Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

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

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

Shortcut:

• WT:RFV

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Format for citations
• Standard entry layout
• A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

kamala
singster
fragicide
onomatechny
spin
breme
extravagation
département
partigiano
lickerousness

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs

trema
↑
↓
soothness
superseminate
poiuytrewq
Hawai`ian
pilk
vorny
failscade
failcascade
accordion
abstorted
pantaphobia
special
herbert
atheist
Satan
I'dn't
nuke
blag
born
flower
uvic
Ames
pal up
chromatotron
bigfootologist
nonkilling
royd
proliferation
morning-after
civic activity
cliffdrop
false bluetail emo skink
jesust
BeReal
polymania
MCCE
boot
knouting
code vector
spade
slaveboy
ithe
spontaneous
pash
abarcy
abait
mukt
oversit
gestalt
Uber problem
compilation behaviour
underfong
dominus vobiscum
nuces vomicae
oes
ponderosa
lemon-lime
kaparrang
malasapsap
virtually
kreyk
Dniprova
atmotic
aquan
cyphonism
structural
twitter
Martinshorn
pyment
VIPer
win one's spurs
Adessenarian
Ainur
dihydrohydroxyfuran
clitwad
🄫
ignorantia juris non excusat
false venus comb
demisemihemidemisemiquaver
away
Hispanic panic
pick flowers
rontosecond
uhu
heartburn
Meeteilogist
Meiteilogist
Meiteiologist
allege
Classical Meitei
Classical Manipuri
Ancient Meitei
louk
centimate
Hu
English vice
German vice

2022

wrength

This form doesn't appear to exist in Middle English, which only knows the form wrengðe (the word is a Early Middle English hapax). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to know if you're referring to the use of th in the spelling, or the lack of final e (or both). The nominative form, which would be used as the Wiktionary headword, could potentially be wrengð*, *wrengþ, *wrength, wrengðe, *wrengþe, or *wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If the nominative originally lacked final -e (which is by no means certain), there's a good chance that it would've been levelled in from the oblique cases by the thirteenth century, making it formally identical to them. As a result, there's no justification for having a seperate entry (and if we did decide to create one, it should be located at wrengð, as assuming that a scribe who uses <ð> in one place would use it elsewhere is the most parsimonious option). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I've no qualms about an entry as wrengð, but we should leave wrength as a redirect. It's used with that spelling in references and other listings, and it's useful as a first-stop shop for individuals trying to locate it (i.e. looking it up and not realising that th = ð, or others not knowing where to find ð on their keyboard). How do we handle interchangeable bookstaves currently for Middle English ? like u~v, y~ȝ, w~ȝ, gh~ȝ, etc. I always change a fricative 'u' to v in all my edits automatically, and use 'u' solely as a vowel. In English headwords, we do not use ſ for s, but show s only; and in Old English we abandoned using ƿ for w, although ƿ is really more correct. Doing this for Middle English would be a departure from that logic, but if consensus dictates, then I have no problem with it. Also, we do show non-attested spellings for transliterations, like liufs for 𐌻𐌹𐌿𐍆𐍃. wrength could be argued to be a "transliteration" of sorts for wrengð. Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think we should create a entry at wrengð (in fact, I'm saying we shouldn't, as the nominative might've got the final vowel levelled in). As for creating a entry at wrength, my main qualm with that idea is that we currently lack any policies for handling such modernised forms; I believe there was some discussion about creating a template {{modernised form of}}, but I'm too unwell to go around digging it up. By the way, I wouldn't say there's a urgent need for a Middle English wrength, given that we have a ModE wrength that has a nice link to wrengðe in the etymology. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of policy we have consensus. I agree, there's no need for a Middle English wrength (now removed), the modern form suffices. As to the modernised spelling, I have created wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 17:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ey

Middle English. Rfv-sense: "island". This word apparently seems to have only survived as a place-name suffix after the Old English period; the MED has no attestations of use as a independent nominal. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

oreeginate

Scots for "originate". Equinox ◑ 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Here it is in an English novel, but spoken by the character "Mr. Goodie, a Scots gentleman"; another similar example, in which the word is uttered by a "Scotsman". Do we want to count these? Seems dubious. The word also appears on the Scots Wikipedia, but that might not mean much in light of the 2020 revelation that much of the wiki was written by non-Scots-speaking users; not that we would even want to cite Wikipedias in general. 98.170.164.88 03:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like it if we had a policy that quoted speech within a novel does not count as attestation, since it's eye dialect at best, and there are also novels featuring small children, characters with speech impediments, and talking animals, which could allow us to flood the dictionary with entries like wowwipop .... but there is no such policy, and we have allowed words like this before, such as gonnegtion. —Soap— 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

wainen

Middle English: “(uncertain) to obtain”. The MED only has attestations with y. J3133 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason here appears to be that the MED has filed the other senses under wainen and this is seemingly an extension of the same term, so it makes sense to move this to waynen, which is the main lemma for us anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

give

(giving)

"(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@-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)

And I can find very giving ([1], "Pretty is an understatement.. Stella is very giving"), and in the other direction, I can't find other verb tenses like "gave", "will give", "gonna give". So, OK, I'll move the sense to giving (with RFV tag intact, as a separate action from determining whether it passes or fails RFV). - -sche (discuss) 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Thanks to J3133 and Einstein2 for fixing the def post-move, which I meant to do but then got distracted by offline stuff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed? We have cites of (online) newspapers and there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it exists (and it's reasonably widespread in modern slang). - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Regarding "pal around" vs "pal around with": I agree that "with" isn't inherently part of the verb / lemma, since you can say some people were "palling around" (and e.g. should "quit palling around"). Regarding "pal": can you say some people were "palling"? If so, that resolves this, but if not... that's tricky, since some phrases do get lemmatized with with, like go with and sit with... - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, with no further input: unless anyone wants to suggest a move to pal with, I reckon this passes. The evidence from "pal around (with)" where the with is not part of the phrase weakly suggests it's not lexically part of this term, either. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

afterblismed

Middle English. J3133 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

MED has, at blesmen, "a1400 NVPsalter (Vsp D.7)77.76 : Ofe after blismed [vrr. brodded, bredand; L fetantes] him name he." This is Psalm 78:71 in modern numbering. The Vulgate has "de post fetantes accepit eum" (I wonder if the "after" is a literal rendering of "post"?). KJV has "From following the ewes great with young he brought him". I don't think afterblismed is a real word then, but I don't know enough about Middle English to be sure, so I'll leave this open for a time. This, that and the other (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

> "… 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)

@.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)

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

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)

• Failed Denazz (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

goodgeon

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

Likely just about keepable, although the label is wrong. [2] (sense 6) [3] (nautical sense) etc. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed

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)

I question whether this does truly mean "discuss" in the quoted example ("airing abuses and suggesting improvements"), or whether it means, as you say, something like "expose to public view" (perhaps in order to facilitate discussion). It's hard to prove, but my feeling is for the latter. Assuming so, we need to make sure that there is enough differentiation with the preceding sense "To give voice to, to make public (an opinion etc.)". While examples such as "air abuses" wouldn't fit "give voice to", they might fit the "etc" of the second part of the definition. Perhaps the preceding definition could be tightened, or perhaps the two could be somehow merged. Mihia (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that "airing abuses" seems more like "expose to public view and/or (public) discussion", not "discuss". And I agree with Mihia that it seems like this could perhaps even be combined with the preceding definition if that definition were improved (I wonder if "give voice to" is missing the mark; isn't the main sense just the part that says "make public"?). - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The range of uses seems to include exposing possibly bad things ("conflicts, secrets, differences, dirty laundry") and, I think less commonly, giving voice to good, underrepresented, etc things. Neutral wording of a single definition should be possible, with usage examples showing the evaluative aspect. DCDuring (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Combined like this; please improve further if possible. - -sche (discuss) 12:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(~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)

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)

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))

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

pilk

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

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)

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

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)

I typed up the citations. It's just a question of whether to accept internet news sites (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)

I added two book/journal cites of capitalized Pilk. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

vorny

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

Nothing in books or Usenet. You can easily find it on Reddit and Tumblr though. Could be worth collecting some online cites. This, that and the other (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

hand me my shovel, i'm going in Binarystep (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"accordion of memories" or "memory" has a sufficient number of independent hits on GBook ([4]; [5], in an extended metaphor; [6]; [7], in an extended metaphor; [8]). 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)

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)

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)

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

However, many other dictionaries have an entry for abstort, and I have managed to cite the verb. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Moved from noun to adj. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

stintance

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

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

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If we accept all three cites as durably archived, I think the context of each one makes interpreting it as "pervert" plausible. there is some discussion of this word (though not the meaning "pervert") here btw. - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe plausibility is the best we can do, but our evidence standards for this kind of thing are questionable. We assume that "ADJ NOUN" phrases are evidence that ADJ is an attribute of NOUN in one of its definitions. Sometimes that might be the case, but much of the usage is at best ambiguous.

In this case, we might leave our normal users better off by simply having a list of collocations with "spotty-faced", "dirty", "filthy", "stupid", "silly", "bloody", etc. DCDuring (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So as a side point, we may want to split the etymology: I suppose all senses come from the given name, but the rhyme with "pervert" is a different reason to choose it. Equinox ◑ 19:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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: [9] "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 [10] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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“‎^[11], Stuttgart: Boorberg, pages 129–144; Gerhard Czermak, Eric Hilgendorf (2018) Religions- und Weltanschauungsrecht‎^[12], Berlin: Springer, →DOI, margin numbers 131–134. 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

I'dn't

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

uvic

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

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

• Done that P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I can find one use of what is probably the 'outermost point' sense, and one mention of what is probably the pulse-related sense: Citations:acrotic. (Also, various other -crotic words; that book—William Senhouse Kirkes' Hand-book of physiology (1892)—also uses -crotism words, if anyone wants to check which ones are citable.) Not enough to save this entry, though, unless someone can find more. - -sche (discuss) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

chromatotron

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

bigfootologist

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFV-failed; I did try to cite this, but all the cites I could find were using the usual "fear/hate/dislike of children" sense. - -sche (discuss) 14:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

pedophobic

pedophobia's pedophilia-related sense still has no cites after several months. Pedophobic's pedophilia-related sense has only one, so I'd like to RFV it, too. they both need cleanup to address the issues raised above, if kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed; I did try to cite this, but all the other cites I could find, apart from the one quote already in the entry, were using the usual "child-fearing/-hating" sense. - -sche (discuss) 14:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

📠

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)

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

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)

Searching Twitter there are many results that confirm 📠. Out of curiosity, I also searched for the term on several Discord servers I am in and 📠 popped up a surprisingly large amount of times. I added some citations from Twitter between 2017 and 2023 to the entry for 📠 and shortened it to just fax; accordingly, on the entry for fax I added text explaining the similar (sometimes identical) pronunciation with facts to § Etymology 3 which was already there. (This is my first time at RfV so I hope this is how it is supposed to work). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

This is definitely citable (quick google scholar search gives [13] [14] 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)

royd

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

In current local use, and occurs as a common toponym element, e.g. Mytholmroyd, Ackroyd, etc., see https://yorkshiredictionary.york.ac.uk/words/royd

Cognate with German gerund Rode(n), e.g. Wernigerode from verb roden, clear, also Rodung

I notice the local and current noun "ing" = "water meadow" or "flood plain" is not in Wiktionary Gardjy (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

perpetual September

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

• Failed Denazz (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

morning-after

Is it used outside of morning-after pill? PUC – 12:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

• “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. PUC – 00:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

cibai

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

Added some more examples with different spellings (including cibai), although it's hard to search effectively on Usenet due to heavy code-switching. We could consider moving the main form to cheebai, as suggested in the earlier RFV. Einstein2 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

jesust

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

BeReal

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

---

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

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

• @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)

---

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

If I understand correctly, the company is called BeReal, and the product is called BeReal, so any mention of the app will necessarily identify "parties with economic interest in the brand". Verification therefore seems like a paradox. Cnilep (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

inn

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

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Reopening this, because I can find a variety of cites. In particular, if we view either of these cites of inn ("A firie beam, And pleasing heat (such as in first of Spring From Sol, inn'd in the Bull)", and "In a poor cottage inn'd, a virgin maid, A weakling did him bear") as using the transitive "lodge (someone)" sense rather than the intransitive "take lodging" sense, then the transitive sense is cited. The OED has even a third sense, relating to coaches, with various cites. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

polymania

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

MCCE

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  @John Cross looks like you made the template, do you have some expertise to share here? - TheDaveRoss 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

loan

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

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)

• Failed + removed Denazz (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

slaveboy

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

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)

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)

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

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)

spontaneous

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

schlockey schtick

Equinox ◑ 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ

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

• [15][16][17][18] -- the sandwich clearly exists, there are many photos of it. -- 67.70.25.80 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

abarcy

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

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)

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)

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)

frouple

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

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)

I can find it on Twitter/X, but nowhere in print. This magazine has a glossary definition of it and a made-up example of use, but we specifically don't allow that. That's the only magazine/newspaper hit on Issuu. As TTO said, it's impressive how little it's used outside of the most ephemeral mentions. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• RFV-failed and no-entried. Ultimateria (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

abait

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Uber problem

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

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)

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)

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)

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

• RFV-failed as noun. Ultimateria (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@-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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, take a look at how three halfpenny, three halfpence, three halfpennies look now and see what you think. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On English—both of the above are in italics in the originals that I've found, FWIW ([19], [20]). This is the same sort of thing as e.g. the court "who ... lived on a vive le roi" in Wollstonecraft ([21]) 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)

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)

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)

What about these:

• 1915, The Poultry Item‎^[22], 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)

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)

Two other uses that might count toward attestation of the plural in English: [23], [24]. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

It's listed in the OED. kwami (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ponderosa

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

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)

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)

kaparrang

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

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

Tomosteng

I don't want to keep words around that are breaking WT:ATTEST: the cites do not appear to be independent. It may be two (2) independent cites if you're stretching it. Of course I feel the Talk & Citations pages should be kept because maybe one day it will reach WT:ATTEST combined with the current cites. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

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)

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)

Hot word it. Book released this year, and that is where it was coined. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Dniprova

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

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)

aquan

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

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)

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)

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)

It seems to see limited use in science fiction as the name of a water-based race or species, for instance:

2020, Thomas Parrott, “To Catch a Thief”, in Charlotte Llewelyn-Wells, editor, KeyForge: Tales from the Crucible, page 155:

One of the patrol enforcers, "hubbers" as they were known, that were bustling about stopped to give a sympathetic burble. They were an aquan, living in a pressure suit that kept them suspended in water.

(The English translation of) a Japanese sci-fi novel Daiyon kanpyōki (Inter Ice Age 4, 1959) by Abe Kōbō also apparently uses it, judging from the various literary critiques.

We would need a third cite independent of Abe's text and its critiques. This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

structural

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Martinshorn

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

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)

"Piment" and "pyment" are recognized variants of each other. Both the OED and the Middle English Dictionary have their entries under the "piment" spelling, but "pyment" is also common. See Chaucer, "Miller's Tale": "He sente hire pyment, meeth, and spiced ale". OED defines "piment" as "A drink composed of wine sweetened with honey and flavoured with spices", and lists the variant spellings "piement", "pimente", "pyement", "pyment", and "pymente". The definition of "mead with grape juice" does not appear in my copy under either "piment" or "pyment", but the OED cites the earliest example of the "spiced wine" usage as 1225, so it's reasonably old. I would bet that the mead-and-grape-juice definition (which was new to me, I had to google that) is a derivative of the original idea of a spiced wine sweetened with honey (still honey + grapes, just the other way around). NowhereMan583 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Searching for the hyphenated form VIP-er gives a few related hits: [25], [26], [27]. I wouldn't call it a diminutive either. Einstein2 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Marking vipper as RFV-failed, but VIPer is quite plausible and might require some creative searching. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [28]"—or otherwise abstracted from its part of speech—"'Woke' will be the foundation of an independent Scotland [29]". 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)

• 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)

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" [30]. 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)

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)

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.”^[31] (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)

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[32](07/01/2021) referring to the phrase being a British Government term, then this from 08/01/2021[33] (an interview with Andrew Neil). The phrase was quickly picked up on 26/01/2021 by the Tory politician Ed Vaisey[34], who wasn’t however a fan of the phrase, Labour left-winger MP Dawn Butler[35], 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)

Since the last post in this thread, "because of woke" has become a popular ironic catchphrase, which might indicate that "woke" in this sense is accepted broadly as a noun but not accepted broadly as a concept with a real or meaningful definition. Nicerink (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, saying it as a noun is probably part of the irony. Nicerink (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Adessenarian

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

I've managed to find two cites so far, in the sea of mentions. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we count this use within a glossary definition? - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: Those all look good to me. 0DF (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ainur

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

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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

dihydrohydroxyfuran

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

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)

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)

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)

RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

clitwad

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

I believe it does not meet Criteria for Inclusion. Only 2 independant Usenet attestations[36], 0 on Archive.org[37], and 0 on English-Corpora.org[38]. –Vuccala (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

🄫

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

ignorantia juris non excusat

I doubt it's English. I would keep this under a Latin header. PUC – 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. PUC – 12:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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. PUC – 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

five hundred twelfth note

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

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Unlinked - this is good for deletion now Zebres rouges (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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. PUC – 13:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"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)

• RFV-passed. Ultimateria (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

demisemihemidemisemiquaver

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

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)

Hispanic panic

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

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 ([39], [40]). It's also discussed in a few medical contexts in reference to Hispanic people purportedly exaggerating their symptoms ([41], [42] 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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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))

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)

coccydynious

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

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)

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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

pick flowers

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

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[43] on Google Books. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I found a possible use in EEBO:

1593, Matthew Sutcliffe, The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes described out of the doings of most valiant and expert captaines, and confirmed both by ancient, and moderne examples, and præcedents‎^[44], page 182:

The Corinthians in a certaine battell, hauing put the Athenian footemen to flight, were accoyled, and ouerthrowen by a fewe horsemen.

As for the etymology, gather and obtain are fairly close in meaning. Compare French cueillir. This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed - kept citation Denazz (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

uhu

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

heartburn

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Meeteilogist

Almost unattested. PUC – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Meiteilogist

PUC – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Meiteiologist

PUC – 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Just noting that if this fails, we may want to do something about the many entries by the same user which use this term. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I've moved "weed" to louken and "accomplise" to lowke (RFV-failed as English, converted to Middle English). "Alt form of lock" has two cites and needs just one more in order to pass. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Probably the same thing as -pilled but without the hyphen. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

Just noting that the Eckankar website [45] says:

HU is an ancient name for God. It has been used for thousands of years as a prayer and sacred chant to attune oneself to the presence of God. Millions of people around the world have experienced the joy of HU.

From my brief study of Eckankar publications, this pair of definitions appears correct. Not a lot of independent literature on this aspect of Eckankar appears to exist, but more searching is needed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, prompted to make another search, I found and added two books which contain "HU"; one is mentiony and the other also doesn't manage to be a really good use in running text, but I suspect you're right that we could cite sense 1 with a bit more effort. However, all the instances I found, and yours above, capitalize it just like e.g. YHWH, so unless Hu also exists, it should apparently be moved to HU. I am more sceptical of sense 2, I haven't seen anything about e.g. "chanting a Hu" or "the sermon was followed by a Hu". People chant "HU", but I don't think that makes "Hu" mean "a chant..." (it also seems like an individual person can chant it and not just "many people"?). - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the "chant" sense (RFV-failed); it's possible a dedicated search could cite the "God" sense, but possibly only as HU and not Hu (TBD). - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

French vice

As with English vice above. - -sche (discuss) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It would probably be mentioned as a translation of, say, vice anglais. DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

infin.

Rfv-sense: "infinite" (noun). Einstein2 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

September 2023

taptastic

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"the rilievos" will find you English plural use without italics. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• RFV passed. Cites not added though. SpAway (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

shis

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I went searching on Usenet for this. I found some definite uses among the many typos (Citations:shis):

• In the early uses (1989 and 1993), it appears to be a gender-neutral pronoun (this usage doesn't fit our current definition).
• In 2005, "Maak" used the pronoun in several derogatory stories that demean LGBT people. It's not entirely clear to me whether the stories refer specifically to gay men, or trans women, or some other less specific group.
• I'm not sure what 2006 post from "America the Beautiful" is trying to get at.

I'd expect to find some evidence on Tumblr, but that's a lot of work... This, that and the other (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

palpebrate

Dictionary-only suspected. lattermint (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

The Tony Grach text can hardly be described as Standard English and I would suggest it is as useless for RFV purposes as Finnegans Wake. Here's a typical passage:

"I won't simple agree either anything was just entrusted by their hands to hold that sweat possession, is hard to say even whether is what was name their owning or anything else" Molice wag once, and keep saying" Honest I never reach to know what was within the only order such precept which these wealthier used in efficacious of their belong, or we also doubt to guess are mammonish been just given to the individual in peculium about" Molice she was busying watching the fold of vivarium of multi beasties, some are quiet as unprecedented not for their Mesozoic kinds which can flabbergasted anyone as if to found diplodocus in such little size still living somewhere in this world today and those others seems are affinity with Saprozoics or Kimaris in the face for their uncephalous structure and vicious observant and the least are in oddment alike of primitive fauna, mouth of feline but berbivour teeth and greenish in skin rather beings in common nature of wool dressed,^[sic]

Even the narrative voice uses this weird barely-grammatical language. Note the apparent solecism berbivour. Reading other parts of the text, it looks like the author is indeed trying to emulate Joyce (and falling far short, if I may say so).

If we discount this cite, we only have two for the verb. This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the disputed cite with a different one. Kiwima (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwima: You replaced a different quotation instead of the one by Grach; I have restored that one and removed Grach’s. J3133 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks Kiwima (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

If sense 3 is to be kept, it shouldn’t be defined as a noun. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• What a dreadful set of definitions. DCDuring (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ourple

Deliberate misspelling of purple. Inner Focus (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Although mostly used attributively, the term exists outside the mentioned phrase: [46], [47], [48] etc. There are also uses which predate the 1918/19 patent of Miller, so a second sense might be needed: [49], [50], [51]. Einstein2 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Should this entry simply be re-categorized as Middle English then? I would not like to see it deleted, as is threatened by the current warning, since it certainly was a legitimate word at one time & is important for historical reference. Language&Life (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• enm quotes moved to wreien P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Romaboo

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

cyberethical

New sense 2: Morally acceptable in the context of using computers. (Seems plausible, I suppose.) Equinox ◑ 22:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Just found this European Patent Office PDF on the Web: [52] "...(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)

whorenalist

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Science journos learn things? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You have to really whack it into their heads. Drop an apple. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

askoliasmos

Hopping on greasy leather bottles??? What the hell kind of sport is that!!! Jewle V (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I note the definition ("something queer or absurd") is copied word for word from Merriam-Webster. Equinox ◑ 20:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• RFV failed. Hits are all about the word. What is quoz? etc. Denazz (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

diamond theorem

1. 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)

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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

to high heaven

Is this used outside of stink to high heaven, which we already have an entry for? PUC – 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is used with synonyms of "stink", like "smell" and "reek". Maybe not in any other way. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Cited (none of the citations are about stinking). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but aren't the 1921, 1955 and 2013 quotes examples of the more literal sense that DCDuring mentioned? PUC – 17:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

spurling

sparling

Obsolete bird name Jewle V (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Webster 1828 had it as a smelt. See sparling. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Spurling is often defined as an alternative spelling of sparling. DCDuring (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Littie

A girl's name. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Mianyanese

The source given appears to be the only attestation of this word. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

refusenik

"A person who wants to do something but is refused permission to." — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

anti-reciprocal

"Preventing reciprocation." It might mean something (maybe advanced maths) but probably not this. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

marrot

3 different birds, 3 fun quotey challenges P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I've found so far:

• Razorbilled auk: [53], [54]
• Guillemot: [55], [56], [57]
• 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)

gladwyn

Obsolete plant name in some dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I missed this one somehow. I'd like to reopen it, since I'm familiar with the term from half a century of reading about plants. It may very well be obsolete as a general term for aquatic iris species, but it still seems to be in use for the stinking gladwyn, Iris foetidissima: here, here, here, and here in old books, as well as a couple of newer ones here and here. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed anew SpAway (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

forinsecal

A few quotes had it in italics or "in quotemarks", nowt without P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

rainbow unicorn

Nebulous. The only given citation has "rainbow unicorn ideas", a phrase not found in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

No, there's not a shortage of rainbow unicorns, but most of them are simply SOP. It makes a more abstract meaning hard to search for. I am not entirely sure, but I put some cites on the page. Have a look. Kiwima (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

tea

Rfv-sense "(Nigeria) Hot chocolate." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Nigerian "Tea" (on YouTube). Also, the ref in w:Hot_chocolate#Usage. Voltaigne (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

RFV-failed at this time. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In what legal systems are people, rather than acts of persons or their status, illegal? DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Equinox is right that sense 2 was also wrong, since Wiesel's objection applies even if a state really does make being even a documented immigrant illegal. How is this? I reiterate that I'm not sure we should have slogans in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not married to the definition I wrote, don't care much about this entry and would not object either to it being deleted, but I'm a bit confused by your and Equinox's objection: "there are no illegal immigrants, only undocumented ones" might be factually untrue, but it's still what people who use this proverb/slogan mean when they use it (and what they wish were true), which is what interests us here. (This reminds me a bit of the debate at Talk:you can take the monkey out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the monkey.) PUC – 22:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the sense that many (most?) users of the slogan are concerned with documentation at all. (This is supported by marginal use in relation to other issues than immigration, e.g. the "walking while black" bans, or laws making gay or trans people illegal.) The meaning is ... basically literal, that human beings aren't (or shouldn't be) illegal and that a human being (generally an immigrant) existing in a particular country or public area should not be legislated against / arrested. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Do people say this term in reference to those? I was unable to find any uses that do not refer to immigration, so I'm leaning towards no, although maybe you found something I didn't. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Higgs bisons

J3133 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Created by Wonderfool, who knows nothing about physics. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

CUM

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Or while performing a dance... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

ring-a-ding

Adjective meaning "perfect". Equinox ◑ 19:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The string of letters has been cited, but what specific meaning the cites intend is not obvious to me. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Meaning is unclear. ringding seems to be an alternative form, now added. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

it wasn't only only

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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:

• https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/podkast-mot-alle-odds/id939436054?i=1000391775882
• https://no.linkedin.com/posts/j%C3%B8rgen-m%C3%B8klebust-austvik_fndagene-fnsb%C3%A6rekraftsm%C3%A5l-activity-6991767768089903104-9BpD
• https://www.hunden.no/blogg/innlegg/50706/It-s-not-only-only/
• https://kartarkiv.nydalen.idrett.no/show_map.php?user=Halvoren&map=7151
• https://sykkelmagasinet.no/aktuelt/en-knust-drom-om-topp-30/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CyG_dlZr4ZX/?img_index=1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are filthy, not frithy. HTH. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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" [58]. 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)

The second definition is no longer cited. One of the quotes given was a misreading or scanno, and furthermore I’m not convinced the 2017 usage has the suggested meaning at all. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

heroyam slava

English? Equinox ◑ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

heroiam slava

English? Equinox ◑ 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

slava Ukraini

English? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• RFV failed SpAway (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

We also have a Citations namespace.  --Lambiam 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Nope. Removed SpAway (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

geopbyte

Definition:

1. (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)

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)

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)

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)

uncleft

An atom. Some kind of Anglish coinage... Equinox ◑ 16:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

The two cites given in the entry are known Anglish texts (Anderson's original and Montinaro's self-published "On the Fromth of the Lifekin"). I suppose if we find a third we would have to keep it (in Cat:en:Anglish, one presumes). This, that and the other (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I combined the senses; the combined sense now has two cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

treader

Rfv-sense: slang for a bicycle at Oxford (UK) P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Treader is a term we used to use in mid Sussex when I grew up there a long time ago now. We got it from the ol' boys who spoke in a proper Sussex accent and I believe it dated at least to pre wa It's definitely a term for a heavy old wheel turner operated by tredding! 94.119.128.2 19:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

primiparous

Can this really be used as a synonym of primigravid ?  --Lambiam 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This sense is given in OED with some 19th-century quotes, [59] for one. Even so, the main usage of this word in 19th-century texts, as I find it, is to refer to a woman who is giving birth for the first time. The term is generally used in the context of the labour and birth itself. This, that and the other (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

cityward

Rfv-sense "watchman of a city", added by an IP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

sosec

Abbr of social secretary. Wonderfool. Equinox ◑ 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

The "gunman" sense can be found in GDoS: gun n.¹, sense 9. Einstein2 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Several sources states that the pineapple is a symbol for the (American?) hospitality industry.^{[60][61][62][63]} The symbol need not specifically be presented as a carving.^[64]  --Lambiam 06:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

See a previous, possibly relevant RFC discussion at Talk:pineapple. Equinox ◑ 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

sleazebucket

Rfv-sense: "lousy, disreputable, or disgusting place". This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One certain use: “It’s a typical sleazebucket of a place—broken-down bed, filthy floor, and a cracked mirror.”^[65] One maybe use: “There’s bound to be one in a sleazebucket place like this.”^[66] The latter quotation supports a potential more generic sense, “Something lousy, disreputable, or disgusting”.  --Lambiam 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

protestard

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a Usenet quote and some more from Twitter to the "protester" sense. I could not find anything for the "Protestant" sense. Einstein2 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

galletyle

Only in Bacon's work? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

OED lemmatises at galley-tile. We have the same problem as at #forswonk - various different spellings are attested where potentially no one spelling has 3 available cites. This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion to deal with such situations is that if there are at least two occurrences of a particular spelling that can be found and only one of the other variants, we use the predominant one. However, if no spelling predominates, we pick the one that most closely indicates the etymology of the term, while recognizing that this will be somewhat subjective. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

hyosternum

Probably just used by Baxter. Also rfv-sense at hyosternal P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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.

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)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, since this got deleted, can i make a redirect? it'd be more helpful than having someone need to come here and search for feamyng and then click fesnyng on the search result list .... which isnt actually such an obvious target, and might not always be the first result on the list. thanks, —Soap— 06:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soap I don't think a hard redirect is appropriate here, but we could do a soft redirect using {{no entry|en|fesnyng}}. This, that and the other (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

ECPC

easy peasy. Equinox ◑ 11:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

I've added some additional quotes going back to July 2022. MugsyMoon (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Around 1.3K hits on 4chan archives, so it's well attested at least on 4chan itself. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And about 500 hits] for the plural. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

"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)

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. PUC – 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the gloss at Italian coniglio di grondaia (“cat flesh passed off as rabbit”) is much clearer. Is this real though? PUC – 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. PUC – 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

In which case, should the contested sense be retained and labelled "as an attributive adjective, usually hyphenated"? Voltaigne (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

tableword

Doubt this one meets CFI. Very few Google Web hits. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added a few cites. table-word and table word seem to be more common. Einstein2 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

animalism

Rfv-sense: animal liberation. Ƿidsiþ 14:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Coming back to this, I dont think animal liberation implies militancy, any more than women's liberation ever did, so I think the entry as we have it is good, although there may still be a bit more to this ... see a new entry towards the bottom of the page created by an IP. To me, the Wikipedia link's sense fits perfectly under the context of animal liberation ... using the same analogy, our definition of feminism doesnt have a third sense or even a subsense specifically defining feminists as activists who do things ... it's considered part of the same definition that describes support for women's equality. —Soap— 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

rhabdopholist

"A collector of walking sticks or divining rods." Equinox ◑ 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added two quotes to the citations page, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good to know. Interesting that it has been repurposed for hagiography, which hardly seems an impoverished line of work despite the decline of religion. AP295 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

• Moved to Middle English Denazz (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

2048th note

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Deleted. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I put the attested form. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

don't pass go

Rfv-sense

1. 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)

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. At least for my part, I'm 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), as IMO neither type of cite makes dussack or castle mean "a crenellated structure made of legos", "1. a wooden object in the shape of a dussack" & "2. a leather object in the shape of a dussack" & "3. a plastic object in the shape of a dussack" etc, like we don't have a definition at pipe for "a painting of a pipe". - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

shadow acting

Filming technique. All I can easily find is this Web forum discussion [67]. GBooks hits are usually bits of phrases like "the presence of shadow acting on the..." Equinox ◑ 10:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

no zuo no die

Seems to be mentioned far more than it’s used, if at all. Is it attested in English? Mcph2 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

isopag

Only one cite available: [68] This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And it's almost certainly talking about something else. I've never come across this term in meteorology or oceanography. Doesnt mean it's wrong, but it must be at best very uncommon. —Soap— 15:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point; it's not immediately clear why isopags (as defined by us) would be of concern to astrophysicists. I'd love to be able to see the whole page: I only get snippet view.

