# Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFVE)

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for verification/English

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Non-English

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, 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:

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).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

# April 2018

## ⯑

This was in the requests list; if I removed it, whoever added it might get upset. So I've created it and brought it here. The Unicode spec calls it "uncertainty sign" or "query" and says nothing further. Equinox 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Input needed This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
FWIW drafts on the Unicode site note that "this is unequivocally the question mark in the diamond, whereas FFFD could have any representation".​—msh210 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

## ashiyu

Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.
I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".
As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.
I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

# June 2018

## do someone a frighten

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

## nu-male

Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

# July 2018

## misdemeanorize

Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

## eighthfinal

Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? -84.161.23.222 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

# August 2018

## broderick

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The verb has passed (two cites on page and one on citations page). The noun still needs one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

## mlem

Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

# October 2018

## blep

"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

## nephophobia

Fear of clouds- a good number of mentions in phobia lists, one mention-y Usenet use. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I suffer from phobocatalogophobia – a phobia of phobia lists, in particular such as have been formed by the accretion of “the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter”. We should only include -ophobias if they are attested by clear uses.  --Lambiam 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't that sort of thing; it's mentioned in non-Internet sources back to at least 1981. In fact, I suspect most of the phobia lists are derived from pre-Internet words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't clear: I meant phobia lists in books, not the internet ones (I never bother to look at those). That said, the same things can be said about most of the ones in books: some reference makes up a word, and all the other references copy it. The rest of the hits are for a certain type of self-help book that talks about fears as something to be overcome, and includes a list of "official" names of fears as a sort of filler. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I could only find one quote that looks like a use. In addition, there is [this article], but the text is unavailable. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not an article but one poem in a series of four: “Cymophobia: Fear of Waves”, “Aulophobia: Fear of Flutes”, “Erythrophobia: Fear of Blushing”, and “Nephophobia: Fear of Clouds”, published together in the Summer 1988 issue of The Paris Review. They are behind a paywall, but I’ll be vaguely surprised if any of these terms appear anywhere else in the poems other than their titles.  --Lambiam 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Added two more cites.-Sonofcawdrey (talk)

I once had an idea to combat this continual fight against arrant "phobia-adders", namely, add them all! Yes, add _all_ the stupid phobias from those phobia lists, and then the rest of the editors interested in adding real words could concentrate on more important things and the "phobia-adders" would recede away and stop bothering us. My idea was that we could add them as entries, and for the un-attested ones, simply have a permanent notice saying: This entry is not properly attested, it only appears in phobia-lists; please add CFI-worthy citations (or something to that effect). Once they got properly cited (if ever), the notice could be taken down. I suppose the problem with this solution is that it might be the thin edge of the wedge. I mean, if we do it for phobia-words, why not other types of words? There are lots of lists of -mancy-words, and -philia-words, etc. But, might not this idea be worth thinking about? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We already do this in some places, e.g. Pokémon. I don't really approve. Having an entry saying "this is not an entry" is foolish. Equinox 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

## Darkeye

A male given name. Equinox 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added three cites to the citations page, but I can't really say whether they are male given names or nicknames. I also found Darkeye as a surname, and as a woman's name. Also as a variety of sunflower, of daisy, and of dahlia. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

# November 2018

## Kevinism

I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

## chud

Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).
Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

# December 2018

## sporae dispersae

Supposedly English but is a member of a Latin category. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are we supposed to verify? Occurrences of the term in Latin texts? Obviously, this is a Modern Latin neologism (like spora by itself is), somewhat like the term generatio spontanea, only much more recent. Since it was coined only after Latin had fallen into disuse as a language for scientific discourse, any uses in Latin text wil almost be like borrowings. Perhaps we should classify the term as translingual, something we should probably also do with in vitro and other “Scientific Latin” neologisms that are used across language borders.  --Lambiam 11:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's botanical latin in origin. See IRMNG and Paleopalynology: Second Edition by Alfred Traverse --NessieVL (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

