religion" (rather than just not believing), but since opponents of religion in general will almost by definition be atheists according to sense 1 anyway that's quite hard to disentangle as a separate sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Muqanna: I see your point, though from my (admittedly limited) studies of Buddhism, my understanding is that those aren't deities or gods in the normal sense of the word, making the Wikipedia article a bit inaccurate. What the definition is trying to capture is the sense in which atheist is often used as a religious category, on par with "Christian" or "Buddhist". Many people would find the list, "Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and people who believe in gods" a bit incongruent (one would expect "and other people who believe in gods"), but not the list, "Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists," which suggests that for many people, "atheist" means not so much "person who does not believe in a god", but rather, "person whose religious beliefs are that there is no god". Note that the capitalization of "Atheist" in the 2002 quote supports the understanding that "Atheism" is a category of religious belief on par with Buddhism, rather than simply describing one aspect of religious belief, which could equally be applied in the strict sense to Buddhists. You may however be right about the two most recent quotes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

revertant

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry) Flexed, bent twice at a sharp angle like an S." (All I can find are mentions, which also mention another heraldic sense I can't find uses of, namely "disappearing", of an animal as the counterpart to issuant/naissant.) - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one use, in the phrase "vertant et revertant", now added to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satan

Rfv-sense "(religion, LaVeyan Satanism) The personification or symbol of pride, carnality, and liberty." This would show up in the Satanic Bible maybe? But in what other books or article not written by Anton LaVey? I am so unfamiliar with this, but I think the entry would be really augmented if at least three cites were on entry for this sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

chastity belt

Sense 2: figurative "For a woman, refusal to have sex." Equinox ◑ 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'dn't

"I would not". Equinox ◑ 23:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find uses, only mentions. There are a fair few songs at genius.com where dn't is used to represent a reduced pronunciation of don't or didn't though, so that might be worth an entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nuke

Rfv-sense "(transitive, warez) To flag a release as bad for some reason or another (for instance, due to being a duplicate of an earlier release or containing malware)." The one "cite" is not durably archived (blog) and a mention no less. I think the sense of "destroy/erase" covers a lot of comparable uses, including this one. - TheDaveRoss 13:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

blag

Etymology 4: "(Philippines) Used to represent the sound of a falling strike." It's not clear to me what a "falling strike" is. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is the sound of a dull impact: see "w:Cross-linguistic onomatopoeias". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flower

Sense 15: "Credit, recognition." The parenthetical example given for this use was "To give someone his flowers." Inner Focus (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this sense occurs in other phrases. I'm familiar with phrases like "give people their flowers while they're alive" (instead of only eulogizing them), which is easy to cite — google books:"flowers while they're alive" — and isn't (only) about literal flowers, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to treat that as a sense of flower rather than a metaphor or a longer figure of speech ?give someone their flowers. Occurrence in other phrases would help demonstrate this was a sense of flower by itself. - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, our only cite for the sense "vulva, labia" is from 1749 but we don't indicate the sense as obsolete like, say, "menstrual discharges". It'd be nice to either add a more recent cite, or a label. - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

uvic

Apparently unused outside of the expression uvic acid, which is apparently tartaric acid Thyself be knowne (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then replace with {{only used in}} (like reojo). - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ames

"A female given name transferred from the surname Ames". Be careful: this is not the same as etymology 2, which is a girl's nickname, short for Amy. Equinox ◑ 20:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pal up

Rfv-sense: "To form a small group". I've only been able to find the first sense ("to become friends") in use, and other dictionaries also provide only that sense. lattermint (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was working in Camp America, we used this term all the time No hago griego (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds plausible (imagine a teacher or lecturer saying "pal up with the people near you, and discuss what's on the board"). But I couldn't find it with a quickish GBooks search. Equinox ◑ 21:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

acrotic

All the hits were tyops, or parts of words at the beginning of a line 3191 Sever (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There actually seem to be two different medical senses here, as per this dictionary. One means "of the skin", from Gk ἄκρος "tip; outermost point", and the other means not beating; without a pulse, from Gk a-krotos, which is probably κρότος. The fact that both have medical meanings but mean very different things probably killed off medical usage of both words. I wouldnt expect to find this in use either, but if we somehow do, it's worth noting that there are two different etymologies and so every cite we find will have to be checked so we know which etymology to assign it to. —Soap— 15:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

chromatotron

Trademarked name of a specific product, may or may not pass WT:BRAND. Binarystep (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

trigger bullying

Probably SOP if it exists, but it doesn't seem to. "trigger bullying" only appears to be a verb phrase. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tongue punch

Needs supporting evidence. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lustrical

Only appears in italix Redd otmel Lowdot (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be exactly three uses in GBooks. One is for the noun though:

2017, Robert Harris, Imperium (Book One), page 334:
It was a matter of great pride to me, and a mark of my growing standing within the family, that I was invited to attend the lustrical, on the ninth day following the birth.

Two for the adjective:

1921, Wilhelm Max Wundt, Elements of folk psychology, page 407:
Purgatorial lustration, after the pattern of terrestrial cult ceremonies, was believed to be effected by means of fire, this being regarded as the most lustrical agency, and as combining the function of punishment with that of purification.

...one of which doesn't come up properly in snippet mode:

"one of the oldest known medicinal plants which was already used by the ancient Egyptians in offerings and lustrical ceremonies"

This, that and the other (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. 2 ain't enough P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bigfootologist

I only found it uncapitalized in a book that referenced Wiktionary. J3133 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added two usenet cites (also made the definition slightly less narrow, just in case). 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fawknerfawk: Even if this form passes, it would be an alternative form of the capitalized one. J3133 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; changed. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

roon

Rfv-sense: red PlusUmlaut (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble reconciling the adjective sense "red" with Drake's use. Century's definitions for this word are worth reproducing in full here:

roon1, a. An obsolete form of roan1.

roon2, n. [A dial. form of rund, < Icel.

rönd, rim, border, stripe, = E. rand: see rand1.]

A border; edge; selvage. [Scotch.]

In thae auld times, they thought the moon . . .

Wore by degrees, till her last roon

Gaed past their viewing.

Burns, To W. Simpson (Postscript).

Her face was like the lily roon

That veils the vestal planer's hue.

J. R. Drake, Culprit Fay.

[Roon in this passage is usually explained as 'vermilion,'

apparently after Halliwell, who defines the Middle Eng-

lish roon, properly 'roan,' in one passage as 'vermilion.']

So perhaps this is really an alternative form of rand sense 3. This, that and the other (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nonkilling

Rfv-sense "A precept or worldview that affirms the possibility of a society where killing is absent."
@Equinox, Ioaxxere This sense went through a failed RFV process recently (it passed, the process failed), where there was disagreement about whether the citations provided actually supported the sense provided. Can we gather a few citations here which we can then evaluate and agree on to support the sense? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's got a surprisingly full translation table, and it makes me wonder if we're just all missing something. Might this be a philosophical translation for ahimsa, even though the meaning isnt quite the same? Ahimsa appears in the translation table under Sanskrit, after all. It seems that some philosophers might have wanted to use a native English term so it wouldnt feel so foreign, and that the other languages' translations serve the same purpose. However, this is just a hunch, because I think ahimsa is more precisely translated as nonviolence. —Soap— 11:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pedophobia

Rfv-sense "An irrational or obsessive fear or dislike of pedophiles or pedophilia advocates." Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years since I looked at things like this, but I believe this word is used by pedophiles to describe the competition, someone who desires a world where pedophilia does not exist. By contrast I dont think this word is in common use by the wider public to denote, for example, someone who imagines pedophiles lurking on every street corner and keeps their kids locked inside and away from social media (a behavior that could be described as irrational). In either case I dont think we will find much attestation of either sense in durably archived media .... probably just Twitter, if even that. —Soap— 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never seen this word used in an unironic sense. I've only ever encountered it in slippery slope arguments by conservatives claiming that LGBT rights are a ploy to normalize pedophilia. I'm pretty sure I first saw the term used in a meme to the following effect (paraphrased):

2015: Let us get married
2017: Bake the cake, bigot
2019: Use my pronouns or else
2021: Let me change your kid's gender
2023: Let me fuck your kid, pedophobe

...Do we have a context label for words that are only used in strawman arguments? Binarystep (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have one cite in traditional media listed at pedophobic in which it is used sincerely. I believe this sense extends to the word in all its forms, but I admit Im not willing to go searching for more cites, and I dont expect others to volunteer either. —Soap— 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this stays, I agree with Prinsgezinde that the definition should be reworded. The way it reads now, it looks like we're endorsing the pedophiles' view of themselves as normal and anyone who opposes pedophilia as irrational. It's possible that this word could also be used to denote someone who sees imaginary pedophiles everywhere, as I hinted at in my first post, such that they could be described as having an irrational fear of pedophiles. I would consider such a usage to be completely separate from the use implied by the cite at pedophobic, where it should be clear from context that it means anyone who opposes pedophilia (NAMBLA is an organization that supports legalizing pedophilia). However Im not sure we have a term for what I call the irrational sense, as such people can be described as paranoid or overprotective. So, if we do keep this word listed, with the definition of someone who opposes legalizing pedophilia, I think it should be re-worded. —Soap— 18:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again I apologize for not helping with the actual search, but I thought of one more thing I wanted to add. This word sounded syntactically odd to me at first, despite my belief that I've seen it before. However, now I realize it makes perfect sense for it to have this meaning given that we have another word, homophobia, built on the same pattern of elision, in this case for homo(sexual)+phobia. —Soap— 11:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think anyone's willing to take this on. Leaving it up isn't going to change that. I wouldnt want to be linking to NAMBLA literature anyway, and the only other way to get three cites would be to turn up two more examples of a quote within a quote, like the one we have now. To be honest I don't want to go digging for that either and don't expect anyone else to. So .... should we close this out as RFV-failed? We could add a (rare) label and a usage note for the surviving sense so people don't come away thinking that this word can only mean a fear of children, a use which i suspect is actually less common than what we're challenging. Thanks, —Soap— 10:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

📠

Rfv-sense (slang) Used to indicate that something is true, based on the similar sounding word facts. Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note fax has a similar entry, quite recently added IIRC. Equinox ◑ 08:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fax in this sense is quite common online in my experience. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 08:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

trema

Rfv-sense <"an initial phase in the psychotic process that is characterized by intense anguish, an experience of hostility and a feeling of imminent catastrophe".> (quotes included in the definition line (yikes!)). Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely citable (quick google scholar search gives [26] [27] on the first page), but we probably need someone medically informed to rewrite the definition. Seems to be first used by Klaus Conrad, explained by a number of sources to be ultimately from a lexical item (sources say Greek, but that seems dubious) meaning "stage fright", so this should be moved to a separate etymology, too. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 02:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

compressable and compressability: misspellings or not?

They don't have any significant usage compared to the proper spellings:

It's common for adjectives ending in -ible to be misspelled as -able (see also accessable, compatable and visable, which btw have similar ngrams).

Note that I don't care about whether or not these pages are deleted or not but I think that given the Ngram statistics, if they exist they should be classified with {{misspelling of}} rather than {{alternative form of}}.

--Push-f (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Push-f welcome to Wiktionary. You've made a good case for the term being a misspelling. I'm not quite sure why Equinox advised you to bring this term here to RFV; this forum is about verifying the mere existence of words, and this word clearly exists. Our threshold for establishing this is to find three uses in published works, which is trivially possible here. It would assist to hear from Equinox himself, I feel. This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Yeah, I agree that this discussion probably better belongs in the WT:Tea room. --Push-f (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't lie: it's a fair RFV. However, it's a long time since Latin was a default subject in schools, and putting -able on a verb is something we do every day; and there are lots of extremely high-quality citations available. I think it's really stretching (or wannabe-Latinist pedantry) to call this one a "misspelling". Equinox ◑ 16:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably have spelled it this way myself, to be honest. However, no lemmings contain an entry for this word. And the ngram evidence is striking. Even raw Google result numbers indicate that the "correct" form vastly outnumbers the "wrong" form. Perhaps this can partly be explained by people learning the spelling of the very common collocation "(in)compressible fluid".

Would you support (a) a (nonstandard) label, (b) a (proscribed) label, or (c) a usage note to the effect of "Traditionally, this spelling is not considered correct. Most dictionaries only contain an entry for compressible." This, that and the other (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pushf @This, that and the other "I'm not quite sure why Equinox advised you to bring this to RFV": it's a weird case but I suppose we are RFVing the word qua word, as opposed to a misspelling. It felt like the correct forum. Equinox ◑ 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be right to call these misspellings. Adding -able to compress makes sense, and there are plenty of words that can be spelled with different variations of the same affix – corruptible/corruptable and collectible/collectable being examples very similar to this one. At worst, a (nonstandard) label might be appropriate, but I don't think we should be telling people that compressable "isn't a word". Binarystep (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Ngrams, I think it's clear that "corruptable" is just as infrequent as "compressable" compared to the other variant ... it's in a different order of magnitude than collectible/collectable, so I think it would be nice to somehow consistently communicate this difference via templates. The Appendix:Glossary currently defines "nonstandard" as:

Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers; frequently considered incorrect.

I don't think that we are in a position to determine whether or not one of these words is "accepted by the majority of its speakers". Perhaps we should introduce yet another form-of template {{infrequent form of}} to express the difference in frequency in a non-judgemental manner? --Push-f (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About how much time does it take to collect the facts for each pair of entries? Would we want to have a link to the NGrams search in the template, so that the work wasn't redone? How many pairs (or larger groups) of alternative forms do we have in English, other languages? DCDuring (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

long

Rfv-sense: Noun: "(finance) A long-term investment."

Could be, but I never heard or read it. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that what is intended in "A long-term fixed-income security", which fits the sole citation there now. DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of usage by and about traders with long positions in securities, including equities, not just fixed-income securities, not so much in real assets. We may just need to adjust the wording. Usage seems to be limited to securities trading. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

royd

Could be Middle English according to the reference listed. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

parentism

Requesting verification of the first of the two almost opposite senses, namely discrimination against parents. It is indeed used with this very sense in a blog I found at medium.com, but she might be the only one, and the blog entry postdates our entry by six years, so in theory she may have even gotten it from us. The few uses of this term that i've been able to find seem to lean towards the more semantically expected meaning of something parents do, sometimes extending to discrimination by parents against children or against childless people. —Soap— 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a whole bunch of citations, and grouped them into missing definitions. I changed the resentment of nonparents definition, because I found no evidence for it, but rather found something that is more like promotion of parenting as a societal ideal. Kiwima (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

perpetual September

Synonym of Endless September which doesn't appear to actually have been used. - TheDaveRoss 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

morning-after

Is it used outside of morning-after pill? P U C – 12:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in a number of related expressions (morning-after contraception, morning-after IUD, morning-after method etc.), although I'm wondering if this is an attributive form of a currently missing sense of morning after (as opposed to a true adjective). Einstein2 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“the morning after”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present.: "the day or days after something has happened or someone has done something, especially something that they regret (= wish had not happened or they had not done)."
“morning after”, in Dictionary.com Unabridged, Dictionary.com, LLC, 1995–present.: "a moment or period of realization in which the consequences of an earlier ill-advised action are recognized or brought home to one."

@Einstein2: I presume this is the sense you mention; we should add it. See also "morning-after feeling". It makes me think of the idiom in the cold light of day. P U C – 00:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The drinking-related definition at morning after is just one use of the generic sense that the above dictionaries have. Usage examples, rather than subsenses seem to me likely to better convey the usage than subsenses or sex- and drink-specific definitions. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hystricomorph

Rfv-sense

Any Old World porcupine of the family Hystricidae

This was the original definition, added in 2008 by WF- who knows about as much about taxonomy as he does about nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. It's true that the sum of its Ancient Greek parts adds up to "in the form of a porcupine", but he got the taxonomic rank all wrong. The term really refers to one of the major subdivisions of the world's rodents (it has to do with jaw muscles being of the type that porcupines have), which includes things like naked mole rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, capybaras, cane rats, gundis, and even New World porcupines. While porcupines are [a very small] part of the hystricomorphs, pretty much all of the Google Books hits I've seen refer to things that are definitely not Old World porcupines as hystricomorphs.

I was tempted to just change it, but the definition has been there for almost a decade and a half and it's theoretically possible that someone, somewhere has used it in this sense sometime in the past few centuries. The hard part is going to be figuring out which sense is meant in passages that mention only porcupines, since this sense is, by definition, a subset of the wider one- all Old World porcupines are hystricomorphs in both senses. Pinging @Vox Sciurorum, who may be able to help- though I'm sure they have better things to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kang

Ety 4: "humorous: pronunciation spelling of king". AFAIK, this is specifically used in an anti-black Internet meme against "hotep" types, usually in the phrase "we wuz kangz" (meaning something like "we black people were powerful in the ancient world"). The entry doesn't make this clear at all, and probably should. Anyway does it meet CFI? Equinox ◑ 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is citable, it might not mean king. It seems more likely to me that the term would occur divorced from the well-set expression as a derogatory term for so-called hoteps, or perhaps for all black people by extension. "Look at all those kangz over there", and the like. However, I've never come across this type of usage on the Internet. —Soap— 10:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

civic activity

The definition given is more specific than the SOP "an activity related to civics", but the usage I am seeing is of the SOP definition. Is there evidence of the narrower definition? - TheDaveRoss 19:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cliffdrop

Not much evidence of this being broadly used, and many of them do not support this meaning. - TheDaveRoss 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? There's lots of results in Google Books. They mostly seem figurative, referring to something that falls away abruptly like a cliff. This, that and the other (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some literal and some figurative cites to the entry and citations page. It's possible the lemma spelling should be spaced (like the infamous coal mine vs coalmine). - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Figurative sense should be split into a separate sense, I think, to make it clear what it means. Equinox ◑ 15:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

circumsaturnian

Rfv-sense "Any of the moons of Saturn" Google returns nothing for the plural, and for the singular everything seems to be adjectival. Any evidence for a noun? - TheDaveRoss 19:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cibai

None of the cites provided are spelled this way. - TheDaveRoss 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

false bluetail emo skink

Two quotes and both are mentions. One of them is on BGC, which also has another book - with yet another mention, not use. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is currently set as WOTD for 7 July. Will change the WOTD to another entry closer to that date if this entry can’t be verified by then. Have to say that I did searches on Google, Google Books, Google News, the HathiTrust Digital Library, the Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com, and put what I could find in the entry. I haven’t tried JSTOR yet—maybe that will be more promising. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also didn’t see any image of the skink at the Wikimedia Commons. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this entry is going to pass. I had a look at JSTOR and a number of other academic databases like EBSCO and Elsevier, and didn't find anything. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these contrived English vernacular names are hard to cite if we define use in a table as a mention, not a use, not that I think this one would pass anyway. DCDuring (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't know use in a table was regarded as a mention. It isn't quite the same as something like "The word word means [...]". — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but many, being biased against non-spoken language, rely on the wording "use in running text". DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gadic

Probably only in gadic acid Bust42 moves (talk)

Yep. Moved to gadic acid P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

jesust

Twitch interjection. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

soarant

I added the only cite I could find. (The usual heraldry term is volant, as some sources note, describing soarant as a modern synonym.) - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeReal

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

WT:BRAND — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a common noun sense ("a post published on BeReal"). – Einstein2 (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SURJECTION Given that WT:BRAND just specifies what kind of quotes count toward attestation, would this be better suited to WT:RFVE? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wealdish (2)

Alexfromiowa moved the sense relating specifically to the Weald of Kent to Wealdish. There is no doubt that the word Wealdish, with this specific geographical sense, is also found with a lowercase w. However, I dispute that wealdish ever refers to any weald other than "the Weald" itself. (In other words, I contend that the entry should just be {{alternative case form of|en|Wealdish}}.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stola

Rfv-sense " (heraldry) A bearing showing a fringed scarf." Another ostensible heraldry term I have not been able to find. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

break the back of

Rfv-sense: "To overburden (a person)"

We have break someone's back. I don't think I have ever heard anything like "it broke the back of John.", whereas "It broke John's back" seems natural. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

inn

Rfv-sense: To house; to lodge. ASppp676 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

polymania

Sense 2: "excessive enthusiasm for multiple things, as contrasted with monomania". Equinox ◑ 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

emmy

"(Minecraft) Clipping of emerald." * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This video is the only mention of "emmy" meaning "emerald in Minecraft" I managed to find online. MedK1 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MCCE

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Minecraft Console Edition". A Google Web search confirms that this is real, but it doesn't seem hugely common and probably won't meet WT:CFI. Not a total invention anyway. Equinox ◑ 16:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unhappied

Probably just used by Shakey Fools can be king (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems better to consider this as a participial form of a verb "to unhappy" (note the "by you" in the Richard II quote), which might have a better chance to be cited. but even then, OED only found 3 cites for the verb. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 01:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the definition to unhappy as a verb, and moved the Shakespeare quote there, along with two additional cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

boot

"To apply corporal punishment (compare slippering)."
This would need to be distinct from sense 1 (to kick: "you nearly booted me in the face!"). Also, if it's real, it seems too vague: presumably caning or smacking somebody would not be booting, but it has to be done with a boot?! (Otherwise I don't see why it mentions slippering as comparable.) Equinox ◑ 16:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. It seems that the officer swings a belt and hits person being punished on the soles of the feet. The person who added the sense may have assumed (as did I at first) that it was instead the same thing as slippering, but with a boot instead of a slipper. It seems that hitting people with a boot does exist as a form of corporal punishment, but I didnt find anyone specifically calling that booting. I coudlnt really find anything else of value on Google Books but it would be easier if there were a way to filter out the hits for boot camp (adding -camp to the query string doesnt really do much). —Soap— 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! To quote the linked text (in case it goes away): "Booting […] consisted in flogging a man with a belt on the soles of the feet". Equinox ◑ 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seal

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry) A bearing representing a creature something like a walrus." While I can find three seals' paws or seals' heads in heraldry, these seem to be sense 1, normal seals, not walrus-like creatures: Parker's Heraldry has illustrations of normal seals' (not walruses') heads on the arms of Ley. I tried to search for examples of seals which had tusks blazoned, but could not find any, though the homonymy with seal (“stamped design”) makes this difficult to search for. (Parker says the seal is also "fancifully called by some heraldic writers the sea-calf, and sea-wolf; possibly, too, by the sea-bear is meant the seal", and says it "has been adopted in some few coats of arms. [...] The whole animal, however, does not appear to be represented; only the paws and the head, and then but rarely.") - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says at this link that:

An otter's head, sometimes called a seal's head, for it is impossible to distinguish the heraldic representations of the one or the other, appears in many coats of arms of different families of the name of Balfour, and two otters are the supporters belonging to the head of the Scottish house of Balfour.

