Appendix talk:Glossary

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thee and thou are still used[edit]

"archaic" ... "For example, thee and thou are archaic pronouns, having been completely superseded by you." ...

Not quite completely superseded as noted here

(Vowel shifts)

They're also well-known in liturgical use, and probably also in some current poetic writing. —DIV ( 15:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

fpl, mpl[edit]

Are these appropriate? Shouldn't these be substituted with the template, which show {{fpl}} and {{mpl}} anyway, rather than fpl and mpl? DAVilla 06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call. —RuakhTALK 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed ref to {mpl} and {fpl}, here (!?) Robert Ullmann 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks -- 12:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In the "uncountable" explanation, it says there is no English word "informations," yet that word is linked to a dictionary entry saying it's the plural of "information." What gives?

No, but the page informations only claims that there is a French word "informations". \Mike 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word "information", in English, also relates to the submission of offences to the magistrates' court for summons. So, if you were submitting multiple offences to the court, you would say that you, "laid the informations". Tom 11.00, 22nd August 2008 (BST)


This is a GOT used in the BOTD. 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a word form used in Italian and various other languages; it has various categories, but it should have a template, and an entry here pointing to it. (really, w:en:User:JesseW/not logged in) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has a template {{apocopic form of}}, which I've now linked to the glossary; I also copied over the def on the entry page into the glossary; it could still use some improvement in wording, etc. (really, w:en:User:JesseW/not logged in) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest adding more info to "apocopic"; I know it's used/present in both Norwegian and Spanish, in slightly different contexts (but with the same core meaning of removing the last part of the word). 17:46, 04 October 2012 (UTC)


A lot of grammatical terms seem to have different meanings depending on which language you're talking about. In English, I think "progressive" means that a be verb is used with a gerund, but see w:Continuous and progressive aspects which seems to imply that the term isn't as meaningful in English because there's no distinction from "continuous". It's probably more correct to call this "imperfect", although that includes other constructions ("used to"), and anyways there's a difference between w:imperfect aspect and w:imperfect tense, the latter a subcase referring only to the past. If it's an issue, someone a lot more knowledgeable than me is going to have to sort this out. It would probably help to start by having our definitions (imperfect, progressive, etc.) fully fleshed out. DAVilla 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In English, the form-of-(deprecated template usage) be+gerund-participle aspect is called either "progressive" or "continuous"; both terms are used. However, some linguists (dunno how many) use "progressive" to refer to the aspect, and "continuous" to refer to something slightly different, an imperfective use of the neutral aspect (as in "I live in Ohio"). The Wikipedia article you link to draws such a distinction for Chinese, where there are two distinct aspects — it uses "progressive" in reference to an in-the-middle-of-an-action aspect, and "continuous" in reference to an in-a-certain-state aspect — but from what I understand, that distinction, relevant to Chinese linguistics, has little bearing on English linguistics. —RuakhTALK 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could somebody please add hyphenation and add a link to Template:hyphenation so readers could understand that it is dividing the syllables? Thanks. 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I'll just do it myself and anyone who does not think it should go in there can revert my edit. 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find nominative, surely this is just a silly error? Mglovesfun 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suffix jump[edit]

Is there any grammatical name for the words that are formed by adding multiple suffixes so that the between forms are not used (do not exist)? It happens sometimes in Hungarian entries that a word has a suffix at the end but taking it off will produce an unused form, not even worth an entry. Is there a name for this? It is not back-formation but rather a fastforward-formation. But that is not too linugistical. Qorilla 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inverse requests ("what's the word for...") are usually at WT:ID or WT:TR. I don't know how many people watch this page.​—msh210 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, there is a category and a template named "offensive", but I don't see a definition here. thanks, Facts707 06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The appendix define technical term. What's technical about a word being "offensive"?? Circeus 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure it's specifically for technical terms; rather, I take it to be for terms that we use in a specific way that readers can't necessarily divine. I do think we should define what we mean by "offensive", since the term is sufficiently subjective that it's not obvious. —RuakhTALK 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

internal linking fixes[edit]

I noticed that #transitive links to #I for its "intransitive" link. It seems to me it ought to link to #intransitive. Alas, I don't appear to have access to edit the page, so... posting here. Could someone make that change?