## steven

### stevven, steaven

RFV of everything (except the first sense, "voice", which is cited). Compare the RFV of #stevvon. Note that several of the citations are Middle English or are mentions and/or are not of this spelling.
The "that which is uttered; cry, petition, prayer" and "command" senses could possibly be combined if it would make them easier to cite (note that one of the three citations they have between them is Middle English and the other two use steauen, which has an a even if one overlooks the variation in u~v).
George Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets has a citation of "Stephen kept his steaven" which supports the "appointment" sense, although again not in this spelling.
I took all the citations from the EDD and Century that were not made-up usexes or Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This might be of interest. It's a mention of the verb stevven, and explains how it was used mid-last century (c.1947). The text reads: If the stowering <i.e. the drifting of snow> was driven along by a very strong wind or gale, it was known as stevvening; when the wind howled, it was said to stevven. Stevven indicated something loud, like a howl, but it could also mean someone shouting. A fierce blizzard was described as “Snaw that was stevvening and stowering.” If a person lost his or her temper and began to shout and wave their arms about, they were also described as stevvening, while a snowstorm being driven by a strong wind was often known as a snaw-stower or snaw-stoor. [[1]].

Definition may be off even if the word is citable. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked both "tradthot" and "tradthots" on Usenet, but all I could find was one thread talking about the word itself. Khemehekis (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added quotes from the typical “new right“ news publications, making it seven quotes, all with authors. The definition is okay. We only need to wait a bit to have quotes to span more than a year. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Only the NYT cite looks durable to me. There is nothing usable on Usenet right now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the definition is definitely too loose right now. "A single woman who advocates traditional family values to cater to a conservative or alt-right audience, while not conforming to those values", while less than ideal, seems a better place to start. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

## skot

DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

skots at Google Books (with luminance). DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

## armarium

I'm not convinced it's an actual English word, rather than a Latin word being used in running text in English. User:Equinox? Per utramque cavernam 00:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Compare this to candelabrum, which is not italicised, is used in contexts where one wouldn't expect to find Latin words: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc., and is even pluralised as a regular English noun. It has "taken off". Per utramque cavernam 00:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
In the first four hits I examined the term is in italics and explained: [6], [7], [8], [9].  --Lambiam 16:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

## wem

AFAICT only the first noun sense survived into modern English (and it is rare and probably archaic/obsolete). All the hits I see for wemmed and other verb forms look to be Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