So it seems (though we probably already know this) that heraldry uses many exotic animals, and their names may not match what we use in the world today for the same animal. I couldnt find anything specificallyabout a seal as the whole animal, though, just the seal's head emblazon. All other hits on Wikisource seem to be using seal in the sense of a design. —Soap— 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yassify

Sense 2: make something more effeminate. Equinox ◑ 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the issue is that sense 1 was worded so oddly that the IP who added sense 2 didn't realize it was the same as sense 1. "Yassify" doesn't mean "make someone almost unrecognizable" (as the old sense 1 had it), because blurring a picture or adding censor bars is not yassification; it's specifically about adding an extreme amount of makeup, airbrushing of skin, etc, which happens to also typically be perceived as making the subject look more feminine, and which has the additional effect of making them unrecognizable. So I would suggest we revise def 1 (and I have now done so), and then drop def 2 as redundant to it. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to "What Does ‘Yassification’ Mean? A Brief History Of The Queer Term" pub. 4 Jan 2022 by Maggie Zhou on Refinery21, "yassify" could also mean "make something better and/or queerer". Maybe the IP confused "queer" with "effeminate". CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I don't think the citation about yassifying reporting crime, which you added under the "make effeminate" sense, is about making reporting crime effeminate, although it does suggest there may be another sense besides the first (makeup filter) sense. It may be the "make better" (or at least "make chic") sense Refinery mentions. I think "queerer" is, like "feminine", a side effect: the sense is "subject to makeup filters", and makeup is read as feminine/queer, but I don't think a filter that made someone look like a buck-toothed redneck but with Pride flags would be considered yassifying even if it made them look queerer via the flags—the makeup/airbrushing is a definitional element. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to change def. 2 to read something like "make gay", but I worried that I would violate some rule we have on that. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would violate a rule if it's what citations use the term to mean... but I also don't think the "Yassify Dobbing" cite means "make dobbing gay", nor any of the citations under sense 1, except perhaps to the extent that something like the Yang cite is including "..., and thus cause to look feminine or perhaps gay" as a side effect of "subject to many makeup filters". By contrast, at least one of the cites at yassification does spell out that it means making something gay or gay-themed (replacing random words in an app with LGBT-themed words), so if we could find citations of yassify that were like that... - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 2 RFV-failed; relevant elements merged into the since-revised sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this, but I've definitely seen this usage outside of beauty filters many times. I can maybe take a look at Twitter and pull some cites, if we choose to allow them. CC: @Ioaxxere AG202 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AG202 unfortunately I don't think I can save "to make something more effeminate". But there definitely is a figurative sense which involves making something conform to some "beauty standard": for example, the CNN quote criticizing a publisher for trying to make Roald Dahl's books politically correct. This might be the sense you were thinking of. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s probably better now anyhow. Fay Freak (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the new definition 2 captures the extended sense much better, and the cites fit/exemplify it better. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

supercharge

Rfv-sense of the heraldry sense, specifically looking for supercharge, supercharges, supercharging: I can only find supercharged, in which case this seems like something to handle at supercharged, like surmounted, debruised, etc, no? Is it used in any other tenses? - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

succeedant

Rfv-sense "(heraldry) Succeeding one another; following." The OED has succeedant defined only as an alt form of succedent; such a sense-agnostic {{altform}} definition might or might not meet CFI. I can only find one cite of succeedant in heraldry, in a book of Russian arms that also uses succedent (and is the only heraldic use of succedent I spotted). The word just doesn't seem to be used, perhaps because it doesn't seem to be very useful compared to just saying there are N arrows or birds in bend etc. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

neogaean

This should be uppercase Neogaean. Sure, we could just move it, but there might be a lowercase form too Creeps like you (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is an obsolete synonym of Neotropical, rather than a wider region as implied by our definition. Though it's possible Webster got this one right and Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong, since one would think a word that literally means "new world" might correspond to the whole New World and not just the southern half of it ... I dont know. A good find, as always. —Soap— 15:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited in lower case, changed from "zoology" to just "biology" since two of the cites are about plants. Two of the citations at least are definitely referring to the New World as a whole (and the 1866 one predates the proposal of the Neogaean realm, apparently in 1892); I suspect the restricted sense relating to the Neogaean realm will pretty much always be capitalised. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

knouting

Sense 1: "A leather scourge" (i.e. the whip, not the act of whipping, which is sense 2). Equinox ◑ 16:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

code vector

It looks like this is probably a term in some domain, but what domain isn't at all clear from the definition. I see a paper where it is used in the machine learning context, and some vague discrete math paper, but can anyone provide a clearer definition which narrows the meanings of vector and code? - TheDaveRoss 16:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the field of data compression, i.e. storing information in a smaller space, so that the exact original can still be restored later. I'm not familiar with this specific phrase, but the sense of vector is almost certainly the one that begins with "a memory address..." i.e. it's some kind of pointer. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't have a broadly-understood/standard definition beyond the scope of any given paper. It's weakly suggestive of a vector containing quantized or discretely-encoded information, as opposed e.g. to an arbitrary vector in R^n, but this is just my impression. As a contrived example, you might say that a mapping of the alphabet to vectors in I^3 is represented by "code vectors". Conversely I wouldn't use the phrase to refer to a coordinate vector that represents a position in continuous 3D space. There might be some subfield in which "code vector" is understood to have a more specific standard meaning, but nothing comes to mind.AP295 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital Emergency Codes

code black • code blue • code brown • code grey • code orange • code pink • code red • code silver • code white • code yellow

These codes are defined as US and Canada, however there is certainly not the degree of standardization that this implies across all of these codes. Some, code blue for example, are quite standard in the US (and Canada?), but most of the others vary in meaning from hospital to hospital or at least regionally. If these are actually universal in Canada we should probably remove the US label from many of them, and either add regional meanings or define them more generically. - TheDaveRoss 17:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More info at Hospital emergency codes, which makes it clear that the US does not have standards, and Canada has standards by province, many of which are shared. - TheDaveRoss 17:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cross looks like you made the template, do you have some expertise to share here? - TheDaveRoss 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this isn't something that lexico-nerds at RFV are going to do. How can we determine the meanings from actual documentation, to be placed into References sections? (Perhaps we should call Luciferwildcat back from the ninth circle of emergency healthcare... hahah...) Equinox ◑ 17:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what it would be best to do here; as you say, some so commonly have a certain consistent meaning (Citations:code blue) that it makes sense to record it, while others seem to have no set meaning (code black has four definitions so far), and yet... is that a sign we should generalize code black's definition to e.g. "A hospital code, signalling any of various situations, varying from hospital to hospital"? Or that we should keep every attestable definition? Or that it's not idiomatic at all? Colour codes are also used by e.g. police, prison guards, and others, so is having four definitions at code black like having definitions for every institution's meaning of level four (e.g. "a security level indicating a heightened threat", "a security clearance level granting access to...", "a pay grade equivalent to...", etc), i.e. something we don't/shouldn't do? - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me a bit of my idea a few years ago to create a page for category five, which can mean a very strong hurricane, but which must surely have quite an array of other meanings in other industries. And surely more so for the smaller numbers. —Soap— 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

loan

Rfv-sense: a lonnen Featherruffler (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED2 labels it "Scottish or dialect". Probably can be moved to Scots. I haven't looked in EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spade

Rfv-senses: A hart or stag three years old. / A castrated man or animal.

Sense 2 looks like a common-sense Anglicization of spado, though I think I've looked at this very word before and found that it's been confused with spay, so even if I find what looks like a match I have to make sure I'm reading about a human male and not an animal. For example, this text seems to conflate spado ~ spade ~ spay all together. —Soap— 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just happened upon spayard while I was looking at the etymology of spay. So sense 1 of spade, if real, is likely a contraction of spayard. Why that means what it does, I dont know. —Soap— 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

slaveboy

Marked for out-of-process speedy deletion by User:Polarbear678 in diff — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the current definition problematic, as it ties two very different things together. I changed the definition to what I felt it would be in a BDSM context, but was quickly reverted. I now think it would be better to have two definitions ... one for the original literal sense of a young involuntary slave, and one for the BDSM sense (voluntary roleplay among adults), and to apply this RFV to the second sense. (We could RFV the first sense too on spelling grounds, but it didnt take me long to find three cites for the bunched spelling on Google Books in which it's clear that the literal sense is meant, so maybe we can save ourselves a bit of time and just leave it be.) I also found three cites for what I believe to be the BDSM sense, and so ~~despite the page creator now regretting creating the page~~,^{I misread the history, sorry} I believe the second definition should also stay. The precise definition of the BDSM sense is open to debate, however, and I can't claim to be an expert. —Soap— 08:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Polarbear for misreading the edit history. The page has been much the same since 2012. However it seems plain to me that both senses of the word do exist, and while for the literal sense I expect that the spaced spelling slave boy is much more common, for the BDSM sense it would not surprise me if the bunched spelling was the more common form, perhaps at least in part to distinguish it from the literal use, but also in keeping with other existing terms such as pussyboy. —Soap— 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literal (non-BDSM sense) now has 3 cites. Equinox ◑ 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tréflé

(Heraldry.) Can only find this form in French; in English I can find and have cited and created trefly. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ithe

Neither etymology of ithe is present in the EDD, and both have only one post-ME attestation between them in the OED. Furthermore, it seems that both ythe (“wave”) and ythen (“to thrive”) seem to be generally restricted to a kind of poetry replete in old Germanic vocabulary that peters out at the end of the ME period. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 22:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tricorporal

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry) Represented with three bodies conjoined to one head" like this. The heraldic sense is attested as tricorporate and tricorporated, which I've now cited and added (respectively), but the only cites of tricorporal I can find are of two other senses, which I've now added. - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

urvant

"(heraldry) Turned upward." Mentioned in Randall Holme's 1688 Academy of Armory, but sadly I can't find uses. Possible spelling/typography variations to watch out for include interchanging u and v, -ent for -ant, -'d for -ed; maybe if someone can work out the etymon we can think of other likely candidates. Urvo is semantically distant. Maybe it's a feamyng-esque variation on vertant? Heraldry has a number of words that result from misreadings. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche Could this be a misreading for curvant? Defined here [28] as "In heraldry, curved or bowed". Benwing2 (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite plausible, and would also explain urved (curved)! Either Holme misread a text and entered it into his work (alphabetized under U), or the author of whatever text he read miswrote it, and everyone else followed Holme. I suspect a similar misreading is behind ogress (from ogles). - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

urved

As above. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nikker

The OED (second edition) has "nicker" as the spelling for this entry but does not list "nikker" among other spellings. — Paul G (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

orismologic

Dictionaries only. This, that and the other (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spontaneous

Adjective sense 7: "random". Equinox ◑ 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

states' rights

Sense 2: racism, misogyny etc. The citation is very poor, since it says "[they] used states' rights arguments to restore a system of white supremacy [etc.]" so it's still really using states' rights in sense 1, but speaking about how that was perverted. It doesn't seem like a separate definition of the term. Equinox ◑ 21:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would see this def like the spurious defs at pro-choice or something like that. Good job finding this! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me that there should be some doublespeak usage to support the challenged sense. DCDuring (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"States' rights" as used nowadays in the US is a dog whistle term used to express opposition to civil rights legislation and often to deny that the South fought the Civil War to maintain slavery and white supremacy. You are right that this is not a definition per se, although this may merit a Usage Note; see States' rights#States' rights as code word. Benwing2 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as it stands I would think this would be something to roll into either definition 1 (appending something like ", especially in reference to their right to enslave people before the Civil War, or to enact discriminatory policies") or a usage note, unless there are cites that more clearly literally do mean "racism, etc", e.g. if there were cites talking about Musk unbanning Nazis on Twitter "because states' rights trump [whatever]". - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

schlockey schtick

Equinox ◑ 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Google Books. On regular Google a a pdf describing the game that uses it, but everything else seems to be a mention with the phrase in quotes. Of course, it follows that if you have "schticks" in the game of "schlockey", you could call them "schlockey schticks", but the above is the only evidence I could find of that in actual use. Not that I see a lot of usage for "schtick" instead of "stick" in the context of the game, but the game doesn't seem to show up much in writing: it's a very local, informal term. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ

A type of sandwich. Equinox ◑ 06:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[29][30][31][32] -- the sandwich clearly exists, there are many photos of it. -- 67.70.25.80 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Must meet our WT:CFI requirements though. Internet photos don't count. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also recently added: the LGBT sandwich, although that one seems easier to attest (notably because of the media stir it caused). Q/+ look like copycats (with extra queso). Jberkel 13:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ+

Meal with fries etc. Equinox ◑ 06:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sib

An adjective sense is claimed, citing Spenser, where somebody is "sib to great Orgolio". That's not actually an adjective though. It's like saying "I am brother to Bob". Just a noun. So: cite the adjective if you can; otherwise merge it. Equinox ◑ 18:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that OED has 4 adjective senses for this term. The term has persisted mainly in Scots (which, as we recall, is not clearly distinguished from Scottish English by OED). There are English uses but all from the last few centuries seem to be either attributive uses of the noun, or adjectival uses in a Scottish context (but still to be treated as English). Some examples of the latter: "too sib" [33] (in the minutes of a meeting of Ayrshire farmers), "more sib to" here. "Sib to" is a common collocation here. This, that and the other (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

slur

Rfv-senses "an insinuation or innuendo", "in knitting machines, a device for depressing the sinkers successively by passing over them", and "a trick or deception". Ioaxxere (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening this RFV for the "knitting machine part" sense only. This does appear real and has various cites in OED, but some are as part of compound words. OED also gives some obsolete senses under the same etymology, but I'm not so sure this etymology is distinct from Etymology 1. Really this entry needs a thorough cleanup using all resources available to us, including Century. This, that and the other (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "trick or deception" sense may correspond to OED's sense "A method of cheating at dice", attested in the 1600s. This, that and the other (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

versant

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry, not comparable) With the wings erect and open." It's mentioned (as a synonym of the also-unfindable "reclivant") but I can't find uses. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

partan

Probably just Scots / Scottish Gaelic Apldeoo (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sayman

Rfv-sense: one who assays. All the quotations I see are most probably a pronunciation spelling of seaman, and one even of semen. Cappwe (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED has one cite from 1488 which looks to be an Anglo-Norman text: "Et solvit Johanni Francis, sayman, pro lez hallyngs de sago viridi". Anyone got any ideas what that means? Anyway, it's one cite and it's pre-1500 so not useful here.

The word was apparently used by Bacon in the 1600s, although interestingly OED doesn't seem to include this quote.

Nothing in EEBO. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pash

Rfv-senses: A crushing blow. and A heavy fall of rain or snow. Some evidence at OED UnHarassing (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not part of etymology 3? A word for head evolved to mean a hit on the head, and then just a devastating hit in general? —Soap— 08:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abarcy

This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only posting to note that our current definition is the opposite of what it was when it was first listed. —Soap— 10:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even a fairly clueless user is able to do better than SB when it comes to defining words, it seems. OED gives "insatiableness", and the etymon matches. This, that and the other (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OED currently politely says that it's "apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries", but earlier editions directly call it a ghost word: "The L[atin] and Eng. seem alike fictions." So this might be a good case for {{no entry}}. There is at least one case of someone using it to sound authentic in a period novel though, which I added at Citations:abarcy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

frouple

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of word that gets mentioned rather than used, it seems. I'm honestly shocked at how few uses I can locate, even on Twitter/X. A strong case for {{no entry}}. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abait

Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abatude

To Appendix:English dictionary-only terms This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviarist

Luckily for us, he gave up after about 20 entries... This, that and the other (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mukt

Rfv-sense

Both verb senses. They're followed by usage notes that make no sense for an English term, so perhaps the creator of the entry conflated this with a related term in another language. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or it is something only used among speakers of Indian English. DCDuring (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me, in principle... it's just a belaboured way of saying that it's not conjugated and the tense/aspect has to be inferred from what's around the verb. There is similar stuff in other English dialects like kena. Can't find any evidence of mukt actually being used as a verb though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oversit

Two more dubious senses from the very large set given here. One is "to grasp, comprehend; to understand"; the other is "(archaic) to overstay, outstay, overlinger". Entry probably also needs more glossing to indicate that this isn't a normal word used by many people. Equinox ◑ 11:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few quotes to Citations:oversit a while ago but I'm not confident enough to sort them by sense. Some of the citations (e.g. 1834, 1890, 1907) seem to support the "overstay" sense, although I am not completely sure. Einstein2 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gestalt

Sense 2: "shape, form". My queries on this sense:

It might just be a literal translation of the German (see etymology) rather than something used in English.
"Shape, form" seems too vague anyhow: presumably this would not be used in geometry to describe hexagons etc.
Most damningly: the two existing citations strongly seem to belong to sense 1 (meaning something like "personality"). A meaning of "shape, form" makes little or no sense for those citations.

Equinox ◑ 11:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uber problem

Sense 2: In entrepreneurship, the situation where a startup company lacks a profitable business model. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

verules

verolles

virolles

I can find only one English cite of virolles (Citations:virolle), and many French cites (Citations:virolles, presumably an alt form of viroles#French). I think I can just barely cite either virole or viroles (which one depends on whether we view "the singular, used for a singe ring, and the plural, used for plural rings" as different words), but I don't think enough cites exist for the other spellings. PS it's not clear how a bearing of verules as described, "concentric rings" / "a name given by French heraldry to annulets, or great rings, when borne in arms, one within another, with the same centre", would be visually distinguishable from a gurges. - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

renverse

Rfv-sense 1 "(heraldry, dated) Reversed, inverted; set with the head downward; turned contrary to the natural position" as a chevron renverse, which I can find mentioned but not used. Also check for the spelling renversé. The only heraldic uses I spotted were describing animals, and seemed to mean something more like contourné (sense 2) than "inverted", but illustrations might help. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tergant

(Heraldry.) I can only find this in the form tergiant, notwithstanding that the ultimate etymon tergum has no i. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two uses in a non-heraldic context to Citations:tergant. Einstein2 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Can anyone find a third cite? (Pimbley's dictionary has "Tergant―(ter'-gant) Showing the back part; as, an eagle tergant displayed." but this is not really a use, it's a made-up example.) - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pocket gender

Nothing in Google Books for singular or plural. Equinox ◑ 01:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar has nothing for this as well (unless you count "out-of-pocket gender-affirming surgery"). CitationsFreak (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lithophosphoric

Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 13:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinked lithophosphor in that entry is, supposedly, any mineral (e.g. barite) that becomes "phosphoric" (? phosphorescent?) when heated. But it seems a dictionary-only word. Equinox ◑ 13:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

compilation behaviour

This appears to have been coined in a fairly recent academic paper, and there a numerous other papers which cite that paper. I am not seeing much use outside of that ecosystem. I am also not totally clear that this isn't SOP, even if it has been used a few other times, but it is not my domain so I am not sure. - TheDaveRoss 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem widespread beyond that (2006?) paper, no. Our definition was also missing the crucial point that this is where someone is trying to "make it compile" by making small changes, without thinking about the semantics very much. i.e. it's rather like what we used to call shotgun debugging. So I'm tweaking that. Equinox ◑ 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

concordancing

This is listed as a noun, though I am seeing it as a verb form. We don't have the verb concordance, which is probably a miss. No usage found in the plural. - TheDaveRoss 13:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a verb section to concordance. Einstein2 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wynn

Rfv-sense: kind of timber truck or carriage. A possible dictionary-only term. Possibly also spelled wynd. This, that and the other (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sardonyx

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry) A tincture (variously murrey, sanguine, and/or tenné) when blazoning by precious stones." It intrigues me that the only two "blazon by stones" terms we had are the two that seem to be the least used, this one — where sources that mention it don't even agree on which tincture it is — and amethyst, which I at least managed to find 2 uses of. (I just added the main and well-attested ones: ruby for gules, emerald for vert, etc.) I'm also having trouble finding examples of the two "blazon by heavenly bodies" terms we have, dragon's head and dragon's tail, and may have to RFV them next... - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murrey and sanguine are usually regarded as the same tincture—a dark, purplish or brownish red, vaguely defined and rarely seen, while tenné is orange or brownish yellow. I forget if the poetic notion of blazoning by jewels for nobility and planets for royalty is discussed in Fox-Davies or Boutell—I'm sure I have a good source or two for this in my library—but if memory serves, sardonyx is sanguine (since sard is dark red, not yellow) while tenné is represented by jacinth (hyacinth—the stone, not the flower, obviously). The same two tinctures are the ones represented by "dragon's head" and "dragon's tail" (i.e. the constellations/asterisms Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda, as the seven classical planets—Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn—were already used for or, argent, purpure, vert, gules, azure, and sable, respectively). However, I forget which is supposed to represent which, and in any case this use is almost entirely hypothetical; it will occur in various treatises on heraldry, but sanguine and tenné are hardly ever encountered in historical heraldry (modern heraldry probably makes some use of them), and the practice of blazoning by planets does not seem to have been very common even amongst royalty—and I'm not aware of any royal arms containing sanguine or tenné. However, I suspect that this theoretical use may be found in a lot of heraldic textbooks, so it's probably worth documenting, even if no real-world examples are known of "dragon's head" or "dragon's tail" can be found. Let me check my books and get back to you. P Aculeius (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked: Fox-Davies mentions the practices of using jewels and planets in the section on tinctures, but doesn't mention the equivalents of sanguine/murrey and tenné, at least not in the text (I may have overlooked a table). Boutell likewise mentions the practices, and I found the individual terms listed in the glossary. Boutell distinguishes sanguine (blood red) from murrey (purplish red), but more often these are synonymous. Glossary, p. 346 (1975 edition) identifies sardonyx as sanguine—again, it's a dark red stone—and p. 330 gives jacinth for tenné. Sanguine usually is mentioned before tenné, and comes before it alphabetically, but dragon's head is tenné, and dragon's tail is sanguine (both p. 318). Boutell is definitely not the only published source for these terms. P Aculeius (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, such mentions are also all I can find... I think the term is dictionary-only, I can't find it used anywhere. But if I could ask you or maybe User:This, that and the other (with EEBO-searching skills) for help with another old term: can either of you find a third use of und? The OED has two quotes, and if I input long-enough snippets of them, I can find the works at Google Books, whereas I could not find any uses at all when I initially just searched Google Books for "und"/"unds"... which makes me suspect there may be at least one more cite out there that just isn't showing up in the results, in which case at least a combined sense would meet CFI. (The other heraldry terms I'm trying to cite before I resort to RFVing them are here; if we're very generous about what counts as a use, rempli and reverberant may also have 2 already, but I just can't find a third.) - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche The singular is horrible to search for: the free search tool at EEBO-TCP (UMich) returns words such as "p•und" where one or more of the letters was indecipherable to the transcriber. The subscription-based search tool (which I can also access for the time being) shares this flaw, but has an added feature where you can narrow your search by subject. Conveniently, one of the available subjects is "Heraldic works and genealogies". Using this, I was able to find "Vnde" here and "UNDES" here. I hope it's of some use. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful, thank you! I've added those to und. (Even on Google Books I ran into the "p.unds" problem.) - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got the same sources on heraldry as I do, then I probably can't help much on "und"—but as far as sardonyx, jacinth, dragon's head, and dragon's tail, I would note that these terms don't just appear in dictionaries, but in heraldic manuals—probably a lot of them, not just the authorities I had handy. And most serious students of heraldry will have run across them and perhaps remembered them even if no examples of their use are known (but to verify that, we'd need resources that simply aren't available online). So I think they need to be noted under their respective entries even if their use is entirely theoretical. Of course, that might be your intention, in which case I didn't need to say anything, but it'd be nice to know if that's the case! P Aculeius (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the entry for "sardonyx" in OED, I saw a citation to Legh, The Accedence of Armorie, 1562 for the heraldic use as an equivalent to sanguine, and on reviewing the book at Archive.org, I see that Legh (spelled "Leigh" in the book!) provides all four terms: "Dragons head" and "Iacinth" at page 11, "Dragons taile" and "Sardonix" at page 12 (I note that this pagination treats each double-page spread as one page). No examples of their use are provided, although the arms of Hunzaker and Finers are cited as examples of English arms using tenné, which I hadn't seen before. I did not search for "und", since I'm not sure where in the book to find it; you've already got the citations from the entry in OED, which I did check. P Aculeius (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Woodward's Treatise on Heraldry (1892) has all of these terms. It's a really thorough source that I'd put up there with Boutell and Fox-Davies. P Aculeius (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript to Woodward: for some reason the table in Woodward actually reverses the terms, identifying sardonyx and "dragon's tail" with tenné, while jacinth and "dragon's head" are identified with sanguine. Not sure how this occurred, as it contradicts all of the other sources I know of—possibly plain error, or switched by mistake in the table. Besides being contrary to the other sources, it doesn't make sense in terms of the gems, since jacinth is yellow and sardonyx dark red, so I'm certain it's a mistake, even if I can't be sure how it was made. Shame, given that Woodward is really a lovely book! But given how blazon by jewels and planets is always a minor, if interesting detail, the mistake may simply have slipped through the editing process. I also note that our article in Wikipedia distinguishes sanguine and murrey, which I gather might be done in some sources—but not in any of the ones cited here, all of which explicitly identify the two as the same colour. The article on tenné also needs some attention, as it seems to insist that the colour should be rendered as tan or brown, even while acknowledging that it's also identified with orange, and is usually depicted as orange in English (and American) heraldry. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

neurosensiferous

You're not gonna find it :) Foraplf (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two cites found... I'll leave this open for a bit longer. This, that and the other (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

three halfpennies

This RfV is for the sense “plural of three halfpence” (which is the only sense we have). It is listed as an alternative form at three halfpence, and the plural was indicated as three halfpence (the same) by the creator of the entry but SemperBlotto changed it to three halfpennies. J3133 (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this entry is deeply pathological. "three halfpence (plural three halfpennies)" !! It's already plural. Pence and pennies are already (both plural) ways to say the same thing. You've found a real horror, J3133. Equinox ◑ 07:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of the 2011 quote under sense 2? I'm not really sure what this sense is on about. It's not even clear to me whether the quote supports this sense. It seems that it costs three halfpence to travel on the train, and there are two intending passengers, so "two three-halfpennies" is a metonymy for "two three-halfpence fares". In the mind of the speaker, it does seem as though "three-halfpennies" is in some respect the plural of "three-halfpence", or at least, "three-halfpenny" as an attributive form.

Sense 1 ("a silver coin") is conceptually, even if not linguistically, countable - what would be the plural? "Two three-halfpence coins"? This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in the 2011 quote, “two three-halfpennies, please” seems to be using "two three-halfpennies" elliptically to mean "two fares of three-halfpennies"; I'm sure I've seen other amount-terms used similarly to refer to the things which are those amounts, e.g. google books:"two dozens of". But I would regard that as a form of either three-halfpennies or three-halfpenny, but not a form of three-halfpence (why would it be an inflected form of that? is thruppence, also found in the quote, an inflected form of three-halfpence or three pence? no), so I would move the quote out of that entry. (The second instance, "two fares (Margo and me) of three halfpennies each", is arguably not using a lexeme three halfpennies at all, but rather two lexemes, halfpennies and then three to indicate how many of them.) It's also not clear to me why the 1855 quote was put in this entry instead of the entry for the term it uses... - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: There seem to be quite a few quotations for three half-pences on Google Books. For example, “paid all the Pence, Three-half-pences, and Two-pences” (1728); “with a view to the three half-pences that were thus to be acquired” (2003). Is this a plural or an alternative form? J3133 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I make of it is "an excuse", and it's the mention, not the usage. It's shameful to add such things and act like they are real everyday usages and not some author having a laugh. Equinox ◑ 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do find two similar usages in what I can find on GB ("To the conductor, "Just two three-halfpennies please"." in Mile End by Alan Grayson [2003] and "I said 'two three-halfpennies please, one for me and one for the lady over there'. in Swore I Never Would by Harold French [1970]). cf (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three-halfpenny exists in the singular as well and it means the same thing as three-halfpence. The logical thing would be to list ‘three-halfpenny’ and ‘three-halfpence’ as synonyms and list ‘three-halfpennies’ and ‘three-halfpences’ as their respective plurals rather than having ‘three-halfpennies’ as the plural of ‘three-halfpence’. I can’t see how anyone could object to that solution. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, put three halfpenny with the plurals three halfpennies and three halfpence (Citations:three halfpenny), and likewise for the hyphenated version, as a synonym of three halfpence (keeping that as the lemma, since three halfpence is indeed more common than -y, -ies, or the hyphenated versions). And then give three halfpence (for a singular coin of 1½d.) the plural three halfpences, and three halfpennies (for a singular coin) the plural three halfpennies? That seems like that would cover nearly everything. - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dominus vobiscum

Couldn't find any convincing non-mention, non-code-switching examples: this is also just referring to the actual words "dominus vobiscum", not the name of some longer prayer, so I'm sceptical there are uses of this in English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do we treat other formulas from non-English languages, especially from ceremonies? Do we keep them only if they are transliterated? DCDuring (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I highly, highly doubt this is used as an interjection in English, as the entry claims. There are some borderline nominal uses:

1875, Sir Adolphus William Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne, page 19:

Again a Dominus vobiscum and a prayer, whereupon the offertorium (offering), and, accompanied by further ceremonies, the consecration; […]

1953, Pius Parsch, The Church's Year of Grace:

Each Dominus vobiscum cries out to us: your nobility, O Christian, stems from Christ's dwelling within you, from the fact that you are a Christ-bearer and a Christ-bringer.