Digging further, I also see that a few others need similar help:

  • portmanteau links to blend as #B
  • strong pronoun (which I can't link directly to, because it doesn't have the usual <span id="..."> tag) to emphatic pronoun as #E (should be #emphatic, I think)
  • weak pronoun to emphatic as #E and strong as #S

I found these (other than transitive/intransitive/#I, which was by noticing it as a user of the site) by running the following commands on a unix box:

curl -O
grep '#[A-Za-z]">[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z]' Appendix:Glossary

Once corrected, I would expect the latter command to give no output.

Revived words[edit]

Hi. I have been doing work cataloguing old, obsolete terms which have generally fallen out of use in the modern language. I come across the odd one now and again, however, which evidently has experienced a slight resurgence of use. Do we have tag for such previously labelled (obsolete) (--by dictionaries), but have since been "revived"? Leasnam 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One way of handling this might be in the quotations (or in the etymology?) if there was something identifiable that kick-started the revival. For example, if the word were used in a famous speech by a current world-leader, or in the lyric of a hit pop song, then that can be mentioned/described, without necessarily needing a label.
If you really want to go down that path of labelling, how are you going to label words that were revived but have since fallen out of use again?!
—DIV ( 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
P.S. No reply to this one in the past decade?! 15:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Denotes words or expressions that likely arose via casual conversational language. --> Could this possibly be changed? Maybe this holds true in English, but in German for example many or even most colloquial words, i.e. words used in normal spoken language, but not in formal or written style, are of dialectal origin. "Colloquial" shouldn't denote how a word probably arose, but simply how it's used: in the colloquial. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 11:16, 7 October 2013‎ (UTC).Reply[reply]

I agree,  done.RuakhTALK 15:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phrasal verbs[edit]

Hello there. As Facts707 suggested in the Phrasal verbs discussion page, I think it would be interesting to add phrasal to indicate a phrasal verb, in addition to the existing Category:English_phrasal_verbs.

Moreover, as Rising Sun suggested in the same discussion page, I think we need something to add keywords to indicate if a phrasal verb is:

  • obligatory separable
  • optionally separable
  • inseparable

Maybe inseparable is not needed as there already is intransitive. What do you think about it? Do you think I can add these keywords? Raphael.jakse (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Obligatory separable" gets only 7 Google-hits, so it's probably not a good label. —RuakhTALK 22:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UsingEnglish uses separable [obligatory] or separable [optional]. But I agree with you, obligatory separable (and optionally separable) might not be good labels. They are too long. However, as of today, I couldn't find better labels. Any idea? Raphael.jakse (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I guess it depends what those terms are supposed to mean. In general, for verb-particle idioms, the choice between [verb] [object] [particle] and [verb] [particle] [object] is determined by the heaviness of the object: an unstressed pronoun like "it" will nearly always precede the particle ("give it up", not *"give up it"), whereas a noun phrase with a nested clause like "the most brilliant invention she'd ever heard of" will nearly always follow it ("thought up the most brilliant invention she'd ever heard of", not *"thought the most brilliant invention she'd ever heard of up"). So I'm not sure what it would mean for a given verb-particle idiom to be "separable [obligatory]" vs. "separable [optional]". But I'm listening. :-)   —RuakhTALK 21:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a native speaker, so I can't check, but for some phrasal verbs, it seems you have to separate the verb itself and the particle, like for "keep around", "answer back". If I trust UsingEnglish, one cannot *"keep around something". We rather keep something around, whatever the heaviness of this thing. You always answer someone back, you never *"answer back someone". Also true for wrap around. Tell me if I am mistaken. Raphael.jakse (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Yes, it's true that the object always precedes the preposition phrase: "keep someone in the dark", never *"keep in the dark someone"; "answer someone in reply", never *"answer in reply someone". I wouldn't have thought to call those "phrasal verbs". —RuakhTALK 17:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But You kept in the dark the very people who were there to help you does have the particle before the object. So even that isn't clear-cut. —CodeCat 17:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In "keep someone in the dark", or "You kept in the dark the very people who were there to help you", it seems to me that we are indeed not speaking about a phrasal verb, but the regular verb "keep", with "in the dark" being a prepositional phrase introduced by the preposition "in". The phrasal verb "keep in", if I'm not mistaken, exists and means approximatively "prevent from going out" → "They kept me in after the meeting", "They kept in the dog {in the house}" (I can't check whether these examples are correct). We keep nothing inside the dog, "in" before "the dog" doesn't convey the same meaning as in your examples and isn't part of a prepositional phrase, it is part of the phrasal verb "keep in", with is "optionally separable". For optionally separable phrasal verbs, we can choose (I suppose it is a matter of usage) to separate the verb from its particle or not but when the object is a pronoun, in which case it must be placed between the verb and the particle.
IMHO, the same goes for "answer someone in reply". "answer" and "in" are not indissociable nor part of the same entity. I don't think "answer in" is a phrasal verb; in any case, here we are dealing with the verb "answer" and with the prepositional phrase "in reply". It is different from "answer something back", where "answer" and "back" are part of the same thing. Raphael.jakse (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a modern/scientific presentation of English syntax, in "answer someone back", "answer" is a verb and "back" is an intransitive preposition (a preposition without an object). Not one entity, but two (at least syntactically: the semantics may be more complicated). In traditional grammar, intransitive prepositions are grouped in with adverbs. But either way, "answer someone back" has more in common with "answer someone in reply" than with "give something up". (For this reason, by the way, *"They kept in the dog" is more or less ungrammatical. English doesn't generally allow a preposition phrase ("in") to appear between a verb ("kept") and its object ("the dog").) If English-as-a-second-language resources are using the term "phrasal verb" for both "answer back" and "give up", then either they're wrong, or they're applying some pedagogical principles that don't have to do with linguistic accuracy, or perhaps they're applying applying a mixture of semantic and syntactic criteria rather than strictly syntactic ones. —RuakhTALK 08:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, so I don't know where, but there is some confusion around phrasal verbs and I will try to get more information on English grammar and phrasal verbs. If you have any reference on this, please share. For now, I still think the wiktionary should give usage of phrasal verbs in a more formal and systematic way but I feel we need opinions from more people on this subject to go forward. Here's a phrasal verb for which the wiktionary gives the usage: make_up#Usage_notes. As for "answer back" and "give up", there are both declared as phrasal verbs in the wiktionary. —Raphael.jakse (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a native English speaker with an interest in language (or which I have learned a few, to varying degrees of fluency), the first time I recall ever even hearing of "phrasal verbs" was when an ESL language-learner told me that he found them difficult. So I suspect that they are emphasised more in (some) ESL teaching materials.
My sketchy impression is that those ESL resources use the term "phrasal verb" to explain situations where the idiomatic meaning is not immediately obvious from the components. E.g. in "The girl threw the ball up" there is no phrasal verb, but in "The patient threw up into the basin." there is.
To me "give up" clearly fits that criterion to be classed as a phrasal verb, while on "answer back" I'm ambivalent.
—DIV ( 15:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

colloquial / informal[edit]

The distinction isn't very clear to me. Could the two possibly be merged? --Fsojic (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colloquial has to do with how people talk conversationally. Informal is anything that's not formal. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you have an example of something that would be informal but not colloquial, or colloquial but not informal? As I see it, something is informal precisely because it relates to how people talk conversationally. --Fsojic (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way I see it, is that something that is colloquial is generally regarded as incorrect but still commonly used, or something that is more common in speech than in writing. For example, in French I would considering using j’ or d’ before a consonant to be colloquial; these can be used when speaking quickly even in a formal context. Something that is informal but not necessarily colloquial is for example using on to mean nous. --WikiTiki89 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Old discussion, but... I wouldn't say that colloquial is "considered incorrect", it is considered inappropriate in formal writing, and that's exactly what links it to informal. But colloquial—and I think that's what you mean, too—means forms, words, constructions that are chiefly restricted to speech (and obviously particularly common in casual speech). Maybe gonna is an example in English. It is not generally "informal" to say gonna: officials will use it at a press conference. But it is colloquial, that is restricted to speech, and not very likely to be used when someone reads out the written words "going to". — The distinction is more obvious in languages that have a greater split between spoken and written language than English does (such as French, German, or Persian). Kolmiel (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a non-native speaker of English, I don't see any difference, and have been using the two interchangeably. There's been a discussion on StackExchange, although no consensus seems to have been reached. As it is, this glossary tells us to compare the two words but doesn't really explain the difference, just as their respective entries (informal, colloquial) refer to each other. I'd suggest a merge, since they are either the same or so close in meaning that a distinction is more confusing than useful.__Gamren (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that a good example of informal is thou, thee, thy, thine. An example of colloquial is y'all, youse, you-uns, you guys. —Stephen (Talk) 06:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funnily enough, gonna/gunna is what came to my mind too, as these days I hear it regularly in official press conferences and so forth. But one could potentially argue that this is happening because the people speaking at those press conferences are (deliberately or subconsciously) trying to seem 'relatable' and/or trying to build a rapport by seeming 'approachable' by using a casual/informal turn of phrase. I can't imagine hearing gonna/gunna from the late Queen, or the new King.
Personally I often shorten to something like goin' t' in casual speech.
—DIV ( 15:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