## black pill

Rfv-sense: "(slang) Something that enables or compels a person to overcome illusion and perceive harsher reality. (referencing the term red pill/take the red pill)". Familiar with the latter, not so much the former. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those Reddit incel-type terms, denoting a bleak pessimistic attitude. Does exist, almost certainly not per CFI. Equinox 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
PassAMethod??? Khemehekis (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Well surprising, it has been the only sense I know. 8 quotes for @Robbie SWE, including an extra in Swedish, and also 6 for the verb. One can search endlessly to find more media reports using the word. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, you've outdone yourself ;-) Thank you for the quotes (not sure if the Swedish one should be used to validate the English word though). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't we wait a week before we strike it out? Khemehekis (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Some people may object that those sources are not durably archived.... Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Reopened. The Swedish cite doesn't belong under an English header, Medium and 21st Century Wire are not durable and I'm also not convinced the others are either except maybe The Independent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words. On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎, TheJournal.ie, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them. WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, not that the texts need to be on paper, CD, cassette, microfilm etc. – which might become more or less or even absolutely inaccessible too, so web sources are even better to show use (also a different understanding is an evaluative contradiction for a community that rummages digital corpora to find printed sources – the CFI of other language versions like e.g. the Russian one even command more explicitly to provide web-accessible sources for accessibility). Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on archive.today. Plus the supreme rule is to include words that exist in communities (as distinguished from ad-hoc formations or protologisms) (”all words in all languages”) and I have verified this existence in a pending procedure so that the case is to be closed, which would means that the term has to be included even if WT:ATTEST is not met (what I deny), since nowhere in the WT:CFI it stands that WT:ATTEST is the only way to evidence terms processually. § 1 pr. of the CFI rather suggests the contrary: “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of” – so WT:ATTEST states a regular case (which I also fulfilled, as I claim) and other cases are admitted. How can one even get an idea that a term should perhaps be removed if a linked Quartz article includes an investigation into the origin and a graph counting usage in thousands? (It is mention, but one that points to perception of use, unlike mentions which derive from other mentions, or dictionary entries that could be copied, which is what the “use-mention distinction” in the CFI aims to exclude.) That words can be proven informally in a pending procedure can also be seen by the hypothetical case of a reverse RFD where people would vote to undelete a term given its quotations (assuming they are on the Citations page or else given in that procedure) after which the term cannot be deleted again by the procedure because it has been undeleted by consensus. So the Argumentum a maiore ad minus is that even against a formal RFV procedure a term has to be kept if there is no consensus against it (which there shouldn’t be as I said as I have given copious example to become acquainted and everyone find more in the non-durable web proper). Also competition with other dictionaries through coverage of internet slang suggests to keep terms that are shown to exist at any given point, since “professional dictionaries” track terms of informal appearance: Dictionary editors witness terms, they decide to include them. You aren’t applying the CFI correctly, @Lingo Bingo Dingo. RFV-passed, and  Keep.
I am aware that people might opine that for such an inclusion practice the CFI should be formally reworded, but nonetheless I hold that what I have stated is already the lex lata. And I am not the first one either to believe the same – the rule has always been in many editors’ hearts and what newbs are told: “Just add words that exist.” And those incel guys understood this (not PassAMethod who also defined strangely etc., that is a different problem) and hence did nothing wrong in including those here so-called “not-attestable” terms. Wiktionary editors have perverted the meaning of the words attestable and to attest. I have attested the word, in convenient form. Fay Freak (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Durably archived is well understood; the case law is clear. As is attestation, which we have a sense specifically for this case. Personally, if I were told to produce an attestation (sense 1, the general sense), I would expect to have to follow some weird rules, be it signing in particular ways or notarized by a public notary or involve an expert in some way; I would not expect any random format I used to be acceptable.
If you object to the rules as applied, I do not think this is the place and way to challenge them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be called "RfV-passed". The cite problems included failure to be durably archived, ambiguity as to meaning, mention rather than use, foreign language. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Responding to some parts of that post:
Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words.
In this case the first two attestations in Swedish are mentions, the others take Swedish plural articles so can hardly count as English.
On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎, TheJournal.ie, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them.
If authors can delete articles it isn't durable. 21st C Wire is an alternative "independent news" site that is little more than a group blog and is almost certainly not included in electronic databases. If the others are included in such databases they might be durably archived, but that is not a settled matter at all.
WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, (...).
This is only a recommendation, and doesn't qualify what is considered durably archived.
Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on archive.today.
The Web Archive isn't considered durable, because of its robots.txt exclusion policy (though this isn't followed strictly anymore). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be interesting to find out whether each citation for this RfV was in well-funded, well-indexed internet archives, and whether one could somehow find the relevant passage within a reasonable time.
"Durably" implies more than resistance to deletion by authors. It also implies that institutions of some degree of permanence will keep the material accessible. For print publications that means libraries. For usenet that means the various entities that host copies of it. The pace of change in electronic media has meant that there has been a high degree of mortality among the companies that publish electronically. Institutions like the Internet Archive are dependent on grants and don't have histories comparable to those of libraries. It is not unusual to find dead links in such archives or to be unable to locate the exact text one requires due to incomplete indexing.
In any event, this is not an RfV matter. It may be worth bringing it up again now at BP because it is important to us. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring Apart from Mic and the Swedish site (which block archiving services), all cites are in the Wayback Machine and archive.today:
The Wayback Machine isn't durably archived however, because they sometimes obey robots.txt. The FAQ of archive.today on the other hand states that they do not respect robots.txt, but that some content may be deleted if it violates their hoster's rules. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's take this to BP. We need to have some way of dealing with non-print publications that respects the basic objective of reliable attestation. Also, tt would be handy to have step-by-step instructions or an automated or semi-automated tool for efficiently getting a link to a durable archive after having gotten the cite from a fast search engine. DCDuring (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikihow has the basics here. Is there a tool (template, script, etc) available that can take a link from a fast search engine, eg, Google News, and find the link in a "durable" archive, eg, Wayback Machine/Internet archive? DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Of all media, the reliability in what can concerns Wiktionary is highest in Wiktionary itself. You’ll witness that those quotes are real, that you didn’t let yourself be fooled by ad-hoc inventions. If in hundred years all the quotes are gone, we can say: Well Fay Freak, DCDuring & Co. looked into them, the quotes are real, the existence of the term is already demonstrated, case closed, ne bis in idem. We somehow need to get the terms that don’t have an intersection with Google Books or Usenet. I bet anyway that for any of the web quotes given some printed newspaper had the same term and we just don’t know which, we don’t reach out to them without disproportionate expenses, but what’s even the meaning of “languages well documented on the Internet” if it does not mean the internet taken as a whole, used to demonstrate words in a verification proceeding, since we all are working for free on the internet and the willingness of unpaid editors to go into far libraries to browse the pages for words is already mostly theoretical and the more so if the word does exist demonstrably online and its existence in the language is thus is shown in easier fashion. Google-Books and Usenet are for languages that use complex scripts (those that need complex text rendering) crap anyway, it probably does mean the web hence and since the language of the internet is directly the investigation object of Wiktionary, not via media in other form. The question is not even if a word exists in certain formats, if it exists on cassette or CD or only online, this is not so interesting, people care to have words in a dictionary that exist (sufficiently widely) anyhow, that the dictionary is reliable in any way. This is assuming that the section “Number of citations” does not contradict what is written before it in the CFI. Anyway surely one should fix the CFI formulation, going to the BP, since the way the CFI are written the application of the CFI has become detached from the goals of Wiktionary. You see: When people pursue verification requests though they are convinced that the term exists, rethinking many things is due. Fay Freak (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, these types of argument should go to the Beer Parlor, not to RfV. There's lots of discussion to be had about open Internet citation, but this is not the place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• RFV-failed: I don't see even one durably archived quote, and no one has made a serious argument that we have three durably archived citations, in the sense that "durably archived" is understood here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