The term does appear with this meaning (or a very similar one, "duration of ice cover") in lists of isoline terms, and has a plausible etymology (from German Isopagen, from iso- + Ancient Greek πάγος (págos, “that which is fixed or firmly set, frost (LSJ)”)). It just isn't used in English as far as I can tell. This, that and the other (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting that the book seemingly misspells Schwarzschild both times it appears on the page. —Soap— 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failed Denazz (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

deadlite

Something in architecture. Two senses but I find nothing much in GBooks at all. Perhaps deadlight spelling would have more luck? Equinox ◑ 14:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

chipscanner

"A device that detects and reads identification chips implanted in a household pet." Equinox ◑ 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

quasibinary

"Of a number, that contains only digits 0 or 1." (But presumably decimal; or at least not binary?) But I don't think this is what the word means, having glanced at Google Books — though it does mean something. @Sundaydriver1. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

parablepsis

Rfv-sense: false vision. I just moved the primary form of this word from parablepsy to parablepsis. This sense was previously present at the parablepsy entry. This is probably an etymological meaning - every use I found on a brief Google Books search of various forms refers to the scribal error, even if the text glosses the word as "false vision". This, that and the other (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

godlyhead

Only Spenser Seoovslfmo (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can find one other citation that is not Spenser: In By Promise Made by Susan Leigh Furlong (2020), she includes what she calls a "translation from Middle English to modern vernacular" of a poem, with the lines "Thus am I bound by your godlyhead, Which hath me caused, and that in every wise While I in life endure, to do you my service." (She does not state the name or author of the poem). However, many of the Spenser quotes that I find use goodlyhead instead of godlyhead, so that it is pretty clear that the two words are just alternate forms. goodlyhead is MUCH easier to cite, and I have added it with several citations. I recommend that we either call "godlyhead" an alternative form of "goodlyhead" (It is unclear to me whether alt forms of obsolete words like this require 3 citations of the alt form), or at the very least, replace this entry with a redirect to goodlyhead. Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

plotz

Sense 4: "To strongly feel exasperation, pleasure, or other emotions." Might exist as "plotzed", but probably not intransitive as suggested here. ("I plotzed with rage"?) Equinox ◑ 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

scromiting

Sense 2: The condition of concurrently screaming (in pain) and vomiting, but excluding the cannabis-specific sense 1. @Pingku, you added this. Equinox ◑ 17:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Equinox. I wasn't really intending a completely separate sense (hence including it in the same line), more something like a type of meronymy. The two are connected by the fact that the symptom is known only from the syndrome. It seemed strange to skip the etymologically more logical sense.

In fact, both senses are awkward to cite, perhaps indicating it's actually colloquial. The quotation of Newport Academy used here talks about "scromiting episodes". This comes a few sentences after a mention of the "syndrome" sense. There's also a mention in a recent New Scientist (here) of "a new word – “scromiting” – describing episodes where people are simultaneously vomiting and screaming in pain." (I might add that this magazine habitually uses what we call mentions to define terms deemed likely to be unfamiliar to the reader.) There is another mention here.

Thanks.— Pingku^dimmi 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case I think the "etymologically more logical sense" may not exist (etymological fallacy?): all uses I saw were cannabis-specific. Equinox ◑ 08:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

My thinking was/is that "scromiting" looks like a verbal noun (and seems to be made up from verbal nouns), so that's how people are likely to interpret it. Certainly, that's how I read (most of) the uses I found and listed above. I personally distinguish between the syndrome (CHS) and its symptom (screaming and vomiting). This case is possibly unusual because they more-or-less define each other, but I still think the distinction is worth making. More importantly, I think it's a distinction other people would expect and make.

Having said that, I reiterate that I didn't mean to set my addition up definitively as a separate sense. (Otherwise I should have used a separate line. Apologies for the obscure and perhaps idiosyncratic subtlety.) To do so would jump the gun on seeing actual citations (my gold standard).— Pingku^dimmi 11:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

blesh

To extinguish a fire. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

eye of newt

In recent years there have been various factoid articles and claims that the Witches' ingredients in William Shakespeare's Macbeth all are various plant names (Example). Notably, "eye of newt" is widely reported to actually mean "a mustard seed", however no sources are ever provided than "ancient/medieval traditions". Some internet forums have already discussed the subject (Example), and most people seem to find no reliable sources for the claim before the 20th century, and even then the claims are likely spurious, coinciding with the increased interest in magic and witchcraft with the various New Age movements in the 20th century. — This unsigned comment was added by 31.205.128.141 (talk).

@Equinox This, that and the other (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

eye of newt on Wikipedia.Wikipedia is a redirect to Cultural depictions of salamanders on Wikipedia.Wikipedia , which does not mention newt, let alone eye of newt. No other OneLook reference has an entry of any kind. It there is some subculture that uses the term in suitable media, then we should have an entry with a definition that reflects usage. DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The content was removed from WP in October by an IP - probably the same person (both IPs geolocate to Yorkshire). This, that and the other (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I fell for a hoax then. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this does not mean that "eye of newt" does not mean "mustard seed" per se, since someone could have read those articles and used the term with that meaning in their work. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Google Books hits for this are mostly for the entire Macbeth ingredient list. There are a number of metonymic uses of eye of newt to refer to the entire list. And there are allusive uses that draw on Macbeth for the idea of a mysterious combination of strange ingredients. Some uses of the term in this sense are attributive, which is evidence (not conclusive, though) of idiomaticity. There are one or two herbal references that may (no preview) have this, but in lists of ingredient codes. I think we'd have to look to UseNet or to less durably archived sources for more. DCDuring (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should stay, if only to serve the purpose of debunking the hoax? --Jtle515 (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If there were anywhere sensible to link to, we could put a {{no entry}} linking to wherever it was debunked. (I guess that could be an external link.) - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Irish question

Sense 2: Brexit thing. Seems like nonce usage. Equinox ◑ 18:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

nonnitrogenic

By the same user as xertz, discussed above. I can only find this hyphenated, so AFAICT it should be moved and this spelling deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Impressive (and a reminder to me to check archive.org since they have digitized different books than Google); thank you. - -sche (discuss) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

eassil

By the xertz user. I can only find this in the compounds eassil-gate and eassil-ward (which may be Scots, compare the discussions of easselgate and easselward above). - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

eassel

eassel I have only spotted in Walter Scott, in passages which may be Scots and not English anyway. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

never eat Shredded Wheat

Mnemonic for “north, east, south, west”. I searched Google Books, Google News, and Issuu and only found one instance of this form. All others used “shredded wheat” (I added quotations) or capitalized every word. If quotations are found, it should still be moved to the more common form. J3133 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't yet have Naughty Elephants Squirt Water as that is a more familiar mnemonic, to me at least. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Not very helpful, but anecdotally I seem to remember this one from my school days. (Shredded Wheat, capitalised, is a particular cereal brand, not generic.) Equinox ◑ 18:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this one and heard it several times in elementary school. So it's been used in both the UK and Canada, at least. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Note that there are already quotations (using shredded wheat, as I mentioned). This RfV is specifically for the capitalized/non-generic form, not questioning whether this mnemonic is in use. J3133 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

goman

Old English and Middle English only? Denazz (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I found one (possibly two) uses in very early modern English, but it should probably just be converted to Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

woon

Rfv-sense: dwelling; wone. In Webster 1913 Denazz (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No post-1500 cites for this spelling in OED. Tough to search for; this is an alt form of various words that we don't list in our entry, especially won (past tense of "win"), although some uses could possibly be some old past tense of woo. This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

compliment fishing

Tagged but apparently not listed. Seems citeable (here are some cites) but—since I notice that the related fish for compliments was deleted by RFD—possibly SOP. Maybe we should change the tag to RFD? - -sche (discuss) 14:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

greece

Plural of gree. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an etymological definition. The proper definition would be "a flight of stairs". Apparently it's in {{RQ:Bacon Henry 7}} among others. This, that and the other (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, grise is mentioned as a plural Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

blustrification

See Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages. Many of these seemingly can be found in John Russell Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms, but it only lists blusteration, which is well attested.

Chronicling America shows one cite which is hyphenated comblustrification as a (seeming) fanciful variant of combustion. I think this might not ever have been used. grendel|khan 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

growse

OED has nothing except old spelling of grouse (which we're missing) Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the word that OED lemmatises as groose. Walter Scott used the spelling growze. It is a Northern/Scottish word, related to grue. EDD has some Scots cites. This, that and the other (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

blessky

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also its alt form entry blesky. Also check whether "not comparable" is really true: this (now blocked) editor didn't seem to use the en-adj template properly. Equinox ◑ 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

virtually

Rfv-sense: 2 mathematics definitions defining the supposed adverb more as an adjective (or perhaps just hand-waving instead of defining), without cites, without references, without any support from any OneLook source, with not very helpful usexes:

1. (algebra) Of a substructure of finite index.

   virtually indicable

2. (topology) Of a covering space of finite index.

   virtually Haken

We should be able to do better. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps @User:Msh210 can help. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, DCDuring. I've added two cite for each sense and don't have time at the moment to add a third. (Nor to check the CFI to see whether my cites are good ones. As you're no doubt aware, I've been fairly inactive of late; in particular, I haven't kept up with changes to the CFI.) But there are plenty more cites in math papers for each sense, and neither should be deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@User:Msh210 Thanks for responding. You'll be getting the occasional ping for undocumented or incomprehensible (to me) math definitions. Some definitions seem to rely too much on specialized definitions of highly polysemic terms. In the above index is an example. The others seem okay. I don't know whether this index def. covers it: "A raised suffix indicating a power". Even if it does, it does not nicely substitute into the definitions given. DCDuring (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

DCDuring, I've added an {{lb|en|algebra}} sense to [[index]] and adjusted these definitions of [[virtually]] slightly. I think it's okay now. Please let me know if you disagree.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My eyes now glaze over at coset, but that seems unavoidable. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

affatuate

#affatuated → Talk:affatuated failed RFV, and I suspect the verb does too. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

in

Rfv-sense: "re-entrant angle; nook or corner". Apologies for this nasty RFV, but this sense is not in OED and moreover, I can't really imagine how it would be used. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on Century (in¹ noun sense 2), this may be a lexicographer's back-formation from ins and outs, as in the ins and outs of a garden (which usage Century defines as "Nooks and corners; turns and windings"). I doubt that in is really used by itself to mean a nook or corner. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is to look for people being wordplayful and writing about "the ins of" something separate from "the outs of" it (in which case we would still need to make clear that this is a back-formation from or allusion to the longer phrase "ins and outs"). I can find various uses of "the ins" and "the outs" to denote people who are regarded as accepted/righteous/orthodox (or the opposite, in the case of the outs) in politics or religion, but I haven't spotted this. - -sche (discuss) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

According to sources, a "re-entrant angle" is an interior angle greater than 180°, with its point turning back into the figure rather than out from it. How can this be a "nook"? It seems the opposite -- more an "out" than an "in", from the perspective of being inside the room or whatever it is. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed and replaced with a link to ins and outs. It's possible that a dedicated search might find some wordplayful references to "the ins of" something as distinct from "the outs of" it, but I haven't found such use (and the definition would need to be changed, anyway), I can only find "ins" and "outs" as short for inputs / outputs, as references to people who are In or Out (of power, prestige, whatever), or as references to (AFAICT) highs and lows(?) of someone's lineage (royalty vs prostitutes). - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

us bhai us

English? It's not a noun in any case Denazz (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There is also a tag on us bro us but it doesnt link to anything here. —Soap— 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

shimpan bucho

No Books hits; hardly any Web hits. Compare #shimpan fukubucho. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failed Denazz (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

vagitate

This might be unconventional, but I want to request verification of a specific citation for this word. I saw that the OED cites Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World, the same as we do, but the OED gives the quotation as "Before the vse of the Compas was knowne, it was impossible to nauigate athwart the Ocean." Perhaps an older version of the OED entry quoted this sentence with "vagitate", but it was since corrected? In any case, the scan of this book at archive.org clearly shows "navigate", which also seems to make a bit more sense in the context. But I want to make sure I'm not missing something that might save this quotation. If anyone wants to look into the other citations, that would also be welcome, since they're pretty obscure and I'm not entirely sure Ian Edge is using it in the same sense or even with the same etymology as the others. Some are also missing page numbers, which would be nice to have.--Urszag (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw something similar when I filed the RFV for endizen. During the preparation of the NED (OED 1st edition) someone must have misread, miswrote or mistyped endenizen as endizen, and the NED ended up with a hapax entry for this verb, which persists in OED Online to this day. However, OED Online has apparently undergone an automated (?) process of updating quotes to reflect the original texts, so that the only supporting quote for the endizen entry actually uses the word endenizen. The same thing has probably happened with vagitate. Unlike endizen, though, this term has a more plausible etymology, which means others have taken it up.

I removed the Raleigh and checked the other quotes:

• The Beckett is a legitimate quote, but I've got no idea what he's talking about. The quote certainly doesn't unambiguously support the given definition, I'll say that much.
• The 1982 text uses "vagitating" but this was changed to "vegetating" in a 2003 republication. The 1982 text uses quotation marks to imply this is a quote from Marx, but the 2003 edition removes the quotation marks.
• The 1987 text seems legitimate. Given the similar subject matter and point of view expressed, I had a suspicion that the 1982 and 1987 texts may have been by the same author, but a list of texts by D.N. Dhanagare doesn't mention any work on Buddhism.
• The law text is a little baffling. Here is the broader context:

  Paul Matthews complains that when the Cayman Islands legislature defines a form of ownership from which humans are absent, it is trying to "Call Sunday, Monday". Anthony Duckworth sums up his rebuttals in a final salvo:

  "We will not mind greatly if Mr Mathews says that a STAR trust is as anomalous as a charitable trust, as strange as a discretionary trust, as weird as an unadministered estate, as bizarre (or nearly so) as a trust for unborn persons."

  These are all instances when English chancery doctrine would allow that some or all of the equitable ownership has disappeared into thin air. Duckworth's point is that the STAR trust merely generalises these English instances. The crucial difference, however, is that in all but one of these English situations, the equitable ownership reappears within at most eighty years: the discretion is exercised, the estate is administered, the unborn vagitate. The exception is the English charitable trust which, like the STAR trust, can exist for ever.

• Here, the word seems to be intended to mean "be born".

I would note that these citations were probably obtained from Quiet Quentin using the default Google Books metadata. PSA to RFVers: please check the metadata before adding a quote - if you don't, you are liable to (a) get the publication years totally wrong, (b) attribute the work of a contributing author to the editor of an edited book, or (c) miss out the author info entirely when it is findable with reasonably easy searching. I know all this takes a little more effort, but it makes the dictionary that much better. This, that and the other (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "Marx had characterized" cite is most likely a misspelling/typo of a different word and not this word (like e.g. the few books that have reconditing as an error for other editions' reconditioning); "stagnant, unchanging, vegetating" makes more sense there than "[they are] stagnant, unchanging, not stagnant, and changing positions a lot". The "unborn" cite seems to intend a connection to vagina ("come out of the/a vagina"?) rather than to vagus, and E. Barry, Samuel Beckett and the Contingency of Old Age (2016), takes Beckett's use to be connected to connected to birth too ("just as Malone fears that he may have “vagitated [given the birth cry] and not be able to bloody rattle”"), so I think we are left with just one cite that is plausibly for the given etymology/meaning, but two cites that might support a "give the birth cry"-related meaning, as it happens. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@-sche @Urszag It occurred to me that, since Beckett's work was translated from French, the word's sense can be pinned down more firmly. According to [69] (you may need to log into Internet Archive and borrow the book for 1 hour), this passage is a translation of "Avoir vagi, puis ne pas être foutu de râler". The word vagir (“to wail, as a baby”) has been translated as vagitate to maintain the resemblance to vagina. We are to link vagitate to vagitus and vagient, and ultimately to Latin vāgiō.

So we need to go cite-hunting for the "wail" sense I guess... This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh interesting! I had no idea Samuel Beckett wrote that first in French and then translated it to English.--Urszag (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The "My head spins like the vagitated gears of a drunken kaleidoscope" cite is ... odd. I confirmed that the edition Google has digitized does have the italicized word vagitated spelled sic. On one hand, is this an error for another word like google:"agitated gears" or "variable gears"? On the other hand ... the text is odd — the next sentences are "Triptic may be an annex, albeit a distant one, of the Alamüte-Megalopolis, but I'm uncertain everywhere ... an empty vessel ... a king's ransom ... a three-legged bitch. The Telos-5200 cruises down the lining of my metal-trousers, conforming to the bent posture of my leg and fastening down its length. It sticks into my groin on recharge like I always imagined hot pokers might feel if carried on the wings of bluebottle flies that live in the folds of an octogenerian's crotch. As I droop in the setting sun, dreaming of the Big Dipper, the ovoid Pox Roman burns into my retina, a memory, recalled from glimpses of recalled posters. Aries is ascendant now, and like Moses, I feel horns mistranslated on my head. The dim, incommoded peacekeepers barter their way around the grafts and chasms that form the looped, meandering people-weave outside "The Tertiary Panel" maingates. In a sense they appear human, but then, in a sense, doesn't everyone ... " — so it's possible the author did pick the ghost word out of a list of obscure words, and while we might need to tweak the definition because "the wandered gears" doesn't sound right, "the randomly moved gears" works, I guess. If this is real, it's apparently a ghost word (originated as an error in the OED). - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

special

Rfv-sense "Chief in excellence." Does this exist in a way that makes it distinct from the other senses? (Not sure whether to post this here, in the TR or at RFD...) - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

-ster-

The only listed derived term, in the entry or its corresponding category, is -steride. -sterone is listed as an alt form (of -ster-). Does -ster- actually exist as an interfix which is slid between various (other) pharmacology morphemes, or do only the suffixes -steride and -sterone exist? (A lot of pharmacology "interfixes" have derived terms consisting entirely of occurrences as part of one longer suffix, and I haven't had time to figure out if this is because those are the only derived terms the user happened to enter, or because the "interfix" only occurs as part of one suffix.) - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

cholesterol. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

trust

The etymology for it seems to be unsupported by the major dictionaries (and one newssite) and the link used to justify the change the etymology is now a dead one. A westman (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the links in the edit summary from 2 September 2022, which said "see https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1554/07_Dance_1803.pdf and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-968X.12148_02". But I'm confused, because neither of these links is dead. They should be added as citations.--Urszag (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

forseethe

Appears to be a normalized spelling of a word that did not survive out of Middle English; OED's latest quotation is dated c. 1315. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

MED says 1500 (for an original 1390), as ppt forsoþen. I've been able to find one modern use, but it doesn't look hopeful. May need to convert to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

hailse

Methynkes bee thys jvste Midle Englyshe Denazz (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

OED has three uses from the 1500s, with some interesting spellings. EEBO needs to be searched. This, that and the other (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fanum tax

Internet slang joke of thieving food. See Know Your Meme. Possible hot word as it has apparently been mentioned in the media. Equinox ◑ 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have heard this word, as in the context of things like "You're so Fanum Tax this Rizzmas, you skibidi mewer! GYATT!" CitationsFreak (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

weedbrownie

J3133 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

halfen

OED has only Spenser, too, but offers another definition Denazz (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failed and removed. Zebres rouges (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

stand

Sense: “(fiction) A type of supernatural ability from the anime and manga series JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, named for the fact that they appear to 'stand' next to their user.” Added by @FishandChipper in February 2022. The listed Japanese translations, スタンド (sutando), and 幽波紋 (yūhamon), failed RfV. J3133 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be defined in a way that complies with WT:FICTION, and to have qualifying quotations backing this up. A solely in-universe definition won’t do. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Rice Queen

Capitalised form. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox: Appears to be attested at [70] [71] and [72]. -saph 🍏 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

shake that monkey

Quotations? -saph 🍏 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sense #1 (losing an addiction) is probably covered by shake and monkey, making it sum of parts, and you could presumably also form similar phrases with "the", "a", "one's"... monkey. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

run a red light

All senses except the first one. I mean, anyword could likely be used figuratively but not all of them can or should be in a dictionary. I cannot add the template now but I should later. A Westman talk stalk 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There might be a figurative sense that is the obvious extension of sense 1: Something like "To violate a norm." DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

hask

Rfv-sense: basket. Used by Spenser. spelled haske Denazz (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Hask A Westman talk stalk 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cited, but very likely the non-Spencer quotes are alluding to Spencer. Nevertheless, judging from its use in glosses in 17th c. dictionaries the word seems to have had some currency outside this particular poetic tradition. Winthrop23 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

hastive

Middle English??? Denazz (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Hastive A Westman talk stalk 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@A westman Sure, the words WF's going through are from Webster originally. They even have the {{Webster 1913}} template on them. But Webster (a) didn't distinguish between Middle English anf Modern English, and (b) sometimes altered ("normalised") the spelling of words to match modern spelling conventions. Hence the requests for verification. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

hederose

May have another science definition Denazz (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the "ivy" adjective seems unfindable. A few old chemical books say that hederose is a noun: "a decomposition product of a glucoside found in the ivy (Hedera helix)" — apparently C₆H₁₂O₆ ? — but again I only found a handful of mentions, not uses. Equinox ◑ 10:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed and removed Zebres rouges (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Soviet Reunion

Too rare. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 19:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a nonce word. A Westman talk stalk 19:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

wone

RFV sense 1 under Etymology 3. Serious doubt that sense is still used now if it was used after ME at all. A Westman talk stalk 19:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

campana

Fancy added by @LlywelynII in 2015. I find it extraordinarily hard to imagine that anyone in England, even an ivory tower scholar writing about architecture or art-history, called a church bell, or a subspecies thereof, a “campana”. Everything else is, after looking into the OED entry, also worse than I have imagined, no uses, only dictionary-type mentions; somebody tried to sneak in what should have been Medieval Latin or Romance as English, this is specifically what I extract from the references added to the church-bell sense, the first of which LlywelynII added to Wikisource, obviously excited about the topic at the time, perhaps without shedding languages correctly. As a name of an exotic flower it would of course be plausible, were it not as easily Drayton’s coinage ("Campana heere he crops”). The vase miscapitalized or catalogue-monster and I am not sure if a good word standalone without “vase” or “form”. Religion makes people hallucinate, bells in particular resonate well in power projection. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I could only barely cite one combined definition ("A bell, or bell-shaped thing") of campane recently. Most of what I can find searching for google books:"campanas and", google books:"campana or" and the like are italicized mentions of campana(e) as a word in Latin or Spanish or Italian, although I can find the occasional non-italicized occurrence which is arguably code-switching:

• 2014 July 14, Carol Lansing, The Florentine Magnates: Lineage and Faction in a Medieval Commune, Princeton University Press, →ISBN, page 206:

  […] the officer charged with ensuring that the podestà and the capitano del popolo rendered justice to all […] In case of a major crime, the podestà and the gonaloniere were to ring the campana with a hammer to summon the militia, who would destroy the malefactor's property while the gonfaloniere of the guilds and the guildsmen themselves remained armed and ready (VI, p. 399).

- -sche (discuss) 17:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

buntlings

Cant term. I can only find it in dictionaries. There is also a nautical term with this spelling, as well as some kind of bird - both are probably forms of bunting. This, that and the other (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I found two cites in 20th century historical novels which are referring to petticoats, but they are (curiously enough) both in a nautical context. This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The bird sense is definitely an alternative form of bunting. Some of the birds called buntlings in 19th century books wouldn't be called buntings today, but that says more about changes in ornithology than in the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

belirt

Equinox ◑ 01:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Middle English and Scots. Leasnam (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Some others:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Old_English_Drama/arkvAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=belirt

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionary_of_Early_English/enmvCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=belirt&pg=PA89&printsec=frontcover

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/belirt_v?tl=true A Westman talk stalk 17:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

For the most part I could only find it in old texts (17th century) and dictionaries on GB for early English and "Scottish" (that's what the book called what is presumably Scottish English or Scots)

Found mention(s) at [73]https://www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Fromth_of_the_Lifekin/t2UoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=belirt&pg=PA335&printsec=frontcover]. A Westman talk stalk 16:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

/qj

Equinox ◑ 02:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

hendy

Defined Obsolete form of hende. hende is only given as Middle English Denazz (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We used to have an English entry for hende. I've updated hendy. Leasnam (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

walter

Just Middle English or Scots? Denazz (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

sobby

I think sense 2 at sobby is actually a mistake for soggy. Can we find cites that unambiguously demonstrate this meaning? If not, do other dictionaries, particularly the OED, list this meaning? Even if our cites are actually mistakes by the authors, I'd be satisfied that the word does exist if we can at least find it listed in another dictionary. —Soap— 20:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a third cite, Ioaxxere, but how do we know what it means? I was originally thinking of making this a Tea Room post instead of an RFV, because I could see myself looking at a dozen cites and still not being satisfied, since few if any of these cites are going to use the word and then define it for the readers. —Soap— 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Greeco-Roman

There are lots of scannos, typos and books by presumably non-native speakers. Does this clear the rare-misspelling threshold? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Bidoof's Law

One "quote" is literally UD (yikes) and all are mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

hierotheca

Not seeing any English for singular or plural. Plenty of scope for a decent Latin entry, mind. Denazz (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

idylatry

Seems to be a blend of idyll and idolatry, and probably a protologism by the anonymous creator 12 years ago (!). I can find a handful of mentions online, but I'm not finding genuine uses in permanently archived texts. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

adamastor

Defined as a common noun meaning "A hideous phantom." Is this right? I can only find google books:"an Adamastor", google books:"Adamastors" capitalized, seemingly as a race(?) of specific mythical or fictional giants(?), often of the sort described at Adamastor. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

hole

Noun sense: informal: a container or receptacle. The usexes given (with no context) are "car hole" and "brain hole". I can't imagine what kind of container a "brain hole" is; I believe "car hole" is a nonce term from The Simpsons, a joke based on how people pronounce "garage" differently and what else they could call it. So this "sense" looks pretty weak. Equinox ◑ 19:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Memfrica

Tagged but not listed; has some cites already. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

ferrugiferous

Marked for speedy deletion. Has one cite (a typo/scanno?). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

vare

Rfv-sense: A weasel. - Only finding crappy old dialectal dictionaries, most of which say "apparently it is a local term" or the like Denazz (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Georgianophobia

Equinox ◑ 03:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Not found, only a single website (en.kavkazplus.com) on multiple places. Apparently Atitarev needed it as a translation of грузинофо́бия (gruzinofóbija) (which exists); again English Gruzinophobia I do not find. Maybe one could find more closer to the Russo-Georgian War; who has succeeded to whitewash whom? Fay Freak (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I spy one book using Citations:Georgiaphobia, a use by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and some random web uses (Reddit and the like); it is the same with Citations:Georgiophobia, just one book and scattered websites. If we need a THUB, apparently it will have to be some descriptive phrase like phobia of Georgia or fear of Georgians. - -sche (discuss) 07:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ditto Citations:Kartvelophobia. Apparently no term has yet succeeded as the term for this. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've found two more uses of Georgiophobia so I created that entry and moved the translation table there. Einstein2 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited and created Georgiaphobia as well. Einstein2 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Impressive! - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Gougu

Geometry term for a right triangle (from Chinese). Equinox ◑ 14:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Unable to find "Gougus", and "a Gougu" has term in question italicized in GB. CitationsFreak (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Failed. - -sche (discuss) 14:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

one-percenter

Rfv-sense:

• One who seeks or is granted honor far greater than their perceived contribution would warrant.

Added in 2007. The sense "One who wishes to be recognized for an idea without putting forth the "ninety-nine percent perspiration" needed to implement that idea" also doesn't have any cites, but it appears to have been waved through RFV at the time of the entry's creation, so I'm not going to insist. This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Curryland

Can't attest to this term as a derogatory name for India. Search results are mostly for restaurants. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Can be found on the Web to some degree (search for "go back to Curryland"), but not in GBooks. I only found a single non-offensive, punning use there (2022, Saras D. Sarasvathy, Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise page 71: "Or maybe what really interests them is theme tours and other travel options to India and the Far East – Curryland Travels?"), where it is used in the context of food, and alongside other puns like "Curry Favor" for a proposed company name. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hell-Realm

Tagged but not listed. Given reason is: "(hell realm, Hell realm, Hell Realm do occur)" This, that and the other (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

cited, but this should probably be an alt form of one of the more common forms such as hell realm, Hell realm, Hell Realm or hell-realm. Kiwima (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

hufu

A lot of the supposed quotes are references to brands or mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

underfang

underfong

If no evidence can be found to the contrary, my proposed disposition for these two words is as follows:

• Move underfang to Middle English (title ???)
• Set up underfong as a separate Modern English entry with the sense "(obsolete) To entrap, surround." We would need to work out what the past forms of the verb are.

OED has sufficient cites for this sense of underfong that I believe it would pass. This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

waterchamber

This phrase is usually written as two spaced words. In Google Books results, the (rather few) results seem to be hyphenated when you look at the actual page. The same might apply to the Middle English waterchaumbre etymology... Equinox ◑ 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

realveolization

Just the one hit Fond of sanddunes (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Three hits in Google Scholar. Two are durably archived journal papers, while the third is this set of Russian conference proceedings which is probably not durably archived for our purposes.

(BTW the def of alveolization could seriously use some improvement; it looks like an authentic SB stab in the dark.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

underlook

Five verb senses for this extremely rare word! I'm not sure we could find three convincing cites for any one of the senses. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Also the sole current citation (from 1906) is not using the word, but inventing a nonce word to explain the etymology of "suspect".) @Leasnam Equinox ◑ 00:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

OED has only the senses "to look at from below" (the wording of our sense 2 needs checking based on any available cites - looking underneath a thing is not the same as looking at that thing from below) and "to fail to notice as a result of looking too low" (both direct parallel to overlook). The other senses are very questionable. This, that and the other (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

socky

OED2 mentions old dialect dictionaries. We could definitely add totally new sense meaning socklike, though Fond of sanddunes (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the sock they're referring to, which we don't list. It is related to suck and soak, so i think this word would have been soaky if it had come down to us through the standard dialect. (Interesting how all these similar-sounding words — soak, suck, soggy, sobby, soppy, ... and some people say soaping wet for sopping wet — describe things being made wet). —Soap— 14:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

fuxated

Tagged but not listed, unless something got lost. Was created by an IP who is now in a rangeblock, but I cannot confidently say if the rangeblock was for this person or just a coincidence. —Soap— 14:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

skare

And skar Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Failed/passed Zebres rouges (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

affect perseverance

I haven't been able to find any uses in books, although there is interference from the phrase "affect [verb] perseverance [object of that verb]". google:"called affect perseverance" turns up one paper which attributes the term to "Sherman and Kim 2002" and google:"as affect perseverance" only turns up a couple hits, so perhaps it never made it beyond Sherman and Kim. "belief perseverance" seems better attested. - -sche (discuss) 07:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW this Wiktionary entry is so old (2007) that the name of the user who created it doesn't even show up right, it's just "imported>Borisu" (unlinked). - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

E-Tolls

Weird capitalisation. Brand name? This, that and the other (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

hippin

Asking for the sense

a napkin for an infant

In both English and Scots.

I wonder if these were added by editors unfamiliar with the term napkin as a euphemism for (and an old-fashioned word for) a baby's diaper; that is, a nappy. The Scots Dictionary cites make much more sense if we're talking about undergarments rather than paper towels or even handkerchiefs. As well, the etymology deriving it from hip makes much more sense if we're talking about something a baby wears rather than something their parents might use to clean their face. Looking for evidence that this can mean specifically the hand napkin and not the undergarment.

Thanks, —Soap— 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

hypertapping

Found this in requests for definitions. I can find no uses. Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The term is typically used in relation to Tetris speedrunning. Mentioned here, here, here, and here. Netizen3102 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Note existence of related entry hypertapper. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

And now hypertap. Equinox ◑ 07:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

sideroxylon

Rfv-sense Something to do with rhetoric. Kiwima (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly a calque from German, based on the Wikipedia page w:wooden_iron. But if so, I think we should list it as wooden iron and make this just an alternate term, assuming it passes RFV. —Soap— 08:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this suggests that sideroxylon appears in the original work of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, but in German. It has plenty of hits in English, but they are all talking about translations of the German writing. The first link mentions one author, F. H. Bradley, who used sideroxylon in English. It may be that the translation is variable, and that wooden iron, ironwood, and sideroxylon are all valid translations of the German Eisenholz (and hölzernen Eisen also exists). I also found this old diff of a second Wikipedia article. —Soap— 09:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Only (German?) philosophers would have found paradox in sideroxylon/ironwood/wooden iron. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So, this sense is an (learned?) English borrowing of German Sideroxylon, which is a transliteration of an Ancient Greek calque of hölzernen Eisen (supposed to be a vernacular German expression per explanatory footnote in an English translation of The Joyous Science)? Not hard to see why this has not gained much traction in English. DCDuring (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Abraham suit

Abram work

As with go on the Abraham suit: it is hard to find uses, but searching is impeded by many irrelevant hits of the two words happening to be near each other. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

phyllo-decaoxotetrasilicate

Tagged upon creation by Graeme Bartlett. Four sources were listed, but only one is valid for CFI purposes (one is a paper, one is a database and the other two are references to the first paper). This, that and the other (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Chevron

The energy corporation. Tagged for RFD by an IP: "does not appear to meet requirements of WT:BRAND". This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

dermocoaching

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nihilarian

The pronunciation is given as /naɪˈhɪ.leəɹ.i.ən/, which, if correct, would be very unusual. Words ending -arian are almost always stressed on the third syllable from the end. Do we have a source for this? (The pronunciation was added by Nardog, according to the page history.) — Paul G (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Nardog just touched it up. The unusual stress was added by a different editor who's no longer active here. I agree it's suspicious. —Soap— 14:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A US editor who wouldn't have added a UK pronunciation without encountering it somewhere. @Apisite. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A user also submitted the word to Collins' user-submitted area of their dictionary with the claim "pronounce the ‘h’ like a ‘k’", which also seems implausible. Perhaps there was a joke among a few people somewhere to assert wrong pronunciations for this word, e.g. "because only Nihilarians [people who deal in trivial matters] would notice or care". - -sche (discuss) 15:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than a joke, I think that some people probably have a genuine notion of pronouncing the word with a /k/ based on the variant pronunciation with /k/ of the Latin word ni(c)hil.--Urszag (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

OED says that George Berkeley was the only person to use it, though it is mentioned in various places. It seems like it might be an inkhorn term that some people write but never actually say. Cnilep (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

nihilarian

I just noticed we also have a lowercase spelling (which also had a weird pronunciation, which I changed); it seems like it may have the same problem of having been used only once. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

All I can find for either capitalization, apart from quotations of Berkeley, is one use as a name, some word-books' made-up examples of use (not allowed by CFI), and uncapitalized use(s) in a work Harley Williams, A Century of Public Health in Britain, 1832-1929, where I unfortunately can't see enough of any of the snippets to work out whether the use in question is an excerpt of a work by Berkeley or Fraser (the "translator" of the Berkeley quote our entry is currently using), or an independent use by Williams or someone else. If it's independent, then combining it with some of the versions of Berkeley that use lowercase, we'd have two cites for some broad definition at nihilarian. - -sche (discuss) 14:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Both RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

backstory

Sense 3: "A prequel". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: feels Anglish-y, y'know? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I know how to respond to that. It is a sense listed at Dictionary.com, but I can't say I've heard the word being used that way before, hence this request. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant that it feels like a word that was made-up to use only native English. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

monkey motion

Sense 2: Needless or useless activity. (If real, may need to be made uncountable.) Equinox ◑ 21:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

booksie

Noun: intelligent person. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

carpe diem cras

Can't find much in any language, let alone English. See also WT:RFVI#carpe diem cras. This, that and the other (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

helang

Rfv-sense: "(Malaysia, derogatory, slang, politics) a corrupt politician or an elite person." Tagged but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

loaf

Rfv-sense: Verb: "(internet slang) To assume or be in catloaf position (for cats or other animals)"

Improperly left on an oldish Tea Room page with {{look}}. If such a cite search found evidence for unloaf#Verb, it would be nice to put it on Citations:unloaf. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

circover

circovery

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

bolling

OED has 2 other obsolete meanings, not this swelling + boozing Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

transfeminated

Two senses: "1. (obsolete, rare) Changed from a woman into a man" and "2. (obsolete, rare) Changed from a man into a woman". Although the word is discussed in references a lot, I can find only two uses: Browne spells out that he means sense 1; Meredith (on the citations page) is unclear. - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any other instances of transfeminated as an adjective, but I did find one of transfeminate as a verb:

• 2010, Michael Salvatore, Between Boyfriends, page 27:

  But in defense of all the "Is he or isn't he?" rumors, Laraby is the only person I know who can transfeminate from frat boy to sissy queen in three seconds flat. And transfemination usually occurred on Monday mornings as a tonic to thwart Loretta's hungover harangues.