genitive_case entry is broken[edit]

The entry for 'genitive' is missing the word heading. The definition is there, wedged between 'gender' and 'gerund', but its title is not. Curiously, ( still goes to the text of the definition. That link is used as one of the examples under 'case'. I think I see what's happening. There are two span IDs, but no bracketed copy of the word, in the source for that entry. 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Yep, they included the HTML tags to go with the text, but no text. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • fpl & mpl: is it really and only fpl and mpl and not, maybe just also, f pl/m pl or or f. pl./m. pl.?
  • "ed. - "Editor".": does it never mean "edited [by]" or "edition" in Wiktionary?
  • "UK English, i.e. The English of the United Kingdom." -- shouldn't it be "the"?

-IP, 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Many" is not an article[edit]

Under the section "uncountable, uncountable noun, mass noun"... It implies that "many" is an indefinite article. Yet it's not an article; it's a determiner. Meanwhile other determiners like "some" or "any" or "most" work with uncountable words. For instance "There is some water over there" or "I will find any water that's left". To fix this, phrasing could be added to the definition to say "In addition, words cannot be used with it that suggest a number can be given to the noun." Also, see Wikipedia entry on the indefinite article which points out there are only two articles in English ("a" and "an"). Dani210 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

neither here nor there[edit]

This is minor, but I'm barred from editing this page, so I can't fix it myself. The page uses neither/or constructions in a couple places, which should be neither/nor. 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Descriptively, it could be debated that neither/or is grammatically acceptable as an alternate, almost dialectal form. Joseph Yanchar (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you use the conventional form (neither/nor), you avoid the debate altogether. It makes more sense to use a form everyone agrees is correct than a debatably dialectal one. 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oblique Case[edit]

It's stated in the section on the oblique case that it is especially applicable to Old French and Hindi. Is there any reason why these two languages out of many that have oblique cases are stated specifically? As far as I know, one could even say that English has oblique cases when it comes to personal pronouns (for the pronoun I, me could be considered oblique). Joseph Yanchar (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case of English, objective (case) or object case is more fitting. - 11:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Pedantic" being used as a label[edit]

I have noticed that "pedantic" is sometimes used to describe words, often using {{label}}. I am not quite sure as to how, exactly, we are supposed to determine whether a word is pedantic(?), and it seems like a pointless value judgment anyway, since "pedantic" is a derogatory word. If we must accept this practice, we need an entry here to clarify. A few examples I found:

__Gamren (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CE & BCE[edit]

"CE Common Era."
CE also means Current Era and Christian Era. Please add this for the sake of neutrality and as one can't decide which abbreviation somewhere here uses. - 11:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I saw a definition marked with "proscribed", and clicking that helpfully led me on to the glossary. But the glossary definition is simply given as "Some educators or other authorities recommend against the listed usage." Who? Which educators or authorities? Is there no requirement to say who, or to give a source?

Also, on Wikipedia, they use to mark things like that, but I see that doesn't work here...