# January 2019

## rawgabbit

DTLHS (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I added two uses to the citations page. I found a third quote, but it was too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This can be found on issuu:
• 2016 May 15, "Old English words that should make a comeback: 17. Rawgabbit", The Express Tribune "hi five!", page 6.
We all know a few rawgabbits. A rawgabbit is a person who likes to gossip confidentially about matters that they know nothing about.
Which is, considering the article, quite borderline. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

## ledish

Ledish (and, frankly, leden/ledden and the "people" senses of lede) seem to be in the same boat as ledely (above). A Google Books search turns up various scannos, and the EDD has no entry, let alone pointers to citations, as they sometimes have. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish2 which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the "Pertaining to people" sense to Middle English, and left ledish as an obsolete form of leadish. The tag remains, but is may no longer be needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

## Hoang-tcheou

An obsolete transcription borrowed from French, which I only seem to see in one encyclopaedia and derivatives or plagiarised forms of it. Created by @Geographyinitiative. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the source I used to create that entry: [22]. It is written as 'Hoang-tcheou-fou' and is in the extreme northeast of Hou Koang (which is bordered in Green). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
'Hoang-tcheou-fou' also appears on this map: [23] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

# February 2019

## muscuty

Doesn't look like an adjective, probably should be capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With GBS I get to see only a few snippets, but they strongly suggest that in collocations like “Muscuty plains” we have the attributive use of a noun. Almost all uses in these snippet views capitalize the word, but that may be due to dated conventions; I also see the common word buffalo being capitalized.  --Lambiam 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

## dateliner

Not certain this is legit, at least in sense given. Equinox 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I improved the definition (the dateliner does not write just the dateline, but also the article that follows), but could only find one supporting citation. I did add and cite another meaning (the article itself). I also added two cites to the citations page for a third meaning (an investor who buys and sells based on the daily stock market reports), but did not add it because I could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

## toom

I suspect this is obsolete if it still exists at all. The English Dialect Dictionary has pointers to some citations we could use, except that many are actually Scots, or use a different spelling. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a few cites. The 1896 work is written in English, but two of the characters in the story (Corp and Tommy) speak in Scottish dialect. Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

## LOL

I previously challenged LOL for "lots of love": I am personally deeply convinced that LOL never meant "lots of love" and this is similar to a backronym, where people thought it must have meant that. Let's look at the four citations: they are awful and inadequate:

• 2007: "what do you think LOL means?" (says the modern kid), "lots of love" (says the ignorant father, getting it wrong).
• 2010: "lol, dad, miscommunication", it says that the lol (laughter) was misunderstood as love instead of laughter.
• 2011: possibly acceptable but it is almost a mention rather than a usage.
• 2014: specifically (and a humorous example of) the misunderstanding of love as laughter, but the presentation suggests it's unusual and we have no proof that this cute anecdote ever happened in the real world.