I also found multiple references to a work by Joseph Gamble (which is cited as a reference in the entry) that traces the history of the word "transfeminate", so if someone could read that (which is hidden behind a paywall), we might find enough cites for the word transfeminate. BTW, many old dictionaries sidestep the male-to-female or female-to-male distinction by defining the verb as "to change sex". Kiwima (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that (other dictionaries have one combo/sidesteppy sense) too, but it seems like a incorrect copout to me: with "transition" or "change sex" / "sex change", those terms truly are broad, but here it seems like some uses mean specifically one thing (and would use an opposite term for the other thing), and other uses mean specifically the other thing (and would use an opposite term for the first thing), so combining them feels like combining e.g. the two senses of trans man into a sense like "someone who either transitioned into, or away from, being a man": it would technically cover all of the uses, except that no use means that, they all mean either specifically the one thing or specifically the other thing. - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwima The Gamble paper spends much of its time chronicling the passage of the word through dictionaries. It offers no citations other than Browne. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, even if we wanted to combine the senses, which I think would probably be inaccurate, there are only two cites (of the adj, and one of a verb transfeminate). After six months, I'm calling this RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 14:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

peritonaeums

Listed as a plural of peritonaeum. I could only find German uses on Google Books and added two of peritonaea (I could not find a third; note: not peritonæa). J3133 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The only occurrences I found in English papers were citations of German papers. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

bourd

Rfv-sense: verb. Only quote is Middle English Fond of sanddunes (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

seck

Just used in rent seck? Demonicallt (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently so, although Middle English secce could be used a bit more broadly so it's possible someone would find cites in reference to things other than rent on EEBO, but scannos of "seek" and real uses of "seck"="sack" crowd it out. Converted to {{only used in}} for now. - -sche (discuss) 14:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

pignus

Anything in English? Demonicallt (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Nub098765 (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All the cites provided have the word in italics. Can we find some without? This, that and the other (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

dragon's tail

dragon's head

Rfv-sense of these used as tinctures in the manner of Sol#Noun or Jupiter#Noun. The only occurrences of "dragon's head" or "dragon's tail" I can find in heraldic texts are the &lit sense: the head/tail of a dragon. I managed with difficulty to cite Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn, but can only find one cite of Venus (vert), and none of Mercury (purpure) or these two. - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed but I added Further reading that mentions it. - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

scambler

Rfv-sense: Scottish: A bold intruder upon the hospitality of others; a mealtime visitor. Denazz (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

chicanery

Rfv-sense "A slick performance by a lawyer." Ioaxxere (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

when

Rfv-sense postposition: (Internet slang, interrogative, often humorous) Used after a noun or noun phrase in isolation to propose that it should happen. Usage examples on the entry for context:

1. The site's all bugged. Fix when?
2. Tank class buff when?
3. My fridge even restocks itself these days. Glorious AI overlords when?

I added this myself, and I'm reasonably certain it's possible to cite since it's been around since the 2000s (possibly the 90s), but Google makes it a real challenge since it's a niche sense of a very common word.

Theknightwho (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your intent to document a kind of humour that is not obvious to everyone, but calling it a postposition is gross, even if we assume it to be only used in that postponed order, which it isn’t. A decade ago when something was announced on Windows Phone Central there was always someone asking in the comment section, first earnestly and then as a meme: When in India? This is kind of a general phenomenon where one asks something with an implicit assumption that one definitely expects or demands one thing or the other. Like if a politician is asked what he gonna do about X he will rarely be accepted to do nothing, unfortunately. The lexical part here is the order, not a separate sense or part of speech, which I reckon an excuse for including something which cannot be included in a dictionary rather than a grammar. Fay Freak (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak I think you're analysing it the wrong way around: it's a postposition because it is used after the noun [phrase] it refers to, which is completely abnormal for the word when and would be considered ungrammatical by all speakers in most contexts. It just so happens that when it is used like that, it's semantically restricted to the sense of making a proposal, but that's incidental to whether it's a postposition or not. It clearly derives from the way the usual senses can be tacitly used to propose things, but those don't prevent it being a postposition because it is still being used after its referent; after all, that's precisely what gives it the meme-y, internet-slangy connotations it has in the first place. Theknightwho (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And the verbs are implied. Telegraphic style or something. “The fix comes when?” is well-formed, but presupposes a fix and hence implies its demand, though it be of a different rudeness – doesn’t affect its syntactic pertinence. Something about prosodic stress also, which is also manipulated by word order in English but less than in e.g. Spanish or Russian. We cannot create pages for stresses or suprasegmentalia well so far. I don’t see how it isn’t the normal interrogative adverb. You have it the wrong way around to assume its word type from the word order, its function is that. Fay Freak (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak “The fix comes when?” is still using it as a postposition and - importantly - greatly limits the semantic scope + connotation. Theknightwho (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the fact a verb can be implied is relevant here - that's not possible in every context. Theknightwho (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a postposition, it is an interrogative adverb. If we make a kind of inline survey here, you lose, this is utterly left field. Neither of the two things you call important or relevant is important or relevant. Connotation has to be shed from denotation and is less lexical, may also be borne by tone and word order notwithstanding lexical meaning, and in the same manner whether a verb can be left out depends on whether the context allows to omit specification of the speakers intent by a verb rather than the lexical status of surrounding words. First the intent, then the words, and lexical classes are distinguished by which forms of intent a word expresses: it’s the same whether when is on the end or beginning of the sentence.

You seem to assume that word order is kind of representative of logical classification of words, when only grammar precepts particular to a language community, comprising their suprasegmental and word order features but also pragmatic considerations about when one can omit to express anything, determine their placement. Before the sentence is formed it is already set which part of speech a word belongs to, as a speaker of a language I only juggle around the vocabulary that comes to my mind, estimating the listemic knowledge of my target community for every individual word, to convey my intent, with any abuse by novel combination of the vocabulary I can get away with it; exceptional word order chosen for the meme changes nothing, exception proves the rule, i.e. the preconceived rule of what lexical class a lexeme belongs to: we need to have preconceptions to talk to each other. As in some cases when we really like to make a noun a verb for our particular purpose: then it has the sentence constituent of a verb but will never be such a listeme except on runtime. Production of language is like Tetris with more dimensions and not a strict game of logics. I deny your postposition ever happened, parts of speech are psychological structures to organize listemes and not naively induced from sentences, ergo we have names for them to give hints about them in works about language such as this dictionary, making your idiosyncratic classification as a postposition superfluous rather than necessitated syntactically, since the statement you make does not transparently relate the presented entry to what is previously understood as “postpositions”. Fay Freak (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a postposition (which in linguistics normally refers to an adposition that comes after its complement; if it means something else on Wiktionary, that would be confusing). Rather, it is a non-standard positioning of the interrogative word "when". Compare the less-than-fully-standard (although fairly common) ordering found in "wh-in-situ" questions like "You asked who?" or "They did what?" Or without a verb, we could have phrases like "You told Sandy? Sandy who?" to mean "Which Sandy?": "who" is not a postposition there, despite coming after the name that it asks about.--Urszag (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is wh-in-situ combined with an abbreviated style resembling telegraphic style or SMS speak. It does not look like a postposition. If we could find usage like *Let's hope a fix when (intended meaning: "Let's hope for a fix"), that would look more like a postposition, but I find that sentence ungrammatical, unlike the wh-in-situ examples Fix when? and AI overlords when?. (I don't understand Tank class buff when?; the first three words are too polysemous for me to guess the intended meaning.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You've convinced me, @Urszag. The interesting discussion of postpositions notwithstanding, I'm not sure whether the connotation indicated, "to propose that it should happen" is strong enough to warrant mention in some form in the entry. I feel that I'd be more convinced of a distinct sense if there were intentionally no question mark (*"Get up lazybones, and make your bed when!"), not just omitted through lack of care, but all three examples include a question mark. —DIV (1.145.19.119 10:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC))

I see someone has fixed up the part of speech, and someone else has added cites, so AFAICT the remaining question is whether the cites attest this sense as a distinct sense, or whether this is simply the usual sense 1 of when and analogous, as Urszag says, to "You asked who??", "They did what??". - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of further input, I think we may have done as much as RFV can do (cites have been added, and the part of speech has been changed as discussed above). I've made it a subsense of sense 1 so the two senses are at least right next to each other, but I'm inclined to close this RFV and say that if anyone thinks this is purely sense 1 (and should just be merged into sense 1), the Tea Room or RFD may be better venues for discussing that. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

tervy

terve

Hard to search for because there are many spellings, but all I'm finding for tervy is "topsy-tervied" and other hyphenations or scannos. The EDD has two cites but in the spelling tervee (“to struggle, writhe”). The OED does not seem to have two-syllable tervy and only has two one-syllable verbs both spelled terve, tirve, both with definitions rather different from our terve entry, but the only one with three cites (if they're all English and not Scots) is the one we don't currently have, tirve (“strip (of clothes, skin, a roof, etc)”). The OED has one cite of terue terve (“to turn, esp. upside down”): Citations:terve. Separate issue: we derive tervy from Middle English tervien, but the Middle English Dictionary doesn't seem to have that word(?) and the DSL says the Scots cognate tirvie is a "nonce form ad. Mid.Eng. tirve, terve, to turn, overturn, topple over" instead of deriving it from a verb tervien. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The OED derives turvy from terve, turve +‎ -y, with terve, turve derived from Middle English terven (“to throw (something) down; to throw (something) into confusion; to level; to resort or turn (to something); to go, move; to turn; to collapse, fall”) (“terven, v.”, in MED Online, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 2007): see further at topsy-turvy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

fat-soluble

Rfv-sense "that tends to accumulate in the adipose tissue of the body", as distinct from sense 1 "Soluble in lipids, and in organic solvents / dissolving easily in fat". PUC – 11:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That is how it is used of pharmaceuticals. The inference from sense 1 to that sense is not one that normal people make. DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

chicken-eater

Sense 1: "A pollotarian." That's not just anyone who eats chicken; see entry for the special dietary meaning. (Sense 2 could use citations too, of course...) Equinox ◑ 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

blue-balling

Rfv-sense: "Sexually frustrated".

Might have something to do with incels. DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted: to "blue-ball" is to sexually frustrate, so someone who is "blue-balling" would be doing the frustrating, not being frustrated (apparently). Equinox ◑ 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless it somehow reversed its meaning in incel world. DCDuring (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ergativity/lability is very plausible here, influenced by ballin'. This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It also seems to be a general/productive colloquial(?) thing for "[X]ing" to be able to mean doing/experiencing X, e.g. redshirts are redshirting, we're Wiktionarying and interneting and so on. So it's plausible. But I can't find cites. - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'dn't've

I see 1 GBooks hit. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• There are quite a lot of web hits saying variations of "I hear this a lot but I don't think I've ever seen it written", and that matches my experience - I've certainly heard it, almost certainly used it, but never written it and don't think I've seen it written outside Wiktionary and discussions of English contractions. I'm not up-to-date on how we handle such terms though? Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

you'dn't've

Nothing in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

ascian

Two senses. Apart from one poetic adjectival cite (Citations:ascian), all the hits seem to be of Ascians, capitalized, as a designation for certain people in some old Greek conceptualization of the world (who because they lived near the equator, did not have a shadow at certain times). - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

-ate

Seeking examples for "(in nouns) a thing characterised by the specified thing"; as pointed out in an {{attn}}, the one example cited (apostate) "is a poor example - it's a whole Greek word, not a derivative of some word "apost"". - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @-sche, could an advocate advocatus (one who calls to/one who is called for) or candidate candidatus (one who is characterised by shining white) be similar to what you're looking for? The root words (in English) aren't close to what they meant in their original language so I'm not sure if they are quite analysable in this format. I'm not a linguist, so of course, these suggestions may be entirely incorrect. 31.205.18.28 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No...? Because advocate is still a word that was derived intact from Latin; Latin is where -atus was added to advoco; English didn't add *-ate to *advoc. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of examples/cites after several months, RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

meagry

According to the OED, “Compositorial misreading of meagre, adj.” and the “only evidence for meagry is […] in the writing of Thomas Dekker” (our quotation). J3133 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Failed Denazz (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

lit de justice

RFV'ing the English PUC – 12:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It is almost universally italicized, which seems to indicate code switching. I think this is probably a French term, and considered as such even in English texts. I found one text that does not italicize the term, but that one leaves many French words unitalicized (and has a French author), so I am still pretty dubious. I would probably move the definition to bed of justice. Kiwima (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Cossack

Rfv-sense "(derogatory) A mercenary; a regular or irregular soldier used to oppress a minority, such as in anti-Jewish pogroms; a police officer, particularly one used in strike-breaking; a violent thug." Removed out of process by IP in Special:Diff/77847941. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Choying

A transliteration of the Tibetan female given name छोइङ.

That isn't the Tibetan script, so I suspect this isn't a direct transliteration from Tibetan.

Drolma

A transliteration of the Tibetan surname डोल्मा.

Same issue.

Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

secondary moon, tertiary moon

1. Can we come up with examples showing whether the requested definitions belong at secondary and tertiary (i.e. are these SOP?) or whether they are specific to the moon. Kiwima (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• RFV failed. No defn, no nothing. Newfiles (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

clum

Just Middle English? Phacromallus (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

cumber-world

Middle English. This form does not seem to be attested (see MED); the c. 1412 quotation uses Modern English spelling. J3133 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

clack dish

Rfv-sense. A one-off Shakespearean metaphor, methinks. Even then, this can't be said to be a sense of clack dish any more than "penis" is a sense of ducat - but that's an RFD argument. This, that and the other (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should be in the nonce-word category, if it fails RFV because it's Shakespeare. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

send

Slang, rare: "To launch oneself off an edge." If the intended sense is something like "he sent himself over the cliff" then it's not slang or rare, and already covered by #1 to move from one place to another. Equinox ◑ 00:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've heard phrases like s/he really sent it apparently meaning that someone did something very impressive(?), e.g. [74], [75]. I doubt that's what this definition was trying to cover, though (if it was, it needs to be completely rewritten), and I don't know how to cite it. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

fee

Rfv-sense: "An additional monetary payment charged for a service or good, especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost."

Underlined portions were added is two anonymous edits in late 2022 and seem unwarranted. I also doubt that the term fee is used for charges for goods rather than for professional services or for privileges. I have added two definitions similar to what other dictionaries have as their only senses, which fit with my experience. DCDuring (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems okay to me: you might book a flight and have smaller additional charges added to it, like a "late booking fee" or a fee for an optional in-flight meal. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But "late booking" is certainly a privilege. Maybe "in-flight meal" too, though I would like to see examples of that usage. I'm sure we could find instances that fit quantitatively, just as I could find many instances that fit the definition of medium-sized as "of the smallest available size of a packaged good". DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• BTW, Wiktionary's definitions for fee are featured at “fee”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., with the definition in question offered at the top of the list. I'm so proud. Not. DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"What was the fee for your flight?" sounds weird to me; I would expect "cost/price of". Fees are typically small/optional "bolt-ons". Maybe it's British usage. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To me too. Also, I don't pay a fee for my groceries, car, gasoline, etc. Is a flight a "privilege"? Are admission fees all small bolt-ons? License fees? Professional fees certainly aren't. I had added a few collocations for the two definitions I added. Economists call everything a price, not a fee, charge, tip, gratuity, toll. But I can't speak to what usage is outside US off the top of my head. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, the use of cost in "especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost" goes against the grain for me. Even worse, the NP "underlying cost". "Underlying" what? As an economist I learned that costs were of production and prices were what customers paid or what sellers asked. DCDuring (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think laypeople observe such a distinction between cost and price. Moreover, the type of privilege for which a fee applies, as it is generally understood, doesn't correspond to any sense at privilege, so we need to make the definition more specific.

I came up with these two senses which cover most of it, and which broadly match lemmings:

1. An amount charged in return for permission to do something, especially something ancillary to the purchase of a product or service.

   late fee, booking fee, entry fee, membership fee, drivers' license fee, television license fee

2. A fixed rate or price charged for (chiefly white-collar) professional services.

   lawyers' fees, tuition fee, bank fees

Also, in my mind, the term has mildly negative connotations, which ought to be mentioned somewhere in the entry. (In general we do a poor job at mentioning connotations.) This, that and the other (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Consider an advertisement for a business that claims "no hidden fees".

In this case, it does exactly fit this definition. 68.1.207.26 10:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

retrofuturistic

Sense 2: "Imagining a future employing outdated concepts." Must be cited distinct from sense 1, "Resembling an outdated vision of the future." Equinox ◑ 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

skibidi, scibidi

Ioaxxere (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can this even be attested in any meaningful way? What would even qualify as use when no definition has been given? And the claim of it being an adjective, let alone a comparative one, is also quite dubious in my opinion. lattermint (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lattermint The word has also been used as a verb, and probably also a noun. There's no meaningful way to attest it, because literally no one knows what it's supposed to mean. I don't know what that's meant to mean we do about it — but it is "a word", and people "use" it a lot, so in my opinion this entry is already fine as it is. When some poor fellow comes looking for what this word means, but can't find it anywhere else, we can tell them it's nonsense and they can move on with their day. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This was pretty much my intent when I created the page. I spent a while trying to figure out if it meant anything, and eventually determined it didn't. I made that page to save everyone else from repeating what I did.

I chose adjective based on the usage "You’re so skibidi" quoted at the start of the CBC Kids article, but I don't have a strong opinion here.

I do think the etymology on scibidi is probably spurious: Biser King's "Dom Dom Yes Yes" came out in 2022, but there's an Italian cannabis store called Scibidi that began in 2018. Apocheir (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The store's name (actually Scibidì, IPA^(key): ^*/ʃi.biˈdi/^*) is clearly a reference to CBD (cannabidiol). It would be funny if the YouTube thing was named after (a mispronunciation of) this name... This, that and the other (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• For it not having an agreed-upon definition, my students sure use it a lot. Purplebackpack89 22:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• FYI, this

Maybe compare shoop ("Used as a scat word in song lyrics"). Equinox ◑ 22:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone here suggested yet that it is simply an intensifier? Er, or at least similar to, like, the f-word which can be added to basically any English word: i.e. (from Twitter) “what the skibidi”, “oh my skibidi”, a skibidi X, i.e. this tweet: “Heard a child playing basketball call another kid quote “a skibidi bitch””, and (less common): "what in the skibidi". The other uses we see seem to just be nonsense; for instance, “You’re so skibidi” appears in the same song as “You're so Fanum tax”: Fanum tax means to steal a portion of a friend's food, which means the phrase “you're so Fanum tax” does not mean anything, perhaps just like calling someone “skibidi”. Generation Alpha seems to use it earnestly as both an intensifier and nonsense word whereas older generations seems to use it “ironically” or more humorously as a nonsense word in contexts where it clearly has no lexical meaning nor value. LunaEatsTuna (talk)

Wikipedia even says: “The slang was integrated into a TikTok meme where words in song lyrics are swapped with various Gen Alpha slang to create a nonsensical result.” If we just ignore the joke uses then hopefully it can be pretty easily defined without overthinking it. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

So it is a word which only has connotation, not denotion, innit? Labels but no gloss? Non-gloss. A lexicographic anomality, yet lexical. Fay Freak (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The word hurts my brain. And oh yeah, its lack of a sense is weird too get it har har. @Fay Freak I made some edits and added attests.. would love to have some opinions because I do not know if I did it right. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: It looks intelligent now however. So we aren’t verifying anything anymore; it is what we think and the journalists making stories about its meaning, which they shouldn’t but leave to us, are linguistic punies. I strike it as cited because one can’t, and doesn’t realistically want, to do it better anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just created the skibidi I think which meets CFI by any reasonable metric. Thus I would Support accepting online quotations for the interjection sense, although I'm not sure about the other POSs. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Before we close this up, can we do something about the etymology on scibidi? It should be obvious that it's just a spelling variant of skibidi, not a separate word, and therefore doesn't really have an etymology. The connection to the Italian cannabis shop is sure coincidence. —Soap— 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

torosaures

J3133 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

plaga

just in dictionaries, per OED Demonicallt (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Tricky. Found and added one (plural) citation. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

QuickPath

QuickPath is the term for sliding to type on iphones known as Swyping on android, it is helpful for translations to have this term and it is attestable and was deleted prematurely 63.160.115.163 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [76]"QuickPath allows you to zip your finger from key to key to quickly spell words without lifting your finger from the screen." Normally, when you type, you have to tap the letters on the keyboard, but with QuickPath typing, you just need to swipe, QuickPath for Speed and Accuracy To enter text faster and more accurately , use the QuickPath keyboard and slide your finger from letter to letter rather than tap each letter in turn ., [77]

Please see WT:BRAND. We have a very high bar to clear for branding terms like this. This, that and the other (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It clearly meets that standard, used in published works 2600:1700:9758:7D90:4D5:761B:4140:D29D 06:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not enough. "The sources of these citations: (1) must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the brand, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship; and (2) must not identify any such parties. If the term has legal protection as a trademark, the original source must not indicate such. The sources also must not be written: (1) by any person or group associated with the type of product or service; (2) about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service; or (3) about the type of product or service in general." — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

THe for dummy books are independent of apple, they just write books you can read on nooks, so my head is shook — This unsigned comment was added by 63.160.115.163 (talk) at 02:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC).

The high bar that WT:BRAND creates is really a consequence of this bit: "The sources of these citations: ... (2) must not identify any [...] parties [with economic interest in the brand]". Good luck finding a book that mentions QuickPath but doesn't mention Apple. A clear WT:BRAND fail in my view. This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

For Dummies doesn't have economic interest in the brand, merely mentioning Apple is not an endorsement, their economic interest is in guiding people on how to do just about everything. The bar is not as high as you tout. If we do not include emerging technologies then this project will become more and more useless over time and hinder translation consults too. Think about it! — This unsigned comment was added by 63.160.115.163 (talk) at 01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC).

I'm quoting from the first part of the policy text, where the question is not whether the author has an economic interest, but whether the source (the book in this case) identifies any parties with an economic interest. We very rarely accept branded terms precisely because this is such a high bar. Compare Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names – a page which is admittedly the work of a single editor from 2007, but might give you some insight into what we're on about here. This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

skolioromantic

Tagged by Argie222 but not listed, with edit summary:

although it is a correctly formed term, it is not supported by sources or quotations here on wiktionary (btw, a quick search on google scholar returns only 8 results)

I suspect it will be citeable. Two of the Google Scholar results, at least, appear to be independent uses. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not aware of the procedure, but since I added the tag, I think it can be removed now that the citations have been added. Argie222 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Argie222 no worries, for future reference, use the little (+) sign to list your request here. There's no rush to close RFVs, so let's leave it open for the requisite month (at least). This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Cited, albeit barely. Most hits are mentions, and uses are mention-y. Ceteroromantic seems to be used as a synonym. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

humen

Supposedly a jocular plural of human. Tagged but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

methanolic (noun)

All three citations use the form methanolics. So they confirm methanolics as a noun, but do not confirm noun use of methanolic. For all we know based on those three quotations, typical usage might be "Compound X is one of the methanolics," rather than "Compound X is a methanolic". (Consider the case of the study of linguistics, which comprises many topics ...yet we don't talk about studying *"one linguistic".) —DIV (1.145.19.119 10:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC))

Not a valid analogy. Linguistics is uncountable but (the) methanolics is plural, a set of countable things. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

crull

Just used in Chaucer? Demonicallt (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

façon de parler

English. PUC – 20:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

nrg.

Slang for "energy". I have seen NRG but I doubt the existence of this form, because lower-case abbrs with a final dot/period are not the kind that work by pronouncing the letters one by one (N-R-G). Equinox ◑ 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

over-greedier, over-greediest

Listed as a comparative and superlative, respectively, of over-greedy. -er, -est forms were removed from overgreedy in 2017. J3133 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

swim the Forth

Presbyterian equivalent of swim the Tiber, swim the Bosphorus, etc. Graham11 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't seem to find any relevant citations for swim the Bosphorus, either. Multiple Mooses (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I've come across swim the Bosphorus in the wild on more than one occasion, but with a cursory Google search, I'm not turning up any non-online attestations. Graham11 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT

Not dictionary material, I believe. PUC – 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be shown WT:BRAND is satisfied. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't RFD Italian as well. DonnanZ (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's big news, and some day will be remembered far better than the also seminal video game Doom (for which we seem to preserve an entry), but I dunno: it's still a proper noun for a single brand-like system or entity, not a generic thing like the Internet. Weak delete. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't WT:BRAND an RFV question, given it demands (certain kinds of) cites? I admit it would take some extremely creative searching to uncover relevant cites... This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This should pass eventually, and could likely pass now if someone were to search in the right places, though I wont be expending that effort myself so i dont expect others to. All I'll say is that I've seen plenty of nonliteral use such as "the ChatGPT version" and the like. I saw one person using "[username]GPT" for someone who made a bunch of scripted posts on Twitter, which would suggest GPT might be a word too (or maybe we've come full circle and it just means the original sense of GPT), but as other AI bots take off, that one might fall out of use. —Soap— 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep by WT:BRAND. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep by WT:BRAND. This will be an enduring term in AI history - unless the machines wipe us out, that is. -— This unsigned comment was added by Sonofcawdrey (talk • contribs) at 11:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

• Keep I believe this is becoming genericized short-hand. People now use the term "ChatGPT" to refer to any AI writing tool. Purplebackpack89 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am boldly converting this to an RFV. As @This, that and the other noted, whether WT:BRAND is satisfied is an RFV issue; sentiments like "I've seen plenty of nonliteral use" and "this is becoming genericized short-hand" aren't particularly useful unless qualifying quotations are actually added to the entry. At the moment the citations page contains only possible verb uses of the word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

↑, ↓

"(Japan, slang) Used to denote an unusually high intonation." This, that and the other (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos —Fish bowl (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

rulya

This seems to come from this book, which talks about Traveller loanwords in one Irish town. That brings up the question of whether the bilingual mixture quoted is really English, and whether this word can be attested in any other independent source. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

citizen's arrest

Rfv-sense 1: (uncountable, law) "The right of a person who is not acting as a sworn law enforcement official to detain a suspected criminal until the police can be summoned." Is it really uncountable? And can it really mean "the right to make an arrest" alongside the arrest itself? I can find very few instances of "citizen's arrest isn't allowed/etc." without an article. PUC – 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@PUC I think this stems from someone originally adding this as the definition back in 2005, and I'm pretty sure it's simply wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

incircumscription

Nonce? Denazz (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added two citations (making it three), though the latter seems sorta weak. Nub098765 (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

property porn

Rfv-sense 2. PUC – 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And it's been there since 2007! DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this just a specific example of porn sense 3? Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: That would be an argument for construing sense 1 as SOP, but it doesn't explain sense 2. I don't think sense 2 exists at all, though. PUC – 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We have lots of terms ("MWE"s) that are arguably SoP that we, in the wisdom of the majority of our active contributors, merit inclusion. The deciding factor seems to be that one of the terms in the MWE is very polysemic and the sense of that term used in the MWE is otherwise not common. In this case, I'm with Thryduulf for sense 1. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I notice we have both food porn and the odd-looking foodporn, which has been strangely labelled as the main variant, but no 'propertyporn' (thank goodness!). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Related: there is an entire genre of actual pornography called "property sex" (which I suppose might be called "property porn" in some places), inevitably beginning with one performer saying something like, "look, I've really got to sell this house, I'll do anything". bd2412 T 04:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

book length

"Any long or extensive document, publication or printed matter." PUC – 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles any evidence for an unambiguously nominal use? This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

pyramid up

On Google, shows up as some kind of weightlifting terminology. On BGC, it appears to be used of rapid or drastic growth, similarly to rocket up. Neither of them suggests this "to arrange in a pyramid" sense is what is actually used. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This entry is just misconceived. We already have pyramid#Verb, so the example given in this challenged entry "The boxes were pyramided up to the ceiling" means they were pyramided (all the way) up to the ceiling. It's not "pyramid up". If the boxes were "pyramided next to the exit" we wouldn't want an entry for "pyramid next". Equinox ◑ 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

One can say, The boxes were stacked up to the ceiling, in which I interpret stack up as an English phrasal verbs with particle (up).

Is the following exchange grammatical?

DA: When you entered the garage and saw the boxes, how high were they pyramided up?

Witness: All the way to the ceiling.

I don't think one can have,

DA: And where were they pyramided next?

Witness: Right to the exit.

The question is grammatical if next is not a particle but an adverb of sequentiality, but then the answer makes no sense,  --Lambiam 19:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

By far the most uses found have something to do with either a sense related to bodybuilding/strength training, or one related to stack trading, where one can also pyramid down. There are uses, though, for a sense of “stacking up”:

• Ulysses G. Stewart, Jr. "Problem—With a difference". Army Information Digest, March 1957, vol. 12, nr, 3, page 36.^[78]

  Then boxes were pyramided up a few more feet.

• Memo (?), Date: 2/9/91; From: Jimmy Carter; Subject: Presidential Inauguration in Haiti February 7, 1991. (scanned by the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum) (54MB)

  The huge cathedral was packed to the rafters with celebrants, and people were pyramided up against the windows outside, striving for a glimpse of President Aristide. After he and former President Trouillot finally received communion, we moved to the palace for his inaugural address.

• Dean Stiglitz, Laurie Herboldsheimer (2010). The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Beekeeping.^[79]

  Bait the bees by “pyramiding up” the frames when adding boxes.

 --Lambiam 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have added a sense for the bodybuilding meaning, as well as pyramid down. Mazzlebury (talk)

payen

Methinkes this bee purelie Middle English Denazz (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

om

Eating noise "usually seen in the phrase om nom nom". Needs evidence of being used alone, without nom, else this should be removed. Equinox ◑ 16:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

PIMO

Sense: "Having a mental state of being completely distracted and unfocused on one's surroundings and situation; being spaced-out." This seems an invention from etymology. Actual uses on the Web are the Jehovah's Witness sense. Equinox ◑ 21:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

egling

In lots of old provincial dictionaries... Denazz (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

hochepoche

A horrendous entry that has sat essentially untouched since 2008. The Middle English is not in question (Chaucer used this form) but everything else is. This, that and the other (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Rackmanism

Misspelling or a variant? The word is Rachmanism, after the name of the landlord Peter Rachman. — Paul G (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps by confusion with rack rent, "an excessive rent". Equinox ◑ 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

biff

Rfv-sense "Euphemistic form of bitch." Green's has an entry for biff as an alt form of biffer which has a listed meaning along the same lines ("an unpleasant, unattractive and/or promiscuous woman"), but Green's doesn't make any explicit to connect bitch as currently claimed in the entry. — This unsigned comment was added by The Editor's Apprentice (talk • contribs) at 07:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC).

Not heard of it, but I wonder if it might be AAVE, like bih. Adding the /f/ sound there doesn't take much (I remember being told that a sloppily speaking Finn might sound /f/ in e.g. tuhma). Equinox ◑ 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I had the same thought, I wasn't previously familiar with bih so the comparison that came to mind to me was ahh, but the principle is the same. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've haven't looked too hard because false positive hits for the name Biff (which we seem to be missing) makes searching annoying, but I did find this tweet describing biff as a "just 'Bitch' with a lisp." —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Lawrence

Sense 5: A haze caused by heat. The WP article included refers to Saint Lawrence but has no mention of the haze. DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

conyger

Rfv-sense: vagina.

It's plausible, but I would like to see some verification. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles any comment on this? Seems to be at best a nonce [80]. This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

awkward

English. Only quotation given is in Middle English. -saph 🍏 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(It appears that the challenged sense is the adverb one: “In a backwards direction.” — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC))

ewt

I get it, a newt < an ewt. Plenty of mentions not so much use Denazz (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Citeable from EEBO: [81] [82] [83]. There are also forms like evet, which needs integrating into the family of entries that includes this entry and eft. This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

kleywang

Dubious — This unsigned comment was added by P. Sovjunk (talk • contribs) at 22:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC).