Wiktionary does not, generically, take a position prescriptivism or proscriptivism. It tends to be descriptivist, although this is not perfectly true - for example orthography tends toward certain spellings with others being marked as 'alternative spelling of...' English usage being as diffuse (and contradictory) as it is, giving a single authority recognition as to who proscribes would likely give undue weight to that authority. E.g. I might cite Strunk's misused words to highlight how much better it is than Strunk & White's similar chapter... (E.B. White needed a ruthless editor.) - Amgine/ t·e 04:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFM discussion: June 2010–August 2014[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Appendix:Glossary of ...

Almost all of these Appendix:Glossary of should be renamed to include "English" as that's the only language they treat. --Bequw τ 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree per, well, myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFM discussion: September 2010[edit]

See Category talk:English appendices#RFM discussion: September 2010.

Do euphemisms always replace offensive terms?[edit]

A euphemism is mostly used to avoid directly referencing something seen as unpleasant or inappropriate, but some words signal that the speaker simply likes whatever is denoted, such as English bonus mother. Is that a euphemism, or is there some other word for it?__Gamren (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have called it slang, rather than a euphemism.
Having said that, presumably one could argue that there are some negative connotations of step-mother (think e.g. Snow White), so perhaps that qualifies it as a euphemism to avoid direct reference to an objectionable term. In which case you need to find another example to illustrate your point.
—DIV ( 15:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
P.S. Why has nobody else replied in the past five years? 15:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

colloquial / informal[edit]

As already said above, we really need to get rid of the label colloquial. There is no need for it, and it is even harmful because it is misunderstood by probably most users to mean "local, regional, idiomatic", and perhaps other things. Very few know it's just a formal way of saying "informal". --Espoo (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say "misunderstood by probably most users" based on what evidence?
—DIV ( 15:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Subcategories of reflexive verbs[edit]

There is already "reflexive" term. But what do you think about adding other terms which are subcategories of reflexive verbs (as described here: properly reflexive, reciprocal, autocausative, anticausative, intransitive or impersonal and inherent. I think that it might be useful. ~Mihxal (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

would understand better[edit]

from sarri.greek to the Master of this page. 2017.11.05. As a newcomer, I would understand better:

I am posting this at both Glossary pages. It's just an idea. Thank you, sarri.greek (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikitext headings, terms explained[edit]

from sarri.greek It's me again... I was cross-checking the Headings in Entry_layout. I seem to miss the following terms (as entries, although some are present in-text)

anagram anagrams / anagramme anagrammes
antonym antonyms
derivative derivatives [what is difference with 'derived terms/#derived_terms'?]
descendant descendants
homo... e.g. homophone homophones / homograph homographs
rhyme rhymes
synonym synonyms


#derived_terms - derivatives
informal, familiar, colloquial: the word 'casual' is used in all. Could you please add examples for their distinct use as terms in wiktionary?

Thank you, sarri.greek (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

other words used in labels, to consider adding[edit]

  • ellipsis
  • cardinal number
  • collective
  • control verb
  • copula, copulative
  • mnemonic
  • ordinal number
  • reciprocal
  • unaccusative
  • unergative

(this list is incomplete) - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"translation hub"[edit]

@Dan Polansky: Re diff: it's indeed been used in entries, but exclusively by you. I disagree with that practice, and I think it's a misuse of {{lb}}. Besides, the Appendix:Glossary looks to me to be meant for grammatical and lexicographic terms only. --Per utramque cavernam 16:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs just passed with very few opposers, including you; in fact, you are the sole opposer that wants transation hubs more narrow than specified by the vote. The fact that you disagree with a practice does not mean it has to be abandoned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Polansky: This has nothing to do with my vote; I'm not calling the existence of those entries into question. I'm simply objecting to calling them "translation hubs" in the body of the dictionary (see below)
And you're not returning to status quo ante: you're pushing for your preferred formatting. Just because you've created these entries doesn't mean {{lb|en|translation hub}} has suddenly become the status quo ante; in fact, as far as I'm concerned, {{translation only}} is the status quo ante. --Per utramque cavernam 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for "for grammatical and lexicographic terms only": "translation hub" is a lexicographical term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a made-up Wiktionary term, and should not be put on an equal footing with terms like "intransitive". We should not proliferate made-up terms in entries. I've no objection to using it on talk pages however. --Per utramque cavernam 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responding to both items: it is status quo ante on entry level for certain entries, but I have to admit that it is not status quo ante on practice level. I created Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May#Translation hub label. Please, do not revert the infrastructure (appendix, module) while the discussion is ongoing so that the example that I have shown in the discussion works. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
diff. Per utramque cavernam 23:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Per utramque cavernam I see. This is the first term in this glossary that is made-up by Wiktionary. I have nothing against this term, being made-up does not disqualify it because it is covered by our editorial discretion. The template should link to WT:CFI § Translation hubs instead which is more clear anyway and avoids a piece of text (the glossary has reached 101,526 bytes already), and I don’t see that the people’s voting extends to the term being in the glossary and linked from the template. Fay Freak (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: It's actually the second: hot word, which, as far as I know, is not used with a distinct lexicographic meaning outside of Wiktionary, was added much earlier; relevant discussions here and here. I would like to have it removed from this Appendix as well. I agree with the rest. But maybe you yourself don't hold the same opinion anymore? PUC – 20:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PUC: I hold it with my previous message. Fay Freak (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"translation hub" II[edit]