If anyone can find a LOL that is unambiguously love and not laughter and isn't in some kind of humorous misunderstanding context, I will buy them a beer (or whatever cheap thing they like) on PayPal. I think this is an urban myth. Prove me wrong, bitches. Equinox 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally am SURE that LOL meant "lots of love" because I personally remember it doing so, and know plenty of other old fogies like myself who also remember it doing so. It feels like a violation to be told my past and my memories are bogus. I doubt we will ever find evidence on Google to support this meaning, and even if I can find a bunch of old letters to support it, how do I bring them in as evidence on Wictionary? Kiwima (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, no offence meant, and even if you aren't "CFI-compliant" your memories matter because this stuff will go to the talk page, and may be proven by future, better people than ourselves. I still really want to see proof of this. If you actually have letters with LOL used that way that would be really important and interesting even if we can only stick 'em on the Talk or Citations page, and I'm sure you can cut out any part that would be too personal. Thanks for your help. Equinox 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no question that some people have THOUGHT that LOL meant "lots of love", and even used it thus. Famously former British Prime Minister David Cameron did so (see e.g [24]). By the way, I see no need for you to call us "bitches". It is unpleasant. 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I, too, recollect LoL/LOL as being part of the handwritten closing I put on greeting cards. I guess it's obsolete now because the other use is so dominant. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Acronym Finder and AbbreviationZ both include "lots of love" and "little old lady" among their definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In most of the stuff you get on Google Books for "LOL" + "lots of love" this usage is framed as a misunderstanding. [25] [26] Usenet seems more promising, though. [27] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If you ask anyone over 60 what LOL meant at the end of a letter, they will tell you it was a common abbreviation for "lots of love". It has been totally eclipsed now by laugh out loud, and doesn't really make it into permanently archived sources, but I still think this one was common enough to get in by common usage. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Definitely generational. Certainly was "lots of love" when I was sending greeting cards to relatives. If three of us find some old greeting cards with LOL and upload the images to Commons, would that be good attestation? DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any old letters to prove this (got rid of them when I emigrated), but it was such COMMON USAGE!!!!! DCDuring clearly remembers it as well. Part of the reason I feel so strongly that this one should be included is because of all the current reactions to older people who interpret this as lots of love. They are not finding a completely unfamiliar acronym and making a wild (incorrect) guess rather than trying to find out what it means, they are being misled by their own past experience because it used to mean lots of love, which is a much more reasonable mistake. Kiwima (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
If we could establish a likely period for usage there are publications which include many personal correspondences (e.g. soldiers writing home). I agree that this will be a hard one to track down, but perhaps not impossible. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt that LOL was commonly used for "lots of love" at the end of a letter, similar to how XOXOXO is used today (that is not at all to say that "XOXOXO" is some recent invention), because, although that was a bit before my time, I have a large family, and they (a large number of them under sixty [although I would note that there is a saying {albeit one that has begun to no longer been true ever since the advent of the blasted social media age that we now unfortunately live in} in my state that means in a nutshell "that which begins in California/out West, and is not readily apparent {in other words, not a common trend or fad}, takes roughly ten years before it comes to {MY STATE}", which I suppose makes perfect sense considering that California is on the polar side of the country from where I live--even the northernmost parts of California are notably below where my area is on a map. In any case, I bring this up because the saying in question also indicates a broader point, I feel, that much of that which begins and much of that which fizzles out in another part of the country {outside of the Northeast} has historically taken much longer to begin or to fizzle out where I live]) recall and have told me in the past (many years ago) precisely what User:DCDuring and User:Kiwima recollect. Was this, perhaps, less common in the United Kingdom than it was in North America (I'm not suggesting that it was specific to a particular area or anything like that, I'm just wondering if it was more common in one than in the other)? Because I have a pretty strong feeling that if I were to go at this very moment and ask the kind elderly woman who lives right next door to me if there was another way of indicating what "XOXOXO" indicates at the end of a letter, she would tell me that "LOL" or "lots of love" has served that purpose. Even if I do end up taking the time to find clear evidence of that fact, though, I would decline Equinox's (probably unserious) offer, as I am a staunch teetotaller-- always have been and always will be. Tharthan (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've tried search Google Books, restricting the title to include "letters" or "correspondence", with time period 1800-2000. No joy. DCDuring (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the problem really. On the one hand I can imagine the frustration of Kiwi et al (as though I had to defend a word like autofire after the accidental burning of all 1980s video game magazines); on the other hand I don't think we should ever make exceptions to attestation rules just because we like our editors and they're probably right. What if it's a massive hoax that only comes to light 50 years later? boo. Equinox 02:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the cites in the entry, I'd dismiss the first (2002), but the others seem to meet our standards. The fact that there is difference between what older users and younger users mean and understand by LoL warrants a dated label. I fail to understand how evidence of misunderstanding isn't relevant attestation. I agree that it is mentiony, but it is substantive, in-the-wild mentioning that we are seeing. I think we should be happy to find some attestation for such a common misunderstanding, especially involving intra-familial communications, often involving children. It would be interesting to determine whether the "lots of love" meaning predated widespread use of greeting cards. I think not, but I'm not sure how we could find out. DCDuring (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the association with greeting cards is just from your particular experience. In my experience, it was commonly used in thank you letters. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