It's similar to Dutch klewang. Here it's an Indonesian sword. DonnanZ (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tupi-Guaraní

This is usually written Tupi-Guarani or Tupí-Guaraní, but not this Franken-version, which I suspect has been inferred from the ISO names "Old Tupi" (no acute) and "Guaraní" (with the acute). Theknightwho (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

pablumese

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the definition currently in the entry is "A style of writing used by commercial large language models (LLMs), characterized by obstinate neutrality, bothsidesism, and clichéd concern for balance, safety, and respect." It seems like a better definition would be just "pablum; language which is (characterized by) pablum": it is not limited to LLMs, and I also don't see how "obstinate neutrality, bothsidesism, and clichéd concern for balance, safety, and respect" has been derived from the one short cite provided. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

fondon

Lots of French, though, which I don't know anything about Denazz (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

frickle

Rfv-sense:A bushel basket. Denazz (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I could find it in lots of dictionaries, but no actual uses. Kiwima (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

inconnexedly

nonce word Denazz (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a citation, so we now have two, but still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

blow someone's mind

Today's new slang sense: to shoot someone in the head. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

eigentravel

Only in one academic paper? Equinox ◑ 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

harbush

Compare the RFV of harbus above. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

extra stitch

Supposedly a synonym of husband stitch, but the citation is not convincing: "didn't you ask for the extra stitch like I told you?" Just seems SoP. Citations needed showing that this is a regular idiom. Equinox ◑ 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

inbland

Obsolete: to mingle, blend. Can't find in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 20:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• RFV failed Zebres rouges (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not be so cavalier. Century 1911 has a quote from Gawain and the Green Knight (14th C.). Perhaps we should look harder, eg, at EME, and/or move it to Middle English. DCDuring (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Here are three cites of it as an adverb via the Middle English Dictionary. One is the Gawain cite, which Century 1911 read to be a verb use. DCDuring (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

seavy

In some old dialect dictionaries. Lfellet (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

contendress

nonce Lfellet (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

twit-twat

"The house sparrow". Apparently originated from The Century Dictionary and was copied into the NED, but the OED has removed this sense and now has an etymology note stating: "the only evidence of use appears to be in A. J. Thébaud’s allegory The Twit-Twats (1881), in which Twit-Twat is the proper name of a family of sparrows rather than a general term". — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

volvo-

Not a real prefix. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

solifaction

"The production of gold". Appears to be a real term, however, meaning "converting coal into synthetic solid fuel". [84] Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone found a source. Don't recall if that's where I got it. kwami (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

lunafaction

"The production of silver". Both this and solifaction were created by @Kwamikagami which could bear on Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Revoking autopatrolled status from Kwamikagami Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How would it bear on that? WK entries do not require sources. That's only required when they're challenged. kwami (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to find this term in GB. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know where I came across it. I found both words when researching alchemical symbols, noticed they weren't in Wikt and so added them, but didn't keep a note of where I found them. kwami (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone found a source for lunifaction. Don't recall if that's where I got it, so can't be positive the 'a' was a typo, but I moved it to the attested spelling. kwami (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

exhaustifaction

Looks like a typo for exhaustification. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Luder line

The standard term is Lüders band, named after W. Lüders. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

duodevicesimal

Another number base. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Usex refers to a "Duodevicesimal Period", a two-word phrase not to be found even in a Google Web search. I would advise speedying some of these Kwama entries. They seem like blatant inventions. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's this, but that's all I can see. When I searched, it tried to give me the results for "Duodecimal Period", but "Duodevicesimal Period" has only the one (there's another hit, but it seems to be basically another version of the same book, and it won't let me view the snippet). By the way: one of the few hits for "duodevicesimal" was a talk page on WP where Kwami mentions how rare it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

sexavigesimal

Another number base. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

great score

"400". Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Kiwima and I independently found what may be the only easily-findable cite, by Stewart Bruce Terry. The far more common use of "great score" to mean an excellent score makes it hard to tell if any other uses exist. - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find cites that clearly refer to more than 20, but don't spell out the exact number. Search on "a great score of the Humpt Men" for one that's arguably too easy to find- it's a weird sort of faux-Elizabethan written in 1912. There are others, though, such as this, this, this, this and this. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An advanced Google search for 'great score of men' also yields this, this and this. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these justify the entry "great score", because the stress pattern is wrong: if great score were a lexicalised term then it would be stressed on the first syllable, but I've never heard it stressed that way in collocations like great score of men, where it's just great + score, with great simply being used for emphasis. Theknightwho (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't agree wih that, I've no idea where the stress lies as I've never heard it said and I don't see how it matters. Consider great grandfather and great grandmother which are often stressed on the second syllable. What do you think about great gross? I first encountered 'great gross' as the answer to a crossword recently and I've now linked the teo entries as related terms. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why. Intuitively I think the stress would only have to change if it were spelled solid as "greatscore". Equinox ◑ 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1 great gross is a good example of my point: the stress has to be initial to avoid the ambiguity caused by making it unstressed, because great can be used for emphasis in exactly that way. In great-grandfather et al., great still takes secondary stress (and often takes primary, too, even discounting instances of prosodic stress). Theknightwho (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the first of the examples above, but the others seem much more likely to be the two separate terms great (“large”) + score (“indeterminate (large) number”) (as in "the plague killed scores of townspeople", which I'm sure we could, with enough tedious searching, find used to describe a situation where e.g. 39 people in a town of 50 were killed, it does not have to be 20 even though we currently roll such usage into our "twenty" sense), rather than great score (“400 specifically”). Compare "a great number of Humpt men" or "large numbers of equipment, arms, accoutrements, ammunition and guns", which does not support great number as a term meaning 400 or any other specific number! Compare google books:"and large scores of", which does not mean "large score" means 200. Cites which clearly use "score" to mean 20 and then also use "great score" in a similar context, e.g. "four scores of men and two great scores of cattle", would be much more persuasive; cites that use "great gross" or "great hundred" to denote those specific numbers and then also "great score" might also be persuasive. - -sche (discuss) 16:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Paradise Lot" quote: "Up in those woods of oak and hemlock, we learned to identify wild edible mushrooms and found several great scores of chicken of the woods. Imagine twenty pounds of tender, fluorescent orange mushroom that tastes like chicken breast!" It's worded like a great score is a specific number, but I doubt these would average only a twentieth of a pound (about 22 grams) each. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I'm not sure - I think it can be read as coming across several large patches of mushrooms. Theknightwho (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to call this RFV-failed because IMO none of the cites (apart from the one cite on the citations page, mentioned above) suggest that "great score" means 400, any more than the cites I gave of "large number" (or "great number", or "large score") suggest "large number" means 400. If anyone would like to argue that some cites are in fact using this to mean exactly 400, speak up. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

monkey knows no ginger

Obscure. There might be entryworthiness is similar expressions with monkey/ginger... Denazz (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The proverb that I see is "What does the monkey know of the taste of ginger?" Kiwima (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Techspressionism

word was coined by an artist to describe his work. Term is not used reliably. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates There are three book quotations supplied in the entry, which appear on their face to support the inclusion of the term (WT:CFI). Are you asserting that these quotations are not independent or otherwise somehow unsuitable? This, that and the other (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi This, that and the other, Yes I am asserting that the quotes are from unreliable sources. Artists describing their own work as a style. “Oz Van Rosen Featured In Group Show At The Whiteroom Gallery”, in The Southhampton Press - interview. "Goldberg will give a brief introduction to Techspressionism" “Mountain Monday’s presentation on ‘Art, Technology, and Emotion: Techspressionism’”, in The Sierra Sun - Not reliable. Churnalism. Thanks for considering deletion. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates Here at Wiktionary we don't have a notion of "reliable" sources as such. That is a Wikipedia concept. The fact that Van Rosen described her own work as Techspressionism isn't important for lexicographical purposes. What matters is that (a) she used the word, and (b) this use has been recorded in what appears to be a durably archived source (I can also find it in this print magazine).

Having said all that, it would be ideal to find some stronger attestations of this word, and I am not at all sure that this will be possible. The only available Google Books result is already in the entry, and the Google Scholar papers are low-quality and possibly not durably archived for our purposes. Issuu looks like the most promising source, but I haven't investigated closely. This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi This, that and the other, I appreciate the clarification on the lexicographical usage being a criterion. Would these be considered additional relevant attestations?

WIRED - https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/

PBS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVYs5cz_0-I

Southampton Arts Center - https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism

27 East - https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/

East Hampton Star - https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology. Thank you, Colin Goldberg // Scribe1791 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

nale

pre-1500 only, methinkes P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

luftgeschaeft

An unstable company and unproductive profession of abstract goods.

Initially added by @RandalKeithNorton using English templates, but with the claim it's a Yiddish word borrowed from German. Given it has one quotation already - in English - I'm going to assume it's supposed to be under English, and that it's a borrowing of German Luftgeschäft. The real Yiddish term appears to be לופט געשעפט (luft gesheft).

The definition probably needs clearing up, too. Theknightwho (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues by cleaning the definition, and added relevant quotes to show its use. RandalKeithNorton (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a YouTube quote dated "2024 June 1" (!). Seems a bit dubious. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

dryghten

This is probably attestable as Dryghten, but the lowercase cannot be found in Modern texts. This, that and the other (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Separate from the capitalization, I wonder if this could just be regarded as an alternate spelling of Drighten / drighten, and if so, whether our etymology of that word needs to be synchronized with this one. We say drighten has unbroken usage since OE times but that dryghten is a learned borrowing. Could it be instead that the -y- spelling is a variant of the more established spelling, in the same style as words such as magick and faerie? —Soap— 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

leech

New sense: a disrespectful or self-righteous person. This is not the better-known sense of a parasitic person who leeches off other people. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

basket of chips

Supposedly refers to a "wire basket designed to hold potato chips", irrespective of whether it actually contains any. This, that and the other (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how it's a synonym, as a chip basket could be empty, before chips are put in it. It's a related term, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We would need to find citations that make it clear that the basket being called this was indeed an empty basket. bd2412 T 04:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I did find this image. DonnanZ (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a common form of English for something containing something, a wine bottle is not the same as a bottle of wine, but we tend to avoid entering them. For that, I think we can point the finger of blame at the SoP policy. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A Google search for "empty basket of" turns up a good number of images of empty baskets that would normally be expected to hold the thing they're an "empty basket" of. Then there's this question on StackExchange. I think the issue here is that "basket of" would normally be expected to be a qualifier for the thing that follows. That would mean that "a basket of chips" would be a qualified way of saying "chips". Instead, "of chips" is modifying "basket". Using "full", instead, it's a little clearer:

1. a full basket of chips
2. a basket full of chips
3. a basketful of chips

The challenged definition could be analyzed as "a [full] [basket of chips]", while the normal analysis would be "[a full basket of] [[chips]"- more naturally, "[a basketful of] [chips]". Then there's "[a basket] [full of chips]".

When you change "full" to "empty", "an [empty basket of] [chips]" doesn't work, but "[a basket] [empty of chips]" sort of does (it really needs a comma after "[a basket]"). "[an empty] [basket of chips]" also works, if you accept the challenged definition.

On the other hand, the way that "of" is used here isn't specific to baskets or chips. It would work the same way for any container that typically contains a specific kind of thing: "an empty tank of gas", "an empty basket of flowers", "an empty bottle of beer", etc. As I see it, that would make this SOP.

I might add that the phrase "an empty bottle of beer" could also be used to mean "a bottle of beer that has been emptied"- the concept of "a bottle of beer" being based on the bottle in its full state, and its being empty a departure from its normal state at the time in question. I've seen that kind of usage employed for emphasis. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I also found images where potato crisps (or whatever) are meant, placed in a little basket, not french fries fried or for frying, and so there can be a difference in meaning between Am. and Br. English. Anyway, I found (in Commons this time) and added an image that illustrates the meaning meant in this entry. DonnanZ (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

spring

Transitive, figurative: "to surprise by sudden or deft action." This cannot be the "spring a surprise on somebody" sense, because you don't surprise a surprise. Here we must be springing a person. Equinox ◑ 04:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It was added in diff; @LlywelynII, can you help cite it?
It was initially as a 'supersense' covering what are now the following two senses, which were initially given as one subsense of this: "To come upon and flush out; (Australia slang) to catch in an illegal act or compromising position." That Australian sense does have cites where you "spring him". But now that "To come upon and flush out." has been separated into its own sense, I'd also like to see more cites of it, frankly; the one cite currently provided seems mentiony and it's unclear that it's using "spring" as opposed to treating "spring a plant" as an idiomatic phrase. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

All would've been OED. Like you pointed out, there are already abundant cites for the subsenses here. If y'all disagree with their particular wording or my paraphrases of them, esp. of the supersenses, that's fine. We're our own thing and you can rephrase/reorganize to your liking. — LlywelynII 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

pentacle

For sense 4, which describes a hexagram (or Star of David).

While there are indeed pentacles on the Wikipedia page with six-pointed stars (and one on our entry too), I dont believe that pentacle is the term for the star in the drawing, but rather the term for the drawing as a whole.

We probably should add a new sense, perhaps a subsense of the first sense, describing a handheld object used by occultists that most often features a star design, often but not always with a five- or six-pointed star. —Soap— 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

How would the proposed new sense differ from that of a talisman?  --Lambiam 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

lige

Middle English? Phacromallus (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

pinnatiped

A bird. Appears in numerous word-list books, aand here referring to a marine animal. Phacromallus (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sparta remix

Seems to only refer to a single meme video. Garagel-Acari (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

ayy

In regards to the "alien" sense. This seems to refer to a 2012 meme, but I couldn't quickly find evidence of usage beyond a) referring to the meme itself, or b) as in, "aliens would say 'ayy lmao'". The possibility that it's synonymous with "alien" seems farfetched. Polomo47 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an in-term mainly in certain online game communities, especially XCOM and Terra Invicta. There are sporadic uses elsewhere, such as this fic which doesn't seem to belong to those universes. This, that and the other (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

shamester

Equinox ◑ 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

orthogonion

Unfindable 3 hits. I wonder what OED has to say on the matterP. Sovjunk (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Only one cite in OED, which it attributes to Henry More's wonderfully titled work The Second Lash of Alazonomastix. (EEBO attributes it to Conjectura cabbalistica.) The quote itself is also quite wonderful:

The Orthogonion what a foundation it is of Trigonometry […] every body knows that knows any thing at all in Mathematicks.

The usual form of the word is orthogonium. This, that and the other (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

poopenfarten

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

hexalemma

decalemma

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

quotoid

Can we find enough citations to keep this obsolete and obscure term? Kiwima (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a related noun quotic too! Equinox ◑ 14:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

alloc

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Rfd-sense: Etymology 1. a term in one or other computer language. I thought we don't keep these. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Keep? see below). It's not just a keyword that occurs in code: it is used in English. "You need to alloc 40 bytes here, Fred." Equinox ◑ 16:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox Can't you use quite a lot of keywords as verbs like this? I'm not saying that's a reason we shouldn't include them, but you have a lot more experience of this than me. Theknightwho (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: Yes, but there is some kind of line. I mean if I say "this function has got two IHttpHandlers" then that's hopefully not includable, but if I say "an enum can have multiple names representing the same value" then it probably is, because the word seems to be used to describe the thing, rather than to quote the literal text. We have an entry for lambda and would not object to "this word contains two lambdas". However, having searched Google Books a bit more, it does seem that the citations for alloc seem to refer to an actual keyword or function, and may not be as generic as I imagined. In that case, send to RFV to find citations that everybody will accept. See also malloc, which is a C function (not technically a keyword) but really is very often used as a verb. Equinox ◑ 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Used in English as a real word. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Send to RFV as suggested by Equinox. This is an RFV issue. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The verb sense needs one more quotation to pass. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Woolseyism

Sense 2: "A translation or substituted phrase deemed better than the original." Equinox ◑ 09:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hindiyyah

This entry currently has three senses:

1. country of India
2. (historical) official name of Mughal Empire in Arabic language.
3. Al Fatawa Al Hindiyyah: A 17th century book of Hanafi jurisprudence, compiled in Sultanate Al Hindiyyah during the reign of emperor Aurangzeb.

I can't find any evidence for the first or third, the second (as written) is not English by definition. Theknightwho (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

impriming

Rfv-sense: start. Just used by Wotton? P. Sovjunk (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

underroot

Dig or burrow beneath; undermine. I think this definition may have been a guess. There is not much for "underrooted", "underrooting" etc. in GBooks but it seems to refer to inadequate root formation (of plants): see underrooted. (I moved the citation there from underroot since it cannot mean "undermine"!) Equinox ◑ 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I found very little support for the existing definition. One cite (on citations page) could support a metaphoric version of that definition (to undermine), but only one. I did add some clearly supported definitions, and put some other citations on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

facingly

WF closed his own RFV for this word. It is probably citeable from patents. Do we treat these as durably archived? Should we? This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Patents are definitely durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

rejerk

"Internet slang: To begin participating in a circlejerk again." Equinox ◑ 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere I see you've added some. (Is Reddit actually valid for citations now? I can't keep up.) I see a mixture of transitive and intransitive (i.e. I am rejerking, vs. a topic is being rejerked) so apparently there is more than one sense. Equinox ◑ 08:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox: We do on a case by case basis. I would Support accepting the Reddit quotations as rejerk and its abbreviation /rj are actually pretty widespread across a variety of Reddit communities. Admittedly, the term is pretty much never used outside Reddit, so I would understand if others decide to delete it. Also, thank you for adding the other sense! Ioaxxere (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: Still got the issue that the citations with "it was rejerked" and "rejerk that shit" are transitive uses, so the definition "begin to participate" does not fit. Equinox ◑ 15:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Batta

Ety 2: "A northern Pakistani drink, mostly drinken in Swat." Is it a brand? Is it someone's error for Banta (a cola brand)? What kind of drink is it? Shouldn't it be a proper noun, or uncountable? Equinox ◑ 12:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

send to Belize

Does this exist outside of Breaking Bad? Binarystep (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

aristonaut

A rich person who has flown to outer space. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Could be an emerging word, in view of current technology, but I don’t find it at all. @Sbb1413, recently having created it, have you heard it somewhere? Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

When I first heard the term, it was already a very popular term in space exploration, as rich people like Bezos and Branson were flying in space with their own money. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

woven

Rfv-sense: (figurative) To be mentally exhausted. Becoming weary of trials.

Binarystep (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

daubries

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Kharkiv

Schrödinger

Names of asteroids in English. Einstein2 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Three comments to make here:

1. It's worth reminding everyone that there is no figurative use requirement for names of asteroids, as they fall under the exemption for "minor planets" at WT:CFI#Celestial objects. We only need to find three uses, even if literal.
2. Surely these entries should be moved to Translingual. As I understand it, these are the official, worldwide names of these celestial bodies.
3. Do cites where the name is preceded by the systematic number count towards attestation of the name alone? To take one example, the entries 257261 Ovechkin and (257261) Ovechkin are not eligible for inclusion under our policy, but one could argue that any usages of these systematic names count as usages of Ovechkin, the number being a non-lexical element.

This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cited Mr. Spock with three literal uses in books. This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

spinel

Rfv-sense: "Bleached yarn in making the linen tape called inkle; unwrought inkle." I can find instances of spinel being used in discussing yarn (see the cites page), but it's not clear to me that they mean this as opposed to being a dialectal pronunciation spelling of "spindle" or, as one reference I found says it meant in Old English, a word for the amount of yarn that fits on a spindle. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I found one cite which uses it in the definition of inkle (which is very "mention-adjacent" but technically counts as a use, I think). - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

maskin

Rfv-sense: "coal", "(small) Christian mass". The EDD has "by the maskins!" as an interjection alluding to the second one. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

nark

Rfv-sense: "(transitive, thieves' cant) To watch; to observe" as distinct from the more common sense "(intransitive, slang) To serve or behave as a spy or informer; to tattle: If you nark on me, I’ll rip your arms off." - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

gan

Rfv-sense "mouth". (I've gone through the Thieves' Cant category and RFVed everything from F to Z for which I couldn't find at least two cites.) - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

from dawn to dusk

Rfv-sense "(temporal location) At daytime." Maybe this is very common and I'm just forgetting the obvious way it's used, but at the moment I'm only calling to mind the other sense, "(duration) From sunrise to sunset." - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In contrast, I'm confused by the definition "from sunrise to sunset". Dawn, as typically defined, starts a bit before sunrise, when the sky starts to lighten. Is "from dawn to dusk" anything more than a SOP expression anyways? I would interpret it as just meaning exactly what it says.--Urszag (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

from dawn till dusk is common enough too. Even from dawn until dusk, if you like. Any reason why we would have the "to" version but not the others? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

counterdisputation

Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added three cites, but one of them is hyphenated, and the other two occur at line breaks, which means the authors might also have intended them to be hyphenated. Kiwima (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

peribaryon

Not seeing itP. Sovjunk (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

malasapsap

A tree of the Philippines. Tagged by DCDuring but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

... of species Pterocymbium tinctorium. Lots of snippets, mentions, and verbatim repeats of the surrounding text. But used in reference to trees of different genera (eg, Ailanthus, Gyrocarpus, ), not necessarily synonyms. Apparently a Tagalog word, but we don't have a Tagalog entry. DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

binette

"A kind of French hoe." Tagged by an IP but not listed. The first few pages of GBooks results italicise the word. This, that and the other (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

full circle

Rfv-sense: "(Taixuanjing tetragram) 𝌇". "Full circle" is evidently the name of the tetragram, but I'm not sure if this is worthy of a definition in Wiktionary. Is this an RFV or RFD argument? Now that I've asked myself, I'm not sure. Anyway, here it is. This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

goods and sales tax

If this was the name of an actual tax somewhere in the world, you would expect to find plenty of evidence for it, as taxes are a much-discussed topic in published literature. However, most of the online uses refer to taxes in countries where the initialism GST expands to "goods and services tax", making this name a misnomer. If this term is only used as a misnomer, we should say so in the definition.

The only 20th-century uses in Google Books are Australian statistical publications, which are apparently using the term not to refer to a specific tax, but to the various goods taxes and sales taxes in place across the country, in which case the term is SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

GST

Rfv-sense: "Initialism of goods and sales tax. (state of Victoria in Australia, formerly in Canada)". As above. It's worth noting that I'm from Victoria and have never heard of this, although given the introduction of a federal Goods and Services tax in 2000, it would be before my time if it did exist. This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

say gex

A meme.

antarchist

Tyop? P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a typo. Ety seems fine, like Antarctica. Can't find it in GBooks though. Equinox ◑ 12:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No non-dict uses in GB, as far as I know (although there is a book title: "Art for the Antarchist".) CitationsFreak (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

meline

Rfv-sense "Yellow". I can find mentions but not uses, but it's hard to search for. I put what I could find at Citations:meline and Citations:melline: there seems to be a noun mel(l)ine that refers to something used in bouquets: ribbon? a plant? - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If it exists at all as a colour, it's probably from melinus, with the meaning 'quince-yellow'. Perhaps it can also refer to a 'quince plant'? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

bresk, brusk

I'm challenging the (rfv-sense) "compare American English bresk, brusk 'fragile, brittle'" thing under Ety 2 of brash. This was added in 2013, apparently copied from the 1913 Webster's which had just aged out of copyright. "Bresk" and "brusk" are links, but they don't link to any such word or sense, and I've certainly never heard these words or senses as a lifelong Yank. JonsonMaclean (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, probably dialect from some particular state. Your "lifelong" doesn't cover 1913 I imagine :) Equinox ◑ 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be marked with the state or region of origin and/or marked as obsolete, unless it can't be attested. JonsonMaclean (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Now brash has three citations: 1 "brash wood" and 2 "brash timber". You seem to be challenging the etymology here, so RFV isn't really the right venue. Google Books has no results for "bresk/brusk wood/timber". Equinox ◑ 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

torture

Rfv-sense "(colloquial) (often as "absolute torture") Stage fright; severe embarrassment." Can this safely be grouped under "figurative use: unpleasant sensation" (along w/ boredom, heartache, etc.), or are there circumstances where "absolute torture" communicates information about the nature of the discomfort to wit stage fright that could not be deduced from context? — This unsigned comment was added by Winthrop23 (talk • contribs) at 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC).

wordscape

New sense 2: "a lexicon". Equinox ◑ 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I assumed this was the work of one of our Anglish enthusiasts, but it turns out it's @Quercus solaris. Any comment here? A "lexicon" is really quite different from the other things given in sense 1. This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I came across a citation that uses it as a fancified way of meaning the set of words in use --- the landscape of vocabulary around us. I will either add citations or retract the sense assertion. I'm confident that it's a thing but I'm also not desperate to document it. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: Having thought about it further, I conclude that the citation was portraying the entire lexicon (vocabulary, word-stock) figuratively as a wordscape (landscape of words, word collage). Interesting. That would make sense 2 a figurative extension of sense 1. I'll have to work out whether to adequately document it or just delete it, depending on how rare it is. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Quercus solaris (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

suprasensual

Sense 2: "masochistic". In GBooks I can find for example "masochistic suprasensual play" but this does not mean they are synonyms: on the contrary, the use of both words together suggests they are not (or else such use could be redundant). Equinox ◑ 12:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So the confusing thing here is that "suprasensual" is the word Leopold von Sacher-Masoch invented to describe his own sexuality. I think the quote here means something like "suprasensual in Masoch's sense". I can find plenty of cites, but the majority are analysing Masoch's writing (mainly Venus in Furs) or Deleuze's essay about Masoch:

• 2001, Kriss Ravetto, The Unmaking of Fascist Aesthetics, U of Minnesota Press, →ISBN, page 220:

  While in Pasqualino's sexual imagination woman represents suprasensual sexuality, promising excessive pleasure, his actual sexual coupling with the commandant, this monumental image of woman, transforms into the opposite of sensuality, becoming what Deleuze calls supercarnal, that is, sadistic and cruel.

• 2020, Jonathan Faiers, Fur: A Sensitive History, Yale University Press, →ISBN, page 182:

  Severin, the European nobleman in Venus in Furs who desires to be enslaved to a woman, describes himself as a suprasensual person.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

indifulvin

Seems to appear in one old chemistry handbook. Archaic if kept P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, can't find. There is a (presumably unrelated) drug brand name Idifulvin. Equinox ◑ 13:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

bidale

Or bidall? Mentioned a few times, no wild usage found P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I found one but it was more a mention than a use. Equinox ◑ 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Khamnung Kikoi Louonbi

Rfv-sense: girl's name. The only person I know with this name is my baby girl, and I haven't published my book that mentions her yet (despite evidence at holy water sprinkler) Phacromallus (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

turbullion

Just used in the Joanna Baillie work. P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

smegmatic

Rfv-sense: soapy. Probably obsolete - appears in old dictionaries with old spelling Phacromallus (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

exponential

Rfv-sense: Sense 2 "(mathematics) Expressed in terms of a power of e."

Is this unambiguously attestable as distinct from sense 1 "Relating to an exponent."?

See also: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April#exponential. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Reading this definition closely, I don't think this sense can be attested separately from sense 1, or at least I haven't seen and haven't succeeded at finding any such uses. On the other hand, I think this sense is trying to get at a different use of "exponential" which we currently don't cover: probably something like "of or relating to the [natural] exponential function."

To give just one concrete example, in the study of Lie groups, there is a particular map called the "exponential map" (notated $\operatorname {exp}$); when Lee (in Introduction to Smooth Manifolds) defines the exponential map (a rather abstract definition involving no exponents), he offers the following comment on its name:

The results of the preceding section show that the exponential map of GL(n,R) (or any Lie subgroup of it) is given by $\operatorname {exp} A=e^{A}$. This, obviously, is the reason for the term exponential map.

Other examples include "exponential order" (in asymptotics; almost always defined in terms of a [natural] exponential [function]); "the exponential series" (the series expansion of the exponential function); "exponential window" (in statistics; [a function] almost always defined in terms of a [natural] exponential); etc. Of course we also have "the exponential" or "an exponential" for $e^{x}$ and $e^{ax}$ (as function), respectively.

Part of the reason these senses are muddled is that when mathematicians are dealing with the class of functions of the form $a^{bx}$ (which is rather often), it doesn't really matter what $a$ is--in fact, without any loss you can always force $a$ to be e just by scaling $b$ by $\log _{a}(e)$. Winthrop23 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that base e can be mentioned as a particular important special case of the general principle, either on the one definition line, or as a subsense. However, is present sense #1, "Relating to an exponent", supposed to be only the mathematical sense, or could it conceivably apply to any other senses of "exponent"? If the former, it should be labelled as such. In the mathematical sense, I'm not clear whether "expressed in terms of a power (of anything)" is usefully distinct from "relating to an exponent or exponentiation". This distinction, if it exists, exists irrespective of the base, I suppose? Mihia (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(Replying to Winthrop as well) I think I agree with both of you. I think def 1 (Relating to an exponent) can refer to the non-math meanings of exponent too, so we'll have to look to the present defs 2 & 3 for the maths definitions. Leonhard Euler, standing on the shoulders of Newton and others, is arguably the best-ever mathematician and (like Newton and da Vinchi) a good engineer too. (We engineers also love him because Euler is homophonic with oiler.) As an example, he derived the equation $e^{i\pi }+1=0$, in which he had invented the concept of e, had invented the name for the Newtonian concept of i and popularised the use of π for its Ancient Babylonian concept (previous use by a Welshman and an Englishman had been ignored). e is a fantastically useful number for use in many proofs, since it simplifies many formulae -- which is why, along with log (or log₁₀) and exp on a math calculator, you will find ln (or log_e) and e. So yes, exponentiation is often done to base e, but certainly not always. I suggest altering #2 to read "# (mathematics) Expressed in terms of a power of a base, often 10 or e". Def #3 should then be left as is, since it makes a reasonable attempt to explain the effects of its use in non-mathematical jargon which, with the help of its example sentence, it achieves. No one ever mentions that, between exponential exponential growth 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256... and exponential decay 256, 16, 4, 2, 1.4, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0 [to 1 dec place] lies exponential constancy, where the exponent is 1 and so the value never alters 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.... And those who think exponential means something is of growing severity might also be confused that exponential decay starts by "falling off a cliff" then gradually levels out, never quite crashing. --Enginear 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I made that change to #2, and also added a couple of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• I'm gonna say now that sense 2, the mathematical sense about "expressed in terms of a power", is verified, and I have transferred the "RFV" label to sense 1, the generic "Relating to an exponent" sense, so the goal now is to find examples (mathematical or otherwise) that fit sense #1 but are not sense #2. I have also tried to work the word "exponent" into def #2, so that if #1 is removed, the entry will still prominently mention that word, so as to illuminate the connection. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

disalliege

Just Milton? P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like just Milton, sadly. No hits on google books outside dictionaries or Milton, and EMOP only records one use. On the other hand disallegiance is very well attested, from 1602 according to OED, from which Milton probably derrived disalliege. Winthrop23 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

yappuccino

"(slang) A long rant that serves no purpose." I can see some Web hits along the lines of "I did not order a yappuccino" (perhaps used when your barista is too talkative?). But seems like a protologism. Equinox ◑ 17:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The given references do not necessarily seem to use the word with the definition given. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

18th century green

Meaning "dark yellow". The cites I can find for "18th century green [thing]" all seem to mean "[18th century] [green] [thing]" (i.e. a thing from the 18th century which is green), not "[18th century green] [thing]" (a thing which is dark yellow). - -sche (discuss) 14:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The colour in our entry looks green to me in any case, rather than a shade of yellow. I am a bit colour blind though, so I may be mistaken. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, borderline. I would call it olive. The hex colour code is a59344 (RRGGBB form). Equinox ◑ 16:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd have just called it brown or yellow-brown. Accurate visual display is hard and requires display-device manufacturers and/or users to calibrate their devices periodically. We can't count on that, so ostensive definitions of colors, like our color patches, are necessarily imprecise. We can only be precise about the digital codes that are supposed to display it. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also consider the colour in the entry a shade of olive green... but I can't find find uses of it as a color name at all, regardless of what color it names. For example, 2019, House Beautiful: Colors for Your Home: The Ultimate Guide to Choosing Paint (Union Square + ORM, →ISBN) quotes Christopher Maya as saying "A hallway where I hang black-and-white family photographs is painted this teal green, the kind of 18th-century green you might see in a Robert Adam house in England. Look at it another way and it feels contemporary, almost Caribbean. In any event, it's so bright and cherry […] ", but the description and image are of     , so even there it seems to just mean "a (blue-)green associated with the 18th century", not the yellow-green/olive color in our entry. The US National Bureau of Standards' The ISCC-NBS Method of Designating Colors and a Dictionary of Color Names, section 122 "Grayish Yellow Green", does include "18th Century Green... 1140Ygg 5-d" as a color in a list of greens, after "Dusky Green... 1148 Ygg 6-d" and "Dusty Green... 1189 Yg 5-e" and before "Elm... 1243 Ygg 6-c" and "Eucalyptus Green... 1196 Yg 6-d", which is helpful for identifying which color it is (something at least in the vein of what we have in our entry), but is only a mention. - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

metaethnography

Rfv-sense: "an extension to ethnography that deals with meta-ethnicity". I have just added the more widespread sense. Einstein2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

cream in the can

Does this exist outside of The Broadway Melody? Binarystep (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

infrugiferous

Word-lists/dictionaries only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Cited, although the 1901 quote is a satire of verbose language. Einstein2 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

innitency

A leaning; pressure; weight. - 3 quite different things...P. Sovjunk (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, if you lean in into something then there is pressure by your weight. Of course conceptually the process has to be distinguished from the result, but not in every figurative context. Fay Freak (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: I provided you two quotes of thrice the amount mentioned in my contribution, so you have to pronounce it and thus awaken it to life. These preachers did it to me. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

explorer

Rfv-sense: "(figuratively) Someone who is adventurous and free-thinking." (See below.) - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

sentinel

Rfv-sense: "(figuratively) Someone who is hardworking and dutiful." Last November, an IP added these two senses, plus "Someone who is an emotional thinker" to diplomat. I initially removed that last one, but now wonder if these are actually used in some specific taxonomy (a la "love languages", MBTI, etc). - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

insecution

Just used by Chapman P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

insinewed

Any use outside Shakey? P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have created insinew and changed insinewed into a verb form (per OED). Einstein2 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

insisture

Shakey-only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Plural seems to be findable in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

insitiency

According to my limited view, OED only has one hit. P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

triangles

A type of moth. Singular noun, so apparently one would be "a triangles". Equinox ◑ 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

An image conclusively shows that triangles is an apt name. DCDuring (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual usage seems to be of "(the) triangles moth (is...)", as opposed to just "(the) triangles (is...)". Most websites using "triangles" alone are Wikipedia mirrors, or probably following Wikipedia. Difficult to formally attest either way. This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I found one in a book on South African lepidopterans, but doubt there are others that are durably archived. DCDuring (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

yapper

Sense 3: a (small) dog. Must be cited distinct from sense 2, "one who yaps", though that sense 2 has a citation about dogs already... Equinox ◑ 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that interpretation came from this, which Mike L. Reed specifically calls a Tiny Yapper. Khemehekis (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

intercessionate

Good luck finding 3 quotes P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk I am not experienced in this area, but I gave it a try at Citations:intercessionate. The four quotes I could find do not meet WT:ATTEST in my opinion. If the four quotes are considered to support a single sense, then the quotes run into Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Independent, because two of the quotes are by Thomas Nashe and two are from Robert Tofte. But some dictionaries put one of Thomas Nashe's uses into a separate sense. [85], see also [86]. So in my opinion, 'intercessionate' might be only lacking a single additional quote from a third author to allow 'intercessionate' to pass Wiktionary's WT:ATTEST rules, but I can't find a third qualifying quotation. Someone with strong google-fu and/or intrictate knowledge of 1590's culture, language and literature may be able to find a third author. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (Modified)

cheap (noun)

RFV two noun senses:

• Price.
• Cheapness; lowness of price; abundance of supply.