Whatever the outcome of the above discussion, I think a much better example than English studies would be day after tomorrow. Personally, I'm not even sure whether "English studies" is SoP at all. But "day after tomorrow" is probably unambiguous as an SoP collocation. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 21:52, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC).Reply[reply]

Dummy pronoun[edit]

I'm not saying the following definition is entirely wrong, but there seems to be a problem with it:

"A pronoun that has no referent. For instance, it in it is good to know that you are okay is a dummy subject. It is used in order to provide the verb is with a syntactic subject, because English does not allow a null subject."

Now, the actual subject of the verb is in the above sentence is the following sub-clause, isn't it? Accordingly, it is possible to say: To know that you are okay is good, dropping the dummy pronoun. Hence the problem doesn't seem to be that of a null subject, but rather certain constraints in word order. Can anyone say more about it?

In that case, how would you analyse, "You are clever to finish your homework so quickly."?
To my untrained eye it follows the same pattern of [pronoun][BE][adjective][subclause] from "it is good to know that you are okay".
Incidentally, it's probably better to write "OK" than "okay", from the last time I checked the etymology of OK.
—DIV ( 15:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]


According to a source:, it sometimes include words that 'can offend' or are 'impolite'. Should that be furthered expressed in the definition?

No. While it's true that some slang is also offensive, offensiveness isn't part of the definition of slang. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It occasionally is according to that source, and a couple others here: Seems like it has enough weight to me... 06:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For clarity, I don't think slang should be defined as terms that are possibly offensive or impolite. If there is a term that is both slang and offensive (or derogatory, vulgar, etc.), it should be tagged with both these qualifiers. If necessary, a usage note can be added for further explanation. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

person, place, or thing[edit]

If people visiting Wiktionary need an appendix to explain what a noun is, they've likely also never heard noun defined as a person, place, or thing... and this appendix doesn't teach that (no people or places listed as examples).

Maybe consider changing from

An object such as a ball, a chair or an animal, or a concept such as happiness, joy or loveliness


A person, place, physical item (such as a ball, a chair, or an animal), or a concept (such as truth, joy, or time).

Note my swapping out the word object from the current definition, to avoid confusion with Appendix:Glossary#object, which is onscreen so nearby to noun a person might almost read it by accident. i also changed the sample concepts, first because happiness and joy seem so similar, then because... Seems to me the examples should show that nouns include different types of concepts: both subjective concepts/opinions (beauty) as well as objectively factual notions (time), permanent truths (math) as well as temporary experiences (happiness)... i don't know, maybe i'm overthinking this.

But definitely should mention a noun can also be a person or place, and probably shouldn't use the word object this way so near where we're trying to teach people it means something else. 05:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)*wanders off to check if [gerund]s are nouns*Reply[reply]

Just change it, be bold! Perhaps replace "physical item" with something simpler, maybe just "thing" as you suggested in the header. – Jberkel 07:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I've gone ahead and implemented a similar change.—The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of verbs: diathesis (διάθεσις) = disposition, different from vox, voice. Could a learned grammarian add definιtions, please? A clarification between morphological 'voice' and disposition would be very helpful.