It might be worthwhile having an entry for this use, but certainly not for the interjection, which is quite simply Latin, regardless of what language the rest of the liturgy/prayer might be in. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might note that the entry should be at Dominus vobiscum. Dominus in this context always refers to God and hence would pretty well always be capitalized. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On English—both of the above are in italics in the originals that I've found, FWIW ([34], [35]). This is the same sort of thing as e.g. the court "who ... lived on a vive le roi" in Wollstonecraft ([36]) which I don't think can be taken as an example of "vive le roi" being an English phrase either. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nuces vomicae

Please note that this is the alleged plural of a genuine English term. Some background:

There is a tree, Strychnos nux vomica, that bears extremely poisonous seeds which are the original source of strychnine. The name nux vomica is from Latin, and presumably refers to emetic properties. For hundreds of years, pharmacology mainly dealt with various plant, animal and mineral substances, all of which were named in Latin much as is still done in taxonomy. That would make nux vomica strictly a Translingual pharmacological term, except that it also has been used in English as a common name for the species.

The English term nux vomica doesn't, however, refer literally and specifically to the seeds, as illustrated by the phrase "nux vomica seeds", which seems to be moderately attested. There is also a smattering of cites for "nux vomicas" (both with and without hyphens), some of which may refer to some concept in homeopathy for nux vomica that we don't have a definition for, but none of which seem to refer specifically to more than one seed.

👉 I am thus challenging the term "nuces vomicae" as English. I think we should create a Translingual pharmacological-Latin entry for nux vomica and change this English plural entry to a Translingual plural entry to cover the existing usage. The English headword at nux vomica should be changed to have "nux vomica" and/or "nux vomicas" as the plural(s).

The reason for the long explanation is that there's a decent amount of attested usage in English sentences, but as citation of the pharmacological Latin, just as the synonym semen strychni is also used (and very similar to usage in German and other European languages). To be English, this needs to be used (not mentioned), and integrated into normal English sentence structure without italics.

Pinging @-sche, Al-Muqanna, This, that and the other, as those most likely to understand what needs to be done. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much of evidence of use in English—the only borderline passable example I dug up is a 16th-century recipe calling for "ʒ iii. [3 drams] of the shavings of Nuces Vomicae" (EEBO)—otherwise even in early modern texts it seems to be consistently italicised. The one reproduced here is also italicised in the original. Worth noting that it is found in Latin prose. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about these:

1915, The Poultry Item‎^[37], page 25:
POWDERED NUX VOMICA—
Source—From the seed of the Nuces Vomicae.
c. 1910, Carl Curt Hosséus, Through King Chulalongkorn's Kingdom, 1904-1906: The First Botanical Exploration of Northern Thailand, published 2001, page 175:
Strychnos nux-vomica, an almost formation building tree in many places of northern Siam, the very poisonous seeds of which, "nuces vomicae," provide our strychnine, the tree stranglers, creepers, epiphytic orchids, mosses […]

Note that the last one is a translation from German, where this form seems to be much more common. This, that and the other (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second one I saw but wouldn't personally consider admissible since it's a translation and foreign terms often aren't italicised when wholly enclosed by quotation marks. The first might work. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two other uses that might count toward attestation of the plural in English: [38], [39]. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those ones are totally fine I think. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited with combination of the above, but might need a usage note saying the plural is rare. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On reading Chuck's RFV more closely, it seems that he was after attestation of the plural of the pharmacological sense specifically. Possibly all the citations we've collected relate to sense 2 of nux vomica, not the pharmacological sense 3. This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz, This, that and the other: My understanding of it's that Chuck wanted attestation of natural use for any sense in English as opposed to code-switching to the Latin/translingual term in a pharmacological context, rather than a specific sense. Might need to clarify. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz can you offer your input here so we can move towards closing this RFV? Thanks! This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oes

Rfv-sense: plural of the letter 'O'.

The first citation, from Francis Bacon, doesn't seem to me to unambiguously support the definition. If it does not, then the definition (labelled rare)needs another quotation to remain. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the wp article for oes, the item Bacon was referring to. That is the etymology but his meaning is obviously not the letter. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've moved the Bacon quotation to Citations:oes DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED lemmatises the "spangle" sense at O, but notes it is always found in the plural. I'm going to follow Wikipedia and add it as a plural-only sense of oes. If a singular can be found, we should move it there. This, that and the other (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ponderosa

Rfv-sense "social, lime or get together where planning or issues are discussed". Jberkel 16:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the top sense on Urban Dictionary, where a much-upvoted entry from 2017 claims the word was coined by Jackie Christie from the US TV show Basketball Wives. Here is Jackie herself giving a definition. Looking on Google, a better definition would be "a conversation, in the context of Jackie Christie's participation (or lack thereof) in said conversation"... This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lemon-lime

Rfv-sense: "A variety of citrus fruit". Plausible, but only one cite and somewhat ambiguously worded. DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

declivant

RFV of this as an alt form in heraldry of declinant, a term which itself does not seem to exist, see its own RFV above! The only cites I can find are not in heraldry but in entomology; I've added them and tentatively defined that sense as "sloping" based on the 1909 cite, but perhaps someone like Chuck or DCDuring can improve that definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

datamanager

This looks more like a typo, I see it used in hashtags, file names and psuedo-code, but use in English is hard to find. - TheDaveRoss 18:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed Pious Eterino (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damu

Can this be cited? - TheDaveRoss 19:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kaparrang

A few mentions, this is probably just Afrikaans Sicilian speaker669 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, the alt form kaparring (currently a red link) does seem attestable from GBooks! Equinox ◑ 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ice

Rfv-sense: "## One or more diamonds and jewelry ^[sic], especially blood diamonds.

Apart from the ungrammaticality, I don't think the two citations unambiguously support the definition. I particularly don't see any evidence whatsoever to support "especially blood diamonds". DCDuring (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this term before, but for diamonds only. CitationsFreak (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinking iron

Rfv-sense: a sword Molation station (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pricking

Rfv-sense: The mark or trace left by a hare's foot; a prick. In some old dictionaries of obsolete English. Also, just a hare and not a rabbit??? Maybe hares and rabbits were considered the same creature in the olden days, I didn't do enough research into it. Standerd Raizer (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pluralphobia

Equinox ◑ 21:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No results in Google Scholar or GB. However, it does exist in places on cyberspace, and even has some variations (solely on-web, unless I'm wrong) like "pluralphobe" and "pluralphobic". cf (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure let's do this. I've added online-only sources and now am opening a two-week discussion on whether they should count toward attestation. lattermint (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding online sources. These seem to validate that the word is used. (Plus, knowing that this word has derived terms makes me feel weird saying it's fake.) CitationsFreak (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. lattermint (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

parclose

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry) The lower half of a garter with the buckle." - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomosteng

I have done a lot of cites, but I am not actually good at finding cites. I'm just hitting the top-level stuff, and also, I don't want to keep words around that are breaking WT:ATTEST. Of course the Citations page should be kept, but I think the actual entry may not meet WT:ATTEST. The cites do not appear to be independent. It may be 2 independent cites if you're stretching it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

virtually

"Without exaggeration". Equinox ◑ 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pomarine

The term exists, for sure, but I see no evidence apart it is used especially to describe this kind of nostril. Checksubfolder (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added and cited a noun, so converted this to RFV-sense. I can indeed only find it as part of the longer phrases "pomerine skua" and "pomerine jaeger", or obvious ellipses of these ("pomerine and parasitic jaegers"). - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

autobesity

Gets a "mention" in Herb Simmens' A Climate Vocabulary of the Future, and one or two online news articles. That's all. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been an entry in a dictionary, yet, only a proposal New words – 21 August 2023, dictionaryblog.cambridge.org: "autobesity noun [U], UK /ˌɔː.təʊˈbiː.sə.ti/ US /ˌɑː.t̬oʊˈbiː.sə.t̬i/ the fact of cars being much bigger and heavier than they were in the past" --Yasny Blümchenkaffee (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dniprova

Seems to only be the (assumed) given name of one individual. This, that and the other (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

revestu

Apart from one mention of a "Chief vestu or revestu", I can only find this as an obsolete spelling of French revêtu, not an English word. The definition is interesting, too, describing something visually identical to French vêtu but interpreted differently (it reads like these Orville arms would be "argent, revestu gules", whereas in the French view it's gules, vêtu argent). I think the English term for those arms is "gules, four points argent". - -sche (discuss) 07:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

atmotic

"Atmospheric" Used only in connection with 19th century Australian inventor William Bland's steam-powered 'atmotic airship', displayed in the 1851 Great Exhibition in London. The uses seem to be by him or mentions of his lectures, patents, and the model. I'm not sure which ones should count as independent. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

aquan

Rare/nonstandard if it exists. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes (1605)

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (1726)

The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan (1678)

You are right, it is extremely hard to find reliable sources that use this word, but in these books I remember distinctly reading it. I cannot find any modern examples, but I do not know whether this is grounds for rejection. I am unsure and new to Wikitionary, so feel free to remove it if necessary. 60.241.90.170 07:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it may be an archaic term and we do document those, just with the appropriate labels. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although barring a funny Cervantes translation if it was actually in books as prominent as those it would have been in Webster 1913 and imported already. I can't find any evidence of its existence, and there's no potential Latin etymon *aquanus either (of course we instead have aquatic < aquaticus). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cyphonism

Large number of mentions in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and books about words and their origins for the two definitions. Hard to find genuine use at Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a good amount of digging I could only find two admissible citations plus one from a Lulu book: Citations:cyphonism. They all (I think including the Ross one) relate to sense 2 1 (smearing with honey etc). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first definition might well merit a position in the Etymology, if there were one more cite. Maybe we could find something for cyphonismus in Latin or English. DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited that sense. @DCDuring: I added a longer etymology based on the information I could find in sources. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)

After digging into the original sources I've corrected my etymology and expanded the wp article with a fully-sourced explanation. This isn't a case of conflation with scaphism or inventing a meaning—essentially there are two original sources that mention "cyphonism" and one of them goes on to describe a honey-and-insects punishment involving a cyphon pillory, without specifically saying that that is cyphonism. The pillory is involved either way, the question's just whether that in particular is what cyphonism was. That is all etymological info anyway, a generic "pillorying" sense does not seem to have appeared in actual English use. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet the OED would be happy to copy our ety for this. DCDuring (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

structural

Sense 3: "That is lasting. economics". Equinox ◑ 20:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a misinterpretation of sense 1 to me (e.g. talking about the structural problems of an economy). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only some uses of structural in economics have it interpretable as "lasting" (eg, structural inequality, structural inflation), but some don't (eg, structural adjustment, usage in econometrics such as structural model). IOW, even with attestation (which arguably could be found, though the definition might still be ambiguous), this definition would be very vulnerable to RfD. DCDuring (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

inleck

Alt form of inleak. If obsolete, please gloss as such. Equinox ◑ 21:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Stanyhurst according to this. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

twitter

Verb: intransitive: "To move like a songbird. A blue jay twittered by me." (I don't know if that sentence is realistic, but I would understand it as "moved past me while twittering", not as a bird-like style of motion.) Equinox ◑ 22:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usex is awful: blue jay calls are very loud and harsh, about as far from a twitter as you can get. Either the person who wrote it knows nothing about birds, or they were trying to play a joke on us. As for it being a separate sense: 76 trombones has something like "I took my place as the one and only bass, and I oompahed up and down the square." You can do this with any number of verbs in order to imply manner without using an adverb. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I wrote this already but I cant find it now ... apologize if this is a duplicate post from somewhere. Anyway .... in defense of the usex, maybe the author chose to use a bluejay precisely because the bird's natural call doesn't sound very tweet-like, and therefore it shows the verb really does refer to motion. That said, a usex is not attestation, so this by itself can't save the entry. —Soap— 08:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mochlic

Definition and usex are copied verbatim from this list of obscure medical terms. Probably exists, but it could be a dictionary-only term. Binarystep (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate things further, it comes from Ancient Greek μοχλικός (mokhlikós), an adjective having to do with levers. Most often it's a reference to a treatise of Hippocrates that seems to be about mechanical methods for moving dislocated bones into place. Such references generally are capitalized proper nouns, as in "the Mochlic". Apparently the word can also refer to drastic purgatives- I guess on the analogy of prying loose the contents of one's digestive tract. Here is the one use I've found so far. Pretty much everything else I could find is in some other language, or in a dictionary- generally both. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bedroom deal

Definition may be wrong even if this is attestable. Equinox ◑ 01:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martinshorn

Can't actually find this in use. Equinox ◑ 05:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pyment

Newly added sense 2: "spiced wine". The editor claims it is the older/true usage, but it does not agree with Google Books results for the word. — On the other hand, I just noticed that the alt form piment has a different definition matching this challenged one... hmmm...? Equinox ◑ 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gleichschaltung

Rfv. I don't buy it that that's an English word. P U C – 18:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VIPer

vipper

"Diminutive of VIP (“very important person”)". Particularly unconvinced by this being a diminutive. Pretty hard to search for VIPer owing to the snake but I didn't turn up anything relevant for vipper. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the hyphenated form VIP-er gives a few related hits: [40], [41], [42]. I wouldn't call it a diminutive either. Einstein2 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cytotransduction

Just the one use in a scientific paper Pious Eterino (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

deerie

"A deer". - TheDaveRoss 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

decaoxotriphosphate

Inorganic chemistry term Pious Eterino (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can find one proper use: https://doi.org/10.17188/1350561 and https://legacy.materialsproject.org/materials/mp-1019806/ (same people doing this) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Akhmetova, T. I.; Vdovina, S. V.; Mukhutdinov, E. A. "Features of calculating the titration curve of sodium (potassium) decaoxotriphosphate" (v). Bull. Kazan Tech. Univ. 2015, 18, 134−136. is claimed to exist by DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b02636 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. That's all I found too. Pious Eterino (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

decaoxotrisilicate

Inorganic chemistry term Pious Eterino (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed Pious Eterino (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

decalcation

Was tagged for speedy deletion as "No useful context, clearly an error". It's not an error - it was used by Cruickshank and Steuart to mean "treading or trampling of the earth", and Steuart explicitly admits coining the word, probably from Latin calx (“heel”). It is also used here in the context of estate law, but it seems unlikely to be meant in the same sense. There are also a few rare misspellings for decalcification. This, that and the other (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The estate law one is a print error/catachresis for defalcation meaning embezzlement (the full paragraph can be read at Hathi, middle of column 2). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

decatyl

All the few hits I see for this are used as an adjective Pious Eterino (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

win one's spurs

Rfv-sense: "To be knighted". That is the etymology, but I'm having difficulty finding instances where it actually means being knighted. Even in the early modern examples on EEBO where it's not already figurative it's distinguished from the actual act of being knighted, e.g. someone "won his Spurs by divers generous Actions, and received the Honour of Knighthood". If this can't be verified in a strict sense it might make more sense to merge into sense 1, achieving recognition, and note that it specifically meant achieving recognition that led to being knighted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do we distinguish between the act done to earn knighthood and the ceremony itself? Think of graduation ... I would say that once I've had my last day of school, I've graduated, even if the ceremony is a week away. Perhaps we could merge it, but I think a separate definition something like "to earn the knighthood" would be good to show how the modern usage arose from the original. —Soap— 21:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an additional nuance though that some sources explicitly distinguish between people who were knighted for more or less trivial reasons and people who "won their spurs", or indeed talk about knights who "win their spurs" after being knighted (e.g.), which makes it a bit different from graduate. The winning of the spurs seems to specifically imply doing something to merit it rather than just the act of being knighted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

woke

Rfv-sense of the noun sense "A progressive ideology, in particular with regards to social justice." (Added in April.) The citation is DeSantis saying "The woke is the new religion of the left"; I question whether this is even a noun, let alone coherently the given noun sense; compare the general use of adjectives in this position to mean ~"that which is _", like "the rational is the real / and the real is the rational", "the real is the enemy of the unreal", in which case this would just mean ~"that which is woke". - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. I agree that DeSantis's use is best understood as a standard nominalised use of an adjective. There are also plenty of nominal instances where the term is either being mentioned—"We do not know where woke will end up [43]"—or otherwise abstracted from its part of speech—"'Woke' will be the foundation of an independent Scotland [44]". It's hard to find citations that don't fit into either of those categories, except perhaps the phrase war on woke. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had the vague impression that I'd heard this from a British politician - maybe Boris Johnson - but the only really useful hits I could find were from one specific publication, Spiked. "One reason why the government has shown itself to be so ineffectual in tackling woke is because so few ministers seem to understand what is at stake... Woke is not a passing fad driven by a handful of ‘loony lefties’ that can be challenged with a few pointed soundbites." You'll find loads more in the same vein (it's a very one-trick pony kind of publication) but not many hits in other places. I also found "The essence of woke is awareness" in The Guardian, but that feels more mention-y. Maybe one useful Google Books hit:
- 2023 February 16, Dr Abas Mirzaei, Woke Brand: From Selling Products to Fixing Society's Deep Issues, Archway Publishing, →ISBN:
  But woke is built on controversial issues and involves taking a definitive stance on those divisive issues, inevitably generating positive and negative responses (or sometimes just overwhelmingly negative responses).

Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Spiked one is passable, the Guardian one probably not since in context it's a discussion about defining the term. This from DeSantis seems more plausible than the current quote: "We will fight woke in the classroom, we will fight woke in businesses, we will fight woke in government agencies […] under my leadership, the state of Florida is where woke goes to die" [45]. The usage reminds me of cyber#Noun 2, which also comes off as odd to people outside the circle in which it's used. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s extremely easy to cite woke as a noun just from searching for the phrase ‘war on woke’ on Google, though phrases like ‘fight woke’ are also the same sense IMO. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that woke used as a noun is synonymous with wokeness. I don’t know if DeSantis was the first to use the term as a noun, but his use and the attention it got in the media definitely popularized this to such a degree that also people who see “being woke” as a good thing started using the term as a noun. For example, in summarizing MLK’s social gospel, “Woke is not enough; it must become work to pave the road to the prize.”^[46] (The use of italics here is for emphasis.) This is very similar to a statement in item 14 of Kenya Hunt’s essay in The Guardian: “But woke is at its most powerful, and valuable, when it is lived and not mentioned.” (IMO almost all of the occurrences of the term in this essay, when not between quote signs, are also uses, not mentions.) --Lambiam 22:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the adjective ‘woke’ was first turned into a noun by the right-wing British journalist Andrew Neil in his GB News show, which has/had a segment called ‘Woke Watch’. The first instance I can find of the phrase ‘War on Woke’ is in this article[47](07/01/2021) referring to the phrase being a British Government term, then this from 08/01/2021[48] (an interview with Andrew Neil). The phrase was quickly picked up on 26/01/2021 by the Tory politician Ed Vaisey[49], who wasn’t however a fan of the phrase, Labour left-winger MP Dawn Butler[50], and only later repeatedly used by DeSantis in America. It seems like the Tory MPs Kami Badenoch and Suella Braverman didn’t utter the exact phrase ‘War on Woke’ but they expressed ‘anti-Woke’ sentiments that got described as such, so they sometimes get attributed as the originators of the phrase but my money would be on Andrew Neil. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wokeness

Rfv-sense: "The quality or state of holding left-wing views or attitudes, in a way that is deemed overzealous, performative, or insincere", added two days ago as a separate sense from "The quality or state of holding left-wing views or attitudes" (itself a derivative of "The quality or state of being woke, aware of social justice issues"). I am not sure if this is distinguishable as a separate sense, as opposed to being something to handle in a usage note about connotations like at woke...? - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think aware is a sufficient characterization in the main definition? I think behavioral change is a necessary part of wokeness, at least talking the talk. The association with other political labels doesn't seem inherent to me, so usage notes and/or labels seem like a better place for such discussion. Also, is wokeness now usually used with positive valence? The woke page seems better, a good model for wokeness, though "the state of being woke" might be a better way of handling it, woke (adj.) being much more common, I think. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About a third of the terms at woke#Derived terms, those with standard/universal affixes, also seem as if they might also be better defined by their connection with woke#Adjective. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adessenarian

Appears in loads of glossaries and dictionaries but not seeing any actual use. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saffa

Sense 2, a fake bacronym or folk etymology or something. I don't see how this is a separate sense. Equinox ◑ 16:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ainur

Does this meet Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of academic discussion referencing them but always in the specific context of the universe afaict. The only moderately convincing one I found was this comparison to Augustine's philosophy, though it still clearly presupposes broader knowledge of the mythos. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quaestio

P U C – 20:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minecraftian

Alt form of Minecraftian (in video games). Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"? Equinox ◑ 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minecrafter

Alt form of Minecrafter (in video games). Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"? Equinox ◑ 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

roblox

Alt form of Roblox (in video games). Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"? Equinox ◑ 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrohydroxyfuran

For the very limited results I found, this appeared to be an adjective Pious Eterino (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a noun, but it can be put in front of another noun. Often with chemicals or substances they can be used in front of another noun, eg iron, can be iron filing, or iron alloy. There are sufficient references, eg

https://doi.org/10.1039/JR9530003138
in "Toxic terpenoids isolated from higher fungi" from Czech Mycology.
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Heterocyclic_Chemistry/e-LEDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dihydrohydroxyfuran&pg=PT242&printsec=frontcover page 223, second paragraph
plural on https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Fortschritte_der_Chemie_organischer_Natu/gXbmCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dihydrohydroxyfurans&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover and page 115.
https://doi.org/10.1021/tx060128f "Metabolism of Furans in Vitro: Ipomeanine and 4-Ipomeanol"

So it is quite verifyable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; there are many chemical terms which are nouns (because they represent entities which could, in theory, stand alone) but are used almost exclusively attributively (because the nature of subatomic physics is such that, in practice, they can never stand alone). The classic example is ammonium. Also, organic chemistry has several nominal endings that look adjectival to the non-chemist, such as -al. This, that and the other (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recuperate

Rfv-sense: "(sociology) To co-opt subversive ideas for mainstream use." I think that's too narrow and it might be best to cut everything after "To co-opt", but the sense has been there for at least a decade, so maybe I'm wrong and this is a specialized sense. The current cite for it is about recuperating gender, but at least one of these other cites about the same thing seems to say it's recuperating gender from mainstream use rather than for mainstream use (and it seems like the others may be as well), so I think the meaning may just be something like ~"co-opt" or even just "recover", a sense I just added. - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "to co-opt" is a little too broad - there is a connotation of rehabilitation that is missing. It is more like co-opting a concept that was in some way suspect or not applicable in a certain context and making it part of the accepted discourse. In any case, I have added a number of other quotes, so this is cited, and someone can take a crack at clarifying the definition. Kiwima (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima, -sche: What about reclaim? Also, French récupérer is used in a similar (identical?) sense, and the translations I've found for it are pick up and seize upon. P U C – 20:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quicunque vult

quicumque vult

Can't find attestation of this used in all lower-case. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nosist

One who practices nosism. Equinox ◑ 01:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clitwad

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

I believe it does not meet Criteria for Inclusion. Only 2 independant Usenet attestations[51], 0 on Archive.org[52], and 0 on English-Corpora.org[53]. –Vuccala (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 2 Usenet uses. Added 1 Reddit use. And added 4 Twitter uses, that's pretty much all I could find with the hour or so of searching I did. This isn't really a term you'll find in use outside of internet sites, so it will have to be judged according to that. Nervelita (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🄫

Compact disc. (Note this isn't the copyright sign, though it looks very similar.) Equinox ◑ 17:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ignorantia juris non excusat

I doubt it's English. I would keep this under a Latin header. P U C – 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the variation in the Latin wording and the definition suggest it SOP, so delete. (German Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht is idiomatic colloquially with marked syntax in contrast.) Why would it be a dictionary entry from jurist usage? The law determines what “excuses” in detail. There can only be an idiom with those that are remote from legal knowledge, but they will hardly say in English these Latin words, meaning that no quotes will suffice. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common legal maxim which will be found from time to time in English legal texts, but I don't know if that's enough to justify having a separate English header for the term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think our current treatment of Latin expressions - to the extent that we have a coherent policy - is not optimal. That an expression is used in running text in English (even unitalicised) is not enough; it's still Latin, and felt as such. Imo we should only have a Latin header, and maybe create a new section where we'd mention in which modern languages the expression is frequently used. It'd be a bit comparable to the descendants section. P U C – 12:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any "short" expression derived from Latin can readily become part of the English lexicon. One issue is how "short". Four syllables seems to be per say sufficiently short. Eleven seems ipso facto too long. Another question is whose lexicon: the man in the street or the men talking in a courtroom? That English has the adage ignorance of the law is no excuse, which we might include as a proverb or merely as a collocation, means that there is little reason for normal speakers to include this expression in their lexicon. But those in the legal profession may include Latinate expressions to signal to their clients, opponents, and judges their superior education. However, only occasionally and whimsically do we include expressions solely for their pragmatic function. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ignorance of the law is no excuse is arguably SOP, but ignorantia juris non excusat is not (in English). As ever, the question is whether terms are citable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most people believe that ignorance of the law is a pretty good excuse, were it not for the existence of the oft-repeated adage. SoPitude is why we would only include it as a proverb or as a collocation (probably under ignorance). DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" could definitely be considered a proverb but the meaning is so transparent I'm not sure what the benefit of an entry would be. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's indeed lexicalised I think it belongs here, no matter how transparent it is. And I'm looking for a place to gather translations: French nul n’est censé ignorer la loi, German Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht, and probably others. P U C – 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The law itself does not take the expression too literally: "The Lambert decision explicitly recognized this fair notice requirement as an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse". "The U.S. Supreme Court, however, by a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Douglas, held that Ms. Lambert's due process rights were violated because she was not notified about a registration requirement that she could not be reasonably presumed to know existed. In this case, ignorance of the law was a legitimate defense."