  The cheap of this book is incredible.

Do these exist, or at least need to be labelled obsolete or something? To me, "The cheap of this book is incredible" is not intelligible English. Can't see anything for "the cheap of" in Google Book Search, other than red herrings. Mihia (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

indef

Rfv-sense Wikimedia jargon adjective. Referring to indefinitely blocked users as "indef" (as opposed to "indeffed", which is definitely real) is not something I've seen in years of Metapedian Wikipedia editing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

citogenetic

Rfv-sense 1 ("Characteristic of, or suffering from, citogenesis"). I can find a bunch of sources using this term in a medical context (for which I added sense 2), but none talking about citogenesis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

NEC

"(Internet, Wikimedia jargon) Initialism of new entry created." * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

the

"A topology name." Added with a doi link in the edit summary in diff, which points to a paper titled 3D Covalent Organic Framework with “the” Topology, where it is non-obvious that quotation-mark-enclosed "the" is anything other than the normal article set apart for emphasis or to call it into question, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I know nothing about this topic, but just glancing through the paper [87], one can see that the is put in bold in various places, apparently in parallel with other three-letter combinations, so I would imagine that the letters "the" stand for something, and are put in quotes in the title to show that it isn't the definite article. Mihia (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The presence of the collocation "The the-c network" pretty much rules out emphasis as an explanation. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Citability aside, the definition is far too vague to be useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

According to that paper, there are "3561 structures provided in the Reticular Chemistry Structure Resource (RCSR)", each of which, as far as I can gather (someone correct me if I'm wrong!), corresponds to one of these codes such as "the". Unfortunately, the view onto "RCSR" that I found at [88] does not seem to explain how these codes, "the" in particular, are derived. [89] gives a few explanations, such as "dia" = "diamond" and "bct" = "body-centered tetragonal". Would we want to list all 3561, even with more useful definitions? Mihia (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

amour courtois

English PUC – 21:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Nouns' glass frog

Hot word from March 2022. I can't find the name used after mid-2022. Duck Duck Go says that there was a mention on Facebook in December 2023, but that may have been reposting one of the news articles from 2022. Most sources seem to use the Latin Hyalinobatrachium nouns or just "a glass frog" with some qualifier. Apparently [90] there was some controversy about the name; I wonder if people are avoiding this as vernacular name? Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right places. Cnilep (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't find anything, either, not in books, not on Scholar, not in the news, or even much on the raw web; I searched for the singular and plural, spaced (glass frog) and unspaced (glassfrog). RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

interosculant

Rfv-sense biology P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

musth

Can't find musth by itself to refer to the animals, seems to always come with "elephant", "bull", "male" or something Justin the Just (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I found two uncertain possibilities in GBooks, but the snippet view is so stingy now that you can't really see enough to cite unless you are able to progressively guess further words and include them in your search:

* 1967, Natural History (volume 76, page 42)

*: […] the musths. It is common knowledge among handlers that male elephants have periodic fits of madness and that they are extremely obstreperous and dangerous at these times. A male in such a condition is called a musth elephant […]

* 2006, Lisa Karen Yon, An Investigation of the Adrenal and Gonadal Hormones of Musth in the Bull Elephant (page 12)

*: […] musths are those with more pronounced physical and behavioral characteristics (more and longer lasting TGS and UD, more displays of aggression).

Equinox ◑ 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The 2006 one starts with "(or more intense)" Justin the Just (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You can read the whole 1967 quote at IA here. I think it's a valid cite of the "elephant in musth" sense, but the second one is not. This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of “the first officer told us about the musths” in the 1967 cite can well be, “the first officer told us about the periods of aggressiveness male elephants undergo from time to time”.  --Lambiam 04:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

oh em gosh

No quotes, "chiefly TikTok." Probably a hot term. -saph 🍏 18:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

irp

Rfv-sense: A fantastic grimace or contortion of the body. Tricky... OED link P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

faitheist

Rfv-sense: An atheist who takes the nonexistence of gods on faith. Saviourofthe (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

intrinse

Just Shakey? P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: OED has this under intrince. Two quotations: the first is the one already in the entry from King Lear, and the second is from the preface of an 1895 edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream ("a knot too intrinse to unloose")—seems like the latter might just be a paraphase of the passage from King Lear. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

intrinsicate

Just Shakey? P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: also in {{RQ:Marston Scourge of Villanie}} and {{RQ:Jonson Cynthia's Revels}} (both spelled intrinsecate). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for adding the quotes. P. Sovjunk (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: oh, I wouldn't want to deprive you of the pleasure of doing so. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Verily, I yearne to be depriven. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

inust

OED has entry, which I cannot access P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: two 17th-century quotations, one from {{RQ:More Psychodia}} (I see two occurrences of the word in the latter work). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

schlomp

Entry originally written in 2007 by a user named ‘Schlompwriter’ who may have been making it up as a protologism. The weirdly phrased definition is preserved all the way from that time. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

pint

Rfv-sense: "(Hungary) 1.696 liters." Searching for "pint" + 1.696 litres turns up a book saying "The old Scots pint was about 3 imperial pints (1.696 litres)", so it's plausible that's citable; the Hungarian connection is less obvious. - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Hungarian pint" pulls up a few useful hits:

• 1982, Gyula Káldy-Nagy, A Gyulai szandzsák 1567. és 1579. évi összeírása:

  The tenth of grape-juice was already measured in the Hungarian “pint” ( 1.69 liter ) and registered this way.

• 1987, János Rudnay, László Beliczay, A Book of Honey: Its History and Use:

  ... one Hungarian pint ( c . 1.5 litres ) of honey in the Buda marketplace.

• c. 2018, Gábor Szántai, “The Value of Money”, in Hungarian History 1366-1699‎^[91]:

  At this time, the warriors were given (at least in principle) 2 pounds (about 1 kg) of bread, 1 pound of meat, and 0.5 pints (0.84 liters) of wine for their daily rations.

• 2020 August 10, Klára Hegyi, The Ottoman Military Organization in Hungary: Fortresses, Fortress Garrisons and Finances, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, →ISBN, page 215:

  In Temeşvar, an okka (1,282 gramms) of butter was either 10 or 20 akçes, one okka of honey 13.5, a pint (1.69 liters) of wine 162.

Weirdly, I'm struggling to find the Hungarian word this is a translation of. The Hungarian half-pint was a Halbe or itcze (p 105, 86 in the PDF, but nowhere says what two itcze were called. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added pint#Hungarian. {{R:ErtSz}} states a pint can refer to various old units ranging from 1.4 to 1.6 litres. The corresponding article on Hungarian Wikipedia says a Hungarian pint is 1.696 litres but gives no sources. According to Magyar néprajzi lexikon, pint in Hungary was commonly equal to about 1.6 litres. As common with old units, Hungarian pint seeems to lack a precise equivalent, but it most commonly equals around 1.5 litres. Einstein2 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, RFV-passed. (The label currently adds this to "Hungarian English", which is questionable but probably not an RFV matter.) - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

fuck up

Rfv-sense "To cause someone to make a big mistake."

I can't really imagine what context this would be in ("I shouldn't have bought this car, but the salesman fucked me up??"). I've added two new senses that I think they author might have intended (to intoxicate ("The alcohol fucked me up") and to traumatise ("My upbringing fucked me up")), but can anyone cite this sense? Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

iridoline

Proposed chemistry. Never caught on P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

hogwort

Rfv-sense" (obsolete) (common hogweed) (Heracleum sphondylium), of western Eurasia and north Africa.

I have not found this sense in the 19th century. I have found hogwort and Heracleum sphondylium occurring near each other in botany book listing and indices because hogwort is the vernacular name for Heptallon graveolens, syn. of Croton capitatus ("hogwort"). DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack-a-Lent

Rfv-sense: A simple fellow. P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

jadery

Not much. Would be obsolete anyhowP. Sovjunk (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a Shakespeare use and this Harper's use, if anyone can find a third (and if we take the Harper's use to be this sense and not "jade jewellery"). - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

janglery

We have Chaucer's janglerie, seemth thys terme hadth dyed-out therafterr P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

jollyhead

Just in Spenser? P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

juba

first 2 sense. OED suggest nope P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

disgorgement

On old English maps (i guess, based on Buache or before him) there are given "disgorgement of the ice", meaning that there is no ice or that there is a passage in the ice sheet of Antarctica. It is correct use of this word? — This unsigned comment was added by Tollef Salemann (talk • contribs) at 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

@Tollef Salemann: I don't think it's correct to define it as a passage. It probably means that the ice has been discharged from the area in question just as food is disgorged from someone's throat or stomach, so it's just a use of sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

kerasine

Rfv-sense: resembling horn, horny. Nothing found. OED linked to just in case. I asked Susie Dent on Twitter "are you feeling kerasine?" on behalf of the WT community, but she didn't get the joke. P. Sovjunk (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

kibblings

In a bunch of word-books. There's a guy in South Africa buying kibblings too. P. Sovjunk (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

kimnel

Rare as hell. this quote is perhaps usable. OED has an entry I can't read. There's smatterings of old alt-sps like kymnele in Middle English too P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: I can tell you there are quite some up to the 19th century, enough so they cut it off, though varying in spelling and normalized in Webster 1913, metathetical n←→l to what we lemmatize kemelin. Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

PEQVI

Looks spammy, is this used generically? Jberkel 11:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Doubt it. No plural "PEQVIs" to be found... Equinox ◑ 12:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

self-segment

"To actualize the order and size of parts of without being required a particular one." This doesn't really make grammatical (or other) sense to me. Is it something like "self-identify"? Equinox ◑ 18:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox: No. You know I am not into tribal politics, I have espoused cognitive psychology. It is, inter alia, retelling things without being prompted a certain sequentialization. You might see from the quoted study about police questioning, or a whole handbook of memory, police questioning, ASD and the law that the typically developed mind’s recalling capabilities are skewed in favour of relational memory and to the disadvantage of item-specific memory if juxtaposed with an autistic control group, as a consequence of the latter’s attention atypicalities.

The cognitive interview then, for example, has the neurotypical bias of attempting to elicit the temporal and spatial layout of the crime scene from witness’ memories instead of retrieving details that can later be put together (and help NT witnesses recall more related details), which the study authors exploited with post-it notes, and capitalism does in the form of shiftflation (without the term being created because this seems to be but employed by single German economist thus far), shifting the value added in economy to consumers who are doing part of a previous job: like back in the day at petrol stations you got a handyman to top up your motorcar and now you have to do it yourself, but this is mitigated by reason that on the other hand reordering data entered for use of mainly the neurotypical mind can be taken over by machines, as in the example quoted from the Federal Register concerning customs declarations filled by travellers. You see the same process on Wiktionary where data passed in quotation templates is displayed uniformly in the output, with the detail however that I just give the parameters impulsively in random order while you probably follow a script to jot them down, in an order that is intuitively logical to you!

Maybe we see in the misunderstanding of the definition how super-distressed NTs are by seeing data scrambled against expectation or even by this being admitted.

If the definition is shifty enough, you see exactly why we need a dictionary entry. That the original author’s definition be comprehensible without context is a requirement naturally imperfectly met for a term described just after having been encountered by him in technical contexts. The correct template is {{rfclarify|en}}. I am not done with and just started the reframing surely.

Try to define cognitive interview along the way, it is obvious here why I should not do it. Fay Freak (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• The two quotes seem to be for totally different senses - the second one, about passports, is clearly just "segment oneself" (with the help of a web service, the travelers segment themselves according to passport/visa/customs status). The first one seems to be just "to segment something oneself" - it's never used without "memory" (or a synonym such as "the to-be-remembered event") as the subject - I'm willing to be convinced it's a term of art in interviewing, but it would take citations unrelated to this particular study. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: Thanks for having an argument. So you think it would be absolutely necessary to distinguish transitive and intransitive uses? In my view in transitive verbs one can just leave out an implied object. I have another intransitive one about amoeba regrowing, or what one thought about it in 1883, to get our biologists into the boat.

1883 November 10, C. M. Campbell, The British Medical Journal‎^[92], page 953b:

To say that, in the higher forms of life, “it would be to the advantage of the offspring” that it was preceded by union of the parents, is misleading; because, except in some articulata, no offspring is possible without it. We might as reasonably say that it would be to the advantage of a picture that the production was preceded by an union of colours and canvas. When Dr. Shelly says, “should it ever be found that a virgin female—say amongst higher mammals even—had produced young without possibility of any previous sexual intercourse, this would not prove any break of contuinity in the laws of nature and of evolution,” he is wise to use the “if.” For we might say exactly the same “if” an amputated leg grew into a man, in accordance with the tendency of the self-segmenting amoeba.

Back to typically developing humans forming groups:

2020 August 10, Dana Mowls Carroll, Rachel L Denlinger-Apte, Sarah S Dermody, Jessica L King, Melissa Mercincavage, Lauren R Pacek, Tracy T Smith, Hollie L Tripp, Cassidy M White, “Polarization Within the Field of Tobacco and Nicotine Science and its Potential Impact on Trainees”, in Nicotine & Tobbaco Research‎^[93], volume 23, number 1, →DOI, pages 36–39:

We encourage methods that promote a platform for all viewpoints, not just polarizing views, to be heard. Researchers self-segmenting into smaller, niche conferences or organizations that only highlight one perspective are a disservice to the field and have the potential to undercut public health.

If we chop up senses by our own perceived specification too much, we won’t have anything believable, thrice cited or not.

I admit that yesterday I just wrote something from the first two interesting ones and then went to eat, assuming nothing evil.

@Kiwima help. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like self-selection into segments or groups. (The Ameba quote is a clearly different meaning of segmenting itself into parts). Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have went through the 46 ScienceDirect hits for "self-segment" and I now assume that the senses of self-segmenting upon being questioned in whichever kind of survey or inquiry are derived from marcomms. The use for the WAFA technique of witness interrogation is just the most psychologized. Fay Freak (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox: I have rewritten a definition under the token of this insight. Let me know what you think, and how much comprehensibility of it is comparatively improved. Fay Freak (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: You got closer, but it was still semi-gibberish. I truly think you shouldn't edit English if you are going to do it in this weird, pompous, quasi-Anglish way. It doesn't help readers and it doesn't make sense. I don't know why you do it. I have tried to improve it: I wrote: "To place oneself in a particular group, for example when responding to a survey." Equinox ◑ 21:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

atew

At least the Middle English word referenced appears to exist. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The OED's most recent citation is from 1175. Theknightwho (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

azarsetine

Apparently a chemical. Tyop??? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Time to consult IUPAC to see whether it is morphologically possible (-az- + -arse- + -etine) and consistent with definition given. Looks (barely) citable. DCDuring (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

See w:Hantzsch–Widman nomenclature and w:arsole. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not falling for that "see arsole" trick again, DCD P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

comey

As an alternative spelling of cummy (“resembling or covered with semen”). Pretty sceptical of this one. Theknightwho (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

on

RFV adj. senses "Destined; involved, doomed". Please see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April#on for background to this. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me this should be a verb phrase "be on". If "on" were an adjective, we would say "the fight became/seems/appears on". A fight can't be brutally on. We don't say "the on fight". 2601:147:4600:3880:71F8:18DE:F611:7754

I think it is possible to say in this sense (of happening, starting) that something "seems on" or "appears on". Also "the fight is fully on" seems possible. We don't say "the on fight", but plenty of adjectives are predicative only. Mihia (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a sense that we seem to be missing. In the context of an implicit challenge to a competition (a fight, game, sports contest, etc) "It's on" seems to be used to accept the challenge. But the use may be broader than that. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this sense is supposed to be covered by "Happening; taking place; being or due to be put into action". However, I am not 100% satisfied with the way these senses are presented at the moment. I put the "You're on!" sense as a subsense of the aforementioned, but I don't really know whether it is. I find it hard to pin down exactly what "on" means in that phrase. Mihia (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Me too. That's why a phrased it as a non-gloss def. It's just a usex looking for a definition. DCDuring (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

kneck

In plenty of old nautical wordbooks, I find no use, apart from alt-sp of neck! P. Sovjunk (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

kyaw

Scottish word for jackdaw. It's mentioned that the sound is "kyaw". Hmm, weird. P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

labimeter

+labidometer P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Added two quotes to Citations:labimeter. Einstein2 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

abasia atactica

From way back in 2012. In some medical dictionaries, but I find no real usage. There's Spanish abasia atáctica. P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

attended

Rfv-sense "attending" Kiwima (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This sense was added as "That attends" in 2009 by EivindJ alongside the derived term attendedness, so presumably some connection to that word was meant. It was changed to "attending" in 2016 by Giorgi Eufshi. The whole thing looks like an error to me. This, that and the other (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There do seem to be slightly more Google hits for "the attended physician" than I might have expected, albeit, as we know, almost any erroneous phrase shows up somewhere. I suppose we may be confident that these are all bad English for "the attending physician"? Mihia (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, I mean to type one verb tense but muscle memory types another, precisely like this (writing the present for the past participle or vice versa). I don't suppose I'm the only person who's ever made such typos/thinkos, and indeed, the cites you mention seem to bear that out. But it's not intentional, it's an error (I use the intended form in speech), so I don't regard it as something to include. Other people's opinions may vary. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

swiftie

quote proves the use of swifty, not swiftie. Saviourofthe (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited Einstein2 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 21:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

microdiaphragm

Neither Quiet Quentin nor a regular Google search turned up any results for this term as a single word; a few hits for micro-diaphragm with a hyphen, and plenty for micro diaphragm as two words. I'm not confident that it would survive SoP scrutiny in those forms, and I can't find any attestation for the unified form. Qwertygiy (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qwertygiy: Very easily cited by a normal manual browser search in Google Books. I don't know about Quiet Quentin; maybe it's defective. Three cites added. Equinox ◑ 20:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

lademan

Rfv-sense: One who leads a packhorse. Rowjanes (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

that's that shit

A rap song title? Any real use? Equinox ◑ 19:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

workstream

• The organised output of several distinct, and often unrelated, work groups.

Really? I thought that "workstream" referred to an individual work group, or group of people doing related work, not the organised output of several unrelated. Mihia (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

political correctness

Rfv-sense:

(derogatory) the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

--Etisop (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

(added by an IP last August) - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

goppenful

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

toforegoing

Only in one work, a 1532 edition of Usk's Testament of Loue (a Middle English work). Keep as Middle English or delete? This, that and the other (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

kunlangeta

Near as I can tell, sociologist Jane Murphy first mentioned this in 1976: ‘the Eskimos have a word, kunlangeta, which means “his mind knows what to do but he does not do it.”’ I can find a few dozen mentions of the word between 1976 and 2021, attributing it to Murphy or to "Eskimos". I don't know which language Murphy may have meant, and I can't find any obvious candidate for etymon.

Then in 2021 (if I understand correctly) Dominic Cummings called Boris Johnson a kunlangeta, helpfully glossing the word and attributing it to a sociology paper, presumably Murphy 1976. There followed a handful of uses in the British press, and creation of the Wiktionary entry as a hot word in 2022. But I can't find recent use, nor any use that doesn't mention (or clearly allude to) either Murphy, Cummings, or Johnson.

It seems to have stuck around (sub rosa) for 45 years, but hasn't really been used much. I'm not sure what to think of its status as an English word. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The kind of word Thomas Pynchon might have used. DCDuring (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

removed the 1996 quote for being mention only, and i'm on the fence on the 2006 quote as well Akaibu (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

boo

Rfv-sense: to defecate. I can only find this as boo-boo (or boo boo), not with only one boo. (Another editor removed the sense out of process in January and was reverted with a note to use RFV.) - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You found use of boo-boo to mean poop? When I saw this, I was skeptical of both .... while there are probably a thousand euphemisms for bodily functions among parents and their small children, I'd think most don't leave the household. This one particularly could cause a gross misunderstanding if another child got hurt and used boo-boo in the more familiar meaning. And I don't think looking in books is trustworthy ... authors can make up children's speech all the time, for one reason or another. No less than Stephen King claimed that woo-woo is yet another euphemism for poop, and while I could believe a few families somewhere have used it (witness p > w in whiz, widdle, etc), very few people would understand it without a full explanation beforehand.

It's possible even if we do find cites that people simply misheard boom-boom.

If you're saying boo-boo is citable, then I trust you; otherwise I would like to add that to this RFV. Thanks, —Soap— 20:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, boo-boo/boo boo has had cites since before this was posted. (You can find more with searches like google books:"boo-booed on himself".) It's probably derived from the "mistake" sense ("I made a boo boo", meaning in effect "I have accidentally defecated in my pants, which is undesirable", a usage which seems decently common), comparable to similar use of "an oopsie" (or indeed sense 6 of "accident") as a euphemism for an instance of child or dog defecating on something they shouldn't've. (The similarity to childish pronunciations of poo poo probably also helped.) - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually live with a number of people who use "boo-boo" as their baby talk for feces or defecation all the time! Khemehekis (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

okay thanks. i guess it just didnt occur to me to check the verb section. the self-published 2012 book is quite poorly written, though ... i'd actually rank the social media posts higher than it in terms of how much it tells us about how the word is actually used. do you mind if i move it to the citations page, or remove it altogether? —Soap— 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

langteraloo

Just used in Tatler with this spelling P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

lancely

From what I can read in OED, only Sidney P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Added one citation from 1885. Only one left for the three needed. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Added a third citation from 1811! [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The "leaves lancely egg-shaped" citation seems to be an adverb (cf. lanceolately). Equinox ◑ 16:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

hear me out

PUC – 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

("(Internet slang, humorous) I would have sex with them; used to express sexual attraction to someone, usually a fictional character.") I don't know about it being specific to sex with characters, but I have seen "hear me out" used humorously to imply "I have a controversial opinion and wish to convince you of it". Might be Reddit-speak. A phrase in the same sort of family as hold my beer. Equinox ◑ 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely a meme. See, e.g., "Hear Me out" Has Taken on a Whole Different Meaning on TikTok When It Comes to People's Crushes; Men will say “Hear me out” and show you the most conventionally attractive woman you have ever seen. Meanwhile, women will say “Hear me out” and show you this thing. The question is whether we would ever find any cites that can be used in this corpus. bd2412 T 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That Distractify article actually verifies it as an internet joke but as a noun instead of a phrase. The phrase definition should be changed to the general sense of alluding to a suggestion or opinion that might be controversial, which would automatically include the opinion "I would have sex with this character/person," and a new definition should be added for the noun. The general sense would be more in the camp of if you know what I mean which was also tied to an internet meme about being kinda perverted a long time ago. Nicerink (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I too am familiar with this, used like this. It varies between being used as a phrase — saying "hear me out" (with these implications, possible lexical) about someone/something — and being nominalized, like in that image ("their 'hear me out'") or when it's pluralized google:"hear me outs". Because any utterance can be nominalized, e.g. this is my "hold up, let's consider this", and at RFD you might strike someone's "delete" or question their "keep" (also compare Talk:selah, which we deleted), we should consider carefully whether such uses should be viewed as actually being nouns. It may depend on whether we view e.g. "their 'hear me out'" as meaning "their thing that they say 'hear me out' about" or as directly meaning ~"their weird crushes/desires"...? - -sche (discuss) 01:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Mongalian

Alt form of Mongolian. Not in Merriam-Webster for instance. What would explain this vowel change? Equinox ◑ 20:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an obsolete spelling (17- and 1800s, later dates all seem to be reprints complete with long s, etc) and should be relabelled as such if kept. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

unbay

OED suggests just 1 use P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I found some uses of the verb, but I'm not sure if any refers to the same meaning: "Unbought, unbid, unbayed by Fate", "In haste took place, and at each furious stroke / Unbayed the fountains of their blood", "The youth, with forceful arm, unbay'd by foam,", "That it was dangerous in tyme of Winter to unbay our/selves so deepelie", "we ought ... to unbay all the Stream and Current of our Paffions (likely a version of John Norris quote)".

P.S.: the "unbay our/selves" quote has a footnote where "to unbay" is given the meaning of "to sail out of bay". [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 23:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

laqueary

Used by Browne, not much else P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't find the noose-gladiator-related sense outside Browne, and can find only two uses of a 'ropework/brocade-like design on a ceiling' sense, Citations:laqueary. - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no, the ceiling sense is presumably more directly related to Latin laquear, vs the noose/rope sense which must be more closely related to laqueus, but these may be related to each other, because English laquearius is attested in English as a term for such a noose-fighter, but we have it in Latin only as a term for a ceiling-maker. (Sorted out by a Latin editor after a Tea Room post.) - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

impeachmentworthy

What a Germanic/Anglish mouthful. Can anyone cite it? If this fails, then impeachment-worthy will also fall to the might of WT:COALMINE. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be moved to impeachment-worthy then gain-evaluated. I suppose that'd make things a bit heppener, wouldn't ye say ? Leasnam (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not gonna heppen! Equinox ◑ 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You think this is "Anglish" ? yep. you're right. im so busted. Leasnam (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not going to say anything as your track record speaketh for itself. Equinox ◑ 20:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be something like behindrancedworthy? Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah I know "impeachment" has Romance connections. But trying to run things into one long German-o-word is belikelike. Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. (Now someone's gonna yell about my "nonX" adjectives. I can't stop ya. But that's a totally different phenomenon.) Equinox ◑ 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I cited one definition ("(of an act) Of such character as to warrant [the actor's] impeachment."). I did not find any support for the other 'of a person' sense. I could not cite any sense of the challenged form. DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A use from the US congress??; the rest I could find are online sources: 2 blogs 12, a forum 3, and several X's posts 4 (though many are just hashtag-based). [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

btw, just a handful of Twitter posts refer to the (of a person) sense (like 3 or 4), the majority refers to (of an act). [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the second sense would have found more use. DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

picturegraph

Sources also look bogus. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited - and found another definition in the process. Binarystep (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

laticostate

I just see dictionaries. OED has it, can't see if it has quotes, tho P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search finds enough uses.  --Lambiam 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited from those hits (although only barely, most hits are by the same few authors, none of whom look like native English speakers). - -sche (discuss) 13:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Mitfreude

1. confelicity (enjoyment derived from observing someone else's fortune or luck)

Tagged by @Jberkel but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sol III

1. The planet Earth.

Tagged by @197.29.245.78 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Also I added the science fiction tag as it seems to be used chiefly in that genre: more examples included in the The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the rest of "Sol" planets would be a bit harder to attest Sol I, Sol II, Sol IV-Sol X, and very likely chiefly used in science fiction. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Prithvi

RFV of common noun senses:

1. Earth (planetary body)
2. the ground

(While we're there, the proper noun definition "(Hinduism) Name of deity Prithvi" could use some help.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

asset revesting

The definition seems like a meaningless buzzword soup made up to sell a book to me. Moved from WT:RFDE because it also seems to fail WT:ATTEST, the original discussion is copied below:

Hi all. Seems this term is used exclusively in a book published a few months before the creation of the entry, and blog posts and press releases promoting that book. Barking here because I believe it also falls under Wiktionary:Spam (type 1), though I mostly edit the 'pedia, so please let me know if I'm at the wrong tree. Alpha3031 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031 I think this one belongs at WT:RFVE, as the question is whether it meets WT:ATTEST. Theknightwho (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can probably do that Theknightwho. I see some of the entries there have a red flag for WT:DEROGATORY, is there an equivalent for adverts that I can use to mark it as "I think it also falls under WT:DELETE #4, because it seems made up to sell a book instead of just being made up"? Alpha3031 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031 No, and it's not hugely relevant, really: if it's a term that's not found any currency elsewhere, it'll fail WT:ATTEST anyway. If it has, then the nature of its origin isn't a disqualifying factor. Nothing about that page promotes any specific person or entity, so it's not clear how WT:DELETE #4 could apply, even if it was only coined in a book quite recently. Theknightwho (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Alpha3031 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Japonic

How is this adjective sense controversial? We can easily compare it to Proto-Indo-European, which is plainly accepted. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kiril kovachev The usage example is a pretty straightforward attributive use; it's just obscured by the fact that the names of languages/families often resemble adjectives. Theknightwho (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho I'd argue it's the contrary for words like this: the -ic ending is directly based on the Latin adjective ending -icus, and "Proto-Japonic" as a noun is just short for "Proto-Japonic language", i.e. the adjective sense is really the essential sense of the word, with the noun sense being just a nominal use of the adjective. Even if the nominal use is more common, the adjective should still be considered a proper sense of the word, if not the main sense. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 12:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

leucoethiopic

Just the one hit seen. There may be some spelling variants, with the ae or oe letters or sth. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There are more, if you search leucœthiopic, which I count as the same, and yet more if you search "leucaethiopic" to find misscans of the ligaturic forms. And see French leucéthiopie, from which it seems to be derived. Could also be a corruption complex from leucopathy, given also as synonymous; many uses in their contexts suggest it to be synonymous to albino. Fay Freak (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I only found two cites for this spelling. Why don't we move this to leucaethiopic? That spelling is attestable and not very rare. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see this spelling at all, all I see are scannos for leucœthiopic, which is the same as the present spelling with ligature, so I we don’t lemmatize at such a ligature then the entry is at its place. Fay Freak (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

libant

OED 1989 just has our quote too P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited and added a poetic label. I also found a noun use. Einstein2 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

xenologer

Only in Ender's Game? So probably fails WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 22:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Miho

Rfv-sense A name used for a pet fox. From Korean. Seriously?

This is the over-enthusiastic, under-competent Canadian IP again. Theknightwho (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

seicont

Scots. I was unable to find the spelling seicont on A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue or Scottish National Dictionary. YukaSylvie (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It can easily be found in Google Books (google books:"seicont") but both uses there postdate our entry and the uses on Scots Wikipedia. I wonder if Embryomystic can remember what the source for the creation of this entry was.

In any event, even if this is attestable, it should be moved, perhaps to saicont. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is in the dictionary on Scots Online. I disagree with you with regards to moving the page, but if we do that, seicont should certainly be kept as an alternative spelling. embryomystic (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant moving the primary form and keeping this as an alt form. The fact that so few attestations are available tends to suggest this is not the primary form. This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

lob

Rfv-sense: to cob. OED only mentions dictionary entry Denazz (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

shrei

Scots. I was unable to find the spelling shrei on Scottish National Dictionary. YukaSylvie (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

surnamer

Nonce word only in Puttenham? Equinox ◑ 04:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

percentageness

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

halseman

rfv: 1. (obsolete) An executioner. Couldn't find a single use of the term. Apparently an Anglish word. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 14:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

loob

Rfv-sense: the clay or slime washed from tin ore in dressing - pretty obscure, as are most dialectal mining words imported from Webster's 1913 dictionaryDenazz (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Found one citation, from John Ray's 1674 blockbuster "A Collection of English Words Not Generally Used". I would call it a use rather than a mention. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

lopeman

OED tags rare, 1 quote. I was tempted to tag this as "Chinese English" with the usage example "rook at that lopeman!", but that would be racist. Denazz (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

An old Webster dictionary cites some work of Beaumont and Flanders: "It goes like a Dutch lopeman." Equinox ◑ 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I might have said the work was by Fletcher and Swann. Anyway, I didn't find anything else in EEBO. Looks like a nonce. This, that and the other (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

luch

Are there any other quotes other than the one given? Kiwima (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The entry has no definition or hints, no etymology and no pronunciation: it's nothing but one citation. Could be a typo for all anyone can tell. This should have gone to WT:REE or the Citations page. Equinox ◑ 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox The citation checks out, and even uses it twice. It's a graphic novel, but here's a transcription:

Narrator: It's December. We start looking at apartments that are coming up for rent in August. The first one seems like where we belong: low ceilings, a tiny messy kitchen. And a small rooftop seating area perfect for our groving.

Leela: It's a luch. It's disgusting.

Narrator: I figure we're doomed to bad things, uncharming places and loveless rooms forever. Leela wants something else.

Leela: I'm not going to live in some luch just because my baby died.

Narrator: We keep looking.

So it's definitely not a typo. I can't find any glossary or explanation in the surrounding pages, but as it's autobiographical it's probably New York slang? Theknightwho (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So I've read the whole book, and nothing. Two theories:

1. German Luch (“boggy lowland”) - this would fit with the environment in the book, but seems really unlikely. The word is apparently used in English to refer to a particular kind of boggy geography found in northern Germany, but given the house they're looking at is in New Mexico, I'm not buying it.
2. Yiddish לאָך (lokh, “hole”), which is found in לאָך אין קאָפּ (lokh in kop, “hole in the head”), as in "I need that like I need a hole in the head". This gets borrowed into English as "I need that like I need a luch in cup", among other spellings. This seems more plausible (i.e. Leela is calling the place they're looking round a shithole), but it's still a pretty big stretch, and I can't find corroborating evidence that "luch" is used independently like that.