  • For ancient greek Thrax, chapter15, trans.Davidson There are three Dispositions 28: Activity, Passivity, and Mediality [active, passive, middle].
    In greek: διαθέσεις εἰσὶ τρεῖς, ἐνέργεια, πάθος, μεσότης at el:s:Τέχνη Γραμματική#15 (Not to be confused with ancient morphological 'voice-sets' active -ω, middle -μαι. (for modern greek called: active, passive 'voice-sets')
    e.g. λύω voice:active, diathesis:active. ἐλυσάμην voice:middle, diathesis:middle. ἐλύθην voice:middle, diathesis:passive.
    • some grammarians add the 'neutral' disposition too (neither act or suffer)
  • For latin, my old textbook -and I am sure you have much better sources- states: genĕra verbi (διαθέσεις). 1) genus actīvum (laudo) 2) genus medĭum (lāvor = lavo me), genus passīvum (laudor by someone else) and 4) genus neutrum (dormio).

Thank you in advance, --sarri.greek (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC) ++[added example]]--sarri.greek (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why isn't the label (rare), which is seen in meo more, added to the list? --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Backinstadiums: It's a common English word. Is there something difficult to understand about its meaning in a definition line? — Eru·tuon 20:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone please explain to me what those terms in the table mean? Meaning "gloss definitions", "gloss definitions" and "form definitions". Greetings, 2003:C3:EF00:F65A:50A6:B7F6:ED20:4431 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

imitative vs onomatopoeia[edit]

I think the concepts of Appendix:Glossary#imitative and Appendix:Glossary#onomatopoeia are identical. Both terms are used in Wiktionary (growl says it is "imitative" and boom says it is "onomatopoeic"). P.S. I had made a template for {{onomatopoeic}} --Z 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo in "Eye dialect"[edit]

"Eye dialect is to be distinguished from from pronunciation respelling [...]"
—DIV ( 12:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

✓ DoneThe Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Under "dependent clause" why not use "whom" in the following?
"The man whom I saw yesterday is leaving today"
—DIV ( 12:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Meaning of "idiomatic"[edit]

I've mostly seen the label "idiomatic" used with the sense "resembling or characteristic of an idiom" while the current glossary also mentions collocations, modal verbs, and implies there are other relevant instances. Can anyone attest to the label being used with these meanings? Thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I could offer a bona fide attestation. It seems people here and elsewhere default to "idiomatic" when they've exhausted their ability to apply rigorous analysis and rational typology to a given word or phrase. --Kent Dominic (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you share any examples of this sort of behaviour? Are you implying that such a process is 'lazy' or otherwise undesirable? (If so, what would be better?) Or are you satisfied that it's an entirely rigorous process? —DIV ( 04:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

What does hub mean at the expression Appendix:Glossary#translation_hub (translation hub)? Is it a term created at wiktionary? Thank you ‑‑Sarri.greek  | 05:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Assimilated" in this situation usually means which fully complies with the language's phonotactics. It does not mean "part of the common register of the language". For example, "parking" in French (even if not an actual term in English) is a very common word, but it is not assimilated. Same goes for burrito, taco in English. A word can't possibly be both recognizable as foreign and be "assimilated". On the other end of the spectrum, there are lots of loanwords in English that are very well assimilated (=phonetically) but aren't too common. So being common and (phonetically) assimilated are two distinct notions. Sitaron (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vulgar as used in Vulgar Latin[edit]

Could we link to some article on the term Vulgar Latin in the vulgar glossary entry or somehow mention its use in that term? Someone might refer to the vulgar entry when attempting to figure out what Vulgar Latin is and it would be a good idea to indicate that vulgar is also often used in linguistics and dictionaries as part of the phrase "Vulgar Latin" -- 19:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I want to add something along the lines of ": pigin used as or in imitation of pidgin or broken English etc." but I'm worried about the formatting and not feeling bold. General Vicinity (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Quercus solaris Hey, does your recent new sentence incorporate Jili properly? Jili is an extant "concept" on some level. Just making sure. cf. Jili District --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)Reply[reply]