IOW, the US Supreme Court believes that the principle expressed does have significant exceptions, ie, that it is not literally true. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

false venus comb

Does not seem to get much use. Caps on "venus" might possibly be wrong too. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ao3

Abbreviation of Archive of Our Own. We have AO3; is this, quoting Equinox, “not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in ‘im going to new york’”? J3133 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flother

Rfv-sense: (hapax, obsolete) A snowflake. If this is indeed a hapax as the entry claims, then it automatically doesn't meet the CFI. But even then, the one quotation the OED has for this isn't even Modern English (it's from the 13th century). lattermint (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

encore

Rfv-sense: adverb: "(conjunctive, hapax) In addition to what has been said; furthermore; additionally." This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even convinced by the quote in the entry. A sentence starting with "Again" ends with a quote in French, then is followed by a sentence starting with "Encore". How do we know it's not a French translation of "Again" slipped in for some stylistic reason? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be my interpretation in context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens to be attested, it should be moved to lower down in the entry. A vanishingly rare sense should not be the first thing readers see. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get the strong impression that this is another instance of an annoying tendency for certain editors to prioritise chronology over any kind of common sense when giving definitions and parts of speech (e.g. the colour pink being at etymology 2 sense 3, or the usual sense of brake being at etymology 4 sense 3). The logic here presumably being that a direct borrowing from French must necessarily pre-date any other senses. It's extremely unhelpful to readers, and something we should squash on sight. Theknightwho (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

five hundred twelfth note

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The form 512th note would be citeable.

(Incidentally, 256th note is marked as an alt form, 128th note is an abbreviation, 64th note and 32nd note are full entries, and we don't have 16th note.) This, that and the other (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

goodnight

Rfving the noun section. The quote that's there doesn't demonstrate noun use, it's just the interjection inserted in a sentence. Compare this with encore just above. P U C – 13:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Their 'goodnights'" is definitely a noun use, not an interjection, but I've added three more anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dirty sanchez

Sorry, I'm not searching for this. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pious Eterino You prude. I had some fun adding 3 quotes, but am not not entirely happy with them - the books in question majorly fail basic capitalization. Jewle V (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

demisemihemidemisemiquaver

Looks like a dictionary word, not really any actual usage. - TheDaveRoss 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In real life usage, I've only ever heard this go up to hemidemisemiquaver. It's possibly attestable, though. Borderline, as some of those look to blur the line between use and mention. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

docosadioic acid

I don't think this appears in any valid form. Pious Eterino (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed Pious Eterino (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

umbestound

Does not appear to have survived out of Middle English. OED's latest quotation has a publication date of 1487 with the text dated a. 1380. I did not find any modern quotations using Google Books, the HathiTrust Digital Library, or the Internet Archive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic panic

Too rare. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 19:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's lexicalised with a specific meaning beyond "panic involving Hispanic people". There are a few places where "Hispanic panic" means panic about losing Hispanic voters, i.e. basically the opposite of the given sense ([54], [55]). It's also discussed in a few medical contexts in reference to Hispanic people purportedly exaggerating their symptoms ([56], [57] in full article). Here it seems to mean someone who isn't Hispanic panicking about how to fit in with Hispanic people. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abstergify

Appears to be a hapax. Nothing on EEBO etc. other than the one "specially when wee would abstergifie" cite you'll find on Google Books, which the OED notes is a (half-arsed) 17th-century translation from Italian astergere. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

acorn game

"A game played with acorns by the Miwok people of California, USA." (If it's actually attestable, then needs a real definition describing the type of game.) I think one of Luciferwildcat's socks must have created this. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was created by a LW sock. His later socks were focused on finding dictionaries of specific American Indian languages and then pretending to be an expert on those languages. This is a prime example of the stupidity that results. The whole purpose of this entry is to host the Central Sierra Miwok translation, which was copied from a CSM dictionary (AFAIK there's only one). I'm sure LW had no clue what that term meant, but felt he had to pretend that he did. I'm also sure the Spanish translation is something bogus he made up. Based on this discussion of cognates I think the game in question is one where half-acorns are used as dice: you put them in a basket, shake it, throw them on a surface, and count how many land flat-side-up vs. round-side-up. Other peoples in the area did the same, or used empty acorn cups or native walnuts the same way. I can't really see how anyone would use this specific term for specifically the CSM version of the game except as a reference to the CSM-dictionary entry. There are so many California Indian cultures that such oddly specific things don't get mentioned a lot in the literature. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abacay

Dictionary-only? Couldn't find anything convincing, though it wasn't a deep search. Chambers, which might be the original source, says the bird is "called also in some of the Philippines catatua and abacay" which suggests it's not English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abstringe

This previously passed RFV, see Talk:abstringe. However, I am not sure that the three citations produced are actually satisfactory uses. They were also not entered at the time but I've put them at Citations:abstringe. Might need a few more pairs of eyes. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are definitely less than ideal: the first is in a dictionary definition and the other two are contrived. But technically these are three uses. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I don't see how the dictionary definition is a use. It's mapping the Spanish word to a set of English words. If the gloss was written as a sentence then it could pass as a use, but it isn't. The others are borderline: the second one says "you will abstringe it" but is otherwise explicitly discussing the word, not using it. And as This, that and the other said at the time, it's not clear that the 3rd one evinces the definition. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Should say I'm happy to let this lapse after 2 weeks if other people think the 3 citations are OK. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

They're not great, but I think the last two are adequate. The first use in the dictionary's string of glosses is very debatable. I can't find any other uses (or even use-ish occurences) of this word, neither on the web nor in archives of old or new newspapers like Trove or Issuu, archive.org, etc. (I did find a slightly earlier copy of the "tongue will never be abstringed" text.) Very borderline... - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

coccydynious

Hate to do this but it doesn't look like this has any currency. lattermint (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a movie transcript: here. I suspect this may be used as a clever way to say pain in the ass, although even there we would more likely hear coccydynia. Im pretty sure I've seen this in at least one other place, but I cant remember which form of the word it was. —Soap— 15:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the webcomic I was thinking of, where a young girl with a love for words calls her older sister a coccydynia during a competition of insults. I suspect the -ous word and perhaps also the -ia word are more often used as a clever way to say "pain in the ass" (adj or noun) than in the literal sense, and that if this word passes RFV it may need a &lit tag for the medical sense since the cites will be for the play on words. —Soap— 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right, since it doesn't appear like the word is much (or at all) in medical settings. lattermint (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abattlement

OED's only cite is Middle English. EEBO turns up one instance where it's being glossed, nothing else. Since it's "abataylment" in the OED cite the Middle English probably needs to be somewhere else, the MED has it at abatailment with the same lone quote. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The form abatelement was just deleted a month ago: Talk:abatelement. Can we speedy this? This, that and the other (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT this word is unrelated to that one and should stand or fall on its own merits. "Abatelement" was defined as English for "abatement" but only (possibly) existed as a French word for a practice relating to merchants, whereas "abattlement" is defined as English for "battlement" but apparently exists only as a Middle English word for that. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This book quotes Yeats as using it:

2011 May 18, Sam Alaine, A Heap of Broken Images, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN, page 55:
My Soul I summon to the winding ancient stair; Set all your mind upon the steep ascent, Upon the broken crumbling abattlement, Upon the breathless starlit air, Upon the star that marks the hidden pole; […] William Butler Yeats, "A Dialogue of Self and Soul"

but other editions of Yeats have battlement. Beyond that all I've found are scannos of a battlement, 'battlement(s). - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abelghe

OED and MED citations end in the 14th century. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pick flowers

To use the toilet. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard to find uses that are clearly metaphorical online but I’ve heard my dad say this. It doesn’t actually means ‘use the toilet’ literally but to urinate by the side of the road. I did find this example[58] on Google Books. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think that would be a calque from Japanese as claimed? Equinox ◑ 12:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Overlordnat's book it's explicitly a translation from Isan as well. I think I may have heard it before in English, though if so seems pretty implausible it was from Japanese, never mind Isan. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the English expression chiefly came about from being a calque from any other language, it’s probably a coincidence that the same metaphor is used in other languages and English and I accept that my quote was a bit ‘mentiony’ and appears as a translation so is far from ideal. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a stackexchange discussion saying it's at least several decades old in Britain. It does seem to be real, but the literal meaning makes it hard to search for (another urination euphemism in this boat is Citations:pump ship, which has two but not yet three cites). Fodors says it's also the euphemism used in Botswana, which IMO does support the idea that it may just be an obvious excuse to leave an outdoor group for a moment which various cultures hit upon, rather than a calque. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mug shot

Sense 2. UK slang: "An unflattering photograph of a person's face." Never heard of this one. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does it sound familiar irl (though I can’t remember exactly when and where I’ve heard it) but I’ve now Cited it. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These cites aren't very convincing. The 2002 one ctalks of "mug-shot grins" when a police mug shot stereotypically has the subject adopting a neutral expression, so I can see that as perhaps supporting this semse, but the other three could easily fit sense 1; nothing in the cites gives us reason to think the photographs are "unflattering". This, that and the other (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, citations do not seem to support the sense at all. (By the way, "mug" can of course mean "gullible person" in British slang, but that doesn't automatically support this phrase as an idiom.) Equinox ◑ 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they’re convincing - they all refer to photos taken in a Photo booth , or using the ‘Photo Booth’ app, not actual mugshots taken by a police photographer. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations support the fact that sense 1 doesn't restrict itself to always being taken by police. Maybe it would be worth having two senses along the lines of "A photograph taken of the head and shoulders, often from the front and in profile, taken by police, usually in conjunction with somebody's arrest." and "A photo of someone's face (and often shoulders) taken in other circumstances.", but the cites don't seem to support the RFV'd sense of an unflattering photo. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve amended sense 2, so now resolved? I suppose sense 2 could be merged with sense 1 and the quotes moved over instead though if that’s what people prefer. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 1 says "usually" so it's now just redundant. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is really. I can see this going the way of the former unsinkable definition, where we say it’s used ‘usually of ships’ but the quotes refer to other objects. Similarly, we’ll be left with ‘usually taken in conjunction with someone’s arrest’ for this entry but with quotes relating to when it’s not used in conjunction with someone’s arrest. We should leave it another 3 weeks or so before failing it though to respect due process. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

acceptation

Rfv-sense: "ready belief". Not really sure what this sense means specifically and it's uncited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dezolate

Added by an Czech IP and claimed to be a borrowing from Czech, doesn't look like it's actually used in English. lattermint (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WIll we need to RFV the Czech word too? It was also created today by the same IP. What's its etymology? Do we know? —Soap— 23:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this word is in the dictionary of the Institute for the Czech Language. [59] And I have provided several citations from media. 185.15.110.102 02:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why but I cannot add citations to it. Therefore I have stored them here. Could you add them in the citation page, please? [60] 185.15.110.102 02:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put them on citations page. None of them are what we describe as "durably archived" though. This, that and the other (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we do keep the Czech word dezolát then what’s its etymology (from desolate)? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The dictionary doesn't say that. In Czech dictionaries, it is not usual to describe ethymology. There are already words without ethymology in that dictionary (like hulvát). In Czech there are diferent words that could work as an origin – dezolovat, dezinformace, … I don't think it is recorded by anyone. But it is used in the language (as provided by examples in quite important Czech media). 185.15.110.102 12:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: According to Dr. Oliva, the word is related to the word ‘dezolátní’(the word could be translated as dilapidated). 185.15.110.102 12:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rontosecond

Could be one of those terms that get coined but haven't been actually used (Edit: apparently the prefix ronto- is a new one so this hasn't gained currency yet). lattermint (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

accessively

Rfv-sense: "(obsolete) Forcibly, aggressively." No hits for any obvious form on EEBO, also not in the OED. The OED does have "by one's own approaches", with the one citation that can be found on Google Books for "accessiuelie", but it seems to be a hapax in a 17th-century Italian–English glossary. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

accoil

The OED says this is only in Spenser. Nothing else on EEBO, and Google Books just turns up long-s scan errors for "accost". The listed etymon, Middle English aquylen, apparently means something else ("to obtain; to track, pursue"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-icle

Rfv-sense: "(diminutive) Used to form diminutive nouns." The only example given, fascicle, was in fact borrowed whole from Latin fasciculus, not derived by adding -icle onto fascis in English. - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is on the face of it not really different from -cule and the others. It's probably fine to analyse as a (largely) non-productive suffix since it seems to appear in a number of dictionaries (e.g. Concise OED). and is apparently taught as a separate suffix in medicine textbooks. Since we have an entire category Category:English unproductive suffixes being non-productive is apparently not an inclusion issue.

There are apparently at least dialectal examples of production, though: this Jamaican English dictionary lists three words for small drinking vessels produced with the suffix, pannicle, mugicle, cannicle (from pannikin, mug, can). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At -sicle (from icicle) we show -icle as a related term. Is it? At icicle we say it is equivalent to ice + -ickle. DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not related etymologically. ickle originally meant icicle all by itself, and is a native Germanic word. From that we coined popsicle (with influence from the creator's surname) and from popsicle came all the colloquial words like wolfsicle. It's possible the colloquial words came directly from icicle but it's not really important .... either way, I think -icle and -sicle are "related" in a non-scientific sense by simply looking alike ... perhaps we could change the header from Related to See also, though I suspect there are other pages using the "related" header for a non-etymological relation. —Soap— 13:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's referring to etymology 1 of -icle, the alternative form, not etymology 2 which is at issue here. It should be listed as an altform not a related term. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cleaned up -icle and -sicle per this discussion, I think. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Muqanna, impressive; I would not have thought to look to Jamaican for an otherwise-(?)unproductive Latinate suffix like this. - -sche (discuss) 10:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

uhu

Sense 2: alt spelling of yoo-hoo. Equinox ◑ 12:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

aethogen

An obsolete chemistry term Pinch88 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aethogen#German looks likely to be attestable. DCDuring (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alt form ethogen may be attestable even if this isn't. Equinox ◑ 05:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name was coined by a certain William Henry Balmain of northern England, who used it in several articles- always as "æthogen" or "Æthogen", with a ligature in the first syllable. Once it was determined that it was boron nitride, people didn't bother with the fancy name except to mention that Balmain called it that. Here is what seems to be the first published use, and here is someone else using it, though they apparently consulted Balmain for the information on how to make the stuff. The rest seems to be mostly in German (without the ligature) and/or mentions. There may be more, but Google's OCR has intermittent problems with the "Æ" ligature that make it hard to be sure. Then there are the compounds of this substance which were called "æthonides". Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

affatuated

Only used by Milton? Pinch88 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alegge

Middle English only? Pinch88 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, even in the Spenser book (1579 edition) it's glossed. All the other EEBO hits are variant spellings of allege. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

allege

"To lighten, diminish."

Adding this one here since it's also cited to Spenser and a Middle English citation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Muqanna: Shouldn't this be rfv-sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: It's for an entire etymology, which I've seen the full RFV template used for fairly regularly, but since the etymology has one sense I suppose it doesn't matter, I can swap it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least mention that it's only for Etymology 2, so people aren't wondering why this doesn't pass by virtue of clearly widespread use. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have added the gloss at issue in case people were confused. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heartburn

Rfv-sense Synonym of annoyance. Really? Theknightwho (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited and added a gloss to clarify. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be picky about it, I think heartburn is the discomfort or pain resulting from an annoyance. IOW, I don't think it is substitutable for any definition of annoyance, at least in most of the citations. DCDuring (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly substitutable to me except for "have heartburn" (since one would simply say "I'm annoyed" rather than "I have annoyance"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, no OneLook dictionary has a figurative sense for heartburn. Perhaps OED does. The base sense refers to discomfort and not cause. Do our definitions of annoyance cover both the feeling and the cause? They do so imperfectly at best. I don't think we usually are willing to rely of users being able to infer meaning from metonymy. If we would our polysemic entries could be much shorter. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the plausibility of the distinction you're trying to draw, I think. The metaphor drawn by this use is between the psychological state of annoyance (which is a kind of discomfort) and the physical discomfort felt from heartburn (another kind). It's not at some remove from the state itself. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bæddel

A few Google hits but hardly anything really. Equinox ◑ 02:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I said on talk a year ago, I've never heard this, and not only can't find enough hits to discern if it's primarily a self-designation or one applied by other people (and how, e.g. neutrally or negatively), I can't even find enough uses to feel comfortable that it's not a hoax like clovergender or dragon sail. That WaN never heard of it either does make me suspicious, since even with terms like Vincian that are way too rare to meet CFI, I've at least heard them and can vouch that they're real. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This term is genuinely popular in certain groups on Tumblr, typically in gender non-conforming radical feminist circles. I have a few sources, but I'm not sure if I should post them here because it'd be giving platform to some blogs filled with hate (given the context). If needed, I can post though. If you do a search on the site/app, you will see continuous and meaningful usage. Fluxjupyter (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went through and archived some pages through the wayback machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004053203/https://medium.com/@greyson.not.horses/lets-talk-about-b%C3%A6ddels-a-comprehensive-retrospective-a59784bf311b

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004053345/https://degeneratediaries.home.blog/2021/01/13/the-queers-arent-alright-consequences-of-political-lesbianism/

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004054133/https://www.tumblr.com/baeddel-txt (mostly images, so not a permanent source)

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004054542/https://www.tumblr.com/hedonistbrat/730103040534773760/i-think-the-reason-baeddels-are-currently-sending

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004054828/https://www.tumblr.com/sheep-trenchcoat/724844004997529600/wish-that-baeddels-c-would-stop-telling-me-and

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004054952/https://www.tumblr.com/transandrophobiatruther/678668886509518849/trans-men-and-transmascs-did-not-wake-up-and

https://web.archive.org/web/20231004055059/https://www.tumblr.com/the-radio-host-is-a-kookaburra/724952553505374208/former-baeddels-we-cyberbullied-transmascs-and Fluxjupyter (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will get more hits if you search "baeddelism" than simply "baeddel" Fluxjupyter (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meeteilogist

Almost unattested. P U C – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meiteilogist

P U C – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meiteiologist

P U C – 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Meitei

Links to a Wikivoyage article and a Wikibooks article, both by the entry's creator. The Wikipedia page Meitei classical language movement, also written by the entry's creator, has a hatnote mentioning Classical Meiti linking to the Wiktionary entry (afaik improperly by WP guidelines). Any usage of "classical Meitei" in independent sources I can find is non-capitalised and SOP (e.g., "a classical Meitei ballad"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Manipuri

Same as above, but with somewhat more SOP attestation (apparently usually in reference to dancing). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Meitei

Pretty common as an SOP phrase but not seeing evidence of capitalised usage or the proper noun sense. The linked Wikibooks article was made by the entry's creator. Note the ISO code linked is denominated "Old Manipuri", a Google search does not show any independent usage of the label "Ancient Meitei" for that code. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

louk

Three different words (etymology sections), of which only "alt form of lock" seems citeable. The OED only has pre-1500 uses, and two post-1500 mentions, for "pull up (weeds)", saying it's now only dialectal, but the EDD only has several completely different words spelled louk ("idle, loaf, louch", "strike, beat, thrash", "put in place", "window lattice"), but not any of the ones we or the OED have. I can find mentions of "pull up weeds / thin out plants more generally" in various other old dialect dictionaries, but haven't spotted uses. Louk as an obsolete spelling of look (gaze at) could probably be cited and added. Some senses (at least "close/lock", as well as "grapple") would meet CFI as Scots; most of the rest of the content would be saved by moving it to Middle English louken. - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ogry

"Resembling an ogre", used once in Finnegans Wake which looks like a nonsense passage anyway. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsense, just deliberately obscure like the rest of Finnegans Wake, but I'm surprised this made it to WOTD given that the well-known work CFI criterion was removed two years before. It doesn't look like this one has been used outside of Joyce (and you'd probably write ogrey if you were recoining it now anyway). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Poupon

An adjective?? Equinox ◑ 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

monk

Rfv-sense: A piece of tinder made of agaric, used in firing the powder hose or train of a mine.. May be redundant to another sense A fuse for firing mines JezperCrtp (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ream job

Just a tyop/mondegreen for rimjob, probably. Certainly fun to search for, anyway JezperCrtp (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pilled

Slang: "In a state of believing, especially from evidence but not necessarily." Evidently intended to capture the red pilled, blue pilled, etc. Internet concepts, but is it actually used alone? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same thing as -pilled but without the hyphen. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not morphologically a suffix (I see it's your entry): I think that was created in error. But it's another story. In general, entire words attached to other words are not "suffixes": a greenfly is not "green" suffixed with "-fly", but rather a compound. Your "-pilled" is more likely something like "red pill" + "-ed". Equinox ◑ 05:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... I remember this discussion coming up before at some point in connection with blends (last year?). I'm not sure what you mean by morphologically not a suffix. The dividing line between a word that forms compounds and a lexicalised suffix is fuzzy in general. -gate for political scandals is definitely a suffix now and not just a novel recoinage from Watergate every time it's used, for example, but that was a process. The citations already at -pilled suggest a similar process going on, and I've personally seen stuff like "brunchpilled" without any intention of referring to a "brunch pill" or a generic verb "to brunchpill". Note that they're adjectives—they take "more", "very", predication "is ...". So -pilled is probably fine as is IMO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

centimate

To take a certain size of sample. Etymologically sound, etc., but doesn't seem to be in real use. If I search in Google Books, I mostly find stuff about "decimating" (i.e. killing 1 person in 100) but at the smaller scale. Not about sample sizes. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the first quotation that turned up from a credible-looking source (and which handily indicated a definition within the quotation); I have to admit I was a little surprised at the statistical usage — I'd been expecting a meaning closer to the decimate concept, in its most common usage. (By the way, if the statistical meaning is accepted, then definitions at decimate may also have to be tweaked?)

It sounds like you're happy to keep the term, but want to change the definition(s)?

Meanwhile, Einstein2 added a citation for yet another meaning (to divide into hundredths).

—DIV (1.145.8.61 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

ʾiʿrāb

Undelete as full entry previously deleted English term. See Talk:ʾiʿrāb. Now uses {{no entry|en| ʾiʿrāb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia }}.
I believe it can now be cited in Google books. The term is quite common among Arabic experts, even the actual spelling of the term may not be exact. This is just the most common attestable English spelling or transliteration. iʿrāb is a spelling when hamza is not spelled and transliterated. E.g. compare Arabic إِعْرَاب (ʔiʕrāb) (with a hamza) vs اِعْرَاب (iʕrāb) (without a hamza) Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be cited, it can be restored, but since the issue before was that it couldn't be cited and failed RFV, this is an RFV matter, no? - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is backwards: first add the citations to the citations page, then ask for undeletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from RFD to RFV because this is a question of whether attestation exists. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hu

RFV-sense:

"A name for God in the Eckankar religion."

"A chant consisting of many people singing 'Hu' together."