## lesbian dance theory

DTLHS (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Found and added one book citation and one from Usenet; the latter is a repost of an article originally published on the Web but I don't know that that would invalidate it...? If no third is found, please move to Citations space. Equinox 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

## auriphrygia

Looks more like Latin. DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, it looks like English, but all I can find are mentions. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

## harmonometer

DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions (It appears in a lot of dictionaries). I did manage to find two quotes, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

## axonotrophy

Appears in 1 paper. "Axonotrophic" is much more common. DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a second. The two quotes are on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

## cuddlery

DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added three cites to the citations page, although only the 2014 cite seems to completely match the supplied definition. I also found many references to one of these places in Vancouver which is named "The Cuddlery". Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The wording is needlessly confusing. These is a "business establishment that sells cuddles". DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

# March 2019

## creepshotter

DTLHS (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the cite in the entry: "49-year-old creepshotter", "rulings in favor of creepshotters", "would-be creepshotters" (page 105). No idea whether they are all durable — Bustle probably isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Apart from the cite from Elle (assuming that the magazine in the video was actually printed) they don't look durably archived. I'd think usenet would be a good source. DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the Elle cite looks good (Issuu digitizes magazines so we can find them, while libraries archive copies of them so they're "durable"). For the IBT we would need to see if it appeared in print. As an aside, I wonder if creepshooter is ever used in this sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Used in 1 paper. DTLHS (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

## regenerome

DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

## synkaryophyte

DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

## stum

Rfv-sense "Wine revived by new fermentation, resulting from the admixture of must." The sense has one quotation under it, but that quotation has a footnote saying it doesn't support the sense and that the sense is an error in the old dictionary we appear to have copied it from! The sense could be a plausible extension of the "must" sense; OTOH, it is contranymic to the "new wine used to revive old wine" sense. The presence of both other senses may make it difficult to find clear citations. M-W doesn't have it, neither does the EDD although it has some other interesting senses. "Revive the stum", "revived stum", "revived stum" turn up nothing. I also looked for mentions of people putting new wine into stum, but only found some other old dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears in the OED Online, though the entry has not been updated since 1919. The current quotation is given, together with one from Henry Fielding (which to me is not clear at all) – True Patriot (1775): “We drank nine bottles a piece of stum.” — SGconlaw (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

## polarpolymer

Only scannos where the two words have run together. Equinox 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Google scholar has a number of hits that are hidden behind the paywall, so they are impossible for me to verify. However, this hyphenates the term at a line break, meaning it is either polarpolymer or polar-polymer. Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

## somniloquaciously

Found 1 use. DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

## Aotearoaian

Nothing in books or onelook, I do see some on Twitter and maybe blogs? Can we cite this per CFI? - TheDaveRoss 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything I can find is not CFI-compliant. Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

## fedora

Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory) A self-important or obnoxious pseudointellectual."

I've tried to find attestation on Google groups (UseNet portion), but it is hard to exclude all the hits for the Fedora software. I don't know what positive collocations would generate hits for the sense above. (OTOH, neckbeard looks attestable in more-or-less the sense in the entry.) DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching for it on Groups and Books together with other words like "neckbeard(s)", "MRA(s)", "angry", "misogynistic", "gross", and "m'lady". I only found a few books which, although clearly using it to refer to hats worn by such people, were still using it to mean the hats, not the people. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sigehelmus as the adder, perhaps they know of some usage. Wouldn't shock me if this was used as a meronym, but I have never seen such. - TheDaveRoss 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I have seen this, just not anywhere durable: search twitter for "of fedoras who" for some examples. (That phrase nets nothing on Google Groups or Books, sadly, and "fedoras who" nets only chaff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is used, given that at least three veteran contributors have fairly specific views on its meaning, but terms not in other dictionaries really need some attestation. We can't just favor terms from whatever subcultures we may be part of. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
All I've been able to find: page 6. page 10 (mention). I don't think the definition is quite right though, in my experience a "fedora" is an obnoxious, typically misogynist, male new atheist, brony or MRA (maybe a PUA or incel). Being a pseudointellectual would be relatively accidental to that, some don't seem to wear it to look intellectual but simply to look like a manly movie star. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