@Geographyinitiative Hi, I know exactly what you mean. The only question is what wording to use to make the notions clearest. It is just as with Czechoslovakia: the country no longer exists but the concept of the country certainly does. Perhaps the clearest/best words to use are "non-outdated" versus "dated", or something. I will see if I can optimize it even further. The word historical itself in fact has a relevant sense, referring to some notion that had a historical era that has ended. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appendix's use of "case" as non-technical term[edit]

The appendix seeks to define the word case in the sense of its use as a technical grammatical or linguistic term, such as in accusative case and ablative case and so forth. Yet the word case is also frequently used in this appendix in the sense of "an occurrence" or "an example" and that usage ought to be avoided in this context, because it confuses the matter of what a case is, in its grammatical sense. I intend to fix this. Be bold! is the precept, my act upon recept. Catsmoke (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The symbol ~[edit]

Someone should explain what the symbol '~' means in Chinese entries here, e.g. see 紐約. It belongs in the symbol section. 19:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Wiktionary ever use "register" in the meaning of phonological register?[edit]

I couldn't find any instances of Wiktionary using "register" to refer to the phonolical register of Burmese etc. Perhaps the second item in Appendix:Glossary#register could be removed. Hvergi (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"A borrowing by word-for-word translation [...]. For example, [...], and flea market is a calque of French marché aux puces (literally “market with fleas”). Contrariwise, the term skyscraper was calqued into French [...]."

  • How is flea market a word-for-word translation, if the literal translation is “market with fleas”, and the original French phrase consists of three words?
  • Personally I would have said "Conversely" or nothing at all, rather than "Contrariwise". "Contrariwise" to me suggests something against the rule, which the example certainly is not. At most there can be a contrast with the preceding example; otherwise the definition comes across as too 'Anglocentric' (by which I mean focussed on the English languagecontrariwise to the extant definition of Anglocentric). Having said that, the entry at contrariwise is a little confusing: is it on the contrary or is it in the opposite direction (besides on the other hand)? Down the rabbit hole....

—DIV ( 04:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Alternative form[edit]

Should probably be added. 05:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Late to the party - I added something. If you prefer a different verbiage let me know. Vininn126 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for Orthographic borrowing, adding more onto 葉書[edit]

suggestion, maybe clarify that the reason why Hagaki and Yeopseo is because one is kunyomi, and the other is sino-korean pronunciation; 03:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lost Entry[edit]

I found a reference on WikiDiff pointing to this appendix glossary, but the entry they were pointing to has apparently been removed. If anyone can help me search the history to see why it would have been removed, I'd appreciate it.

Either that or someone with more knowledge on the subject could make an appropriate entry.

- The referring site is: [1]

- And the link they used is: Appendix:Glossary#rfv-sense


Westley Turner (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Westley Turner: The sense "Using specious arguments or discourse" was already present in the very first revision of the entry plausible, dating to 2004. That sense was challenged in this July 2014 edit, through the addition of an {{rfv-sense}} tag. (For more information on RfV, see WT:RFV.) Following the ensuing RfV discussion, archived to Talk:plausible as per standard RfV procedure, the sense was removed in March 2015 due to lack of attestation. HTH, and if you would like any more information, feel free to ask. :) 05:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent info. Exactly what I needed.
Apparently the WikiDiff site linked to the Request For Verification, rather than the actual entry they wanted.
I was concerned about that sense on the WikiDiff site anyway, so now we know it has no support.
Westley Turner (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change in definition of "indirect object"[edit]

I noticed that, on this page, the definition of the entry "indirect object" is a little bit misleading in my opinion. I was researching the use of the dative case, that being the case of a noun serving as an indirect object. However, after looking at how an indirect object was defined, I saw that it was only listed to be associated with ditransitive verbs. Looking at the definition of "intransitive verb", I saw that they can have indirect objects as well as ditransitive verbs and can thus be used with the dative case in other languages.

I suggest adding that intransitive verbs can also hold indirect objects into the glossary definition of "indirect object". 14:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i-stem definition missing?[edit]

A link from -इक is supposed to go to a defintion of "i-stem" here. Was a definition for this removed? And if so, why? عُثمان (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


αφήνω links here, but the term "metaplasm" is not defined here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]