A Google Books search for Hu + Eckankar turns up nothing. - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hindouism

Ostensibly, non-native speakers lowercase this word intentionally and often enough to be includable. - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. It should be noted that this spelling is borrowed directly from French hindouisme, hence the lack of capitalization. Binarystep (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

violence

Rfv-sense: "ravishment, rape, violation". (The Webster-ese isn't as bad as it could be; Webster 1913 adds "constupration" to its gloss. Anyway, I digress.) OED doesn't have this sense. Webster 1913 and Century do, but without quotes. Can we find evidence of this word being used very definitely in this sense, as distinct from senses 1, 2 and (in figurative uses) 3? This, that and the other (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching for "multiple violences", "his violence of", "violence of a woman" (where the corresponding phrases with "violation" might be expected to have this meaning sometimes) but none of the hits are this sense. "crime of violence"+rape is just hits saying rape is a crime of violence, along with assault, etc. I also checked the Middle English Dictionary to see if this was just being carried over by those dictionaries from Middle English, but the closest definition in the MED is "?violation, transgression" with the single 1475 quote "Lorde, sythe we, thy sowlys, y[e]t nowt wer þer, Wy, of þe fyrst man, bye we þe vyolence?" - -sche (discuss) 15:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hominini

As a “plural of hominin”. It was removed from hominin by Widsith, who states, “I've never seen it used that way. I'm familiar with Hominini used as the name of the taxonomic tribe, but I've not seen it as a straight plural of hominin.” J3133 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English vice

As pointed out in the Tea Room, most of the cites are unidiomatic: "overeating was the English vice" isn't using "English vice" as a word meaning "gluttony" any more than "Boris Yeltsin was the Russian president" makes "Russian president" an idiomatic term meaning "Boris Yeltsin". (Likewise for "hypocrisy (was|is) the English vice", "it is our great English vice", "casualness is our English vice", “Is there such a thing, Lady Hillington, as an English vice?” “Oh,” retorted the clever woman, “I thought every one knew that, Mr. Daventry; the English vice is adultery with home comforts.”...) It seems unlikely that all of the senses are attested idiomatically, although a few probably are. Contrast e.g. French disease. Separately, the definitions use the wrong template. - -sche (discuss) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French vice

As with English vice above. - -sche (discuss) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German vice

As with English vice above. Probably the number of definitions which are idiomatically attested is smaller than the number there at present. - -sche (discuss) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would a single definition for each term that encompasses all uses of each to attribute a vice to a foreign population still be SoP. IOW, is the phenomenon more one of social psychology than of language? DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think idiomatic use could be attested, like for French disease, although part of being idiomatic would be referring to some specific thing (like for French disease), right? Since a single definition "# Any vice attributed to the English", would indeed be SoP, wouldn't it?
It's certainly a grey area; at one extreme, I'm not sure any use of "Russian president" to refer to a Russian president could be idiomatic—the referent of that phrase would probably have to become something else, like how dead president doesn't refer to a deceased president but to money. Towards the other extreme, even though things like Italian sausage and English oregano are obviously associated with those countries as a form of sausage and oregano considered typical of their cuisine and flora respectively, they are IMO clearly idiomatic. French disease is more in the middle of the spectrum, but on the idiomatic side, and I suspect English vice could also be (and whether it is or not is the RFV question). - -sche (discuss) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also the successful RFD a while back for world's largest democracy for India. I agree a catch-all definition would have to be SOP, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's idiomatic attestation for some particular senses. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO The difference is whether the focus is on the term/concept, or on the nationality. During a certain era, if someone wanted to give a colloquial synonym for syphilis, they might have said "syphilis is the French disease", in the same way they would have said "pertussis is whooping cough". On the other hand, if someone wants to discuss German character, they might assert that X is a vice characteristic of Germans by saying "X is the German vice". It might require looking at the context and not just the sentence in which the term is used. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that these terms are simultaneously euphemisms and ethno-national slurs and those functions might make it worth including such even when they are only attestable across multiple 'vices'. I wouldn't miss such marginal entries if they were gone. DCDuring (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps academic anyway, I've trawled through every 19th- and 20th-century Google Books result for "English vice" and found hardly anything that could be considered idiomatic (apart from the expected irrelevant "English vice-consul" etc stuff it's virtually always explicitly specified along the lines "the English vice of ..."). There are also various mentions, i.e. assertions that the term "English vice" is or was used to refer to something, but those aren't uses by the author themselves (see e.g. 1994 and 2005 under homosexuality atm). Maybe someone else can find more convincing stuff, drunkenness seems like the most plausible. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be mentioned as a translation of, say, vice anglais. DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

robloxian

Compare the RfV for roblox: “Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"?” The ones I found are not suitable: “And user robloxian awesomeness refers to yet another internet meme when he responds “TOO MANY MEOWS! AAHHH! flips table.”” (name of a user: “robloxian awesomeness”); “The site describes KarinaOMG as “the sweetest, adorable and most loving youtuber, minecraft player and robloxian namely karina.”” (dropping of all caps). J3133 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

adle

"Sickness; disease". The OED has it dying out in the 15th century. Not to be confused with addle, which has a different derivation: EEBO hits for "adle" are either variant spellings of addle as in "adle brained" or stuff like "cocke adle luddle" for cock-a-doodle-doo. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whall

A light colour of the iris in horses; the state of being walleyed. Lfellet (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At its entry for walleye, OED has a cite for whal eie, and does mention whall in its "forms" list (noting that all listed forms contain a form of eye except this one) , but offers no cites specifically for this form. I didn't do a comprehensive search of EEBO, but my superficial searching landed a use of whall eyed. So there may be evidence for whall eyed or whall-eyed as an alt form of walleyed. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

evapocondensation

I can only find this hyphenated (evapo-condensation), any evidence of this without hyphen? - TheDaveRoss 14:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

facingly

The hits seem to be tyops, scannos, line-breakos, or included-in-a-hyphenated-phrase-os like spit-in-your-facingly beautiful.. Worm spail (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're missing an adjective sense at facing (see OED Worm spail (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

facto

Not used outside its set phrases Worm spail (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fair-world

Only used by Milton? Worm spail (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

falding

Probably didn't survive out of Middle English Worm spail (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This word looks like it just clung on into the early 1500s. OED has two cites, one from the Book of Husbandry, and the other from a will. I also found this from Hakluyt. This, that and the other (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

brinner (Sense 2), brupper

Rfv-sense for the second sense. The current citations match one of "breakfast for dinner" (newly-added sense 1), not a fusion of breakfast & dinner foods. Same thing applies to the current sense at brupper (a cursory look for cites brings up "breakfast for supper"). AG202 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moonbeam

Rfv-sense: moonlight generally.

I see the plural, "moonbeams" used this way, but not the singular. Kiwima (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

infin.

Rfv-sense: "infinite" (noun). Einstein2 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

famulate

Not seeing anything SpAway (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

subsecute

Sifting through loads of Latin, not finding any English Jin and Tonik (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deprostrate

Sadly, appears to be just the 2 hits, which are rather beautiful indeed. Jin and Tonik (talk)

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sharonian

We have the capitalized form Sharonian. Uncapitalized forms for fans of other Filipinas, noranian and vilmanian, failed. J3133 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

repine

Rfv-sense: to fail, to wane. The revised entry in the OED doesn't feature this sense at all, and the two places it can be found with the already present Spenser quote are Century and Webster 1913. lattermint (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

edtwt

Hot word from August 2021, slang for "eating disorder twitter". This seems to still be in use on the-site-formerly-known-as-twitter, and perhaps also on Reddit, but I can't find anything durably archived in the past year. Can anyone help? Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. Cnilep (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

epinephrinylation

Not found anywhere online except dictionaries, I suspect all of them copy Wiktionary Pious Eterino (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

taptastic

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added exactly three from Google Books. One is the name of a festival, but seems to have the right meaning (and there is some precedent for including marketing names, e.g. pak, yumberry.) Equinox ◑ 22:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clarificatory

Is sense 1, "Of or pertaining to clarification", distinct from "That serves to clarify"? I'm not sure what forum is best to raise this in. I suspect this entry from 2010 is just exemplifying the old practice of "give multiple ways of phrasing the definition, but put them on multiple lines as if they are different definitions". But I could be wrong: in theory you could give a lecture about clarification and it could be a "clarificatory lecture" in the way a lecture about anatomy would be an "anatomical lecture". But in practice I think "clarificatory" would only be used if your lecture clarified things, and not if it was confusing, so I think sense 1 should be removed or folded into sense 2. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some citations having to do with English philosophy of the middle of the 20th century that could be read that way, I suppose, but seem merely ambiguous. Eg. "Now the features of later Wittgensteinʼs clarificatory models would again be imposed on the objects of clarification in forgetfulness of what such models really are, that is, modes of representing language use." I'd still expect the meaning of this particular quotee to be "clarifying" rather than "about clarification", but there may be some use somewhere in the philosophical discussions that would fit with the "about clarification" sense. DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rilievo

The fun part is to find this term without italics, and without other bits to it like cavo-rilievo, demi-rilievo, in rilievo, mezzo-rilievo etc. Jin and Tonik (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the rilievos" will find you English plural use without italics. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

eupeptic

Sense 2: "cheerful". OED has no such sense, and the single citation given (Burgess) seems to relate to people who are happy because they have eaten well, i.e. actually sense 1. (Nearby context in Burgess mentions a waiter, i.e. food situation.) Equinox ◑ 22:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hurriquake

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting hits in recent news stories ... do those not count as CFI? There was something a few years back (in Puerto Rico?) too ... this is definitely not the first time I've seen this word. This might spur me to work on getting an entry for blizznado too. —Soap— 15:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find one match referring to the hurricane-earthquake sequence in Puerto Rico, perhaps because there was a three-month gap between the two events, whereas in California they were just a few days apart. And that one match I found is metaphorical, so it can't be used to cite this. Even so, there are plenty of hits in news stories for Hurricane Hilary so unless we're not counting them all i'd say this is citable. I get the faint impression that it may be even spreading to metaphorical use .... " is a useful allegory for how we push the Media industry out of its catastrophic Hurriquake" .... but most of the hits I see on Google won't go through to the actual text, leading me to believe that they are reading ephemeral sidebar stories that come and go like the wind. (and its possible that the use above was followed by another word that would make it clear it was about the storm). —Soap— 17:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Hilary was already downgraded to a tropical storm before it reached California, and the area that was noticeably affected by the earthquake was far to the west of where the tropical-storm-force winds and serious flooding were- the distance was more geographical than temporal. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: If it were only Hilary it would need to be a hot word, but as you suggested it looks like it's sporadically attested before this year, e.g. here at WaPo and a handful of times on Usenet (ignoring references to the nail brand). I've added a grabbag of citations including two from the recent one. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shis

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gunshot

Sense 2: "The sound made by a discharging firearm." If somebody says "I heard a gunshot", they mean that they heard sense 1: "The act of discharging a firearm." I can say "I heard an elephant" but that doesn't give "elephant" a second sense relating only to sound. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford joins the sound definition to their first definition "The firing of a gun", which is not exclusively an act; it is more nearly an event. DCDuring (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike elephants gunshots can definitely ring out--"gunshot rang out" gives thousands of google book hits. Likewise a gunshot can be muffled without the gun being fired under a pillow or something, so long as the sound is muted. Look at this book where "A muffled gunshot rang out." Winthrop23 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in vino veritas

English. P U C – 15:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also clearly widespread use IMO but Citations:in vino veritas anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translingual or Latin entry with code-switching amongst educated people instead? I have even heard it in German. As mens sana in corpore sano. Fay Freak (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Latin entry is perfectly doable since there's lots of usage in New Latin texts. Of course (given that the source is Erasmus) European diffusion is expected, but it appears to be rather more common in English than other European languages, and more importantly it's lexicalised in English, as demonstrated by all the non-italicised usage and the OED entry, so should be treated as an unadapted borrowing in an English context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed Jewle V (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sexual marketplace

Rfv-sense "prostitution". I don't see how this could work? P U C – 15:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. The most obvious one that occurred to me was "enter the sexual marketplace" = "enter prostitution", which is fairly well-attested. I've expanded the sense slightly to clarify where it applies. The problem is disentangling it from the other senses, but I think the three I added are unambiguous and substitutable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Muqanna: Upon further thought, I'm not convinced the three senses are actually separate. Couldn't we merge them in a single one: "a physical or notional location where transactions of a sexual nature take place"? P U C – 19:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sense 2 is distinct I think and a merger would be unnatural: "she entered the sexual marketplace" can be a (creepy) way to talk about a woman who's looking for a partner or it can mean straightforwardly that she's become a prostitute, those are IMO clearly different senses and not just contextual applications of the same sense. Senses 1 and 3 could probably be merged though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fiants

A bunch of old crap (literally!) Jin and Tonik (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is in {{RQ:Gascoigne Venerie}} with about every imaginable spelling (fiants, fyants, feance, fiaunts, ...), but it does turn up in other authors, like John Taylor and Richard Blome. I would cast (!) doubt on the mention of "boar" in the definition; the term seems confined to canids and badgers in the uses I've seen. This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it take a singular or plural verb? DCDuring (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find an instance where it is the subject of a verb. It might be uncountable, although Taylor does put it in parallel with plural nouns. This, that and the other (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

palpebrate

Dictionary-only suspected. lattermint (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any uses meaning "having eyelids", but I found a lot meaning pertaining to eyelids, so I added that as an additional meaning, as well as the verb meaning (to wink or blink). Kiwima (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whybeler

Didn't survyve oute of Middle English Jin and Tonik (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED records whybeler from Middle English only, as well as whiblers and whibble (for quibble) in the 1600s. It's worth noting that OED supports our etymology at quibble, even though it doesn't account for this wh- variant. This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cacophonophilia

A fine construction, but no results on Google Books. ~ Blansheflur ｡･:*:･ﾟ❀,｡ 03:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unce

Probably didn't survive out of Middle English Jewle V (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sense? Based on how you phrase it I assume you mean the measurement, but our Webster link marks the "claw" sense as obsolete as well, and it seems rather odd to have a soft c when the original Latin word ended in -us. I'm skeptical of both words now, ... I found a book that mentions that the word exists, though to be honest I dont really know what Im looking at. Also, to anyone else doing a search for the measurement, a lot of hits for ounce will show up as unce just due to scanning errors .... I found plenty while looking for the claw sense but no actual uses of either sense (though I didnt search very hard for the measurement). —Soap— 20:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claw sense is a hapax in the OED. The ounce sense is easy to cite from EEBO, I've cited it and changed it to an altform entry (I don't think it needs special ety info). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sobol

RFV of ety 1, "sable" (the animal). I have only been able to find ety 2 (the plant thing), and a few scattered italicized mentions of this being a Slavic word for sable. I tried searching for the plural, "of sobol", "sobol fur", sobol + sable, sobol + Mustela... - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

upcoming

Rfv-sense ety 2 adjective: "Pertaining to upcoming." I don't think this could be attested as an adjective in this sense (rather than the separate ety 1 "happening soon" sense); even if something like upcoming gear for "ascent gear" existed, it would seem more logical to view it as the noun which is also asserted to exist, or the verb; I can't picture e.g. "very upcoming" in this ety as opposed to ety 1. - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

folly

"A pinkish-red color." Equinox ◑ 16:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

figent

Couldn't find more than the 2 quotes. There is another use of "figent" in the same scene as Eastward Hoe, if that counts. Jewle V (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED2 Einstein2 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

figgum

Just in the Jonson play? Jewle V (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me. (And glossaries and dictionaries and books on early English sport and "stop your wicked figgum".) (I am probably wrong on that, though.) CitationsFreak (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

filchingly

Apparently just used in a translation by Rabelais Jewle V (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the house always wins

Rfv-sense: 3. "An unavoidable, usually unpleasant scenario that is inevitable in the long run that hopelessly cannot be overcome in the end, regardless of various actions that can mitigate or delay it in the short term." Firstly, this isn't the definition of a proverb, it's an overwrought noun phrase. If there's a proverb sense here it's also not familiar to me: something like "we need to clean up the bathroom eventually—the house always wins" comes off as a bit weird.

I think there is a missing figurative sense or scope here though: afaik it's also used broadly to suggest that something is rigged to benefit some person or group, which isn't covered by the limited wording of sense 2. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of what we're calling Ginsberg's theorem on Wikipedia ... a metaphorical restatement of the laws of thermodynamics in the form of a card game ... you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game. (The zeroth law was added in later.) And I saw something similar in a popular science book about entropy, though I can't find it now. There are a few websites using the phrase the house always wins as a metaphor about entropy. But a metaphor isn't a definition, I suppose ... I'm not really sure if we can use this or not, ... it just seems to me that the metaphor need not always be a complaint about human affairs, it can simply be a restatement of natural law. —Soap— 00:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: Yes, it occurred to me that people can use it in reference to things like death and entropy, with a vague idea of anthropomorphising the force they're talking about (you can't cheat Death). What I would do, I think, is change sense 2 to refer to things being systemically rigged or biased more generally than just one specific point about economics, and have a third sense with a second, even further extension to things like natural laws without any actual people involved. I think the RFV'd sense is probably just missing the point a bit. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If sense 3 is to be kept, it shouldn’t be defined as a noun. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a dreadful set of definitions. DCDuring (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gýgr

- -sche (discuss) 05:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk to the hand

Rfv-sense - verb. This is only ever used as an interjection in my experience. Sometimes the interjection is elongated with a cuz or similar, but I have never heard someone say something like "he was talking to the hand because my face didn't care". - TheDaveRoss 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are all full sentences interjections, or just imperative and interrogative sentences? DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I don't think this can be called interjection: the "elongated" use demonstrates that it's still being used and understood as a verb phrase. A better solution would be an "imperative" or "usually imperative" label (there are a few examples of non-imperative use, e.g. describing an argument with a threat of violence, "Against one of them, they could talk to the hand, but if they managed to immobilize me, game over" [61]). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

greige goods

"Partially prepared or assembled goods which are sent to factories to be completed". — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

outfighter

Rfv-sense "one who outfights" Ioaxxere (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sajiki-seki

A sumo term. I imagine quite a few of SemperBlotto's sumo creations would also fail RFV, so I'll choose this one as a start. Jewle V (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

selfe-one

nonce word Jewle V (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hapax in the OED and they also disagree on the meaning ("probably, within oneself"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rear front

Per discussion at RFD, finding out whether this is actually citable in any sense as specific as the one provided in the entry — and if so, in what sense, and in what part of speech — would help determine whether it's idiomatic or keepable. For reference, here is the definition in an old dictionary, where it seems more adjectival than nounal:

1802, Charles James, A New and Enlarged Military Dictionary: In French and English; in which are Explained the Principal Terms ... of All the Sciences that are ... Necessary for an Officer and Engineer:
REAR front. When a battalion, troop, or company is faced about, and stands in that position, it is then said to be rear front. It sometimes happens, that through oversight, forgetfulness, or ignorance and confusion, troops are so clubbed, that, on the deployment of a column, the different troops and companies not only lose their stations in the line of original formation, but the rear-rank-men stand where the front-rank-men ought to be; in the latter case, they appear rear-front. This error might be easily remedied, by counter-marching the several troops or companies.

The only earlier cites I spot seem quite SOP, simply describing a number of fronts (the left front on the left, the right front, the rear front, etc):

1743, Humphrey Bland, A Treatise of Military Discipline, page 110:
When the Division of Drummers in the Rear of the Rear Face beats a March, they are all to face and march towards that Front, thus: The Platoons of Granadiers wheel, as before, towards that Front. The Front Face goes to the Right-about on their Left Heels. [...] After which, they are all to march towards the Rear Front, as long as the March continues beating, [...]

- -sche (discuss) 00:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only instance I could find in the wild: "no disciplined army understands the right about, rear-front march, better" [62] (1828). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything aside from Webster 1913 seems to point to it being a front-back analog of upside down, which is an adverb or adjective. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

osteorrhaphy

Only found in dictionaries, it looks like. ~ Blansheflur ｡･:*:･ﾟ❀,｡ 05:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hacker

"One who is consistent and focuses on accomplishing one or more tasks", and "One who kicks roughly or wildly". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bête de scène

Is this really used in English? The single quote is very mentiony. Btw, what's a good translation for this? Need a gloss for German Rampensau. Jberkel 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps English just lacks a good counterpart. I see animal metaphors with Fr bête de scène, G Rampensau, and Du podiumbeest. English usually uses "animal" for this, e.g. party animal instead of *party beast. But I've never heard of anything like "stage animal" or "show animal". I used showman just now to translate a quote on the podiumbeest page, but I think t's suboptimal and only used that because we had had no bolded word at all before that. Perhaps the lack of a good Eng translation is why we might be using the French words. —Soap— 14:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should I didnt mean to imply that the three animal terms above are also synonyms of each other. And I also wonder if we're elaborating a bit too much with our English definition ... even if we do find the required three cites, will they really all have such a specific definition? I'm really fond of the "feral player" phrasing but it doesn't seem quite believable to me. —Soap— 14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English is a little bit pickier, selecting particular animals for such expressions, like show horse/showhorse, which I've heard used metaphorically, a;beit with a different meaning. Feral player uses feral, not a good definiens in metaphorical use, just as metaphors are not usually good definitions. Our normal users would probably benefit more from a non-gloss definition if we don't have a good gloss expression and can't come up with a long-form definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agrief

Quote is Middle English, needs moving there. Did it survive into Modern English? Jewle V (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

attame

Modern English or just Chaucer? Jewle V (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

crase

Modern English or just Chaucerian? Jewle V (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, turned into altform. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tiver

Rfv-sense "(transitive) To paint, to sculpt." Comes across as Anglish to me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shimpan fukubucho

Sumo term Jewle V (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ourple

Deliberate misspelling of purple. Inner Focus (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

underfriction

The linked Wikipedia article suggests that this is a noun adjunct in the phrase "underfriction wheel" rather than a standalone noun. There are no Google Books hits for the would-be plural "underfrictions".

I propose updating and moving to underfriction wheel. — Paul G (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although mostly used attributively, the term exists outside the mentioned phrase: [63], [64], [65] etc. There are also uses which predate the 1918/19 patent of Miller, so a second sense might be needed: [66], [67], [68]. Einstein2 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flabel

Frustrated by this term, too many line-os like flabel-liform Jewle V (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited though there's also some uses floating around referring to grasshoppers and fish and maybe other beasts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wray

We have three senses: (1) denounce, (2) reveal a secret, (3) betray. According to OED, (1) didn't survive past 1500, (2) did but it may not be attestable in this spelling (the cites have wry, wrie, ...), and (3) was used in the 1500s in the sense of "betray someone's true character" but OED only gives cites from Whetstone and Mir. for Mag. - a third would be needed. The word probably survived longer in dialect, but I haven't checked EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moder

A tricky one to search for Jewle V (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED2 Einstein2 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

palinilap

Apparent nonce word. One occurrence in GBooks, which is a mention, not a use. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sicca

Rfv-sense: "A seal; a coining die." When found, it probably should be under a different etymology. Also, the currency definition could probably be modernized. Jewle V (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the currency sense is straightforwardly from the seal sense. Cited/cleaned up. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hederic

Used outside the phrase hederic acid??? Jewle V (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romaboo

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This word is clearly attestable on Reddit going back a few years and probably on Instagram too. Those are where you tend to see history memes the most. A WaPo story that ran this week may have brought attention from the wider world, so maybe it will spread outside its origin. I dont have a WaPo account and so cant' check if the word Romaboo actually appears in the article. Its worth noting that we never actually rejected Reddit as a source of citations, it was only "no consensus", the same as Twitter. But we seem to have decided without a new vote that we're just not that interested in words used only on Reddit, and I havent seen too many words being added from Twitter lately either. —Soap— 17:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to point out that the only other two edits from the IP who created this were both vandalism, though it may well be that it's a shared IP and therefore not the same person. —Soap— 20:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

culture vulture

"(derogatory) An artist who copies rather than creates original work." — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-er

Requesting examples of "(Chinese fiction) Junior, child, younger person. (Attached to a name, usually a portion of the given name.)" - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, it's a thing (though someone might want to cross-reference these with the original Chinese). There are tons of recent self-published translations where this appears on Google Books but durably archived sources are pretty difficult to search for, hence the Women of China quotation of obscure provenance. I'm not sure the comparison to -chan etc. is precise, since if someone is referred to as "Ying'er" just calling them "Ying" seems a lot stranger than calling a "Mari-chan" "Mari". The "er" is generally displacing part of their name and not just suffixed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably indicate that the apostrophe is part of the spelling. Could this be moved to 'er or -'er with this as an alternate spelling? —Soap— 07:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe marks a syllable boundary in pinyin, generally where it might seem ambiguous otherwise (so Ying'er just helps distinguish Ying-er from *Yin-ger). IME this can also be written "-er" (with a hyphen), "er" (as a separate word), or simply at the end without the apostrophe, but the last one especially is hard to search for. In practice, for English, it might be better to treat those as separate alternative forms with the canonical lemma at -'er, as you say, though I'm not 100% sure. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flative

Obsolete terms meaning "producing farts". Quoting this kind of stuff is normally right up my street, but alas, even OED only has the 2 citations. Jewle V (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cyberethical

New sense 2: Morally acceptable in the context of using computers. (Seems plausible, I suppose.) Equinox ◑ 22:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vadavision

Polari slang for TV. Equinox ◑ 18:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all the results of GB, I see nothing but dicts. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

snowman hole

"An elongated hole consisting of two round holes touching each other." I couldn't find any evidence anywhere. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this European Patent Office PDF on the Web: [69] "...(known as a "snowman" hole due to its distinctive shape). A snowman hole is typically a difficult repair due to the elongated axis joining two holes..." Equinox ◑ 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whorenalist

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition needs work: currently, "a reporter or journalist whose viewpoints change frequently". What's whorish about that? I don't think we mean someone who learns new things (e.g. science journo) and adapts their views. Surely it must mean one who doesn't properly study and respect their subject, or is amenable to bribes, etc. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The definition's not the best, that's true. Perhaps we should copy the definition at presstitute instead, or list it as a synonym of that? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science journos learn things? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to really whack it into their heads. Drop an apple. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition line might refer to the analogy between changing viewpoints and sexual partners. However, I don't think the quotations at Citations:whorenalist support such a definition. I am not sure whether it can be considered synonymous to presstitute or just a general derogatory term for a journalist disliked by the speaker. Einstein2 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

burrel shot

Not seeing anything outside dictionaries and military lexicons Jewle V (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caput Mundi

Incorrect capitalization, and this should be Latin (unless it is specifically attested in English literature too). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

askoliasmos

Hopping on greasy leather bottles??? What the hell kind of sport is that!!! Jewle V (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the somewhat ridiculous definition and added some more etymology, but I have only found italicised uses. This text (footnote 136) seems to suggest that it is not entirely clear whether this term refers to hopping on one leg, jumping on wineskins, or both. I haven't been able to find the referenced paper by Jones though. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flip one's lid

Rfv-sense: To be very scared. Added by an IP, but I'm not sure if I've heard this sense, plus it's not in other dictionaries. Could be regional. lattermint (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

inheritee

Rfv-sense (rare) heir, inheritor (one who inherits).