Theknightwho (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the user that added it. I'm new here, so forgive me if I'm doing things wrong. I saw that the usage had been marked as being a noun with the linked page not having any noun usages, so I tracked down a noun usage of "louche" in google books and added it to the linked page. I then updated this page to put it as an alternate spelling again, since both pages have a noun example now. It's pretty clear to me that it's the same sense of the word, and the spelling in the book is just an alternate spelling, but I don't really know how to go about proving that. Searching Google Books for "luch" is pretty hard, it's a short word and there's a lot of name examples. Does anyone have tips or links to info pages on how best to find attestions that are sufficient for Wiktionary? GudSpeller

If you search for combinations like "another luch", "such a luch" and "this luch", you avoid hits on "A. Luch".  --Lambiam 18:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if louche fits - isn't that pretty much exclusively used for people? Theknightwho (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the usage is much like "shady", where it's most often used to describe people, but can also describe other nouns. I managed to find a good reference, thanks Lambiam for the tips. On page 128 of The Second Woman by Kenneth Coleman, louche is used as an adjective to describe the building they're in, followed by usage as a noun in reference to a person. Interpreting "luch" as those two senses blending and then being spelled by a non-French speaker as "luch" seems fairly reasonable to me. GudSpeller (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Still seems like a real stretch to me. So far, we know it can be used as an adjective to mean "shady" (usually but not exclusively describing people), or - rarely - as a noun (so far I can only find examples that refer to people). The change in spelling and nonstandard use makes me think it probably isn't that, especially when "louche" is not that rare of a word, and a publisher like Macmillan would certainly have picked up on it. Theknightwho (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: Good call on your Yiddish suggestion. I emailed the author, and he responded "Yiddish for a really crummy place. It might be more specifically a house or apartment, but that's the general gist"

Should a Yiddish entry be added to that page, as well as an English entry, and then linked? And should the "luch in cup" sense be included as well? GudSpeller (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@GudSpeller Thanks - that's really helpful.

So we have a Yiddish entry at לאָך (lokh) already, but it definitely needs expanding - the euphemistic senses seem to be pretty similar to English hole, from what I can find (e.g. sense 13: an undesirable place to live or visit).

I'm pretty sure we could make an entry at lokh in kop for English, but I'm struggling to find many attestations for for luch in cup or luch on its own. @Kiwima and @Lingo Bingo Dingo are pretty good at tracking rare words down, though. Theknightwho (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been unable to find anything. That is why I rfv'd this in the first place. Kiwima (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

All I can think to suggest, which you've all likely already tried, is to search together with other Yiddish words, search for more likely spellings (maybe this spelling can't be attested but another spelling like lokh can), and try newspaper archives (newspapers.com) in case there are any Yiddish papers or columns, or just Yiddish authors using this. - -sche (discuss) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

thave

Rfv-sense "To be allowed or permitted to do sth.; To consent to; To submit to, endure, tolerate". Added by the same editor as atew. I suspect some kind of Anglish nonsense or otherwise intentionally trying to revive words that have fallen out of use. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The OED has nothing after 1325, and "thave" is essentially a modern normalisation. Theknightwho (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the EDD for it either (only the noun), and I can't find any cites myself, either. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

mander

Rfv-sense "alternative form of gerrymander". Ultimateria (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

cited, but only as a combining form. Kiwima (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be moved to -mander then? Category:English combining forms is a weird grab-bag of stuff, but they all have hyphens. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well no, since somebody can look at mander and miss something. The hyphen is just for clarity when mentioning the combining form of a word; known from our Armenian entries where there are not even separate entries and categorization for combining forms. Here for the same purpose, for clarity, we mention the combination at a title without hyphen. Fay Freak (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, AFAICT this should be moved to -mander (leave a "see also" link at mander, I guess). - -sche (discuss) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

outroductory

See Talk:outroduce which failed RFV. Ultimateria (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

saicind

Scots. The spelling is not attested on the Online Scots Dictionary or the Dictionaries of the Scots Language. --YukaSylvie (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's in a book on Google Books; as Scots is a LDL one published use is sufficient for verification. This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

toenail

Slang, derogatory: unattractive person. Is apparently in Urban Dictionary, but that doesn't help much, since UD accepts all inventions. Equinox ◑ 09:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

mangonist

Good luck...Three quotes for three definitions: One who mangonizes./ A slave dealer/A strumpet. Denazz (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Found one for "One who mangonizes" and another for "strumpet". (P.S. some dictionaries I found treat the 3rd sense as a figurative meaning of the 2nd one). [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 14:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

madisterium

An instrument to extract hairs. Lotta dictionaries, littla use Denazz (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

edumyth

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Cited. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Elysian Field

Apparently the singular of Elysian Fields. Theknightwho (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

brenningly

Joyce and possibly Middle English Chaucer only? Denazz (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

braved

Rfv-sense

Can we cite this as an adjective? Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

bibcam 1

Sense "software": seems to be the name of someone's software package ("barcode "bibcam" -keijiro - Google Search"), not a common noun. (@SnappyDragonPennyroyal) —Fish bowl (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that this sense was removed by the user who added it immediately after this RFV began, I think it's safe to close this early as an obvious mistake. Binarystep (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

psy designer

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

bridegroomlike

I have never heard this word before and a Google Books search yielded plenty for "bridegroom, like" or "bridegroom like" but noting for "bridegroomlike". Purplebackpack89 12:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Purple, in RFV'ing this, you are clearly harassing Equinox (talk • contribs), the entry creator... Denazz (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think these kinds of entries are largely pointless. The suffix "-like", whether hyphenated or not, may be added to almost literally ANY noun, with entirely predictable meaning. To me, the presence or absence of a hyphen makes no difference to the fact that these compounds are limitless SoP. Likewise, citability is irrelevant in my opinion, unless it is for its own sake, since ANY "-like" word can be coined at will, even if it hasn't been so far. Mihia (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Mihia That isn't really a debate to have in this thread, and we've been over it lots of times before anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

harmonized

Rfv-sense. Censored, in the context of China. It's a calque of 和諧／和谐 (héxié, verb), but I don't know if it's attestable in durable sources. It also might be better defined as a verb at harmonize, too. Theknightwho (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

make one's hand

Difficult to search for. It probs is real Denazz (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

malacissant

Used by Francis Bacon, but I see no alternative (vegetarian?) use. Denazz (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

holiday pay

The, supposedly limited to the UK, sense "a basic wage paid to an employee while they are on holiday. It can be paid for as many weeks holiday as an employee is entitled to, although an employee can spread their complete holiday entitlement over the whole year."

At least in the Netherlands it doesn't work like that. It's just a monetary bonus, you can spend the money however you like, no need to go on vacation. (see vakantiegeld) w:en:Holiday pay doesn't describe the sense we have here either. Ping @Donnanz who created the page and wrote this sense. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: That's the way it worked when I was in employment. I retired in 2012. If you don't take any holiday entitlement, you may lose it, it depends on your employer and contract. Self-employed people don't get holiday pay. I'm not sure if anybody on a zero hours contract gets holiday pay, according to Zero-hour contract they can. Some firms close down for two or three weeks in the summer, when everyone has to take their holiday. Apparently different countries have different laws. DonnanZ (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Nowadays, in the UK, as far as I would understand the term, "holiday pay" generally simply means that employees continue to get paid in the normal way when they take their (statutory) holiday allowance, whenever in the year this may be, not necessarily (and in practice usually not) contiguously. (No doubt some employers try to wriggle out of paying this entitlement in various ways. There are also potentially complications around determining what is someone's "normal pay" if they are not paid a fixed wage or salary, e.g. they work varying numbers of hours.) Mihia (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

heptagyn

1. (botany) Any plant of the order Heptagynia

Seems to be dictionary-only. Binarystep (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, paging through all the Books hits for the plural and the first 150 hits for the singular yields no uses, only dictionaries as you say; it's in the NED and Century but with no cites. No hits on Google Scholar. Could be moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms in a month if anyone has the energy. - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Taoist dual cultivation

When searched on Google, it appears that most of the term's usage comes from Mantak Chia. I doubt whether there are sufficient independent citations (besides Chia's usage).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

laquearian

Rfv-sense "(of a gladiator) armed with a noose"; I managed to find two, but only two, cites (both describing the same statue). (I am taking the usex a rowdy, laquearian mob of good old boys in David Grambs' 1997 The Endangered English Dictionary entry for this word to fail the CFI ban on "made-up examples of how a word might be used".) Compare the RFV of laqueary, above. laquearius I did manage to cite (see the cites page). - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

mastful

Just used by Dryden? Denazz (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

overmight

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

a twig in a bundle can't be broken

As Talk:a stick in a bundle can't be broken. This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

heterotoma

1. Any insect of the genus Heterotoma

Can't find any uses matching this sense. Searching for the plural form just brings up misconstructions of teratoma. Binarystep (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

heartbreaker

Rfv-sense: "An independent role-playing game that attempts to fix various perceived design flaws in an established RPG, but whose few innovations will not reach a wide audience due to its lack of marketability."

This is an extremely specific sense that seems to come back to a single essay. I can find a few people quoting the essay, but no-one just describing a game as a heartbreaker without adding "as defined by Ron Edwards in his 2002 essay Fantasy Heartbreakers". Also if this is salvagable, it looks like the term is probably fantasy heartbreaker. When I google "heartbreaker + RPG", every relevant hit I can see adds the word "fantasy" at the start. Does it appear alone? Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

mawks

Rfv-sense: A prostitute; a slut Denazz (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Bethlehemite

Rfv-sense: An insane person; a madman. - this RFV could be subject to the "pejorative" rule Denazz (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ha, this must be the 'formal' and/or hypercorrect spelling of bedlamite. I found and added one cite which is probably using this sense (though it's possible it's referring to members of the order who treated the insane people, instead). Unfortunately, the other hits I can find for google books:"Bethlehemites" insane or google books:"Bethelemites" lunatics either mean the religious order or people from Bethlehem, or else are ambiguous (this could mean lunatics but it could also mean the religious order who treated them: it refers to somebody in the Bethlehem hospital in London, but it's not clear who). - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

rug

Rfv-sense: snug; cosy Denazz (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it's labelled "(UK, dialect, obsolete)", I checked the EDD, which says "RUG, adj. Dev. [Not known to our correspondents.] Snug, warm. (Hall.)" Apparently they couldn't find evidence of it, either! So I'm not optimistic about our chances. All I found when searching for google books:devon rug snug is dictionaries/wordlists (with no cites or evidence of use) and instances where someone is snug on a rug as in carpet. - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ohio

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 17 June 2024.

Rfv-sense. “(slang) cringe, off-the-wall“. Removed out of process. Added by @Purplebackpack89. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the trickier areas of RFV...internet slang. I can tell you that I have heard middle schoolers use the word "Ohio" like this many many times. Also, if you do a Google search for "Ohio" and something like "cringe" or similar, you get many hits.

• Google Books has three dictionaries of Gen Z slang. Some of these might contain the word Ohio...but they're too recent for Google Books to offer a

Also, worth noting: this is tagged in part due to an edit from QueensanditsCrazy, who has made...one edit total on this project. Either they really are concerned about the use of the word "Ohio" or...they're a sock. Purplebackpack89 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 the user mainly edits Wikipedia and other wikis. I don't see any reason to suspect sockpuppetry. This, that and the other (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

autem prickear

autem dipper

I can't find uses. Cf autem cackle tub and a variety of other terms in which vein which have failed RFV over the years. (I am not RFVing autem cackler or autem diver at this time, because they at least have one cite per sense.) - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Added one not-great cite for autem prickear. In general all the autem pages have the problem that a) basically no-one at the time would have written in thieves' cant in a published document but b) subsequent modern authors have seen the words in dictionaries and put them in historical fiction, leading to quotes that are probably not very representative of actual usage. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe and the hoe gotta go

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 18 June 2024.

There is one citation but I'm skeptical that the other two, durable and spanning a year, exist. Google Books search contained nothing of use Purplebackpack89 13:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be abundantly attestable from ads for T-shirts. DCDuring (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring that's...possibly true? But where does that fit in the requirements for passing verifiability?

Nowhere.

Related: is a Google Books search the right amount of legwork before an RfV? Do I need to add a shopping site too? Purplebackpack89 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

For something like this Google News would be better. Maybe UseNet if you can find something that searches it. DCDuring (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that it would meet WT:CFI (RFD) even if attestable. DCDuring (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty transparently SOP even if the identification of the "hoe" (not "ho"?) isn't stated. As opposed to, say, "let's go Brandon" which is at least etymologically interesting. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

stealection

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I can only find this term under the authorship of one person who goes by the moniker of State of the Union. I have added one quote to the citations page, but have been unable to find quotes by anyone else. If this does manage to pass RFV, it should be reworded, because the term is about the purported act stealing the 2020 election, not the election per se. Kiwima (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is now cited, and I have tweaked the definition. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

blastemal

Rfv-sense:rudimentary Denazz (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Continent

Rfv-sense "Europe (including Britain)"

Struggling to imagine a context for this. When would you say "the Continent" to refer to Europe including Britain? It wouldn't be used in the UK or Ireland (where it refers specifically to continental Europe) and I can't imagine an American or Australian doing it (since they are on different continents). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

melampode

Rfv-sense - hellebore Denazz (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

meletin

quercetin obtained from melin. WTF is melin? Denazz (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Some sources give it as a synonym of quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, whatever that may be. Apparently, there was a scientific dispute in the 19th century whether melin is the same as quercimelin, whatever that may be.^[94]  --Lambiam 14:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

menald

Outside the quote a menald buck and a fallow doe it seems unfindable Denazz (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And that quote also speaks of "a bastard menald", which could be viewed as a noun (and then "a menald buck" could also be a noun, attributive); this ambiguity as to whether this is (as listed) an adjective or instead a noun is also present in many other instances I can find. The 1933 OED cites are mostly mentions and spread over quite a few spellings: "meneld" (mention), "a Menild, or spotted Partridge" (gloss in a dictionary), "[...] Menal'd Deer vocant" (mention in a Latin text), and the 1902 cite of mennal here. (Actually, I've found a second cite of mennal, which brings us tantalizingly to two for that spelling, but I can't find a third...)

- -sche (discuss) 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Aha, I've managed to find three uses of the spelling Citations:menel, and even more uses, including recent and modern uses, of Citations:menil, which looks like it is the modern spelling, unless another spelling is even more common. The 1933 OED speculates that the ety might be meanel (+ -ed), another rare word for which their and the EDD's only cite is this mention: ante 1685, T. More, "Meanels, spots called flea-bit[e]s in white-coloured horses. Early uses suggest the deer with this coloration were imported from Bengal, so that's another possible place to look for possible etyma.
Suggest relocating the entry to menil and dropping the "obsolete" label. - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the entry to menil, which (perhaps surprisingly, for a word which had been labelled obsolete) seems to still be a perfectly current word in that spelling, with many cites from the 2000s. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(menald, however, only gets the one hit and probably fails) - -sche (discuss) 12:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

mot d'ordre

English. PUC – 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

[95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]. Also in the OED. Einstein2 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Dated? From an undemocratic time when newspaper readers were assumed to enjoy the occasional French expression in their morning news. DCDuring (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

heft

"(Western Ireland, veterinary medicine) A poor condition in sheep caused by mineral deficiency." (etymology 6). Not in the EDD or OED. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Searching for "heft in sheep", sheep heft Ireland and similar all I can find is the "feel or weight" sense or the "accustomed to a pasture" sense. - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: yup, I did a similar Google search and did not find anything usable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just noting it for the sake of "showing the negative", so to speak (showing that now two people have tried to find this and come up empty handed, as opposed to no-one having tried to find it). - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

spaghetti up

This and other phrasal verb entries made by @Mazzlebury. No quotations and I've personally never heard any of them. -saph 🍏 23:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've fully cited the first definition of spaghetti up and one cite for the other, will find the other two later. I can cite any of my entries if needed. Mazzlebury (talk)

• ..."and other phrasal verb entries made by @Mazzlebury". List any doubtful ones individually, please. I've been following this user's edits since the start, so far nothing but excellence! Denazz (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

meracious

Found and added 1 cite Denazz (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

mercatante

Onely in Shakespeare, methinks Denazz (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

site

Rfv-sense "sorrow, grief". Compare https://www.oed.com/dictionary/syte_n. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We seem to be missing a Middle English entry for this, but the word was apparently common in Middle English (the MED has 25 cites), indeed common enough all the way through to 1500 that an EEBO search might be productive if someone can work out how to avoid all the other things site means. I also put two Scots cites at Citations:syte (so perhaps this could be moved to syte#Scots if it doesn't pass as English). - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

piety

Rfv-sense "A belief that is accepted unthinkingly and with undue reverence". Removed by IP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RFV-deleted - another IP (probably the same person) removed the sense again, but since it's been a month without any cites, it'll stand this time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

𐑩𐑚𐑪𐑥𐑦𐑯𐑩𐑚𐑤𐑦

abominably using the Shavian alphabet. A drive-by IP added a bunch of these last year, and I think we probably need to decide what to do with them (if they’re even attestable, that is). Theknightwho (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I can find only one result, in Shaw's Preface to Pygmalion. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

twalf

Scots. The spelling is not attested on A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue independently of "twalf pairt" and "twalfpairt". --YukaSylvie (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

purrfectly

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is almost trivially verifiable in Google Books once you work out how to get past the BS that clutters the first few pages of results. @Surjection was there some specific concern you had? This, that and the other (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

All that shows up in BGC for me for this word is trash and the entry was created by an unreliable, block-evading editor. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RFV-deleted; moved the only cite given to the citations page. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Surjection: Have you tried the Internet Archive instead? J3133 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

BM

Rfv-sense "boy moment", @SnappyDragonPennyroyal. Seems like it'll be tough to cite. Ioaxxere (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The term is only used on several pro-pedophilia websites that I am not sure if we are allowed to cite. I tried using a quotation from Kiwi Farms on an entry for a transphobic slur; the quotation was removed. SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

boy moment

"(euphemistic) an experience that occurs when a male-attracted pedophile, hebephile, or ephebophile lustfully observes (and possibly interacts with) an underage male" Ioaxxere (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The term is only used on several pro-pedophilia websites that I am not sure if we are allowed to cite. I tried using a quotation from Kiwi Farms on an entry for a transphobic slur; the quotation was removed. SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

just linking to #pedophobia above for comparison's sake. it's closed and will be moved to talk:pedophobic soon. anyway ... i wouldnt expect anyone to go digging for quotes, or even for quotes-of-quotes we did with pedophobic and apparently with bibcam. whether there's a policy against it or not i'm not sure, probably becauase it hasnt really come up before. i think the quotes-of-quotes are fine, but again, we'd need three of them, so i'm actually not sure bibcam should be indexed either. —Soap— 13:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

tanto

Rfv-sense A knife blade shape/style comprising well-differentiated front and longitudinal edges, somewhat reminiscent of a chisel but with an angled front allowing for an acute-angle point.

I'm not really sure whether this is actually distinct from the primary definition (A traditional Japanese small sword or knife; often used as a secondary weapon to a katana.), if I'm honest. Of the dictionaries I've checked, only the OED has a relevant entry for tanto, and they only give the Japanese sense.

According to our entry, both senses can be pronounced /ˈtɑntoʊ/, but the sense I've RFV'd can also be pronounced /ˈtæntoʊ/, but I find this distinction dubious because /ɑ ~ æ/ in free variation is common with terms like this. I get the impression this second sense is trying to draw a distinction between traditional tanto and other knives crafted in a similar style, which would explain why it's the only one given the less "authentic" pronunciation. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, though.

Theknightwho (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

put the boom down

I can find only a single cite (Citations:put the boom down). The same user defined #toenail as "an unattractive person", set to fail RFV further up this page, and added a similar definition to flap sourced to a tweet "I'm a toenail and you're labial flaps"; additions to redskin and red man were also non-credible; in general their edits need looking over. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

metallifacture

Just found as proper noun Denazz (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've managed to cite a countable and an uncountable sense. Einstein2 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

mispay

Rfv-sense: just finding Middle English for this Denazz (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

swim the Bosphorus

swim the Rhine

Phrases for changing religious denomination. As pointed out in #swim_the_Forth, these don't seem to be much-attested. The only books hits I've been able to find have to do with literally swimming the rivers, not with changing religion. I can only find a few online uses, e.g. [101]. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relegate to Appendix:Snowclones?  --Lambiam 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If enough are attested, perhaps, but it seems like only the Catholic one is attested. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

spring 2

Rfv-sense: "To come upon and flush out." Cf. the other RFV of #spring above. The one citation provided seems like it's mentioning / defining the phrase "spring a plant", not using the verb "spring" by itself with this meaning. - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this the sense used with game/animals: "spring a hare", "spring a rabbit", "spring a pheasant" etc.? Examples of that nature can be found. Mihia (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. If so, this is citeable and I'll withdraw the RFV (or cite it). - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, if this is what "springing a rabbit/pheasant/etc" is, then this is cited. If springing a rabbit is something else, someone please revise the definition accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the new citations are fine to support this sense. (I think the original citation about "springing a plant" is probably also the same sense, and could possibly be restored to show a usage with a different kind of subject matter.) Mihia (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Grains

- -sche (discuss) 05:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

surburbanite

An IP pointed out on the talk page that this is a misspelling, and I changed it to such. The quote is real - but how common of a misspelling is it? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

the math is mathing

Can we establish that this passes RfV in the positive? "The math is not mathing" and "The math ain't mathing" likely pass RfV but I'm not sure "the math is mathing" without the not or the ain't passes. Purplebackpack89 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Cited. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that this is also listed at RfD.  --Lambiam 22:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

invective infixation

This term appears to have literally never been used outside of Wiktionary:Glossary. I'm not sure if CFI applies in this case... Ioaxxere (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The term was first added by our very own DCDuring waaaay back in 2007 [102] as part of the definition of dystmesis. How good's your memory, DC? This, that and the other (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I know that many of such older entries must have been done by an impostor, because there are entries appearing over my name that I have no recollection of adding. But I was captivated by rhetorical terms for a while. What does look attestable is expletive infixation. The impostor must have made a mistake. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @DCDuring. Useful info. I moved the term to Appendix:Glossary as expletive infixation. Hopefully this resolves the situation, @Ioaxxere. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Such infectious/explosive infestationa are an example of tmesis, but the latter has a more general sense, as in the family-friendly a whole nother. All examples I can think of that exploit expletives are semantically intensifiers, often used without a pejorative sense (unbefuckinglievable).  --Lambiam 22:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

bristle

Rfv-sense. Not sure about this sense: "To fix a bristle to." e.g.: to bristle a thread. Is this actually used? If yes, then it's pretty uncommon. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 00:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Dunno about threads. It seems easier to find reference to "rebristling a brush", but if you can rebristle a brush then I suppose you can in the first place bristle it? Mihia (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to some old dictionaries, the verb is related to shoemakers. I could find only one possible use of this: : "Every man, ſurely, has a right to chooſe his own ſhoemaker; but will that man act wiſely who ſhall employ one for that purpoſe who never knew how to briſtle a thread! Yea, every man has a right, if he pleaſes, to make his own ſhoes ; but are the rights of than violated by his wearing ſhoes of another man's making?" If this and this book are to be trusted, then bristles were used as needles by shoemakers, and thus this verb sense means "to needle (a thread, etc.)" ? I have many doubts. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This "bristle a thread" example seems to have been copied down through the ages without anyone bothering to explain what it actually means. You're right, "bristle" definitely seems to mean some kind of sewing or stitching implement like a needle [103] [104]. Would you fix a needle to a thread? If the bristle didn't have an eye like a normal needle, perhaps you would have to?? Mihia (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I can find cites like "the first rug cleaning brushes bristled with nylon have been installed" (later in the work, the brushes are "rebristled at least three times a year"), and "your next purchase of bristling material" for bristling brushes, but it could be argued that "bristling" is a noun there. If this is real, it is not common. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Your cite made me laugh. "Brooms, Brushes & Mops, volumes 43-44" ... sounds like quite a page-turner. I must try to get my hands on volumes 1 to 42. Mihia (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I found one more: "nylon is employed most advantageously in bristling brushes of all kinds" [105].

autem

"a church", "married". Failed RFV in 2013, was re-added later without cites, but maybe it's citable now? I haven't managed to find anything, searching for "an autem", "the autem" (which finds only mentions of the Latin word, saying the autem appears in one edition but not another, etc), "to autem", "in autem", "autems", "is autem" (for the "married" sense), "got autem", "get autem" (the results are all just Latin)... the one hit for "autem building" is an OCR erroneous combination of two unrelated columns, one Latin and one English... - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@-sche I've added 5 cites for the "church" sense, though I'm only confident the 1610 cite is a genuine, period use. It's not very clear from the passage what "could not […] keepe his Autem" means, but there's a load of other thieves' cant there (e.g. upright man, hooker etc.), and the same book glosses "Autem" as "the Church" later on, so I'm pretty sure it's something like "could not […] go to church [without getting robbed]". The 1837 cite from Rookwood is clearly an intentional archaism/dialecticism, while the 1823 slang dictionary uses it in a usage example for a different term - go out (“to mug”). Both are passable, I guess. The other two are pretty mention-y, as they directly state what the word means, but they're probably worth keeping since they're the only mentions I could find that weren't simply lists of thieves' cant ripped from older dictionaries, or where it's used as part of a compound. The 1566 cite is also valuable as the earliest known recording of the term, too. Theknightwho (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading it with a fresh pair of eyes, I don't think the 1610 cite fits after all, as I think it's being used to mean "wife" as a clipping of autem mort (i.e. it's "could not […] keepe his Autem [wife] or doxie [girlfriend] sole unto himself"). Theknightwho (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, alas, I think you're right. "Autem is over" looks alright, though, and "autem ken" is OK as long as autem ken is not a term in its own right (which it seems it is not; at least, we don't have an entry). - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@-sche I think it is (Greene's treats it as another form), but I'm inclined to say it's fine, because "autem" clearly has to mean "church" since ken just means "house". How about if we add the label "chiefly in compounds"?

I suspect we probably want to add "clipping of autem mort (“wife”)" as a second sense, but I can find nothing to support it meaning "married" that isn't simply a dictionary entry claiming as much. I suspect it's probably real, as the circumstantial evidence is quite strong for this term having been both widespread and polysemous in the criminal underworld, but sadly the direct evidence simply isn't there. Theknightwho (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I considered suggesting this earlier, but as far as citing "church", we could perhaps also look through the various terms like autem cackle tub, autem quaver tub and autem quaver which have failed, and see if it would work to use their cites for this, iff / as long as we don't also have entries for those things. (IMO we can't use the same citation of "autem ken" to support both an entry "autem ken" and an entry "autem", but as long as we don't have autem ken, autem quaver, etc, we could plausibly use cites of those things for this... but it does mean that if we ever become able to cite those things, it pulls the rug out from under this...) - -sche (discuss) 23:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

mislactation

Just in crappy workbooks (like Wiktionary) Denazz (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

pâro

Defined as “The feeling that no matter what you do, it is always somehow wrong—as if there’s some obvious way forward that everybody else can see but you.” and supposedly countable, with the plural pâros. 0DF (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This looks like nonsense but paro and the variants paro’ and para appear in various British and Irish rap songs (as can be seen by searching at genius.com), most notably in the song ‘Ketamine’ by the Dublin band Versatile, and we already have a French entry under paro. Of course the definition should simply be ‘paranoid’ and the etymology should just be ‘clipping of paranoid’. There's also this example of a NY rapper using the term[106] Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Word comes from the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows, and the words appear in the Tumblr post that describes it. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

body count

Rfv-sense: (slang) The total number of sexual partners of a given individual.

The definition would seem to exclude partners of a given group, eg, a demographic. The other definition also could use any good cites discovered in the course of citing this definition to supplement the one in the entry. DCDuring (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I added two. Along the way, I spotted various one-off / SOP-like uses referring to counting how many bodies were in a particular study, employed by an employer, available to become saints, etc. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I found a possible use from 2010. But it is a denial by the author that a sexual autobiography is a body count. DCDuring (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The existing definition is now cited in the citations page, as mentioned in the Tearoom discussion. Passed. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

misbede

Just Middle English, methinks Newfiles (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

quirling

Rfv-sense: A coiling or swirling sensation. Newfiles (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in the OED, though marked as obsolete and rare. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the entry to indicate it is obsolete, provided a quote attesting the sense, and removed the RfV. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that I restored the RFV, as three citations have not been found. This could be a tough one to cite as I expect it would not be spelled consistently. This, that and the other (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Three citations for an obscure dialectical term that has been obsolete for two hundred years or so? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

minious

Doubtfulle Denazz (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I found one cite from 1844 in addition to the well-known 1650 one, which I guess means we've beaten the OED, who claim there's only one known use. It's really hard to search for, since you just get thousands of results where "ignominious" has been split over a line break. Theknightwho (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears in the OED. What exactly is "doubtful" about it? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Simply being mentioned in another dictionary isn't relevant, because some dictionaries (including the OED) include words where there's no evidence they've ever actually been used. The fact that this one has been used twice is an improvement, but it still doesn't yet meet the threshold set by WT:Criteria for inclusion. Theknightwho (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There are many hapax legomena on Wiktionary, which is at odds with WT:CFI. To say nothing of entries for languages where such a requirement is effectively impossible. Can you explain this discrepancy? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well-documented languages like English and less-documented languages are subject to different criteria (Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Number_of_citations). - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can find several editions of Edward Bulwer Lytton's works (Night and morning. Godolphin.), from 1880 and 1892, which have " […] of the descendant of Charles V. It was the Infant of Spain that stood in the chamber of his ambition minious. 'This is convenient, this private entrance into thy penetralia, Roderigo. It shelters me from the prying eyes of Uzeda, who ever seeks […] '". However, other editions have "ambitious minion". I can find a reference to "the St. Cleer-Redgate and Minious Road", which could be this sense (given Redgate preceding it), but is a proper noun/name so harder to judge/use. I can find "twenty one Guns, chiefly Sakers and Minious", but don't know what that is trying to say (and doubt it's this). - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"u" and "n" are extremely prone to scannos. I'd want to see the actual page image for anything where "minions" isn't ruled out by the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I found a looot of that, too. The editions of Bulwer Lytton really do have "ambition minious" on the page, but they've obviously just transposed the endings of the "ambitious minion" of other editions. The "Minious Road" is also really what the one book I looked at says, but I can find mention of a "Minions road" near "Cleer-Redgate" in other works.) - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An opinion piece in The Times from 1984 describes some shady behaviour as "if not ignominious, not very minious", which is amusing, but sadly not very relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've found a very promising potential citation from 1961, but I can't verify it: searching "minious paint" on Google Books reveals the quote "minious paint has worn better than the rest , which was done with a poor quality red oxide ." on page 80 of Painting & Decorating, volume 81, which all sounds very relevant, but there's no snippet-view available and unfortunately it begins with the word itself, which limits how much we can infer since it could be something else split over a line-break. Theknightwho (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that - I managed to get snippet-view working by fiddling around with it, and it turned out to be "bituminious", an uncommon form of bituminous. Theknightwho (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

espace

“(obsolete) Space.” According to the OED (which is the reference in the entry), only recorded in Middle English. J3133 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

silfs

As a plural of silf, an Early Modern spelling of self (equivalent to selfs). I've found silves (i.e. selves), but not this, and by the looks of things the plural with -fs was a development that occurred after silf fell out of use. Theknightwho (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

surname

Rfv-sense 5 (Scotland, obsolete) A clan.

This comes from the OED, but the OED's definition of "English" is somewhat broader than ours; this is partially reflected by the fact that the user who added this back in 2013 used the first citation in the OED's list, which dates from 1455, which pre-dates the year we usually use to mark the start of modern English (1500) by quite some way. We're a bit flexible about it, but 45 years is too much in my opinon, so I've removed it as invalid.

The OED also include citations from 1508, 1553–4 and 1565, but they read like Scots to me, which is the other issue here. I've got no objection moving this to Scots if needs be, though. Theknightwho (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The DSL has a bunch of "Scots" cites (mostly 1500s but with some from as late as the 1680s). Most of their cites are sco, but similar to the OED (in the other direction), they seem to have included some English as well... unfortunately, despite the DSL's assignment of the cites to this sense, it seems hard to be sure they are actually this sense (it seems possible to read them as meaning the name, instead), e.g. "The Lord Lovet called Fresell [i.e. Fraser] … A surname esteemed honest and very hardy", "Jockies who go about begging, and use still to recite the sluggornes of most of the true ancient surnames of Scotland". - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

persevilience

Needs three independent quotes, this comes across as a nonce word by one author. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does it need three independent quotes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the CFI says that. Otherwise we'd be documenting every word made up by some author. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I am relatively new here—forgive me—but doesn't that seem like an absurdly onerous guideline, however well-intentioned? Many rare or obsolete words will only have one existing attestation, even in otherwise well attested languages like modern English; never mind ancient/dead languages, or endangered languages, or those without a history of writing. 40% of the words in the Avesta are hapax legomena; the Hebrew Bible has 400 and the New Testament a further 25. And then there are numerous languages whose entire body of attestation may stem from the work of a single field linguist. Would we just not document these words? It would appear we do, given e.g. Category:Arabic hapax legomena. Upon further investigation and closer reading of CFI, my doubts have been answered. Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

whoremonger

I am skeptical of the second definition, wherein the word is a synonym of pimp. I can't find this second definition in any of several dictionaries I've checked. This accords with my own personal understanding of the term, by which it can only mean someone who purchases the services of prostitutes (i.e., a john), and not one who sells them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

beside

Rfv-sense "not relevant to". Does this exist outside of the term beside the point? Seems to be a very straightforward extension of sense 3 ("besides; in addition to"), where besides is being used to mean "other than; except for; instead of". This also explains the (now uncommon) alternative form besides the point. Theknightwho (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Marginally. I can find a few cites where people say something is "beside the subject", "beside the topic", "beside the focus" of what they're saying. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also "beside the mark", a run-in in Century 1911, which is closer to the metaphor of aiming at a target and "beside the question".