This is the opposite of the expected meaning, which would be “one who is inherited from” (such as a testator, but potentially other things if inherit is used in a specialised context). I can certainly see cites for the expected meaning, however. Theknightwho (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Might be "unexpected" logically but it's far more common than the ancestor sense, which nowadays seems to be limited to texts talking about East Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Korean) contexts. Neither are rare. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florence oil

This could have equally gone to RFD as SOP. P. Sovjunk (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not SoP if it strictly refers to olive oil. But I cannot find actual real-world usage of this term. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flunkey

Rfv-sense: One easily deceived in buying stocks; an inexperienced and unwary jobber. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched fairly extensively, incuding newspaper archives, and could only find the two at Citations:flunkey. The Week in Wall Street one is given as the citation in old slang dictionaries. The other one I'm not 100% sure actually refers to that sense since I can't find it in original context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try the alternative spellings? In my experience the spelling flunky is more common in contemporary use, though I think the distribution of senses for it is probably different. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also flunkys which appears in 19th c. sources. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

malproliferation

unlikely P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

focillation

3 cites plz P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quoz

The first source given is a poem and the second is a quotation from the first. The third suggests it may have been used more widely, but sifting out what the meaning should be is going to be more of a challenge. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

diamond theorem

A theorem discovered by Steven H. Cullinane in 1975 that deals with the finite geometry of graphic patterns.

There seems to be some usage referring to various theorems about one sort of diamond or other, but I have yet to see any that mention Cullinane anywhere in any footnote or reference. In other words, the theorem may exist, and the phrase is used, but we would need evidence that the phrase refers specifically to this specific theorem.

A lot of the usage seems to consist of stating a theorem in a text under this name and referring to it elsewhere in the text by that name, so I wonder if this is just an ad hoc term with no set meaning. This is all outside my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to others to sort out. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may be self-promotional, considering the user name of the editor who added it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise at Wikidata. There are several theorems named "diamond theorem". Cullinane's addition of his theorem to Wikipedia's disambiguation page was reverted. --Lambiam 14:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatian

Rfv-sense "A woman who chooses to be alone / unmarried / unpartnered for the rest of her life." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thunder

"(figuratively) The spotlight. Shortly after I announced my pregnancy, he stole my thunder with his news of landing his dream job." Needs examples that are not covered by the separate entry steal someone's thunder. Equinox ◑ 15:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology in [[steal someone's thunder]] makes they use of thunder in this sentence seem particularly unlikely, but .... DCDuring (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cry one's eyes out

Sense 2: not weeping, but "moaning". Does it mean complaining/whining about something, or a ghostly whooooo, or what? Equinox ◑ 18:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to high heaven

Is this used outside of stink to high heaven, which we already have an entry for? P U C – 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is used with synonyms of "stink", like "smell" and "reek". Maybe not in any other way. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But also shriek, cry, curse, yell, darn it, complain, wish, etc., apart from literal use (pray, etc.). The figurative/intensifier sense seems to derive some of its force from the literal use. DCDuring (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited (none of the citations are about stinking). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but aren't the 1921, 1955 and 2013 quotes examples of the more literal sense that DCDuring mentioned? P U C – 17:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC: No, DCDuring mentioned the literal sense in reference to pray, i.e. literally praying to heaven. Shrieking, crying, etc to high heaven are not literal. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vocalization usages seem more closely derived from the "pray" usage than the olfaction senses, but recent usage seems not to evoke pray to high heaven. DCDuring (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pairifaction

Seems like is should be a valid word, because it looks wordlike. Citable?. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added one cite, and Google says there is another here (but won't let me see it). Kiwima (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

honklet

Young "honky". Nothing in GBooks. The "derogatory term" rule presumably applies if cites are not found in such-and-such a period. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdview

Can't find significant usage in GBooks, but it is mentioned in one Wikipedia article. If real, the capital N is probably wrong. Equinox ◑ 11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what "if real" means in this context, but it appears in a series of blog posts by Geoffrey K. Pullum, the first of which (posted June 26, 2008) ends with "people with any kind of technical knowledge of a domain tend to get hopelessly (and unwittingly) stuck in a frame of reference that relates to their view of the issue, and their trade's technical parlance, not that of the ordinary humans with whom they so signally fail to engage. [...] The phenomenon — we could call it nerdview — is widespread." I assume the word is Pullum's creation.--Urszag (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "if real" I mean "if the word exists at all"; apparently it's what we would call a protologism (and the capital N is indeed wrong). Equinox ◑ 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not found on Google Scholar or News. Mentioned in G. Groups. I can't get a preview of any use on Google Books, but Google gives books that may have it. We would need other (post-2008) corpora or access the books themselves. It might be particularly useful in BP discussions (let alone those on GP) here. DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spurling

sparling

Obsolete bird name Jewle V (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Webster 1828 had it as a smelt. See sparling. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the quotes so far have it as meaning "smelt ('fish')", one of the definitions of sparling. DCDuring (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the quotes are from reference works that provide definitions, but spurling is not a definendum in either but is used in the definiens. There are at least half a dozen mentions in Google Books, too. I don't think we can delete the smelt definition without consulting OED. I don't have so much confidence for the bird name ("a tern"). DCDuring (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spurling is often defined as an alternative spelling of sparling. DCDuring (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED has the "smelt" sense, which is probably citeable as all of sparling, sperling, spirling and spurling. There is no "tern" sense there though. There is an entry for sparling-fowl, which may not meet our CFI, but it is not a tern. Instead it is defined as "goosander".

EDD does have the "tern" sense as a Lancashire dialect word. In fact it specifies three senses referring to three different tern species, but each sense is cited to the same book (Swainson). This, that and the other (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

esquivalience

Rfv-sense of the two just-added senses; there aren't many cites of this word (originally made up as a copyright trap by Oxford) and I don't see evidence that we can support three senses. - -sche (discuss) 23:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EsquivalienceDefinitionNewOxfordDictionary.jpg Esquivalience Definition — This unsigned comment was added by RyChess (talk • contribs).

Trying to make fetch happening, huh? Jberkel 19:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schabusiness

Surname that seems attestable only from one person currently famous for a crime...? Equinox ◑ 19:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the killer Taylor’s maiden name (and unchanged married name?) was ‘Coronado’ and her husband Warren’s was Schabow[70] before they both changed their surname to ‘Schabusiness’ (presumably from ‘Schabow+(meth) business’). I very much doubt there are other people with this absurd surname based on that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Littie

A girl's name. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kettle king

"A stand with a hook to hold a kettle over a fire." I find nothing from a quick search in Google Books. There appears to be a trademark Kettle King, but perhaps not with generic usage nor in lower case, and I'm not sure if it's the identical object. Equinox ◑ 11:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mianyanese

The source given appears to be the only attestation of this word. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sandwichs

I couldnt find evidence of this being an alternate form or even a common misspelling. The word is sandwiches and I see no reason for an exception to our spelling rules to exist for just this one word. Search results are primarily for sandwich's (the possessive) and documents that have French and English text mixed. There are many search results that seem to be difficult to identify but the highlighted text appears in none of them, so I suspect they don't contain the requested word. There may be more such plurals at this link but browsing through it nothing jumped out at me as being a /tš/ plural (that is, they all looked like words ending in /ks/). —Soap— 14:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks wrong to me too. That spelling cannot really indicate a three-syllable word. Equinox ◑ 16:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited this and labelled it as "proscribed," since I highly doubt it is accepted by any style guide and it seemed to mainly occur in poorly edited works. I included two uses of the word in each cite to help demonstrate the fact that these are not typos (the cited authors did not use the spelling "sandwiches" alongside the spelling in question). I believe this spelling comes from the fact that English speakers learn to pluralize words with "-es" if they end in S, but are not always clear on when else they should do so. I remember puzzling over the spelling of "sandwiches" myself when I was younger. The pronunciation would be no different (I'll add it to the entry). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap Just a tip for searching: if you use a minus sign/hyphen before a word, you can eliminate the "synonymous" results that Google unhelpfully includes. I found my cites with '"the sandwichs" -sandwiches' ("the" (or various English pronouns) to eliminate the French results, "-sandwiches" to eliminate the regular plurals). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forevouched

Only in Shakey? P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forswonk

Probably just used by Spenser, and he didn't even spell it proper P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did find two other uses, both of which place the word alongside forswat like Spenser does: forswonke for-swunck.

We have an interesting problem here: All three of the texts spell the word differently, and none of them in a "modern" way. Should we normalise our entry to the expected modern spelling in this situation? I think we should. OED chooses forswunk as its lemma, which seems to be more in keeping with the past participle forms listed at our swink entry. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means each different spelling fails, and should be deleted. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: any chance one of the spellings predominates? If so, that should be made the lemma. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only found three cites, each with a different spelling. As for WF's suggestion, that is certainly one way to read CFI, but I don't think it is a very constructive interpretation. This, that and the other (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: I used to wonder why the OED normalizes spellings when the spelling of the lemma doesn’t seem to be attested. Maybe this is why—to group several variant spellings together. However, our inclusion criteria are currently more stringent than the OED’s. Maybe there needs to be more flexibility for terms attested only in the 16th and 17th centuries, I don’t know. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a vote about flexibility! P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AM in the PM

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective part of speech seems dubious too. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

refusenik

"A person who wants to do something but is refused permission to." — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

anti-reciprocal

"Preventing reciprocation." It might mean something (maybe advanced maths) but probably not this. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kand

Obscure Cornish mining word, in a bunch of boring dialectal dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

marrot

3 different birds, 3 fun quotey challenges P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I've found so far:

Razorbilled auk: [71], [72]
Guillemot: [73], [74], [75]
Puffin (aka "parrot"): I haven't been able to find usage that can be unambiguously identified with the puffin, but I'm not through checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gladwyn

Obsolete plant name in some dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

confusionism

Sense 2: "A strategy of maintaining confusion in the minds and preventing objective analysis." (Needs to be distinct from sense 1: "Any doctrine or philosophy that serves to confuse people.") Equinox ◑ 13:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the RFV, but this is such an obvious pun on Confucianism that I want us to mention it in the etymology, but I dont want to just put it there based on instinct. If it helps I know there is a quote out there somewhere ... maybe Tao of Pooh? ... where a related pun between Confucius and confusion is made, and it may even be that the word confusionism appears there. I suspect Ive got the wrong book though. Nothing here] looks like what I saw, and despite its title the book seems to be fairly level-headed and not the type to contain many puns. (Though I admittedly only got a 2-page preview.) All the best, —Soap— 14:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

belitter

"To bring forth a litter; have young; litter." Equinox ◑ 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forinsecal

A few quotes had it in italics or "in quotemarks", nowt without P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED has five cites, although only one is spelled this way. Ours would be a sixth. The word also appears to be an obsolete form of forensical (two cites in OED). This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forlaft

and forleave? May not have survived out of Middle English - our quote's pre-1500 P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

formell

Just used by Chaucer? P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forwaked

Only in Chaucer and some bullshit William of Palerne poem P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looks to be ME. Also in the Wakefield plays:

15th c., “Alia eorundem [Shepherds' Play II]”, in Wakefield Mystery Plays; Re-edited in George England, Alfred W. Pollard, editors, The Towneley Plays (Early English Text Society Extra Series; LXXI), London: […] Oxford University Press, 1897, →OCLC, page 124:

I wote so forwakyd / is none in this shyre: / I wold slepe if I takyd / les to my hyere

(please add an English translation of this quotation)

Winthrop23 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

disrecommendable

Two senses: "Capable of being disrecommended. Capable of being hated." Yet there's only one hit for the word in a whole Google Books search. I don't think it's really a recognised English word at all. If it were, it would probably mean "not to be recommended". Equinox ◑ 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe it either. For me it is zero hits on Google Books and one in a mailing-list, also written by a German. disadvisable is attestable though. Maybe we can over time astroturf the word by posting around the advice boards of the internet, currently it is not even a protologism. Fay Freak (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xilinous

A lovely word but I just can't find any uses: not in books, not in the news, not even on the raw web; all ten pages of Google results this gets are mentions. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited(?), although I only found one non-contrived quote. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the last one is hardly a use. The words on that front cover are more akin to an artwork than things intended to convey meaning. This, that and the other (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mention: the words in the title are surrounded by a list of adjectives that describe some quality perceived by the senses, and our definition, "pertaining to or made of cotton", doesn't fit- "cottony" might, but not this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz, This, that and the other I don't think the third one is mention since xilinous is being used to evoke a cottony texture (silky is also on there). I call it contrived, though, since it's obvious xilinous is only there on account of the initial "x". Ioaxxere (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bitch eating crackers

As true adjective. The sole cite would best be viewed as showing attributive use of the noun. The noun seems to be cited. DCDuring (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this is a noun, sometimes used attributively. There's no separate adjectival sense. grendel|khan 16:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xabbatog

"In Tibetan cuisine, dough stuffed with shredded turnips and dry curd cheese and cooked with bone soup." What a word! But I spot only one occurrence (not clear if a use) in an English book... - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rainbow unicorn

Nebulous. The only given citation has "rainbow unicorn ideas", a phrase not found in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not exactly shortage on rainbow unicorns (as characters, and not as a metaphor for childlike things) in US/CA cartoons for all sorts of demographics, but even unicorn fans wouldn't usually consider them a separate breed (except plausibly the stock vectors used on greeting cards and soap bottles and such). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xyrophilic

The current definition is seemingly nonsense, guesswork based on misunderstanding; see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2023/October#xyrophilic. The one citation provided is a typo of xerophilic. Hypothetically this could be a real word meaning "razor-loving", but probably it should just be deleted. No objection if someone bolder than me wants to just delete it... - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No low hanging fruit gives me any cites for xyrophyllous, which would in fact be a well-formed Greek word ... I suppose we just tend to call such plants thorny or prickly. —Soap— 19:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tozy

OED only offers dictionary entries, and stuff spelled tozie. Jewle V (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tea

Rfv-sense "(Nigeria) Hot chocolate." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian "Tea" (on YouTube). Also, the ref in w:Hot_chocolate#Usage. Voltaigne (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I can find books about Nigeria which contrast "tea, coffee, and hot chocolate" as separate drinks, showing that "tea" doesn't always mean "hot chocolate", it does sometimes mean the leaf-water drink. Indiana Robinson, National Pride - Things (Volume 3) (2017), page 69, says chaklit tea means "real hot chocolate" in Jamaican Creole. Semantic evolution from our sense 3 to our sense 4 to this would make sense (put tea leaves in water → put other plant parts in water → put cocoa [also derived from a plant] in water), as would Wikipedia's explanation (drink tea in the morning → any drink consumed in the morning is a tea). Indeed, defining it as "hot chocolate" specifically may be too narrow; Farooq A. Kperogi , Glocal English: The Changing Face and Forms of Nigerian English ... (2015), page 194, says "in Nigerian English “tea” has become the generic term for all kinds of breakfast beverages. Most Nigerians mix “Milo,” powdered milk, sugar and water, and call it “tea.” Native English speakers would call that “hot chocolate” or “hot cocoa,”" as if hot chocolate is merely one thing that would be included in the Nigerian English term "tea" but the full definition might be more like "any breakfast drink, any drink typically consumed in the morning in Nigeria, such as hot chocolate".(?) I am no closer to finding examples, though. I only managed to find one hit for "a chocolate tea", but I can't tell whether this means leaf-water with a chocolate flavour, or hot chocolate. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Note that circumstance that they don’t employ milk but milk-powder makes the definition as hot chocolate idiosyncratic. We define as “infusing these dried leaves or buds in hot water.” and “infusing parts of various other plants.” This should be expanded to e.g. “Any drink made by infusing dried parts of victuals in hot water”. Who cares whether it is powdered guaraná (the seeds, not a herbal tea!), curcuma (the roots!), mushrooms or milk or lab-grown food? Still tea, the main thing is it is a beverage of hot water in which something dry has been dissolved. (The situation applies to other languages that use a related word, e.g. Russian чай (čaj) is identically broad.) Fay Freak (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no human being is illegal

Rfv-sense: A more or less literal definition, not the immigration-specific sense: "It is wrong to refer to a person as being illegal." DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot shed this. People mean both at the same time in one instance. Claim the first with the desired outcome of sense two. An interpretation question also. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could just merge the two senses, and have it read something like "It is rude to say "illegal immigrant".". CitationsFreak (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think sense 2 is wrong too: "There are no illegal immigrants, only undocumented ones". Clearly there provably are illegal immigrants, as shown in the laws of various countries. Should be reworded as "illegal immigrants should only be referred to by a euphemism", apparently. Equinox ◑ 13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the need for two senses that say basically the same thing but I suppose we could tweak it so that sense 1 is an &lit that says ‘there’s no such thing as an illegal human being’ and sense 2 says ‘nobody should be designated as illegal before being officially determined to be so by a Government or court’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what legal systems are people, rather than acts of persons or their status, illegal? DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal grammar though. A "heavy drinker" is not a drinker who's heavy, but someone who drinks heavily. An "illegal immigrant" is one who immigrates illegally. The people who complain about the phrase "illegal immigrant" do so out of inguistic ignorance. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "This" refer to, the putative proverb or illegal immigrant? The metonymy in illegal immigrant is normal, but the "proverb" would remind us that it is mere metonymy, not to be taken literally. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "officially determined to be so by a government or court" should not be part of the definition. The people who object to this term would object to it even if it was government-sanctioned (and in fact, might oppose the term harder.) CitationsFreak (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have rarely encountered this phrase in contexts other than immigration, as an objection to laws that (are perceived to) criminalize the mere (public) existence of certain kinds of people, like so-called google:"breathing while brown", google:"driving while black", google:"walking while brown" or google:"walking while trans" laws; iff that could be cited, it would make sense to have a 'top-level sense' and subsenses like we do at present. But it doesn't seem citable. If only immigration-related use is attested, then like several other users above, I'd be fine with condensing our two sense into one definition-line. I think DCDuring is on the right lines with explaining that "acts or status" are illegal and not humans. Maybe: "It is wrong to refer to 'illegal immigrants', because people are not illegal (only acts are illegal)."? I don't know, it's hard to think of a good wording. As I said in the Tea Room, I'm not sure we should have slogans like this to begin with. (I mean, how would we define all the nuances and political implications of a phrase like "make America great again"? It would be similarly challenging.) - -sche (discuss) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the "because people aren't illegal..." thign should be in the def. People can have a variety of reasons for opposing this. (Plus, the Wiesel quote demonstrates this already.) CitationsFreak (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think people engage in legal or philosophical reasoning about this. Rather they are thinking of it being morally wrong to use the term illegal immigrant because it is derogatory or not nice. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the curtains match the window

Nothing in GBooks. One or two Web mentions suggesting (i) it's a nonce phrase and (ii) it doesn't have the synonymous meaning that our entry states. Equinox ◑ 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im suspicious of the curtains match the drapes too, which sounds like a malapropism. —Soap— 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

foulder

Probably only used by Spenser, and he didn't even spell it right P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED2 Einstein2 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fourbe

A tricky fellow; a cheat. I checked 6 cites, they were all in italics, then got bored P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

glistren

Just Middle English? Certainly obsolete in any case, probably uncountable too P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

post-tragus

A term that, I believe, didn't ever catch on. It's in this book, and mentioned a couple of times elsewhere. It's archaic anyhow. I'm no biologist, in fact I'm pretty dumb, but it seems antitragus is a similar thing (the same???) Jewle V (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pseudocompressible

"Artificially compressible". I think this is wrong: the word seems to refer to some kind of modification of "incompressible flow" equations to make them easier to solve. Note this user has been creating a lot of dubious entries, and seems to be just guessing at the meanings a lot of the time. I've warned the user about this once previously. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vanity

Sense 5: "emptiness" (of what, a box?). Seems probably redundant to sense 1: "That which is vain, futile, or worthless; that which is of no value, use or profit." Equinox ◑ 12:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fraischeur

Probably just used by Dryden Jewle V (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3rd

Abbreviation of third as a verb ("I 3rded the proposal"). Google finds "3rd ed." (third edition) when searching for "3rded"; I found nothing for "3rding". Equinox ◑ 10:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fuck 12

Rfv-sense: "fuck the 12 o'clock curfew". Einstein2 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tailing

Rfv-sense: obsolete: sexual intercourse there's a Chaucer quote request, which probably means in appeared in Webster 1913, where no modern quote was available P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED gives "to copulate with" as a sense of the verb tail, with modern citations. Our entry for that verb seems highly deficient. The noun isn't given in OED but it seems plausible enough if it can be found. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

megawarhol

Mostly in a single sentence from an essay that's been republished a number of times, and the usual "did you know there was a term for that?" mentions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thirteenth reason

I'm not convinced this has caught on as anything but a reference to Thirteen Reasons Why (either the book or the TV series). It looks like this entry is a protologism extrapolated from the above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited(?) Also, I can anecdotally confirm that it has "caught on" (at least a little) so I don't think this should be deleted. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cognitohazard

Does this exist outside of the SCP Foundation universe? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it used online used outside of the context of SCP in the sense similar to infohazard. Plus I've added three non-SCP book quotations so it's cited. lattermint (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having now googled cognitohazard -scp -song, I found 4 cases of people using the terms in contexts that did not involve SCP:

RFV passed. lattermint (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Higgs bisons

J3133 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Created by Wonderfool, who knows nothing about physics. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CUM

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

naansense

"(South India) Eye dialect spelling of nonsense." This doesn't seem common at all. It's sometimes a pun relating to the Indian food called naan bread. Equinox ◑ 13:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox cited कालमैत्री (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

grithbreach

This entry needs some help; if we can cite it it might be better classed as historical; otherwise moved to Middle English. OED has one non-dictionary ModE quote from 1598 in Stow's A Survey of London:

The charter of King William the Conqueror, exemplified in the Tower, englished thus: "[...] Know ye that I do giue vnto God and the church of S. Paule of London, and to the rectors and seruitors of the same, in all their lands which the church hath, or shall have, within borough and without, sack and sock, thole and theam, infangthefe and grithbriche [...]"

Maybe I'm failing to correctly parse this quote but it looks to me like Stow has grithbriche as a privilege William gave the servitors, which doesn't match the sense we give. I've also foud it used in a close translation of an OE text. Any other ModE quotes? Winthrop23 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a selection of modern English quotes on the citations page. It looks to me like Stow is referring to the fines arising from enforcing this law (definition 2). Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quince

I had a hard enough time citing quinceañera in English; I knew it primarily from ephemera (sometimes as ephemeral as electronic sign displays) in Las Vegas. I'd really like to see cites for an abbreviation of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

coot

Rfv-sense "A success; something excellent."