We are deficient in contemporary citations of beside and besides, excepting those just added by -sche.

Among OneLook references only MWOnline has "not relevant to" as a definition. They also have three subsenses of sense 1 without an explicit sense: "by the side of"; "in comparison with"; and "on a par with". Their def. 3 is "besides". MW seems to have taken a revisionist stance, trying to bring the definitions closer to their conception of contemporary meaning. In contrast other OneLook dictionaries are similar to MW 1913.

Interestingly, Century 1911 has seven definitions, three marked as obsolete, none of them "not relevant to". The four:

1. "at the side of; near" (cf. our 1. "next to; at the side of")
2. "over and above; distinct from"
3. "apart from; not connected with; not according to"
4. "out of; in a state deviating from"

Definition three seems closest to our def. 2 "not relevant to", esp. "not connected with".

Our def. 3 "besides; in addition to" does not closely correspond to any of these. I don't think def. 2 at besides: "Other than; except for; instead of." works very well for beside.

Has the meaning of beside the point become more pejorative than beside the mark/question/subject/topic/focus, more reminiscent of "missing the point/mark", "off the mark"? If so, MWOnline's and our separate "not relevant to" is distinct from a definition like "not connected with". DCDuring (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

misgracious

Nothing found Denazz (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

True, I also couldn't find a single use. Maybe it should be deleted and moved to Appendix:Dictionary-only terms. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

mispassion

Only in Joseph Hall? Denazz (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

missemblance

Seeing nowt P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

missificate

Sorry to do this. I think there's only the 2 hits. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the Latin counterpart missificare seems to be attestable, as this glossariaum suggests. And yes, only those two quotes are the only findable at all. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 23:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

mistrow

Leasnam special, probably confusing English + Middle English P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

centumize

I can find no evidence for this as a verb. Can anyone else? Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

There's 1 hit on Google scholar for "centumized", which is quoted in the result. There are a decent number of hits for the same on Google Books, but none seem to be viewable. Several of the hits for "centumized" and "centumizing" on general Google web search are quoted in the results and seem to be using them as verbs, but ruling out adjectival use can be tricky even if they're usable for CFI. The existence of "centumization" is indirect, circumstantial evidence for the verb, but that won't help with CFI. It looks to me like it exists, but I'm not sure it can be proven to the satisfaction of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added three cites. Einstein2 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

deep

RFV adj sense:

1.6. Thick.

not to be confused with:

1.1 Extending far down from the top, or surface, to the bottom, literally or figuratively.

[...]

There was a deep layer of dust on the floor; the room had not been disturbed for many years.

[...]

1.3 Far in extent in another (non-downwards, but generally also non-upwards) direction, especially front-to-back.

The shelves are 30 centimetres deep. — They are deep shelves.

That cyclist's deep chest allows him to draw more air.

The "cyclist" example was previously under sense "thick", but it seems essentially the same as the "front-to-back extent" sense 1.3, so I moved it there. The only other example for "thick" is the one mentioned at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/June#deep, which, per my comments there, does not seem to mean "thick" in the sense in which that word would be understood in the context. "thick" could be substitutable for some (not all) instances of sense 1.1, such as the "deep/thick layer of dust".

Anyway, seeking examples for "thick" that are not already covered by 1.1 or 1.3. Mihia (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The gloss used for the synonyms, antonyms and translations ("thick in a vertical direction") makes me think this was probably intended to be the same thing was the thick/deep layer of dust etc. The citation currently given under the sense, about "deep linen collars", is also ... not obviously this sense. I am inclined to agree with you that the whole sense is redundant to the other, more clearly defined senses. - -sche (discuss) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

hockeyist

Rfv-sense: "someone interested in hockey", as distinct from the "hockey player" sense. Einstein2 (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

monest

Middle English? Denazz (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Or Scots. But the only modern English works I've spotted using it are modernizations of Middle English texts. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

bibcam

Listing because it was pointed out in an RFV further up the page that this doesn't seem to meet ATTEST. - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not been able to find it used in books (only a mention). - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

trooner

As with the preceding, seems to see only marginal (and in this case online) use; not sure it sees enough use to pass (although I see troon itself was recreated with 4chan cites after failing an earlier RFV). - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Could probably dig up more, but three examples seems enough. Also, pretty sure I attested troon off Twitter a couple years back. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

toxic femininity

Rfv-sense: "(gender theory) Those aspects of traditional femininity perceived to reinforce neuroticism, hysteria and other negative qualities, theorized as a component of feminine ideology, particularly in the United States." I see few uses in books, and this definition — added by an IP as its only contribution — seems unsupportable. Online, one source says toxic femininity is instead "a form of internalised misogyny which involves [a woman] restricting [her]self to stereotypically “feminine” behaviors in order to appeal to men". Other sources clarify that, like with toxic masculinity, other people can do the restricting; various sites mention other people pressuring a woman to have kids or wear dresses, denying her pain relief during childbirth, or otherwise pressuring her to adhere to a notion of how a 'real woman' is, as examples of toxic femininity. So I think the definition needs to be rewritten. - -sche (discuss) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Cited, under a new, hopefully improved definition. The old one was a POV fork of the early 2018 definition of toxic masculinity with only the negative traits changed. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for improving and citing it. (New definition passes.) - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

maru

Rfv-sense A suffix of Japanese ship names.

Not seeing how this is an English term at all. It's straightforward to find examples of "maru" being used in the names of Japanese ships, which comes from this sense in Japanese, but in English it's just part of the name of the ship, and isn't a suffix in any conventional sense since it carries no semantic value. Theknightwho (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

a world of

rfv: (figuratively) A lot of, a mountain of.

Tagged by an IP, but not listed. User added the comment "is this the right part of speech?" --[Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 21:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

What are we verifying here? Clearly the phrase exists, and equally clearly it is not a pronoun. Of the PoS that we allow, I suppose it would be a determiner. However, we need to decide whether it is redundant to sense 16 of world, "A great amount, a lot". Mihia (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not exactly responsive to your concern, but def. 16 has as a usex:

This movie isn't even billed as a comedy, but it's worlds funnier than the comedy I saw last month.

At a quick, surface analysis worlds seems to function adverbially, modifying funnier.

Other words that could fit in that slot are lots, tons, much, little, no, five times, which are also quantifiers/determiners. Right now I find it much more fun to just enjoy the metaphor and not worry about PoS. Perhaps tomorrow I'll be able to face down the PoS question. DCDuring (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic

Unattested language name invented by some database (Ethnologue, thence Glottolog, despite all the references there) copied from Wikipedia and hence only in quasi-bot-created lists. Humans still don’t use this monster. Fay Freak (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

vingtillion

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake for vigintillion by someone unfamiliar with viginti (I don't know how else you could get "ving-" from "viginti-"). I've often wanted to create "vigintipede" as a synonym for the house centipede, which obviously has many fewer than a hundred legs (and regularly just about twenty), but the top results from Google are all about a very long bicycle... P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

productrices, productrixes

VexVector has now twice added these plural forms to productrix, which I had created with {{en-noun|!}}, i.e., “productrix (plural not attested)”. I wrote the following edit summary for my first revert (15 June): “I cannot find a single result for ‘productrixes’ using Google; are you sure that these are attested (hence why it stated ‘plural not attested’)?” VexVector re-added them on 25 June (today), writing, “Ngram-Viewer has the Latinate plural, and I don't see a reason to exclude the Anglicized.” Then I reverted again: “‘productrices’ is used in Latin (Ngram-Viewer does not distinguish Latin in English books), but is there actually an attested English plural?” I have restored them now with {{rfv-term}}, and believe that if they are not attested, they should not be listed (that is why we have the ⟨!⟩ option). J3133 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about starring them, unlinked. This would remove the stubbornness, such editors would have to think why it is mentioned but not linked. When people begin here, there is a drive for completion, as frequently seen in the “duplicate etymology” problem, and they have to learn for it to end, and uncertainty to remain (→ ambiguity tolerance). Fay Freak (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

productrices is a French word and turns up in various English texts: [107] So Ngram is not a useful source of info.

I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary to insist on three durably archived cites for every plural form, but let's at least try to find some evidence for each term here. This, that and the other (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I do not insist on cites for regular plurals, but these do not seem to have ever been attested. J3133 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

softstem rush

Rfv-sense softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani). The only unambiguous mentions that I found were actually referring to soft rush (Juncus effusus), a plant which is similar enough that I'm not currently comfortable trying to determine whether any of the mentions that lack a taxonomic name could be referring to the bulrush instead. One source is unambiguous in using "Softstem Rush" that way; but since it repeatedly uses "Soft-stem Bulrush" in the surrounding sentences, I'm not certain whether it was intentional. Qwertygiy (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

swivel-eyed

swivel eye

Rfv-senses to do with squinting; removed out of process by Special:Contributions/John7Appleyard. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

restructurism

restructurist

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Cited both. Einstein2 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

shipbreach

rfv. I hate to do this, but is it only present on Robert Steele's edition of Bartholomew Anglicus' work? The second quote is erronously attributed Robert M. Torrance, but it turns out it also comes from Robert Steele's 1893 edition, as shown in Torrances's own book. So, are there three independent citations for this word? --[Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 13:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that there is a 400 years gap between the last Medieval English instance of the word (shipbreche), and Steele's 1893 book, which would indicate that "shipbreach" is some kind of learned borrowing (and modernization) rather than an inherited word. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 14:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

chipping

Rfv-sense: prefix. I'm of the "if it aint got a hyphen it aint no prefix" school of lexicography, personally. Maybe that is an old-fashioned mindframe, though. Denazz (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

i think the question of whether it's a prefix or not is better handled at RFD, but we've used RFV for this in the past, so I guess thats just me. and i agree it doesnt look like a prefix. But more important to me is that we dont even have a definition for it right now. We can't just assume it has something to do with wood chips or whatever ... Washington doesnt mean a place where people wash their clothes, for example. —Soap— 11:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this is something for capitalized Chipping to handle (and indeed, it seems to already handle the ety). - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed, and not needed in any event. This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

montigenous

seeing nothing Denazz (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Barely cited. Worth noting that the three citations I added are (likely) from non-native English speakers. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 22:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Added two more and made a slight change to the definition. Einstein2 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good work, both of you! Passed. - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

FaCIAbook

Previously failed RFV twice. It currently only has one cite from Usenet, and I would strongly push back against including any message from Google Groups not from Usenet, as that doesn't seem to be durably archived per WT:CFI, nor have I seen a strong consensus for their inclusion. It creates an even worse slippery slope than we've seen with Usenet in the past. AG202 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I do understsand that citations from the Internet are not valid, but I went ahead and did add them to the citations page for possible future reference: Citations:FaCIAbook. mynewfiles (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Then the entry shouldn't have been recreated since it failed RFV... AG202 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. It was recreated because I located the three cites on Usenet/Google Groups. mynewfiles (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, that's what I was saying initially. Usenet citations are allowed to count for CFI, but general Google Groups citations do not by default. Google Groups (not including Usenet!) citations are the same as any general internet citation per our current rules. AG202 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Checking out some more on-line citations, I saw one from a cartoon website that might appear in print, and two Reddit citations. Should be tagged "very rare", in any case. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for researching its cites. mynewfiles (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s even a page on Facebook itself of a group with ‘FaCIAbook’ in the title[108]. I think some online uses don’t show up when you do a Google search or aren’t durable but it’s not rare, the word is even popular enough to have found it’s way into various foreign languages where it’s been borrowed from the English. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

pomperdom

As an alternative, probably nonstandard, spelling of poppadom／papadam／poppadum etc. etc. Theknightwho (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

grease-monkey

Does the hyphenated form exist? Wordnik has it as two words. — Paul G (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Cited Einstein2 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

ningen

Added by this IP, appears to be a joke but I wasn't sure. — BABR・talk 10:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

ningens gets a few hits on Twitter (using plural to narrow it down, ... the singular would probably work just as well though). probably not attestable outside social media, so this could come down to our little-used procedure in which a word found only on Twitter is subject to a vote for approval (mostly we've just been letting them pass when it's obviously real rather than bring it to a vote). —Soap— 11:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

morigeration

Evelyn+Bacon only? Zebres rouges (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

morrot

Like marrot Zebres rouges (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This would definitely pass as Scots, since the name comes from the Firth of Forth. As English, there are a couple of unambiguous uses by Scottish writers here and here, a mentiony use here and several mentions such as this one and this one. The English sources all refer to a population of Common guillemots that winters in Scotland and was once considered a separate species from the population that breeds there. The Scots ones seem broader. At any rate, most of the sources are from at least a couple of centuries ago, with more recent ones citing the older ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

mothen

perhaps Zebres rouges (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

putative

@Mihia unilaterally added a proposed definition to the entry "putative" on June 6. Attestations were cited to quotes from tabloid news articles in the British press.

On June 14, Mihia opened a Tea room discussion wherein those two putatively-erroneous usages of "putative" were, in part, copy-pasted, but not linked. No support or consensus was gained for the proposed, erroneous definition(s). This week, I opened a talk page discussion where I contend that the Daily Mail is not only an unreliable source, but is a tabloid which is sloppy and sensationalistic in its misuse of English-language terms, and in fact, uses bigoted and inappropriate idioms in the same article.

Anyway, I removed the Daily Mail citation, whilst leaving the other attestation, but Mihia disagrees, replied to the Talk discussion, and restored the attestation.

I am seeking a request for verification of Mihia's definition. Nobody else supports this definition; it is erroneous to begin with; there is no formal definition or explicit usage of it; the first attestation (which I was inclined to keep) in fact can be interpreted to adhere to the formal definition of "putative" which is already defined as the first sense, and therefore we can take it or leave it; Wikipedia considers the Sydney Morning Herald to be a "newspaper of record" for Australia, though not a scholarly English-language reference work; it would seem a low-quality and low-context source to use for attestation.

Please consider removing Daily Mail (UK) across the board due to reasons cited above, as well as its status as a non-scholarly and low-context source for English-langauge words and terms. Elizium23 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @-sche, and mentioning 1.145.104.187, who were involved in June's Tea room discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So, Wiktionary's requirements for source "reliability", when it comes to simply attesting a word or sense, are different from Wikipedia's (resembling perhaps most closely the criteria WP uses for determining if a source is reliable for an ABOUTSELF statement) : because the main thing we're determining is "do English speakers use this word (to mean X)?", the main criteria of reliability are "is this person speaking/writing English?" (further subdivided by whether they're a native/fluent speaker or not, but AFAIK Dan Hodges is a native fluent speaker) and "uses the word (to mean X)?". We even cite lots of sci fi, romances, and other fiction books, which aren't "reliable" on Wikipedia. We do try to avoid egregiously using offensive quotes for inoffensive words (and put cites on the Citations: page where they're offensive but necessary for ATTEST), but the Mail quote, at least the sentence we're quoting, seems banal: political and biased, sure, but not egregious. (Still, I have no particular objection if someone wants to move the Mail quote to the citations page, or remove it if there are enough other citations.) Reading the Sydney cite about Coltrane, I agree it is ambiguous and could be the usual sense, so more cites are needed. I will see what I can find. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

How can the album mentioned in the first cite be "Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof" when the writer knows that album was not released? Do you mean to say that generally there is a supposition that the album was released / exists, but the author knows otherwise? I think this is unlikely. I think most likely the writer means "potential album", i.e. could have been but never was. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

But the material was finally released in album format, and that's the reason it was reviewed. It was no longer merely "potential" at the time of writing. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't the writer "accept by supposition rather than as a result of proof" that it was an album (even if an unreleased one)? (Like I might accept by supposition that an old ﬩ shaped artefact was a [damaged/incomplete] + shape [and not, e.g., a ± shape or something else].) I can similarly find "the supposed album" in reference to bodies of unreleased/leaked/etc music which the writer accepted by supposition to be albums though they had not, as of the time of writing, been released as such. I see how it can also be read as "prospective", but since it seems like it can also be read as the 'by supposition' sense (perhaps I am missing something), it doesn't seem to clearly support positing a different sense the way that some of the other cites do. @Smurray, thanks for adding more cites. I will try to look into the "putative city-regions" cite later (at least some other books using that phrase seem to mean ~"alleged" more than "prospective", so I'll try to look into that particular book later). Having looked at the surrounding text, I agree that the "another putative railway" cite seems to mean "another ~proposed railway"; I checked to make sure it wasn't e.g. the "alleged, purported" sense (e.g. some shoddy or sham or scam thing masquerading as a railway to get funding); "the putative constitution" cite also looks good. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You're going to dig up erroneous usage examples? How important is that sort of citation for a typical Wiktionary entry? I thought that this was a request for verification where someone identifies a scholarly definition -- but it seems more like a LMGTFY. Wouldn't the incorrect usages eventually begin to overwhelm the correct ones? Are you supposed to somehow prove a widespread misconception, or is it enough to just demonstrate two tabloid reporters spouting off with inadequate editorial oversight? 🙄 Elizium23 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As -sche was saying, Wiktionary is very different to Wikipedia in this respect. Wiktionary - like almost all serious modern dictionaries - is descriptivist. Our aim is to describe how language is used in all its forms, from the ultra-formal to the mega slangy, and usage is the foundation of all our entries (at least in widespread living languages). Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion explains this in more detail. Of course, there are cases where a particular common usage is likely to be considered incorrect by others, and we describe this too (see irregardless), but that doesn't mean we delete the entry. (And yes, tabloids are acceptable. putative in this sense isn't tabloid-speak – there's lots of evidence of it in formal academic writing – but even if it were, it would be valid. worldie (a spectacular football goal) or romp (to have illicit sex) seldom appear outside Sun headlines, but most Brits would immediately understand these words and they belong in a dictionary.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The removal of this quotation from the Daily Mail (actually I now notice that it is actually the Mail on Sunday) on the grounds that this publication is allegedly "bigoted" and "unreliable" is patently absurd and based on a misunderstanding about what sources we use to compile a dictionary. On the other point, I would be happy for others to verify, or otherwise, that this meaning is common enough for us to mention. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it is the Daily Mail using a distinct name for its Sunday edition (I suppose that's a good reason to turn up the bigoted anti-Christian rhetoric). The domain name/URL remains "dailymail.co.uk" as well as the logo. Elizium23 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

(The Mail on Sunday is a separate publication from the Daily Mail - different editor (David Dillon, not Ted Verity) and writers - although combining the websites does confuse things) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Cited with plenty of hits from academic books. I'd be happy to put a proscribed tag on this if we can find evidence of a proscription, but this is clearly a sense that educated native English speakers use. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding additional citations. Mihia (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Most general dictionaries seem to have only one or two definitions for this. Although I find the citations for the newest def. (4) quite compelling and distinguishable, I am not so sure that the other senses would not benefit from being reduced to two, or even one. Does the OED maintain such a fine set of distinctions? DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree - I split the first sense because Urszag pointed out that "Generally assumed" doesn't make sense in cases like "The jury's putative conclusion", but maybe that was a mistake and I wouldn't object to re-merging them with a slight re-word. Certainly, there are a lot of cites that I couldn't unambiguously assign to one sense. That said, sense 2 does seem to be a distinct term of art in philosophy and logic at least. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need all three, but I do think a distinction can be drawn between cases where it means "commonly/generally assumed" and cases where it just means "supposed or alleged by somebody, but not necessarily a common belief in general."--Urszag (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just about to ask about this (and edit-conflicted) : can we find cites where the "commonly...generally..." aspect is a required part of the meaning? vs cites where it is just "believed or deemed to be the case; assumed" (potentially only by one or a few people in question), which I assume exist (but I could be wrong)? This would help clarify how many senses we are dealing with (and hopefully help with defining them). - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

After edit conflict: I don't know that I agree with myself. In some of the uses alleged, accused, or indicted seem like synonyms, which does not fit with either of MWOnline's two definitions: "1: commonly accepted or supposed" and "2: assumed to exist or to have existed", let alone AHD's sole definition: "Generally regarded as such; supposed".

This word seems to cover many kinds of irrealis: future; imagined; accused; probable; theorized; presumptive; deemed true, though literally false (as legal fictions); etc. (not just narrow modal logic) I wish I could come up with wording that covered all or most of these, so we could have subsenses for the most common kinds.

Cites indeed could be a way of cutting the putative Gordian knot. DCDuring (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For subsenses, my feeling is something like:

1. Assumed or believed.
   1. Of popular widespread belief.
   2. Untrue or not real, but imagined.
   3. (chiefly philosophy and law) Accepted on the basis of supposition without evidence.
2. Of uncertain or unclear truth.
   1. Alleged or purported.
   2. Apparent, but not actual.
   3. Theoretical.
   4. (law, of a relationship or contract) Invalid, but entered into in good faith by at least one party (see putative marriage).
3. (proscribed?) Currently untrue, but likely to become true; potential.
   1. Proposed.
   2. Presumptive.

Some of these are probably pedantic, but I've tried to sort the citations at Citations:putative.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for assembling such a broad range of citations and for organizing them. I view some of them differently. Still other ways or reading and grouping the cites may emerge.

The first thing I note is that I did not find a single citation that unambiguously supported "common" or "generally" as an element of a definition. That includes those under 1 and 1.1. Perhaps in earlier times, with a more homogeneous relevant population of listeners or readers, these words would have seemed more appropriate.

I could not tell what the following cite might support: 1.3: 1831, due to insufficient context.

I could not tell whether the other cites under 1.3 were referring to a conclusion, assumption, or judgement that the authors determined had been made by others or to the substance of said conclusion, assumption, or judgement.

!IMHO 2.2: 1995, 2012, 2016, 2017 support "seemingly at the time" (temporal deixis) at least as much as "apparently, but not actually". 1.1 (2007) would support "seemingly", though context would help.

!A number of citations fit words like "hypothetical", "theoretical", "for the sake of argument". (1.2; 2.3; also perhaps 1.1: 1991)

?Two cites (2.1: 2006, 2016) fit "accused", "alleged"; possibly two might support "claimed", "reputed" (1.1: 2007, 2011)

!A couple seem to fit words like "nominally", "officially", "formally". (2.1: 1989; 2.2: 2009)

??The legal definition (2.4) makes sense, but could also be included in other definitions, like "for the sake of argument".

!The "proposed" (6) and "presumptive" (5) cites fit those words respectively (3; 3.1; 3.2) and could be combined or made subsenses.

The items marked ! make a reduced grouping of definitions (4 instead of 9). The one marked ?? might be a sense or a subsense. Maybe "alleged" could be included under "reputed" making the items marked ? another definition. DCDuring (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems difficult to unambiguously divide the quotations among these senses. For example, I disagree with the placement of " this presupposition leaves in place the epistemic possibility that our putative freedom is illusory" under the heading "Apparent, but not actual": the quoted sentence doesn't outright commit to the statement that the freedom is apparent but illusory, it's only saying that given this presupposition, it is possible that the freedom is illusory.--Urszag (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That problem of assignment to subsenses may be why other general dictionaries have at most two definition and usually only one. It's harder to justify or explain their having "common" as part of the definition, except as laziness, keeping one.

A large majority of the contexts for the citations seem to be deliberative (or thought experiments), so "for the sake of argument", "hypothetical", etc. seems to be a supersense, as does the "proposed"/"presumptive" supersense. One common thread is irrealis of one kind or other, though apparently not wished-for/subjunctive or imperative. Irrealis might bring in epistemic concerns, like evidence for or degree of acceptance of a belief, but the cites don't seem to me to support that being essential to most definitions. DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

clarify

Rfv-sense: (of liquids, such as wine or syrup) make clear or bright by freeing from feculent matter. The real question is of course, why would there be poop in syrup or wine in the first place? Well, mebbe we should just modernify the crappy defn. Denazz (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• There is more feculence at sense 3: "(ergative) To grow or become clear or transparent; to become free from feculent impurities, as wine or other liquid under clarification" (though worded intransitively, the transitive aspect of an "ergative" sense seems to duplicate the RFV'd sense anyway). Probably "feculent" could be replaced by a less disturbing word. Mihia (talk)

Feculent does not belong in any defining vocabulary, just because of it rarity, especially in current or recent English. But Century 1911 has it in seven definitions. They "define" it as "Foul with extraneous or impure substances; muddy; turbid; offensive; consisting of or abounding with dregs, sediment, or excrementitious matter." We have it on 34 pages, mostly in definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed the offending feculence and also merged senses 1 and 3. Probably this RFV can pass, since there is no question fundamentally about the existence of this sense, only the wording. Mihia (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks as always for your wondrous defecation, Mihia. Denazz (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Our entry for clarification is feculent too Denazz (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, along with some entries in some other languages. I left cases where the word was immediately accompanied by "shitty" (and served, I think, to clarify that "shitty" didn't just mean "bad"), and cases where the foreign-language word seemed like a close cognate of feculent. What an interesting word; another in this vein is ordurous, which we don't use in any definitions AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe worth pointing out for anyone who didnt know that feces was originally a medical Latin euphemism, and its original meaning was the dregs of wine, so maybe feculent hung on among winemakers without making them think of feces in the medical sense. —Soap— 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

clarify (2)

1. (ergative, of liquids, such as wine or syrup) To make or become clear or bright by freeing from impurities.

   What's the best way to clarify cooking oil?

   Leave the wine for 24 hours and it will clarify.

2. To make clear or easily understood; to explain in order to remove doubt or obscurity.
3. (ergative) To grow clear or bright; to clear up.

RFV sense 3 as distinct from the others. I don't see what the difference is supposed to be. Mihia (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've always found it much clearer when we maintain and transitive/intransitive distinction, instead of "saving time" by merging the two, usually half-assedly, as in this case. But going along with the 'ergative' gag, if the third definition were deleted and the second labeled and worded in parallel to the first things would make sense. Or we could have four definitions, two transitive and two intransitive. See Labile verb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia (Apparently ergative is no longer fashionable.) DCDuring (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please make separate transitive and intransitive senses if you prefer. How do you get four though? I see two from senses 1 and 3 combined, and 2 as transitive only. How do you see it? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Intransitive examples (vs. transitive) for:

1. extended sense: "The situation clarified with the passage of time." vs. "The passage of time clarified the situation."
2. physical sense: "The cider clarified by sedimentation." vs. "Sedimentation clarified the cider."

DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

mucidness

OED agrees with me that only in dictionaries Denazz (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added one cite. mucidity seems better attested. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Aha, Einstein found a second and I found a third (on Internet Archive rather than Google Books). - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I find mucosity more euphonious. DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

muckerer

OED suggests this spelling was never used. Middle English was mokerer Denazz (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

amoebulæ

Note: not amœbulæ. J3133 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Cited (at amebula). Ioaxxere (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

forclem

a @Leasnam special. Probably only Middle English Denazz (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

forthclepe

Only Middle English? Denazz (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Shitler

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 17 July 2024.

2nd and 3rd senses are questionable Ishiura (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• (informal, vulgar, derogatory, sometimes humorous) Donald Trump
• (informal, slang, derogatory, online gaming) A person acting in a particularly obnoxious and/or disruptive manner; a troll in online forums or a griefer in multiplayer games.arly obnoxious and/or disruptive manner; a troll in online forums or a griefer in multiplayer games.

Theknightwho (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Howdy! I don't think there's a reputable source given this is nothing more than niche internet slang, but the term Shitler is for instance widely understood in the Space Station 13 (SS13) community. If you search for SS13 "shitler" on Google, you'll find many examples. --Trio3D (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Something similar for the Trump sense. A Twitter/X search turned up many uses of the "Shitler" term for Trump, but we obviously need something more durable than Twitter/X Purplebackpack89 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

beef stew

Rfv-sense

This appeared under requests for definition with a comment that it is Italian American slang, but no indication of what it means and no quotes to show use. Without some quotes to go on, I can't define the term. Kiwima (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just updated it! mynewfiles (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

{{R:GDoS}} gives one quote for the "woman" sense. Einstein2 (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

odouret

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added complete reference to the original text, and to the entry for the word in the OED.

This word is obsolete, and was in any case (to all appearances) a nonce-word. I know the guidelines for attestation require 3 independent contemporary references, but for such a word as this, that criterion would amount to a blanket ban. The OED includes it despite its being a nonce-word because of the literary status of the author. Wiktionary is entirely within its rights to maintain stricter criteria for inclusion than the OED, but I'm not sure that is what the guidelines were intended to achieve. PaulKeating (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I suspect the definition is wrong. The word only appears in a translation of an Italian poem, and the word it is translating is borsigli. I don't know much Italian, but I suspect that is borsa + -iglia ("a small purse") and in this context presumably means a pouch filled with fragrant herbs (something like this, for instance - a couple of lines earlier, the same character is described as also making cunziere (translated by Hunt rather loosely as "fumigations"), which footnote 568 here says refers to a small vessel containing an aromatic root used for perfuming rooms, which is very much a similar deal). That would mean it's not "a faint smell" but "a small bag of fragrance". That's why nonce words aren't includeable - there often just isn't enough information to work out what they actually mean. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

petushit

Basically nothing comes up with this form. Google only gives results in Albanian. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Wow. I never thought I'd see an English word with the letter sequence -shit- in it that's considered vulgar, but isn't derived from the English word shit. Khemehekis (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

boygina

Tagged but not listed. Einstein2 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

big head

Rfv-sense (Jamaica, slang) To be under the effect of cannabis.

This was added as an extra noun sense by a drive-by IP, and looks to be totally wrong since it's defined as a verb. From what I can find on Google, it's a real term that people use in Jamaica ([109] [110]), but I'm not fully sure what it means. Theknightwho (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

{{R:GDoS}} glosses big head and fat-head as "a large marijuana cigarette". Einstein2 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

renewable

(Noun) ‘A thing that is renewable’ Inqilābī 13:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is really common in reference to renewable energy sources, but usually as a collective plural. Not sure if it’s used more generally or in the singular, though. Probably relevant to note that this was originally added as Something that can be renewed, but especially a renewable source of energy, with the resource sense being split out later, so it may have just been a faulty inference that it could be used in reference to anything else. Theknightwho (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

‘Something that can be renewed, but’ — this part itself needs verification. Mere guessworks and hypothetical senses are liable for deletion, instead of letting them sneakily being merged with a different sense to avoid RFV scrutiny. Inqilābī 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You're ascribing a higher level of quality to our existing entries than is warranted. I thought that a wiki encouraged contributions from all and did not require every wording change to be cited in advance. That's why we have RfV etc., for after-the-fact quality control. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I found one use apart from renewable energy sources - "a renewable" can also be a type of fuse - so there are at least other renewables. I'd be happy to have this as the main sense and make the other two subsenses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

on a mission

"(specifically, drugs, slang) On a drug run". — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Passed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

muggard

OED suggest 1 use outside dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

mugient

OED has but 2 citesP. Sovjunk (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

While Browne's use seems to be the most famous, there are several other uses that don't directly refer to him and so can be considered independent. I added two more, so this is RFV-passed.--Urszag (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually learned this word in a poem about said-bookisms that was published in the newspaper when I was a teen, and I don't see that poem cited. It ended with ". . . From scholarly declaim to birdish crow . . . Of all the verb forms mugient/A simple said is what the author meant". Khemehekis (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I found this poem; turned out I didn't quite remember the words right. The poem with "mugient" is online here. Khemehekis (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

A great poem, thanks for sharing! Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Khemehekis (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

aburahaye

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok "ye" is not a syllable found in modern Japanese. aburahaya [111] seems to be a name for the Amur minnow, Phoxinus lagowskii steindachneri

Oilcarp (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's more discussion here wt:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/July#aburahaye Oilcarp (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If, as the definition says, it is a "Japanese word", then we need to change a few things, ie, it needs cleanup. Fishbase has two different species with the 'Japanese' name abura haya: Rhynchocypris lagowskii, as Oilcarp has mentioned and Phoxinus steindachneri. Fishbase does not have any English name for Sarcocheilichthys variegatus, but has kawa-higai and ヒガイ as Japanese. Fishbase is probably the best source of vernacular names for fish, but it's not definitive. DCDuring (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

billy

Sense 2 is “A billy goat”, with a subsense, “A male goat; a ram.” As billy goat means “a male goat”, this separate subsense would be redundant; however, a ram is a sheep, not a goat. If billy is used for rams, this should not be under the goat definition. J3133 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any other English dictionary that says billy can mean "ram". Very few (only ones published by Merriam-Webster, in fact) even say that billy alone can mean "billy goat". —Mahāgaja · talk 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved from RfC to verify “ram” sense per Mahāgaja. J3133 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

pronounciation

The first entry correctly notes this is a misspelling of “pronunciation.” However, an erroneously added “obsolete form” entry was added, with no evidence to back up this assertion. The corresponding quotation does not show an occurrence of this form. I am requesting we delete the second entry and only keep the first entry indicating this is a misspelled word—or better yet, delete this page entirely. — This unsigned comment was added by Jordanekay (talk • contribs) at 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

Regardless of whether the second sense is verified, I would keep the first entry, since this is a common misspelling – Google Ngram Viewer gives a frequency ratio of about 240 for pronunciation/pronounciation at Google Ngram Viewer, less than, say, the ratio for conceive/concieve at Google Ngram Viewer, which has a page. Fluffy8x (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the first entry. What is the justification for keeping the second? It is not an “obsolete form.” Jordanekay (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

When dealing with early modern English, the concept of "misspelling" is problematic, since modern standards of spelling were not clearly established.--Urszag (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

munerary

OED suggests only-in-dictionariesDenazz (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Also created Citations:munerary with a noun usage and two adjectival uses where I could not fully ascertain the meaning (but may be added to the entry by someone with a better understanding). Einstein2 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

muneration

and munerate[112]. OED suggest dictionary only. Watch out of scannoes and linebreakos for remuneration Denazz (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

munific

OED has 2 Denazz (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

acarophily

Rfv-sense: "pathological belief that one is infested with acari or mites". Probably a confusion with acarophobia? Einstein2 (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

disclout

Just used by Joseph Hall, selon OED? Denazz (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

field

Rfv-sense To defeat

This is accompanied by the example They fielded a fearsome army., which obviously uses the “to deploy” sense, so I suspect this was added by someone who misunderstood the meaning. I note the example was added first with a request for a definition, then the definition was added by an IP from Brazil, so I suspect it was a complete guess. Theknightwho (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

muscariform

Just in botany glossaries. See OED Denazz (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I found two. - -sche (discuss) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Many sources to define the term, but could only find one use of it, already cited in the entry. P Aculeius (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

musciform

Rare, OED suggest vanishingly so Denazz (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited each sense. P Aculeius (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks! RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 12:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

tuz

In the singular? Likely a plural only thing Denazz (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

agua frescas

@Gluepix marked this as {{d|It is pluralized as aguas frescas in the vast majority of attestations; very rarely is the form agua frescas used in comparison.}}

I could find quite a lot of hits on Google, and the ngram also suggests that it is used, despite being an order of magnitude less frequent than the "correct" plural. Being "rare" doesn't mean that it isn't attested.