Added by an anonymous editor in March 2007, with both usage examples added at that time. I'm not familiar with any such usage, and can't find it in GBooks, Archive.org, or on the web using Duck Duck Go. Urban dictionary has, "Something that is defined as the best there is" added in July 2007. There is some usage online I don't understand that seems to be from the US South ("(I heard) the coot woman host...", Clemson tiger net; "...Carolina Jackpot is the Coot Cult leader", YouTube), but I strongly suspect that this is a disparaging reference to South Carolina "gamecocks" sports teams (a usage also found at Urban Dictionary). Other uses of "the coot" on the web are overwhelmingly the birds or (less commonly) "eccentric person". Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an adjective it may be a humorous alteration of cute, sumilar to the humorous hooman seen in memes put in the mouths of pets.^[76] --Lambiam 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cornobble

Mentioned in a couple of dictionaries as a dialectal word for beating someone on the head. Someone at Urban Dictionary decided to make it about hitting someone with a dead fish. Guess which definition just got added to Wiktionary... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably with a trout, I presume. Although frowned upon, I suppose it could also be a live one. --Lambiam 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or while performing a dance... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found three cites, but two were used to mean hit with a fish, and one to mean beat about the head:

2016, Strange History:
I've been Cornobbled!
2017, Jonathan W. Stokes, Addison Cooke and the Tomb of the Khan, page 71:
Addison's favorite word in the English language was "cornobble," meaning "to slap with a fish." He had long wondered if he would ever be lucky enough to cornobble someone. […] He deplored violence, but he condoned cornobbling.
2018, Alice Jolly, Mary Ann Sate, Imbecile:
She waits til I turnd away Cornobble me with a rolling pin

Kiwima (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lingible

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 1933 OED lists this as obsolete, rare, with one example of use from 1661.^[77] --Lambiam 07:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comedic K

Only one result of Google that isn't us or something like "comedic K-dramas", and it doesn't refer to the swapping of Cs and Ks. CitationsFreak (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that' what this means, no. the comic K Im familiar with is described here, and refers to the choice of words like cocoon when chrysalis would do, and has nothing to do with re-spelling. —Soap— 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible (see w:Inherently funny word#Funny words in English - edit: I see Soap already posted this, and yes it is not what our sense is quite getting at - perhaps w:Satiric misspelling#In humor is closer). I found a use that possibly matches our def here, so perhaps it is a thing to certain people (regional perhaps? some fandom?) This, that and the other (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC) edited 03:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head: it may go back to Krazy Kat, or have some connection to old Yiddish/Jewish comedy. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ausing

There are some potential results, but they are more likely to be typos or scannos. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PoS was inconsistent (header said verb, template said noun). Changed to noun for now. Equinox ◑ 15:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wroken

Just Middle English? P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

witting

Rfv-sense P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited Kiwima (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tenno-hai

An obscure sumo term. P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be name of the Japanese football open cup too (and not just a sumo term), though the cup's name is not usually written as Tenno-hai in Latin that I've heard of. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yea-forsooth

Probably just used adjectivally by Shakespeare P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. Don't think this looks like a word in its own right. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attributive use of the phrase yea forsooth, which is equally unworthy of inclusion. Compare the use of “an ‘I-swear-to-God’ shoe” here. --Lambiam 11:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ring-a-ding

Adjective meaning "perfect". Equinox ◑ 19:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

frigerate

Nothing in OED P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fringent

OED agrees it is just Emerson's nonce P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now has 3 cites. Remember to check GBooks. It's easy to search for "the fringent" and "a fringent". Equinox ◑ 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

silent h

Rfv sense “(linguistics, phonetics, literally) non-aspiration of a glottal consonant”. What does this even mean. Are there words whose IPA rendering uses ⟨ʔʰ⟩ or ⟨hʰ⟩? Is there any language in which some glottal consonant may be aspirated? --Lambiam 13:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think it means consonant in the sense of spelling, not pronunciation. e.g. Hebrew and Persian both have letters that spell /h/ in some positions but are silent word-finally, much like English. Possibly Arabic too. —Soap— 00:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

obby

Rfv-sense "obviously". Pinging @4hrue2kd83f. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't only only

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase may seem odd to most people outside Norway, but various variations of the phrase have been used in non-racing contexts by a fair few people:

It is most commonly used in informal codeswitching among Norwegians, but there have been sporadic cases of people using it while speaking English. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent I rapidly learned the RFV system this morning, I have now also cited 3 quotes on-page instead of the previous 1, with the 2 new ones being from English-language pages as well. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it's used to convey any sort of meaning but that it's simply a catchphrase (or a meme if you prefer). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a simple meme, but even I admit it's hard to describe the exact meaning of it. The core meaning fits very well with "easier said than done", but with a kinda playful tone, sometimes (but not always) one that makes fun of/with broken English or an undertone of "If you use this phrase, you're from Norway". I suppose I can agree it's an in-joke, but it's an in-joke that around 3.5mill people are into (of a population of maybe 5.2mill). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

frithy

OED only has Skelton quote, and even I could find nothing more, and I'm a frithy genius. P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the 1911 Century Dictionary also has that quote and nothing else (except that it has “Thus stode I in the frytthy forest of Galtres” while the 1933 OED leaves out the first bit and has the typo “the frytthy forest of Galteres”) --Lambiam 14:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are filthy, not frithy. HTH. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these citations (inasmuch as I can jabberwock some sense out of them) are for a homonym with a different set of senses and a different etymology. Determining in general which citations belong under which etymology is beyond my ken. --Lambiam 16:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that we have a duty to our readers to say "this word, if it's a word, is bloody obscure and bizarre" [78]. Horrifying truly. Do not see RFV as a little video-game challenge "can I find three usages of no particular meaning, by mad poets". Equinox ◑ 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

glansplasty

Defined as The surgical creation of a corona penis - I don't think it is defined right P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that corona penis means corona glandis penis, that seems like a quite implausible thing to even aspire to do. As the term is used in the medical literature, it appears to be used to refer to any form of (re)constructive surgery involving the glans penis, whether as part of a procedure for gender-affirming surgery or for correcting a congenital abnormality such as hypospadia. --Lambiam 16:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

t-lite

Given as alt form of tealight, but actually seems to be a brand name. I find little or nothing in GBooks. At least needs some note about the non-standard quirkiness of spelling, if it proves to exist. Equinox ◑ 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heroyam slava

English? Equinox ◑ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heroiam slava

English? Equinox ◑ 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

slava Ukraini

English? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, though a case could be made for keeping it based on Twitter (but then we could just as easily have an entry for ‘slava Rossiya’). —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Slava Ukraina" was widely used worldwide in Anglophone online communities in 2022, but "Slava Ukraini" was certainly a new one to me. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This term and the two above it seem to me like they are used in codeswitching rather than as terms fully incorporated into English. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly seen this phrase used in English by non-Ukrainians, so I don't think it's really accurate to describe it as code-switching. Binarystep (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sh*t your mouth

Can't find much in the way of use of this. Even a Google search only finds 13 hits total, most of which are song/video titles or aren't relevant. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page why I chose not to put cites on the main page. I can add the cites if pushed, but I think the page is better without them as people talking with friends on Twitter aren't expecting their words to be forever mirrored on a site like ours, and with words like these the content is emotionally heavy. —Soap— 09:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent as to whether the cites are left on the talk page or moved or added to the main entry page but I think we can already declare this to be cited on the basis of what you've put on the talk page already. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Citations namespace. --Lambiam 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. I didnt put them there because all I did was paste the links instead of expanding them with the quote templates. I think though that the Citations namespace may be a good place to put quotes that we need for illustration of use but which we dont want to feature on the main page. There are some entries here where i would say even that is too much, and prefer to use paraphrases, but this isnt anything politically controversial ... in fact i think it's pretty clever. i will add the six twitter quotes to the citations namespace, or find ones that i think provide similar or superior context for the use of the phrase. i might also add the song and anything else i can find (even if not CFI, e.g. we never approved Instagram but Instagram is where i first saw this). Thanks, —Soap— 06:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alexandrine

Sense: “An Alexandrine parrot or parakeet, Psittacula eupatria.” The uncapitalized form does not seem to be used. J3133 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

geopbyte

Definition:

(computing, informal) 10³⁰ bytes; a thousand brontobytes

This is more like an rfv-sense than an rfv of the whole term- but this is the only definition in the entry at the moment. There a no doubt similar issues with other prefix+"byte" entries

There are mentions that define this in terms of powers of 2/multiples of 1024 (as is the case with kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, etc.) and there are mentions that define this in terms of powers of 10/multiples of 1000, so a geopbyte would be either 2¹⁰⁰ or 10³⁰ (I think the base-2 version is the original, technically correct one).It may not seem like much, but the actual difference is more digits than I can get my calculator app to display. At that scale, I think that even if there are enough uses the only possible actual meaning would be "some arbitrary unimaginably big number of bytes". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One book cite I found gets around the divergence between binary and base-10 by saying A Geopbyte is about 1,000 Brontobytes. and i agree this is used metaphorically for a number far beyond our comprehension. So far i have not found any evidence of the etymology being from Korean 겁 (geop), ... for example, the expected Korean form 겁바이트 seems not to exist anywhere ... but even if it wasnt coined in Korean it could still be a borrowing from Korean, and that would suggest it wasnt meant to be precise. That said, if the lists of words that define this term with a specific value always list either 2^100 or 10^30, then i would say those more precise sub-definitions are worth noting. —Soap— 06:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An educational channel with this name was founded in 2018. They're based in India. More interesting perhaps is this tiny abandoned YouTube channel, founded in 2008, which never really took off. It's unlikely that the 2008 YouTuber coined the term, and it could just perhaps be a randomly chosen name, but it might hint at sporadic use before 2015. —Soap— 07:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books returns three hits for geopbytes when restricting the search to before 2000, but I'm guessing all three are duds. The first might be a scan error for geophyte (and is so old (1956, the same year byte was coined) that it cant possibly be a real hit), and the other two, while promising, are unsearchable and i suspect that they may not actually contain the desired text (see this mini-essay I wrote for an illustration of how Google Books sometimes pads its results with books that cannot possibly contain the desired text). Yes, I really like this word, and I'd love to be able to save it, but it seems the origin still eludes me and the sense is difficult to pin down. —Soap— 09:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

uncleft

An atom. Some kind of Anglish coinage... Equinox ◑ 16:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comes out of Poul Anderson’s “Uncleftish Beholding”, a jocular demonstration of the pervasiveness of non-Germanic loanwords in English by replacing all by made-up neologisms formed from purely Germanic roots. As far as I’m aware, only waterstuff has been used outside the context of this essay. --Lambiam 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cock sock

Sense 1: sock-like garment for penis. (Not sense 2, condom.) Equinox ◑ 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Weylaway (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

willy warmer

Syn of cock sock above. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Weylaway (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also changed this to be a hyponym of cock sock because I think it can only refer to a novelty garment while cock sock can refer to either a novelty garment or a modesty pouch used by actors for nude scenes. Weylaway (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

badling

Rfv-sense "An effeminate or womanish man." as distinct from "One who is bad; a worthless person." Most hits are for ety 2, "a group of ducks", or else are mentions of the Old English word, so I'm not sure enough hits exist to support two separate senses here; maybe they should be combined? Only cites will tell... - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth also noting the RFV for #bæddel, a similar-seeming term. This, that and the other (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

temperance

Rfv-sense 3 "Moderation of passion", as distinct from sense 1 "Habitual moderation in regard to the indulgence of the natural appetites and passions; restrained or moderate indulgence". The distinction is not clear at all to me. P U C – 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. If it helps I think sense 1 is refraining from things which would give you pleasure, while sense 3 is not giving in to strong emotions like anger (which wouldn't necessarily give you pleasure if you did). It's arguable that they are subsenses of the same sense though; the OED has them as such. And there are many uses where temperance is just listed as a virtue without it being clear exactly what is meant... Weylaway (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

temperance

Rfv-sense 2 "Moderation, and sometimes abstinence, in respect to using intoxicating liquors". This is more of a request for quotes than a real RFV, as several native speakers have pointed out to me that this sense is indeed distinct from sense 1. P U C – 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Weylaway (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

urticariaomancy

Only in word lists? (Incidentally, I find this word virtually unpronounceable.) Equinox ◑ 20:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see one mention^[79] of the more pronounceable urticariomancy. --Lambiam 18:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

treader

Rfv-sense: slang for a bicycle at Oxford (UK) P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found on a forum: "Where I lived in the 60s a commuting "push bike", usually matt black and rust, was also known as a 'treader'." Equinox ◑ 21:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. The Reeve book has a glossary of Romani terms at the end and says that this sense of "treader" is one... can't find any other evidence of that though. Weylaway (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xen

Short for xenharmony / xenharmonic: an unusual style of music. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that came to my mind, was that it would most commonly be used in English as a misspelling of zen (as in "zen garden"). I do get some results for that on Google Image Search, but it seems to be uncommon. Alternately, Xen seems to be a fairly rarely used term in Half-Life 1 lore, and the name of a kinda suspicious-looking crypto. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

primiparous

Can this really be used as a synonym of primigravid ? --Lambiam 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

soycialism

Urban Dictionary and what looks like mentions/puns on Google's coverage of social media. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term seems more than a little offensive in my eyes personally, but what astonishes me most of all about it, is that Google results indicate that the term is used for insulting purposes at least as much by hardline communist groups online as it is by alt-right groups (if not more). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cityward

Rfv-sense "watchman of a city", added by an IP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sosec

Abbr of social secretary. Wonderfool. Equinox ◑ 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox I’ve seen this used, but it’s the kind of thing people write in texts/IMs. Theknightwho (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fummel

In a few old dialect books. Maybe spelt fummle P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you understood

See Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/October#you_understood. Seeking evidence that this is used in any idiomatic way, which would help determine whether it should be included. If it's just found in places like "imperative, with you understood", I dispute that that's using a noun "you understood", it seems rather to be using "you" and "understood" separately like "what the, with hell cut off". - -sche (discuss) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by-turning

Difficult to search for. OED only has our quote P. Sovjunk (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mando

Rfv-sense:

Noun: (Australia, colloquial) A mandatory subject taken at school.
Adjective: (Australia, colloquial) (said of a subject) mandatory.

As an Australian working in the education sector, I can comfortably say I've never heard these terms. This, that and the other (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a general "mandatory" sense with quotes but I couldn't find anything referring to Australian schools. Einstein2 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(You're the man doe: you wouldn't know the kids' secret slang... maybe...) There was already a generic "mandatory" adjective sense so I've removed this redundant one. Just the noun remains now. Equinox ◑ 12:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

female-fail

Same user who added mando above. Can't find it. This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to exist but all I could find was 2-3 posts on Twitter and 4chan. We also have male-fail by the same author, which seems to be more common (added two Twitter quotes). Einstein2 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gun

RFV of two senses:

(colloquial, metonymically) A person who carries or uses a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
(colloquial) An expert.

For "a person who carries a gun", our only cite is of "hired gun", but we include hired gun as a separate idiomatic phrase, so I'm seeking examples of this sense of gun being used outside of that phrase. (It's a plausible metonymy.) - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "gunman" sense can be found in GDoS: gun n.¹, sense 9. Einstein2 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pineapple

Rfv-sense "A decorative carving of a pineapple fruit used as a symbol of hospitality." I'm not sure whether to RFV or RFD this, but cites could help show how idiomatic or unidiomatic it is. If the cites are just of the same sort as "the boy built a castle out of legos in his room", where we wouldn't add "A small plastic version of a stone castle, used as a toy." as a sense of castle, then I think this too should be removed. If the cites are different, and show it to be idiomatic in a way I haven't thought of, great. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about carving up an actual fruit, as some restaurants do so the customer can use it as a plate? Or are we talking about a piece of metal or wood shaped to look like a pineapple? Regarding pineapples in general .... some funeral homes (e.g. https://blackfuneralhomes.com/ which is near me) have a pineapple motif, which I've never understood. Maybe because they look somewhat like urns. But perhaps that is all just a derivative of the hospitality sense, for which see here. I dont see any reason it would be specific to carvings, though, and Im still not sure which sense of carving we're talking about. Best regards, —Soap— 20:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources states that the pineapple is a symbol for the (American?) hospitality industry.^{[80][81][82][83]} The symbol need not specifically be presented as a carving.^[84] --Lambiam 06:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fruit. It is (I think) a pineapple-shaped stone carving you might see on a pillar outside a house. I vaguely remember these outside the house-share of some old Goths whose party I attended in Islington. They had nicknamed their house "Chez Pineapple". Try putting pineapple carving house into Google Images. Equinox ◑ 09:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See a previous, possibly relevant RFC discussion at Talk:pineapple. Equinox ◑ 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

chuckster

Someone who chucks something. Both citations seem one-off nonce usages, and one is capital-C Chuckster. Equinox ◑ 12:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the term is heavily associated with Super Mario Sunshine, but on paper, the core concept of the word makes sense to me in a general setting, at least: Someone who chucks. For a purely hypothetical example, I'd have called someone who threw wine barrels a chuckster. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandelion Sprout: Sounds like Donkey Kong ;) The problem with "purely hypothetical examples" is that I could sensibly call someone who nothingizes a "nothingizer", but the evidence for that word's real existence just isn't there. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of results for the name, as a nickname for a guy named "Chuck" as well as a last name people have (especially in Dicken's Old Curiosity Shop.) I can't find any results for what's supposed to be attested. (There was an ad for "Chuck Rocks" in the Jan. 1993 issue of Boy's Life that I thought referred to this sense, but didn't.) Also, maybe the Mario quote has ambiguous capitalization? Can I see a link to the quote? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is the closest thing to a link to the quote: https://youtu.be/8ULZz0hXYSg?t=122 . I realised later that I should've used exclamation point instead of a period in the quote, but I didn't feel it was a critical concern at the time. In regards to brand ads, I found a rifle brand called Mossberg Chuckster dating back to 1961, but it was a pretty small brand and apparently ineligible as a definition. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

outwardlooking

Sans hyphen? Equinox ◑ 14:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

loric

Added earlier today by Giresunlu1993, along with Gudia. This may seem to be a new user, and if so I would see these creations as simple mistakes, but this user has likely been around a while if my instinct that Johnny281993 is the same person is correct. Both of these similar-looking accounts are blocked on the Turkish Wiktionary: [85] [86], and while it's not up to me, I'd wonder if this means their Turkish edits might not be of high quality either.

There does seem to be a French word lorique, but it is unrelated in sense to what was defined here. Its English cognate is lorica.

Thanks, —Soap— 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was added with a Request for definition, and I added several citations when I added the definition, so it is now cited. (I also added another meaning with cites for a different etymology) Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gale

Rfv-sense: To sing; charm; enchant. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the "sing" sense, OED has no post-1500 quotations. There are two other senses; "to make an outcry" also does not appear to have survived out of Middle English, while "Of a dog: to bark, yelp[;] Of a bird, esp. the cuckoo: To utter its peculiar note" just scrapes by with two 16th-century quotations. They appear to be in Scottish English; for example, one dated 1559 states: "Gaill lyke ane goik, and greit quhen scho wes wa" (??). — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hair

Rfv-sense:Haircloth; a hair shirt. Only Middle English? P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wapper

Probably Middle English. At best obsoleteP. Sovjunk (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited. Not even obsolete: it's dialect. But I'm not positive I would consider it a verb. It looks more like "wappered" is an adjective (def 1), although "wappering" (def 2) looks more promising. Have a look at the cites I found and see what you think. (I also found some other meanings, but not enough to meet CFI, so they are on the citations page.) Kiwima (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

orange pill

None of the four senses are fully attested. The two Bitcoin defs at least have partial attestation that supports them. The "urbanism" sense have citations that don't unambiguously support the definition given. In addition, the words urbanism and urbanist used in the definitions don't seem to be used in a way that corresponds to any of our definitions of those words. DCDuring (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalize

Sense 3: "to Filipinize", as opposed to the sense of making Tagalog. Not all Filipinos are Tagalog; entry says it is just the biggest ethnic group there. Equinox ◑ 17:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Might also want to consider whether it makes sense to be circularly defining Filipinize also as Tagalize.) - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oldcomer

The word exists, but does not seem to mean this. I can't quite discern the sense: something to do with people with ancestry in the country of residence, as opposed to migrants? Or migrants who have been in a country for a long time? This, that and the other (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima awesome work as ever! Thanks for looking at this.

Was there a reason you chose to split senses 2 and 3? The meanings are very close, and the distinction may be artificial. The last cite for each sense could just easily be attributed to the other, in my mind. This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sense three is a very specific role in therapeutic communities. From what I could tell, not everyone who had been around long enough to "know the ropes" (sense 2) could be an oldcomer, only someone who had reached a certain trusted status. Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm not totally convinced. I'd appreciate a third opinion from another editor. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sleazebucket

Rfv-sense: "lousy, disreputable, or disgusting place". This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One certain use: “It’s a typical sleazebucket of a place—broken-down bed, filthy floor, and a cracked mirror.”^[87] One maybe use: “There’s bound to be one in a sleazebucket place like this.”^[88] The latter quotation supports a potential more generic sense, “Something lousy, disreputable, or disgusting”. --Lambiam 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would lump both definitions together into a single one: someone or something lousy, disreputable or disgusting. I don't think the term has connotations of being a person or place or thing - it's just a general term showing one's disgust, with the target of that disgust determined by context. Kiwima (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this is now cited, along with a third definition for other things than places. But I would not mind if someone combined all of the definitions, or the two that are not people. Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

protestard

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

airstriked

Doing a quick search on Google [89] and Brave [90] shows several results for airstriked being used as a nonstandard past tense for airstrike. The standard past tense of airstrike is airstruck. Netizen3102 (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SemperBlotto, Why was this deleted if it is used, even if in a nonstandard way? Kiwima (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SB has gone away. I resurrected the entry and added it back to airstrike as a second past form. It's easily found on Google Books. This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

galletyle

Only in Bacon's work? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. There is a somewhat mention-y appearance in Chamber's Encyclopedia:

1892, The International Cyclopaedia: A Compendium of Human Knowledge, page 391:
Glazed colored tiles, however, were called "galletyles."

Kiwima (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hyosternum

Probably just used by Baxter. Also rfv-sense at hyosternal P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited : I can find enough uses by various authors, but they are pretty boring as quotes, consisting primarily of labels on images or appearing in tables of measurements. The most interesting quote (Bradley) is really just a mention, not a use. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1871, Edward Drinker Cope, Synopsis of the Extinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America, page 234:
Thickness hyosternum at marginal suture, 0.007
1873, Hans Hermann Carl Ludwig Graf von Berlepsch, Opera ornithologica - Volume 1, page 226:
Length of hyosternum
·
1884, Richard Owen, A History of British Fossil Reptiles, Volume 2, page xii:
hs. Hyosternum
2023, S. Bradley, Comparative Ana and Physiology, page 168:
The central piece, supposing the plastron to be a true sternum, is the entosternum, and the other four from above downwards, the episternum, hyosternum, hyposternum, and xiphisternum.

shifter

"A genre of erotica focusing on lycanthropes or other shapeshifters, such as werewolves." We already have a separate sense for the shapeshifter itself, so this would need to be uncountable (e.g. "Shifter is my favourite genre"). I can't find that. Equinox ◑ 10:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

feamyng

A group of ferrets. From business by a series of misprints and copying errors; hence, a ghost word. An interesting etymology if ever there was one! Pious Eterino (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was in use as early as 1967 according to w:Beyond Language, and 1963 in this book. The copying errors were on a circulating list of collective terms for animals, sometimes also including non-animal terms (e.g. a draught of butlers on the book I linked). I couldn't find any citations in running text ... Google Books returns a few books about ferrets that may contain the term, but none of them offer previews of the full page contents. The somewhat less interesting spelling fesnyng is well-cited, and if we can't hang on to this I would suggest redirecting it to fesnyng so people who search for it will get easy access to the etymology. —Soap— 07:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ECPC

easy peasy. Equinox ◑ 11:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

charabanc

"British, informal: A vehicle that is slow, overcrowded, or otherwise undesirable." Sounds plausible, but never heard of it. Equinox ◑ 12:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cast on

From knitting. We have this as intransitive. MWOnline has it as transitive. I suspect that it is both, but we have no cites either way. DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited I added two transitive and two intransitive citations. There are plenty more out there, but I think that's enough, as I don't think there is any doubt about the word's existence. Kiwima (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

husstuss

Google has all of 18 hits, none of them in Books. Is this a brand new Hot Word, or is it someone trying to make fetch happen? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional quotes going back to July 2022. MugsyMoon (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

woof

"Initialism of work on an organic farm". Seems to exist, but not really finding many qualifying uses. A 2009 quote treats it as a verb ("to woof"), while a 2020 quote uses the form WOOF. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jberkel: has split the noun and verb senses and added some quotations (thanks!), but I think this still requires verification as the quotations evince a variety of spellings like wwoof and WOOF, but not woof. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main form of the word is "wwoof" (willing work on organic farms). The extra w (willing) is because WOOFers (wwoofers) aren't usually paid: its a room, board, and education arrangement. I think we can probably find enough uses of "woof" as a verb to call it a variant of wwoof, but wwoof should be the main lemma. WOOF is the World Organization of Organic Farms. The noun sense (work on organic farms) is probably not citeable, except as "wwoof" (willing ...) Kiwima (talk)

@Kiwima: thanks. Is there evidence that the first w of wwoof stands for willing? I'd have thought it's just an acronym of World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms, or World Wide Organization of Organic Farms (according to "w:WWOOF". Anyway, looking forward to seeing what verb uses of woof you can find. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"woof" as a verb is cited. Some authors say the first "w" is for "willing", which led me to say that, but as I investigate further, I am beginning to think that is an ex post facto interpretation, and that it is really just modeled after WWOOF. WOOF seems to be an alt form of WWOOF, introduced by people who have heard it pronounced but not seen it spelled. (I added some cites to WOOF, and they unpack the acronym in a variety of ways.) In short, I think the usage started with WWOOF (which is a definite organization and acronym), which led to WWOOFer, wwoofer, WWOOF as a verb, and wwoof as a verb. Later, you get woofer, and woof as a verb from people who have just heard it spoken. Meanwhile WWOOF is a loose enough organization, that some branches call themselves WOOF, unpacked as World Organization of Organic Farmers (such as here in New Zealand), which just adds to the confusion. I see some uses of wwoof as a noun for the activity, (e.g. "wwoof hosts") undoubtedly derived from WWOOF (i.e. genericization of the organization's name), and I think that's where some authors introduce the "willing" word, in order to make the acronym make sense. What I have not seen is any use of "woof" as a noun to refer to the activity, but it probably exists somewhere. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gutter rabbit

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I don't understand the usage note. I'm not familiar with the purported French etymon. Sounds like BS. P U C – 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the gloss at Italian coniglio di grondaia (“cat flesh passed off as rabbit”) is much clearer. Is this real though? P U C – 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In English, it's used in translations of a work by Emile Zola; that's one cite. In French, a Google Books search finds a few occurrences; it may be a 19th century term. - -sche (discuss) 08:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the countable definition, but the uncountable one only has two cites. I recommend merging the two definitions. Kiwima (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

eschia

- -sche (discuss) 19:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Erasmus, who is a Dene, uses the term regularly in his newspaper column. Apart from that, I can also see some usage on Twitter but nothing else. Einstein2 (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you found more than I did! My search before listing it found no English uses at all, just the Italian word. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

day by day

Rfv-sense "one day at a time". Going by the usage examples this is not an adverb but an adjective (if it's an adverb used attributively, are there non attributive uses? And should it be spelled day-by-day? Is it synonymous with day-to-day?). I'm also not sure the gloss is accurate. P U C – 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added song lyrics, which I think are from a hymn. I'd say that counts as two cites but also think this should be easy to verify both by its sense and by its meaning, and we won't need to count both the song and what it was derived from. Agree that the current use examples are adjectival and I wouldnt use them that way. —Soap— 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at least partly borrowed from Godspell. It's not quite a hymn, though it gets as close as a piece from a Broadway musical can get. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC: Generally, hyphens are used in adjective position, not in adverb position. "She grew little by little; it was little-by-little growth." Equinox ◑ 13:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have attempted to dispense with multi-word entries ("MWEs") for hyphenated forms where there is a full entry for the term without hyphens ("MWE-h"). This comes up most frequently where the MWE-h is a noun and the MWE+h is the noun in attributive use. Hard redirects seem to me to address the need to protect those who search for the MWE+h from the overwhelming confusion they suffer when confronted with the failed-search page, though they still need to deal with idea that a noun can be used attributively. DCDuring (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RFD. You can have "hour-by-hour" or "hour by hour", "second-by-second" or "second by second", "epoch-by-epoch" or "epoch by epoch", ..., so this is a grammatical construction, not a set expression. This, that and the other (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can also have step by step, brick by brick, customer by customer, voter by voter, etc. By does not work with as many nouns as after, but with many. We have a "reduplicative" sense for after. Other prepositions may also occur in multiple reduplicative expressions, though fewer, eg layer on layer, row on row, luff on luff (naut.), loser on loser (poker).