--kc_kennylau (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

abernathyites

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

minerals are uncountable Couscousous (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, could refer to varieties of said mineral, like quartzes. Justin the Just (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be if only the mineral had varieties, like in this case, quartz, which bears an enormous amount of types like Herkimer, Agate (which also has varieties shockingly), and more. Not in the case of abernathyite however! Couscousous (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• RFV issue. Inqilābī 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it is an RFV issue. It has been used in a lot of informational texts like PDFs and etcetera studying it. I doubt abernathyite isn't a word; unless you're talking about abernathyites, which would make sense. Couscousous (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The only uses of the plural I can find are in indexes - mentions, not uses, and likely dreamt up by some indexer who knew little about geology, or was used to pluralising all index lemmas (or was told to by a style guide). Taking to RFVE to see if anyone can do better. This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If a single example of abernathyite can be called "an abernathyite", then the plural may be assumed: several chunks of abernathyite would be "abernathyites". Since plurals like this have a regular formation, it's implausible that they would be called anything else, except in the collective. The fact that the plural form is found in indexes would seem to support that, even without usage examples. P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Standard English doesn't do that; if I have pieces of quartz, I don't call them "quartzes". That would refer to different types of quartz. But abernathyite doesn't appear to have types. In other words, the question is really whether the term is uncountable. I would argue that it is, and the indexer was mistaken. This, that and the other (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually you can call them "quartzes", just like you can refer to "agates" without them having to be different types of agate. Or rubies, or hematites, or alexandrites, or tektites, or pretty much any kind of rock that can be referred to as a singular one of whatever it consists of. It might not be the most obvious way of referring to them in the abstract, but if, for example, you had a mineral collection with several of them in a box, it would be quite natural to say you had "six tumbled abernathyites" (I don't actually know if you can polish abernathyites, but it's the kind of situation where you would typically refer to them in the plural), as opposed to "six tumbled pieces of abernathyite"—also valid, but it sounds overly precise. And this being the case, I don't expect or require proof that a word that's obviously capable of pluralization appears in print in the plural, although that would certainly be ideal. P Aculeius (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Michigana

found evidence this exists in Chippewan, but couldn't find evidence it exists in English. Additionally, In Chippewan it seems to mean "big lake" rather than the State of Michigan. (though the name of Michigan seems to come from the Chippewan word). — BABR・talk 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Found and added two citations for its use in English, though one of them may be less than ideal. I also saw that it was the name of a journal, a beverage, and a farm; some of these may be citable as examples, but I'm not sure how to cite something named after a concept as an example of that concept; surely the journal is a good example. Found a source referring to "a Michigana recipe", but decided that it probably was using "Michigana" as the name of the drink, rather than a description of the recipe, and did not know whether or how to cite that. There are probably lots of examples in local news or publications that are not available on Google, referring to Michigan history or memorabilia; more expert assistance may be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

what a goodyear

The usual form appears to be "what the goodyear". I'm struggling to find it with "a". This, that and the other (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the verification. I created the entry what the goodyear and added four durable cites. mynewfiles (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

en famille

English. PUC – 09:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What are we looking for? Uses without italics or quotation marks? Yipelike (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, in Google books:

Bhumdi and Beyond By Roger Stubbs

The Jerningham Letters (1780-1843): Being Excerpts from the Correspondence and Diaries of the Honourable Lady Jerningham and of Her Daughter Lady Bedingfeld By Lady Frances Dillon J

In and Around the Marketplace By Banaphula

Brun Family, Napa Valley, from 1874--Hewitt Family, San Francisco, from 1882 by William Alexander Hewitt

A Childhood Memoir: A Double Childhood By Melanie Lowy

Yipelike (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at (just a few) entries on phrases borrowed from other languages, I'd say that it doesn't really seem to matter whether it's italicized or in quotation marks: just that it's used in English without requiring translation in order to be understood. This is not to say that everyone who reads or hears it will understand; merely that the user expects the phrase to be understood by his or her intended audience, without having to stop and explain it. That's evidence that the phrase has meaning in English, even though it might have additional or slightly different meanings in its original language, or in other languages. P Aculeius (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

myography

Rfv-sense 1: OED says nope Newfiles (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny, my OED says yep. Cited. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you add the citations to the entry then? Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tentatively folded the senses together as "The scientific study of muscles, typically via myographs." and added three citations (quotations). I am not sure the previous two senses could be distinguished from each other. (I could be wrong.) - -sche (discuss) 12:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

myxa

in zoology. OED has differentNewfiles (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited, with difficulty—as a "rare" ornithological term, it's only going to show up in manuals of bird anatomy and technical journals, especially old ones, not the easiest thing to come by on the internet. There may be a second definition unrelated to avian mandibles, but that's another issue. Since this and the preceding entry were both cited to Webster's New International Dictionary, I can only assume that you're flagging any term that's not in OED, even if it's cited to other dictionaries. Perhaps check the cited sources first? Unlike the external link, which is paywalled, you can find old Webster's dictionaries online. P Aculeius (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

{{R:OneLook}} sources have no paywall. Importantly, their sources include MWOnline, MW 1913, and Wordnik, which, in turn, includes Century 1911. All OneLook references have only the avian definition. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I see only one cite in the entry and none on the citations page. DCDuring (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I see lots of mentions, but no pure uses, of the avian sense, defined in dictionaries and in scholarly works. There seems to be a more citable sense for a feature of copepod anatomy. DCDuring (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@P Aculeius thanks for your work, but I must say that this entry is currently not cited by Wiktionary's standards. Please check WT:CFI if you are unsure. In short, we require three uses of the word in running text. The entry presently has one quotation - a mention, not a use - and various dictionary references which are not valuable. If the word is (was) really in use it should be possible to find good citations, especially in places such as Google Books. This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited. It is certainly a rare term. Many of the uses I located were also written by Horsfield or credited him with contributions to the text. Not sure who "Illiger" is. This, that and the other (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added links: Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger and Thomas Horsfield on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I cited it as well as I was able without a large, ornithological library to browse. I looked for guidance in CFI and every other guideline or policy I could find for what constituted a "citation" and whether actual dictionaries somehow didn't count, because *anywhere in the universe but Wiktionary* the word citation means "to identify a source upon which something relies". Unfortunately, Wiktionary doesn't even define what is and isn't a citation, though the word appears from time to time; reference templates are used for citations everywhere else, but rarely on Wiktionary.

However, the word was challenged "because OED says something else", i.e. "the only dictionary that matters disagrees with this ", so it seems fair to cite other authoritative dictionaries to refute the claim that the definition is wrong. The one non-dictionary use I could find mentions the word, describes how and why it's used, and cites an authority who used it, although not in a manner that makes the original easy to locate. But this use at least was not a definition, but a discussion of the term that says it's used—if rarely. So I cited it to the best of my ability—thanks for improving on that, but it'd be nice not to be put on the defensive for having put as much time and effort as I could into it, and digging up some evidence for a make-work challenge. P Aculeius (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It is undeniable that finding via links from this page Wikipedia's use-mention distinction article and then determining how to apply it is not convenient or straightforward. We need to make the text on this page and at WT:CFI (WT:ATTEST) a bit more clear to make it less necessary to go to the WP article. Of course the more text provided, the less likely it is to be read. DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that even with that reference it's hard to know what to do with a major dictionary: the examples provided are:

Use: Cheese is derived from milk.

Mention: "Cheese" is derived from the Old English word ċēse.

Use: With reference to 'bumbershoot', Peter explained that "The term refers to an umbrella".

Mention: When Larry said, "That has three letters", he was referring to the word 'bee'.

The citations to Webster's and an ornithological glossary clearly aren't mere "mentions" of the word, and while Webster's does provide the etymology, it also explains what the word means, who uses it, and mentions that it's rare, making it appear to be a "use" as in both of the examples, which explain what the word in question means. I did actually know that three citations formed part of the criteria for inclusion, and that "dictionary-only" words don't meet those criteria; but that doesn't mean that dictionaries shouldn't be cited or that they carry no authority.

CFI seems particularly concerned about "someone's online dictionary", by which from other discussions I've read and participated in suggests a strong worry about citations to clearly unauthoritative sources like Urban Dictionary (which seems to have no criteria for verification, or at least none that are obviously enforced) or Wiktionary itself (because it's crowdsourced). Such sources are likely to include absurdities like "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian", popularized if not invented by Richard Lederer, which really just means "sesquipedalian"—but with ad-hoc and humorous prefixes as intensifiers—and which really only ever appears as an example of "a really long word". The OED and various Webster's (among others) don't normally have words like that, but do include rare and historic words.

I add that, while I agree with our criteria for inclusion as a goal, and attempt to comply with them as best I can, it seems that they are likewise very rarely enforced with respect to words other than neologisms; countless ordinary and undisputed words on Wiktionary don't have three (or even one) citation either as either a use or a mention, or to any kind of authority; yet they may sit here for years unchallenged because they're obviously legitimate words that appear to have the correct definition.

This strikes me as very like Wikipedia, which requires sources (citations) for all but the most obvious statements of fact (the famous example of something that doesn't require a reference being, "you don't need to cite that the sky is blue"), and clearly states that unsourced statements may be removed; articles are frequently nominated for deletion due to having few or no reliable sources. However, removal and deletion aren't automatic processes; even experienced editors will decline to delete things that appear to be correct, and do not resemble "patent nonsense", allowing someone to come along later and provide more and better sources.

Here I did the best I could with a rare term: it was challenged on the grounds that OED doesn't include this sense; but other dictionaries do, and I cited them for it. I also looked for uses, but was only able to find one online. The internet isn't exactly brimming with century-old texts on bird anatomy, and neither plain Google searches, searches of Google Books, or more specific searches of textbooks on bird anatomy, avian anatomy, ornithology, ornithological terms, etc. seemed to be turning up more results. So I cited all of the sources that I could find (avoiding cumulative uses of various Webster's), in the hopes that someone else might find and add more later. Which someone did, and for which I'm grateful. But I don't think there should be any sense in which it's wrong to cite any of these sources, even if the number of them or the type of them isn't ideal. As Wiktionary is crowdsourced, sometimes it takes a village to document a definition; nobody should be discouraged from citing what they can find, and as "citation" isn't defined anywhere in policy or guideline, calling any reference to authority or use "a citation" shouldn't really be challenged, even if some people use the word "cited" in a specialized way to mean, "cited to three uses other than dictionaries". P Aculeius (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@P Aculeius I think you come to this with the lens of a Wikipedian, and you probably saw my Beer Parlour post aiming to address some of the issues in CFI so that it better reflects our practices here. To address a few of your points briefly:

• It's well established that a mere entry in a dictionary is not evidence of "use" of the word. To take an extreme example, many words have appeared in dictionaries without ever being used by writers as far as we know: Appendix:English dictionary-only terms.
• When we say "citation" we mean citation sense 6. This is not what Wikipedia means by "citation".
• Citations are only required if the word is challenged on this or another Requests for Verification page. This is why most entries don't have them.
• A deep dive into Google Books, using positive and negative searches (e.g. "myxa" bird -cordia, eliminating references to Cordia myxa, an unrelated plant) is typically required to find good citations. This is what I did to find the three citations currently in the entry. See also WT:SEA.
• There's nothing wrong with referencing other dictionaries in a Wiktionary entry, but at the same time, I feel this type of reference is generally not a very valuable thing to add, unless the dictionary was a direct source for the entry (as Webster 1913 often is for us) or expands on what's in our entry in some interesting way (e.g. OED etymologies). Similar to how Wikipedia would not normally reference other encyclopedias unless they were sources for the entry.

I hope this helps you to understand our process, and I'm sorry it's been confusing for you. This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only issue here is my poor understanding of the policies, rather than policies being used in a way that actually impedes the mission of the dictionary; that I'm an outsider who just doesn't understand the way things work, so you just need to keep repeating the same explanations until I get it. But I'm not an outsider; I've been part of the community for years, though I'm not a frequent contributor; and part of the reason why is because of arguments like this, where the underlying issue—"does the word mean what it's claimed to mean? Prove it!"—becomes secondary to whether even the best authorities meet our standards for inclusion or can be said to prove anything at all.

The issue is that your objections are not to the authorities cited, but the fact that someone referred to them as "citations" using the ordinary sense of the word; that a challenge may be based on a dictionary, but not refuted by one, or by any number of sources that verify the word or sense challenged; that all someone has to do is find a dictionary that doesn't include a word or sense, and that places the burden on the rest of the community to prove by overwhelming evidence that the thing shouldn't be deleted.

Does my experience with Wikipedia suggest to me that this isn't the ideal way to address disputed words or senses? I can't deny it, but outside experience should inform views of policy and suggestions to revise it, or on how to enforce it, otherwise the Wiktionarian community will become insular and unresponsive to legitimate concerns—for instance dismissing them with "you just don't understand how things work around here. I'm so sorry that you're confused."

The "use–mention" distinction (often cited, but not defined in Wiktionary—the only reference provided is to Wikipedia!) as applied in Wiktionary means something other than what it says: the dictionary entry says what the word means; it provides information about its topic. This is what the "use" examples do; the "mention" examples give the word's etymology or the number of letters it has, but fail to tell the reader anything about what the word refers to. To the extent that the reason why a mere "mention" of a word is inadequate, but a "use" of it is allowable because it tells the reader something, a definition in a dictionary is significantly more helpful than say, "interesting, said Dr. Featherstone, looking at the bird's myxa, and making a note," Which is certainly an example of its use, but it tells the reader nothing helpful about the word. This is essentially a "mention" of the word that counts as a "use"—but why it's more helpful for verification of what the word means than a definition or a discussion of the word and its use would not be apparent to anyone else.

In any case, I've said my piece, and you can freely ignore it—I don't mean to continue arguing for days on end—but kindly don't assume that my opinion is due to confusion or a lack of understanding. P Aculeius (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger. In taxonomy, name-dropping is standard. It's not enough to "stand on the shoulders of giants"- you have to mention them by name. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A practice that, in cases such as this, I think, we should be extremely grateful for! I meant to hunt for Illiger, but didn't have the time last night. Thank you! P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

fathe

mothe

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't spotted anything which seems usable; the one example I found ("Larry's inability to fathe a child with Angela. [...] a child fathered by another man [...]") also uses "father" and is thus almost certainly just a typo of the expected verb, to father (and corresponding to mother). - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

hottie

Rfv-sense "stolen vehicle" Jberkel 12:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Plausible as a shortening of hot-wired car. There was an article in my local rag about the term: [113]. This would be one cite. This, that and the other (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

There's also hotting (“riding in a high-performance stolen car”). Jberkel 09:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jewish

Rfv-sense "Yiddish". Definitely missing a few labels at least. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to find pure cites. IMO, a reference in US-based writings to Jewish newspapers refers to Yiddish newspapers, but that is a probability based on the empirical fact that there are/were hardly any Hebrew newpapers in the US and those that existed had relatively few subscribers. See Category:Jewish newspapers published in the United States on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . WP articles about these newspapers do not always state in what language they are written, but, unless stated otherwise, one might assume they were written in English. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yiddish newspapers are Jewish newspapers, so the fact that a Yiddish newspaper is referred to as “a Jewish newspaper” does not imply that Yiddish is a sense of Jewish. Deer are animals, and here a deer is referred to with the term “animal”, but animal does not have a sense deer. A usable attestation should take a more explicit form such as “he spoke Jewish” or “written in Jewish” while the language referred to cannot be Hebrew. It is more difficult to think of usable attestation forms for the cultural sense, since, as for newspapers, Yiddish culture is also Jewish culture – but not necessarily vice versa.  --Lambiam 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the RFV'ed sense is the adjective, not a noun (so "he spoke Jewish" doesn't count towards citing it). I have in fact cited the noun sense though, fairly unambiguously, I think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

octoradiated

OED says dictionary only. Newfiles (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. I found two more cites where it's hyphenated across a line break; as I've only spotted one cite where it's hyphenated in the middle of a line, I think it's probably safe to use these cites for octoradiated (particularly as the question before us is whether it exists, rather than whether it's more often hyphenated or unhyphenated). - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

natantly

OED says nopeNewfiles (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

asweve

Middle English only? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

fauxpeness

fauxpenness

J3133 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Even on the web, this instance in the Linux Journal is the only use I spot. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note the spelling: one would expect fauxpenness, which does see some more use, but maybe not enough to save it. This, that and the other (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: After your note, @Mynewfiles created it, albeit without any quotations (despite the RfV). J3133 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Added it to the RFV. User:Mynewfiles, please stop creating entries which either previously failed RFD (as in previous cases), or (as here) creating entries without quotations for entries which are actively being discussed as probably not attested. In general please try to learn to have a better grasp of what is includable. - -sche (discuss) 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've brought this up to them before, especially with WT:DEROGATORY, but it doesn't seem like they've stopped. AG202 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll definitely be more attentive. mynewfiles (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

peeder

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Easily found: google books:"his peeder" This, that and the other (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Juan time

unlisted Denazz (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

nautiform

??? Denazz (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited, though only just barely. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

pentadecaselenide

NopeDenazz (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

pentatrematoid

Penta-crap? Denazz (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't even find a single use. One for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms (appears in Century and OED). This, that and the other (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I wish I understood the relationship between Pentremitidae and Pentatremitidae (with 'penta-' reflecting the five-fold symmetry of the organism). They seem to refer to the same set of fossil organisms. I can't explain why the challenged term has an a where the family taxon in the definition has an i.

I could not find uses in Google Books for the spellings pentatremitoid, pentrematoid, or pentremitoid. DCDuring (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

verbate

I added the one cite which the OED interprets as being this sense; I also added two other cites which seem to be two different senses to the Citations page. Forms of this word (verbates, verbating) also occur as an error for verbatim occasionally. It does not initially seem like any one sense (or logical combined sense) of verbate has even two let alone three cites, but I would be happy to be mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how usable these are, but this blog post collects examples of two relatively recent journalism-specific senses: one a verb meaning "transcribe" and one an adjective, as you say, meaning "verbatim" (or maybe a noun meaning "verbatim quote" - "Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment"). I've added a couple of examples of the verb to get that up to 3 cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The verb passes. I'll leave off adding any noun or adjective sense of verbate until more cites exist; I suspect the one use of verbates to mean verbatim may be using ety 5 of -s (which presumably also exists as -es), shortening and then informalizing or 'hypocorizing' verbatim. I suspect the uses of verbating to mean verbatim are errors, whether of transcription or typesetting or OCR or just of spelling. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

neorama

unsure Denazz (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

rambler rose

Definition makes little sense to me. MWOnline defines this as a color. DCDuring (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Might it be a variant of "rambling rose"? That seems to indicate roses that grow from vines (instead of woody shrubs). P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need speculation. We need citations that show how it is actually used. At its best speculation in this kind of matter generates useful hypotheses about how to find citations. DCDuring (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

dyke-louper

"An animal that leaps the dyke surrounding its pasture."

I don't think we can find actual uses for this definition. DCDuring (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my definition may definitely have to be revised. It is a rather obscure word, and seems to be used mainly in Scotland. mynewfiles (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Citations are particularly important for obscure terms. It is also a good idea to read definitions in other dictionaries carefully. The current "definition" looks more like an etymology than an attestable definition. DCDuring (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the wise advice. mynewfiles (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It would have been wiser for me to have said "It is also a good idea to read definitions in other dictionaries carefully, but skeptically. Also, I should follow my own advice. DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you kindly. mynewfiles (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

removed one of the quotes because it was mention only, but the other two listed seem alright Akaibu (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

clarithmetic/clarithmetics/clarithmetical

working on entries that have been touched in over a decade and stumbled across these three, wasn't able to find any example of these strings at all Akaibu (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of results on Google Scholar, but all from the same author. Looks like the invention of one particular mathematician that never caught on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

furloid

Definition:

1. a furry themed Utau character.

Does this have enough usage on the web to make up for the complete lack of presence on Google Books? Does this meet WT:BRAND? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

nexible

OED suggests dictionary-only Zebres rouges (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

All I can find are scannos of flexible, and mentions in other dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

trip

Rfv-sense: A small piece; a morsel; a bit. -used in Chaucer Zebres rouges (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried Google books for "a trip of" + bread/cake/meat/pork/beef with no luck. Justin the Just (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:en:Objectum-sexuality

RFV for every entry in this category. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

With the exception of "objectum-sexuality", all of these appear to be neologisms, created today by the category's creator. I could find no hits on Google Books, searching with or without "paraphilia" to weed out typos; but they do appear on crowdsourced platforms such as "LGBTQIA+ Wiki", and on social media such as Reddit, Tumblr, and Pinterest. I didn't see anything I would know whether or how to use as a citation. They all seem to have been invented by adding the second-declension neuter ending of Latin objectum (-um) to English words, presumably to mimic the use of the Latin objectum-sexualis as a psychological term (perhaps on the theory that these are just English words with endings grafted on for unclear reasons). In some cases, there appear to be other, more common terms for the same paraphilias. P Aculeius (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It could also be a blend of [object] + objectum. CitationsFreak (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Those aren’t created by me, those terms are available on the Miraheze LGBTQ+ wiki’s article for objectum צבוע לבנה (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You created the entries—I didn't say you invented the words. But they are invented, and not by normal morphological processes. There's no justification for adding Latin neuter endings to English-language words, just because a Latin phrase happens to resemble English words. As far as I know, other wikis aren't valid sources for Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Recently added objectum-related terms

conceptum, plushum, private object objectum, public object objectum, quiltum, soundrum, techum, varietum, vehicum

@צבוע לבנה First of all, I've had to fix formatting on several of your recently added objectum-related entries. I put them up for RFV because terms on Wiktionary must have 3 durably archived uses before they meet our criteria for inclusion. Please read WT:CFI and WT:Tutorial before you make any more entries. Also pinging @Surjection who originally put the category up for RFV. Thanks, -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 16:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, does this include entries in my namespace? צבוע לבנה (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 16:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m kind of disappointed that conlangs are not allowed even in namespaces, but I swear I’ve seen Klingon on this site. I worked so hard on the ise 4 Levonese articles I had, wiki formatting and code took a while, and account verification process on FrathWiki may take up to a week. צבוע לבנה (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

To ensure the discussion gets archived to the right place if anyone ever fixes aWa so that things can be archived, I've added headers for the entries. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

nidgery

Not seeing itPhacromallus (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

noctidial

There was sth called a noctidial globe, thoPhacromallus (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited (but only just barely). I'd hit it with either an "obsolete" or a "rare"; there is one modern use (on the citations page) but it seems to use the word in a nonstandard sense, and also spells crazy as crasy. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

noule

Just in Spenser, supposedly Denazz (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

nuddle

OED has sense To walk quickly with the head bent forward as dictionary-only, while offering other meanings we're missing Denazz (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

deunite

The entry is actually totally wrong, and it seems to be an adjective instead. Inqilābī 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I found 3 cites for "deunited" (on my user page atm) is that good enough? and do they belong at deunite or deunited? Justin the Just (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I found an example of deunites and a few of deuniting, which I put here, but they are low-quality, some are hard to make sense of and one misspells jeopa(r)dised. Perhaps the word is nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

usure

OED has 1 modern English, no Shakey Zebres rouges (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

amendful

in some old Homer poem, but no more Zebres rouges (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

unwayed

Rfv-sense: Having no ways or roads; pathless. OED has no modern English Zebres rouges (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

levigable

superrare Zebres rouges (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Artsakhian

No citations. Attested mainly on the English Wikipedia, who may have gotten it from here (or the other way around). The much more common adjective is "Artsakhi", or just "Artsakh". Renerpho (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

glazer

Noun: Someone who really loves a certain person or thing.

Added by IP editor 82.14.225.108 an hour ago. I tried Vocabulary.com, but it has very few sentences for "glazer", and none seem to support this usage. Inner Focus (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

oblite

OED suggests only one hit Denazz (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the one hit for the oblite billbug? Justin the Just (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's "Thomas Fuller • A Pisgah-sight of Palestine and the confines thereof • 1st edition, 1650 (1 vol.)." Denazz (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What a neat adjective! Shame it isn't more used. I found a brief article on the oblite billbug, and used it to bulk up the Wikipedia article, but I don't know whether it's citable here—does a source calling the beetle by its common name count as a "use", or is it only a "mention" unless it says something like, "this billbug is very oblite"? Most hits on Google Books are for "obliterate" hyphenated, with some scannos for "oblate". P Aculeius (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The common name is merely a rendering of Latin oblitus/oblita in the taxonomic name- it apparently has no meaning in English. The taxonomic name was short-lived, because it was based on Sphenophorus oblitus as described by John Lawrence LeConte- but the same species had already been described by Leonard Gyllenhaal under the name Sphenophorus coesifrons in 1838. When I checked Google yesterday, I also noticed a fair number of scannos for "oolite" with various diacritics. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

hairdoodoo

this seems like vandalism to me, someone having a gaff between hairdoo and doo-doo, but was asked to put it up here Akaibu (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If the term were to exist, I would expect it to have the meaning of "a bad hairdo". CitationsFreak (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

wildlife

Sense: "members of a college fraternity." Not listed in any major dictionary. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

give someone a break

Rfv-sense "To provide someone with an opportunity for significant advancement." PUC – 12:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

These are a really weird set of senses: the first one, allowing someone to rest, doesn't look idiomatic at all, but sum-of-parts; and the challenged definition seems too narrow: I believe the phrase really means something more akin to "granting a boon" (a bit archaic, but clear), and is closely related to sense 2, to stop annoying or harassing someone—also perhaps too narrowly phrased. I think these two might be merged, and sense 1 eliminated. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible that the RfVed sense is sum-of-parts with break having its sense 8, "a significant change in circumstance, attitude, perception, or focus of attention", as in "big break"? 166.181.86.58 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is, but that would be SOP to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would remind you that the sum-of-parts issue is for RFD, not RFV. This is merely to show that the phrase is actually used in the defined manner. Kiwima (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

knotZ

"Nazi". Einstein2 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Knotz is also a common ~quirky~ spelling of Knots in the names of various hair- and fibre-arts- businesses, as well as a last name, makes it hard to search for this even if we disregard durably-archived-ness for a moment and search the raw web: for example, if all context were removed, the sentence "Another Knotz event AND THE KNOTZ WILL B AROUND IYKYK" could plausibly be using this sense, but the context of it apparently being a Black business named Knotz Lounge makes the surname or quirky spelling of knots seem more likely. google:"the knotZs" gets a grand total of 2 hits, so I don't get the impression this is widespread, even online. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

fweep

Unlike gweep, which was added to Wiktionary at the same time and crosslinked, which appears in late editions of the Jargon File, and which turns up attestations, I cannot find any valid cites of fweep in the sense given ("a person who used early minicomputers solely for playing games or using electronic mail"). Everything seems to be either bad OCR of ſweep or onomatopoeia. 166.181.89.182 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Tajh

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Cited, assuming I did that correctly. 166.181.86.58 04:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

sugata

Meaning well-gone, apparently. Probs an error Denazz (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the opposite of welcome. It's the same as a Pali definition which is at RFD. Justin the Just (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the def to "one who has made a spiritual journey", there are some Buddhist cites available to support something like this. Also something to do with Japanese swords. Justin the Just (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

eruginous (or aeruginous)

Rfv-sense: pertaining to (reddish-brownish) copper rather than (green) copper rust.
I noticed we had entries for both eruginous and aeruginous, and in the process of trying to check which spelling was most common (apparently aeruginous? per Ngrams, but maybe something is skewing Ngrams?), I couldn't find cites of this sense in either spelling, and it doesn't seem like it would be expected based on the etymology (Latin aerūginōsus (“rusty”)). - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I see the OED does have "eruginous" defined as "Partaking of the nature or substance of verdigris, or of copper itself" and does cite a remark by Browne (1646) about "ferreous and eruginous earths" and a remark by Harvey (1666) about "an adust stibial or eruginous sulphur", which could be this sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

superseminate

WF added the template last year but I guess never got around to putting it up here, looks to have only a single citation Akaibu (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Occasionally I start a process but don't get round to finDenazz (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

infortuning

Just in Chaucer? Denazz (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

summit

"To attend a summit" - hard to search for, sorry, but I looked and couldn't find anything. Justin the Just (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it could be and probably has been used this way, but I couldn't find any results on Google Books or News for "summit" (conference between leaders) used as a verb, searching with the names of U.S. Presidents back to Reagan, or Putin or Sunak (did not check Yeltsin, Gorbachev, or past UK PM's, or Chinese leaders), using "summits (with)" "summiting", "summited", etc. All of the uses of "summit" or "summits" that I saw were nouns. But someone else may have more luck! P Aculeius (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The sense is supported by three quotations, one dating back to 1955, in the OED. All the quotations are from newspapers. Newspapers.com would therefore probably be a good place to look for quotations, but unfortunately (and annoyingly) at the moment there is some technical problem and it can't be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If the OED has 3 cites can I withdraw this rfv rather than put make anyone else try this tricky search? Justin the Just (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Justin the Just: I don’t see why not. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I managed to track down some cites of this sense, hiding amid the more numerous cites where it means "climb a mountain". - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: cool! Passed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

leucopin

couldn't find anything on this Akaibu (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

publands

Rfv-sense: "(US) Areas of public land on which it is possible to hike, etc." (From 2006.) The only cites I can find are about the UK instead, and seem to be ~place with many pubs, in the vein of the Irish sense of flatland being a place with many flats/apartments. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

fireland

"Land that has been degraded by fires." From context, I might suspect this is a term used in the sciences, like bareland, but almost everything I find in the singular or plural is just the capitalized proper noun placename Fireland (Tierro del Fuego) or the Firelands (in Ohio) instead. The only two lowercase cites I found and put at Citations:fireland are 1) referring to the Ohio Firelands, and 2) seemingly a typo for firelane (mentioned in the preceding sentence), respectively. (Likewise, I can find "fireland-access road-wildlife strips" in the 1991 Guide to Abundant Wildlife, but this too elsewhere uses, and probably meant here, firelane.) - -sche (discuss) 00:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

desulfatohirudin

Couldn't make sense of the formation of this word, particularly the "to" between de- + sulfa- and hirudin, then couldn't find any quotes for it after that, so i'm suspecting this is maybe the "to" is a typo of an actual chemical morpheme. Akaibu (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu: It probably has something to do with sulfate. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See Discovery and development of direct thrombin inhibitors#Hirudin derivatives. For future reference: rfv should only be used if you think an entry may need to be deleted because there's no usage. This kind of inquiry would be better at the Tea room or the Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

rosland

RFV-sense "Heathland; land full of heather." We list two senses: the other is "Moorish or watery land.", which is the sense I can find in other reference works; I haven't spotted cites of this "heather" sense. (Honestly, it might or might not be possible to scrape together three cites even for the "moorish land" sense.) The EDD sort-of combines the two senses (in their entry in ros), which might be advisable if we manage to find enough cites between the two senses but not enough to cite them separately. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

hasinopath

A person who shows lack of emotional response to the death and suffering of a human being but exhibits extreme distress when inanimate objects such as electronic devices or, personal belongings are damaged or broken. This behaviour may extend to artificial displays of emotions, such as crying with the aid of glycerin.

I initially added {{hot word}} to this, but it turns out that (quite literally) the only Google hit is Urban Dictionary. Tagging @Syzarn, as the creator. Theknightwho (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

ne'er a

This clearly does not pass the fried-egg test. Is there any way to justify its inclusion? Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it an adjective? I think it should have the same POS as no, which seems to be a determiner. Also seems to pass the fried egg test to me. Justin the Just (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

𐑕𐑐𐑧𐑤

yet another shavian term that needs verification Akaibu (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

tocorré

This doesn't seem to actually be an English word as far as i can find Akaibu (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

blax

adding per WT:Derogatory, attestment might be difficult due to a similarly named event Akaibu (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

On google books looks more like AAVE. Justin the Just (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

oftensith

methinkes thys bee onely Gascoine and Chaucer. Phacromallus (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

lickerousness

All I could find on Google books was Chaucer and "lickerousness of dominion" which I don't understand. Justin the Just (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Chaucer is Middle English, so does not count for modern English. I found three cites in modern English, but the definitions are divided so much, that they each fit a different def. I suggest we merge them all into the first one (state, quality, or condition of being lickerous), in which case it is cited. Kiwima (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks Justin the Just (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

extravagation

Rfv-sense "An agricultural term for the process of activating the enzymes in a cow’s stomach causing it to produce milk, this is due to the applied centrifugal force. The cow usually passes out in the first minute so no harm is felt by the animal. It is mainly used in South American farm mostly in Brasil but the technique can be found in Central Europe as well." Removed out of process by IP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

partigiano

Rfv-sense Akaibu (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

onomatechny

So rare! Phacromallus (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Found 3 on Google books, think it's ok. Justin the Just (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

fragicide

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

singster

Rfv-sense: A female singer; songstress. Newfiles (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

kamala

Not that I doubt the 3 definitions (though I don't find the lotus plant def. in OneLook references), but I suspect that we might get more than the usual number of pageviews for this. So, we should gussy it up with cites and pictures and improved wording. DCDuring (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)