I doubt that this a good RfD candidate. See “day by day”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pork

Noun: "A shag; a fuck; an act of coitus." Then the usage example is simply the word "porking", which suggests a verb, not a noun. I can't find anything like "gave her a good pork last night". Equinox ◑ 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tableword

Doubt this one meets CFI. Very few Google Web hits. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few cites. table-word and table word seem to be more common. Einstein2 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

womana

This just showed up with a single quote. Without more, I can't provide any sort of definition. I can find a few hits on Google news, but because I don't know the meaning, I can't tell if they are legitimate uses or just typos for "woman". Some more cites from someone who knows this word would help. Kiwima (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing duck

Although the romanisation of the word of Peking into Beijing is widely accepted, Peking duck is a dish name and a noun, and thus the romanisation of the term Peking does not affect the term “Peking duck”.There is also no quotation of such a word. Crumbledtgms (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. I believe all four cites are specifically referring to the dish known as Peking duck, but it's difficult for me to be absolutely sure, since I'm unfamiliar with the dish.

Our definition at Peking duck doesn't mention that the duck is fattened by force-feeding before slaughter, but this seems to be an essential part of the dish, at least as it is traditionally prepared.

Peking duck on WikipediaWikipedia mentions the fattening of the ducks offhand part way down the article as if it's obvious or not worthy of special note. This, that and the other (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lollygag

Rfv-sense "To gag on a lollipop." Sounds like it was added as a joke. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

eulogia

Sense: “(rare) plural of eulogy”. I think this would be a plural of eulogium instead. J3133 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

animalism

Rfv-sense: animal liberation. Ƿidsiþ 14:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added three citations, but some might overlap with other senses. Seems to be used in the context of Italian philosophy. Equinox ◑ 16:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the three cites are perfectly correlated with the sense we're seeking, but maybe we could reword the sense to something like animal rights activism even so? To me, animal liberation implies militancy, the sort of people who act on their beliefs, whereas many animal rights activists take a hands-off approach and focus on debate and, at most, peaceful protests. If this is so, I would say we also need to reword our definition of animal liberation. I may come back to this. Thanks, —Soap— 10:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rhabdopholist

"A collector of walking sticks or divining rods." Equinox ◑ 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two quotes to the citations page, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy

Rfv-sense A secret agreement.

This is distinct from the usual meaning of conspiracy, which is An agreement to perform a wrongful or subversive act; an instance of collusion.

Theknightwho (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In each of those cited instances it seems like a rather facetious use of the word. I tend to agree with Theknightwho. AP295 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - these are facetious/tongue-in-cheek uses. We could definitely put the label “informal” on it, but I think it’s outright misleading to say it means a secret agreement with no extra qualifiers, and this seems to stem from one user not actually understanding what the word meant in the first place, given they initially added it as a new sense 1, thinking it was the main meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And just after I had improved the prior lead definition. It seems like whenever one edits the "lead" portion of some popular article, editors always come out of the woodwork to see if they can't somehow contest it just for kicks. AP295 (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather just remove their definition and be done with it but I get the sense that I'm being tempted into an edit war so for now I'll leave it alone (or let someone else dispense with it) as long as it's not the lead. AP295 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they are facetious or tongue-in-cheek. If you go to the sources and read the surrounding context, you will see that they are very much sincere. Kiwima (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima A good example is the one that also uses the word “plot”: it’s tongue-in-cheek, because we don’t usually think of “plot” as a synonym of “plan”, just like we don’t usually think of “conspiracy” to mean “agreement”. Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho I believe the use of the word "plot" there is to emphasize the secrecy. It is using intentionally colorful language, yes, but I don't think that makes it facetious or tongue-in-cheek. I don't think the author means for their words not to be taken seriously. I suppose it would sound facetious to you if you have never heard "plot" or conspiracy used in this way, but I have heard it a lot, and I could find you plenty more citations also. 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima The definition of tongue-in-cheek says “not intended seriously”, which is exactly how you described the use here. I’m really not seeing the distinction. Theknightwho (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho I said quite the opposite - I said that the author does mean for their words to be taken seriously. The use of colorful language does not mean you do not want to be taken seriously. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima Sure, I misread your comment, but I still disagree: the use of the word “plot” is not just being colourful, because it has a specific connotation, just as the word “conspiracy” does. What you describe as colourful is exactly what is facetious about it: they didn’t just pick the words at random. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the cites are certainly using this sense. If people are really hostile to this sense, the most I could see doing is merging it into the following sense, resulting in something like An agreement (especially if secret) to work together to bring something about. The verb, too, trivially has a corresponding sense, when people conspire to surprise their friend with a party or gift. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think examples in which the term is used facetiously reflect its proper use. It seems like a stretch to me, if I'm honest. It's not a conspiracy if you and I secretly agree that strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream, and nobody would call a surprise party a conspiracy except jokingly. AP295 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I much prefer the page as it was after I edited it, plus the quotes I've added. It was cleaner and less ambiguous and I think most of the edits since then have somewhat debased it. AP295 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sense 4 seems the weirdest to me, as it's certainly rare forconspiracy to refer to a non-secretive agreement. Sense 3 should certainly be kept, despite it being relatively unusual for conspiracy to refer to an agreement or arrangement that isn't immoral or illegal, or at least perceived as such. Perhaps we should merge senses 3 and 4 though? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Exactly, thank you.~~ I misread your statement, but I suppose I don't mind merging 3,4 in a way that's a bit more specific than both alone. AP295 (talk)

I agree with Overlord that sense 4 seems weirder to me than 3. Generally though I'd say sense 3 is definitely playful or facetious but that by itself isn't a reason to exclude it—it could be worded something like "(humorous) Any secret agreement". It's not just sarcasm which we'd exclude. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is a very common usage. I've never heard someone actually make a joking reference to conspiracy either colloquially or in prose, aside from the references that someone added shortly after another contributor put that definition up. How they found four instances of that usage so quickly, I have no idea. At any rate, 1 should be kept (though I'd prefer it the way I added it, the modified version isn't too terrible) and it doesn't seem like anyone is contesting that. I'd rather the entry not come to include everything and the kitchens sink, but I'll withdraw from the conversation for now so long as 1 is unmolested. AP295 (talk)

At this point I have added 12 citations to this sense, in addition to the one that was already there. I agree this is not the primary definition, but the word is sometimes used loosely to mean a secret agreement. Just because this is not part of your ideolect does not mean that it is not part of someone else's. At this point, we have gone beyond RFV, because the citations clearly show that the word can be used with this meaning. If you want to argue that all 9 citations are facetious, that is something to bring up at RFD. I also added 3 more citations to the next definition (the one without the secrecy), which strikes me as odd, but it is clearly used that way by some authors. I am perfectly happy to combine the two definitions, and even to mark the definition(s) as "rare" (although, frankly, it does not seem all that rare to me when looking for citations, just much less common than uses where the secret agreement is to plan something immoral or illegal. I agree that if you and I secretly agree that strawberry ice cream is the best flavor, that that is never going to be considered a conspiracy, but if we were to agree secretly to promote strawberry ice cream and came up with some plan on how to do that, that could be called a conspiracy, even though there is nothing illegal or immoral involved. I'm not really comfortable with calling this definition "humorous", because, having read all the citations, I don't think the authors are intending their use of this word to be humorous. I am comfortable calling it "informal", because they are speaking loosely. I would remind people that Wiktionary is descriptive, not proscriptive - so even if you think people shouldn't use the word "conspiracy" in this way, the fact is, sometimes they do. Kiwima (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then. Incidentally, describing the way words are used rather than prescribing their meaning is all well and good, but it seems as though a dictionary is just as useful or perhaps more so if it prescribes concise, orthogonal definitions rather than simply documenting all odds and ends. The media regularly prescribe definitions (and more odds than ends, usually), using such propaganda without apparent reservations. It's certainly a worthwhile distinction to point out, I might use those terms in something I've been working on as it's essentially how political media establishes various tropes and archetypes. That is, by prescribing idiomatic meaning to various words. A strictly descriptive approach would bastardize the language in the long term, making words vague or idiomatic. AP295 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern lexicography is descriptive. You're not gonna win this one. Equinox ◑ 10:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling for a policy change, but surely this would debase the language in the long term, or rather make it very easy for others to do so. I suppose it's too much to ask for "benevolent dictatorship" of sorts, so I can understand the descriptive approach.AP295 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though, if it were my prerogative to curate the English language myself, I would take a prescriptive approach for the sake of quality (rather than subverting the language, as is often done in the media). I think that would be the best thing to do. It doesn't seem much a community service to enshrine various abuses of the language. For the moment I'm content to have replaced the prior 1, which was truly awful, so do what you must to the rest. AP295 (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider as an example the profusion of derogatory terms that the media has for one who asserts conspiracy: conspiracy theorist, tinfoil hatter, conspiratard, crackpot, crank, truther, conspiracist, conspirophile. All referenced on conspiracy theorist. If you didn't know better you'd think that nobody has ever attempted a collusive, furtive abuse of power. AP295 (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could see combining 3 and 4; that seems to be what the OED does; their definition [in the 1933 edition] is "^{The template Template:talk quote inline does not use the parameter(s): Union or combination (of persons or things) for one end or purpose; harmonious action or effect;=Conspiration 3 (In a good or neutral sense.)
Please see Module:checkparams for help with this warning.}Example text.". I get why, to someone who deals with legal jargon, senses other than the legal sense would seem wrong or unserious; however, the OED has cites from the 1500s onwards, including in sermons and serious theological discourses (as well as in romances and poetry), which I've now added to the citations page, and while the one use qualified with "as it were" is arguably playing on the other/negative meaning, most of the rest use it quite straightforwardly as the normal noun counterpart of the neutral-valence verb senses (which we have as senses 2 and 3 of conspire). It's not {{lb|en|humorous}}, nor is it {{lb|en|rare}}, and as just shown, it's also not new, predating any of us having ideas about its wrongness. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would The act of conspiring not neatly sum up 3 and 4, as in Special:Permalink/76647744#conspiracy? AP295 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The act of conspiring" would cover senses 1-4. We could make that sense 1 and remove the current senses 1-4 or put them as subsenses, but I don't think that would help anyone compared to our current approach of diving directly into the different meanings of "act of conspiring". - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually prefer that over having an overly-complex definition of "conspiracy", though there's little reason why we can't have a concise definition here. However, while I generally dislike vaguely idiomatic nominalizations, the act of conspiring as in 3,4 is not exactly the same thing semantically as an agreement with intent, as in 1. If there is another word specifically meaning "an agreement to collude or conspire" then I'd like to know what that is. I'd rather not use a nominal form of conspire to mean this but it does not seem very well represented otherwise and it's an important concept. AP295 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of stating the obvious, keep in mind that searching terms like "conspire surprise birthday" and "conspired to help", "positive conspiracy" and so on are not going to give you an unbiased sample of how the term is used in literature. Even if you find a dozen such instances, this does not imply that it's typical. I'd have a hard time believing that you've read all the books you've cited. AP295 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fashington

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 28 November 2023.

Looks dubious (no book hits) + the headword is weird because the entry name itself is without "D.C." lattermint (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even rhyme (the first vowel is different): a sure sign of people who spend all their time reading Twitter and not speaking out loud to real human beings! Equinox ◑ 18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Russian term link is actually inverse and someone is trying to bring it into English. lattermint (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lattermint I think you might be onto something with that: the vowel doesn't match, so it doesn't seem like something a native English-speaker would coin, and it seems to be associated with (perceived) anti-Russian sentiment. Theknightwho (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a category for blends that only or mainly work in print? "Orthographic blends", like this or Amerikkka, Micro$oft, or brami? (Although arguably any blend can be pronounced, someone just picks one vowel or the other, like people vary in whether they use the bra or cami vowel for brami.) - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would call this a dysphemism, but only some of them are blends. We dont have a category specifically for what you're describing, so far as I know. —Soap— 17:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

visionary

Rfv-sense: (noun) 'An impractical dreamer'.

This is a somewhat pejorative or dismissive connotation. In my experience visionary is used in a positive sense to denote someone who has ambitious and transformative ideas about what the future could look like, and who personally contributes to their realization and/or inspires others to strive in that direction (closer to sense 3, 'Someone who has positive ideas about the future.'). Voltaigne (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word is frequently used in an aggrandizing manner, but I agree that it isn't dismissive in and of itself. Perhaps that's what they intended to convey but didn't get it quite right. AP295 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, the dismissive sense was the standard one until relatively recently. It might perhaps be considered dated now but I've still heard it used that way in real life. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is dated, but it is definitely less common. Similar sense evolution to revolution. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

knouleche

This was changed to English in 2009 with {{defdate|15th|17th c.}} but I can only find it in Middle English. This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1024th note

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite easily cited: remember to search Google Books before RFVing. Equinox ◑ 16:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the corresponding semihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver? Theknightwho (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox Just 3 (=because of the totally 4 results, 2 are identical), in passing refs. One is striclty "musical"; the other 2 are related to computer programming for musicians. Chalk19 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2048th note

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate use here. This source is not durably archived, but we could approve it if we add it to a relevant archiving site. However, it's a moot point if we can't find two other uses. This, that and the other (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4096th note

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sport one's oak

"(intransitive, Britain, public-school slang) Of a man: to masturbate." Seems plausible enough, but I'm not finding any qualifying quotations apart from the Fiennes one already in the entry. I have a feeling that Fiennes was mistaken. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a euphemism based on the closed-door meaning in Etymology 1. That still would mean it needs attestation. DCDuring (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: it certainly could, but apart from the Fiennes quotation in the entry I failed to find anything else indicating the term is used in this way. Maybe others (*ahem* @Kiwima) will have better luck. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could find two ambiguous citations to add to Fiennes, one about masturbation, and one about homosexual liaisons:

1984, Hallam Tennyson, The Haunted Mind: An Autobiography, page 46:
Over the next eighteen months we sported our oaks with great frequency .
2014, R. V. Cassill, Clem Anderson:
He brewed tea each afternoon on his "spirit lamp" (sold at the student co-op as an alcohol burner), kept Scotch-type whisky in his cupboard, "tutored" with a Jewish boy from Brooklyn (actually the boy ghosted all his science and math work), and "sported the oak" when, as Clem conjectured later, he required a session of masturbation to the tune of Beardsley illustrations.

Kiwima (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Not every euphemism is attestable. In context (public school, etc) this might be a common colloquial euphemism. It could cover lots of things best done in private, like studying and sleeping, but also using drugs, any kind of sex, etc. DCDuring (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having some familiarity with public school culture, I'm pretty sure the claim that it comes from sport (“to amuse oneself”) is wrong, since it's intransitive in that sense. Much more likely that it means sport (“to display”). oak is obviously a play on wood (“penis”). But yes, if this is real, it's almost certainly intended as a pun on the main sense. Theknightwho (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: well, the OED has a few transitive senses of sport which are absent from our entry, including "(obsolete) to play or toy with (something)"... — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw Maybe, but I'm unconvinced because going by the examples they give the best equivalent is toy, as in "toying with their consciences" or "toying with a mouse", so the connotations are quite different. On the other hand, the "display" sense can also be used to mean "wield", as in "sporting a bat" - that seems to be the sense that's being used here. Theknightwho (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: OK. Anyway, let's see if it passes verification. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably just Fiennes's dirty mind. The original source by Shackleton reads: "Blankets were served out to hang in the front of the cubicle, in case the inhabitants wanted at any time to 'sport their oak'" [91]. This can imply masturbating in the same way that saying a guy wants some "alone time" can imply it nowadays, but the literal meaning appears to just be hanging up blankets as a "do not disturb" thing as per ety 1. Anyway if masturbation was in fact the understood meaning I very much doubt it would've been published uncensored in 1909. Another source commenting on the same passage says "This wasn't quite as interesting as it sounds: it simply meant to be alone" [92]. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- I think this is just another case of Etymology 1, which is an easy one to cite. Sporting one's oak means to close one's door to visitors, and in a college setting, that could be because you want to study, but it could also mean one was enjoying the company of a sexual partner or masturbating. Kiwima (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Muqanna: the quotation from Shackleton was a nice find. As I suspected, it does look like Feinnes read too much into Shackleton's sentence. @Kiwima: regarding the two quotations you found, both of them seem to be straightforward applications of sense 1. As regards the 1984 one, the relevant passage is "He chuckled, took a pair of compasses and jammed them into the door above the latch. This was called 'sporting the oak' and was the recognized way of locking oneself in. Over the next eighteen months we sported our oaks with great frequency." I think the use of the term sporting one's oak in those quotations simply refers to closing a door so as not to be disturbed, regardless of what happens behind the closed doors. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw I strongly suspect it's a double entendre, but I don't think it's a supporting citation, no. Theknightwho (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: the 1984 quotation? Could well be. Anyway, it doesn't look like etymology 2 can be verified so I'm calling it failed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw RFVs should remain open for one month. Was there a reason to effectively speedy delete this definition? This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: I figured that since one of our best quotation finders, @Kiwima, had not found enough unambiguous quotations, it was highly unlikely that anyone else would. Happy to restore that sense if qualifying quotations can be found by 16 December. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw fine, I just wouldn't like to see a habit made of it. This, that and the other (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

loz

Alt form of los, a type of wildcat. Also please confirm plural: I would expect "lozzes", not "lozes". Equinox ◑ 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put the attested form. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tsebe

- -sche (discuss) 04:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haglazes

Plural of haglaz. Google only finds Wiktionary and mirrors. It does not seem to be countable; e.g., “a combination of two bind runes, namely Haglaz and Berkana”; the only Google Books result for “a haglaz” is “a Haglaz rune”. J3133 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

amoebophobia

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same user created the recently speedy-deleted aaatophobia. Equinox ◑ 04:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flatscreen

Senses 2 and 3 seem like gibberish to me, honestly. "2. (dated) Being flat square, having the image display surface of a display screen being flat. 3. (dated) Being vertically flat, having an image display surface of a CRT display screen that is vertically flat, but horizontally round." Equinox ◑ 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox I think that one of them refers to CRT monitors with flat glass, intead of glass that's slightly curved, which was sometimes how this got used before LCD/LED screens became commonplace. The OED has some cites from the 70s and 80s that seem to refer to that sense. Theknightwho (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shallow benay

Not much out there. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an apple a day

"Healthy eating and living using traditional temperate-zone fresh foods." This seems far too specific. I think it should be changed to "Short for an apple a day keeps the doctor away". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't pass go

Rfv-sense

To say that somebody is not to do anything without receiving further instructions.

Removed by an IP with the comment "The first definition does not make sense whatsoever given the original context in Monopoly, and the quote is used in the sense of the second (as in, 'never come back here, leave immediately, do as I say.' ", but should be checked and/or discussed before removal. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dussack

Rfv-sense: "A wooden version of the weapon used for practice." Moved from RFD. Seeking to find out if there is e.g. 'modern dussack fighting' where the dussacks are customarily not the real weapons, in a way that would make this idiomatic. Not seeking examples of dussack refering to the item regardless of material, in a way that encompasses both the 'real' metal ones and leather or wood training ones, like in this cite, nor anything like "my three-year-old was hard at work building a castle in his room" (where it's a lego castle, but that doesn't make castle mean "a crenellated structure made of legos"). - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion:

Rfd-sense: "A wooden version of the weapon used for practice."
(A) I can find practice dussacks made of other things, like leather or dull metal, and toy dussacks made of things like plastic, and (B) it's trivial to find wooden or plastic (etc.) versions of any sword, knife, gun, horse, soldier, etc, and I think we can all agree we don't want a separate sense at gun, knife, etc for "a wooden or plastic version of this weapon, as a toy or prop". - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, but if there is modern dussack fighting where "dussack" would not refer to the real weapon, it should possibly have a sense, or text could be very misleading (you'd think the people in this sport were fighting with real, dangerous weapons). I'm slightly surprised lightsaber only has the sci-fi sense and not the modern toy/prop that is so often seen. This is not IMO the same as a sense for (say) ship as "a model of a ship". Compare sense 2 of catgirl (= a girl in a catgirl costume, not an actual catgirl). Equinox ◑ 09:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, and I almost agree. (I did consider listing this at RFV instead to seek such cites, but figured someone would just add cites where it refers to a wood one without regard for whether they restrict it to only wood, which wouldn't help. I couldn't find cites where it's restricted to wood in my search, so I listed it here.) My reservation about that approach is: it's common for (metal-)sword-sellers to sell wooden or rattan training versions of all kinds of swords — shortswords, gladii, sabres, katanas, dussacks, jians; peruse google:buy wooden sword for training — and there are groups like the SCA that do fight with "swords", "gladii", "axes", "spears" etc which are required (for safety) to be made out of rattan and duct tape rather than metal ... but because the sellers all also sell, and the Scadians are also familiar with, "real" metal gladii, axes, spears etc, I'm not sure whether we really want to analyse that as creating separate senses of sword, gladius, axe, dagger, spear, etc., since it's a "productive"/open-ended process (someone discovers a new historical melee weapon → you can make a rattan version of it). - -sche (discuss) 14:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe comparable: the sense of poppy referring to the artificial poppy flower worn to commemorate those who died in war. Equinox ◑ 14:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As kids a lot of us played with toy versions of all sorts of weapons. I think using the poppy analogy, this sense of dussack would be worth keeping if there is a sport or at least a tradition based around specifically using wooden dussacks to fight in the present day. —Soap— 14:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

happy to see someone

"Visibly aroused, such that one's package shows easily; sporting a strong erection." P U C – 21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it generally "glad to see me" (rather than happy)? All the actual quotations in the given reference have "glad". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the form, does "happy/glad to see someone" actually mean "sporting a strong erection"? To me it's just a tongue-in-cheek question. I mean, can you say "Look at this guy! He's happy to see her!" meaning "Look at this guy! He's got a boner!"? P U C – 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve personally only heard “happy…”. AG202 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really mean to bring this to RFV and not RFD? Anyaway, I added a bunch of cites to the citations page. I expected to just find snow clones of Mae West's famous line, but I did manage to find a few other kinds of cites. Kiwima (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am more familiar with the hoary old "is that a [canoe, banana, etc.] in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?" See See is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shadow acting

Filming technique. All I can easily find is this Web forum discussion [93]. GBooks hits are usually bits of phrases like "the presence of shadow acting on the..." Equinox ◑ 10:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

Cites are for Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg and not Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg not asserted to be independent of Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Delete an entry that is not a term, but is merely a part of another term. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added one, but it's only a sentence fragment: Google Books is very restrictive recently and you can rarely get a full sentence out of it (especially with a monster long word like this). It's really making it hard to do Wiktionary work. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One who attends St. Xavier's College, Jaipur, India.

One who attends St. Xavier's School, Georai, Beed, India.

One who attends St. Xavier's School, Nevta, India.

One who attends St. Xavier's College, Ranchi, India.

A Google Books search for Xavierite plus the city/place name turns up no hits at all. See Wiktionary:Tea_room/2023/November#Xavierite. - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lich

Rfv-sense: "lichfield", "lichgate", "lichway". Perhaps I just don't know what to search for, but searches like google books:"through the lich" and google books:"in the lich" only turn up cases of lich sense 1 or 2 (dead or reanimated body), or instances of "through the lich gate", "in the lich field", not "lich" on its own meaning "lichgate". - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gipoun

I'm just seeing Chaucer hereSeoovslfmo (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

girdlestead

Rfv-sense The lap.

@@ Line 3,442: / Line 3,442: @@
 I'm just seeing Chaucer here[[User:Seoovslfmo|Seoovslfmo]] ([[User talk:Seoovslfmo|talk]]) 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
+== [[girdlestead#rfv-sense-notice-en-|girdlestead]] ==
+Rfv-sense The [[lap]].

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

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English: difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:11, 24 November 2023

March 2023

April 2023

suffusion of red

May 2023

June 2023

Mixed-breed dog

compressable and compressability: misspellings or not?

wealdish (2)

July 2023

Hospital Emergency Codes