## elsewho

Who used it and when did they use it? DTLHS (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The OED defines it as "(obsolete) anyone else". (although the example they give uses "elsewhom") SemperBlotto (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Etymonline and what I can see of the OED entry date "elsewho" to the 1540s / 1542, but the only citations I can find are modern nonce-y ones on Usenet: Citations:elsewho. There's a remarkable paucity of mention even in other dictionaries (old or modern), let alone other books. Century. which sometimes has usexes that can help with finding citations, has elsewhat, elsewhen, elsewhere, elsewhither and elsewise, but not this; Etymonline adds elsehow ("1660s"), elsewhence ("c. 1600") and elsewards ("1882"). I also spotted uses of "elsewhom". - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
What citations does the OED have from the 1540s? DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"c1542 Udall in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1843) 4 I cannot persuad myself that your maistershipp hateth in me or elswhom any thyng excepte vices." SemperBlotto (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, this is probably cited now (two of the citations are good, two seem to be missing or slightly misusing a word), as is elsewhom. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I see two good citations, I don't like the other two. DTLHS (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

## grammarism

RFV-sense "(neologism, slang) A neologism formed by grammatical rules." It would help to have examples of the kind of word this is intended to describe.
Searching for the plural, and excluding scannos and typos of "grammarians" and instances of "bad grammarisms" which are properly parsed as "[bad grammar]-isms", I think there are enough hits to suggest there is some countable meaning like "a form consistent with the grammar (or even spelling?) of a language or dialect" (one book refers to "such terms as Baryte, colour, mollusc and other typical British 'grammarisms'"), but not this. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The American author of the quoted passage, taken from a book review of the book Rocks, Minerals & Fossils of the World, confuses spelling with grammar. Notwithstanding the scare quotes, I think this too should be parsed like “[British grammar]-isms”.  --Lambiam 17:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

## mandolutist

DTLHS (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

## gelicolous

DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Found only 2 cites. Not even sure they are independent (may be by same author). DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

## forlese

Rfv-senses:

1 (transitive, obsolete) To lose entirely or completely.
2 (transitive, obsolete) To destroy, kill.
4 (transitive, obsolete) To bereave, deprive.

Are these attestable in modern English, even EME? If not, they might do better as Middle English. It wouldn't hurt to have three citations for the unchallenged 3rd definition "abandon". DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

## fårikål

DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've found a few possible cites, though some of these could be considered English uses of the Norwegian word, given their context: 12345678 --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 13:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

## -angle

Geometry suffix. The claimed derived terms, triangle and quadrangle, were not in fact formed this way in English. So what was? Equinox 19:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added more of them, but even the ones that were formed anew in English can IMHO be analysed sufficiently as (Latinate numeric prefix) + angle. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

## armilustrum

DTLHS (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not properly cited, all uses are italicized. ChignonПучок 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

## oxynosema

DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

# April 2019

## recc

To recommend (informal). Cites given are reccing and recced, so might easily be for rec (a more intuitive spelling to me). Equinox 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

## CMNF

Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

## ninja cop

All the Google Books results are for literal cops that are ninjas 104.226.7.82 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can be found on the Web though, e.g. [28]. Equinox 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

## obnoxious

"(preceded by "to feel") Ashamed; acutely aware of one's own offensive qualities." I don't think this is a correctly thought-out sense. If you feel obnoxious (despicable) in sense 1, then you are ashamed. It doesn't mean that "obnoxious" itself means "ashamed" in any sense. Equinox 18:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this definition seems misconceived, but I wonder if some people do use it this way:
But once I felt so obnoxious in college, when a teacher whom most of the girls hated (you know what I mean) with a wicked laugh asked me about who named me so, my mom or my dad? [29]
I’m still iffy on the size as it was too large for my jeans pocket, where I usually keep my phone. I had to keep it in my purse which isn’t always convenient when chasing my three year old. I felt a little obnoxious pulling the phone out at the park or the bus stop. [30]
Would you actually feel "obnoxious" in the true sense in these situations? On the other hand, perhaps we could consider these merely as misuses -- people not understanding what the word means. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If we agree that these uses attest another sense, then surely that sense is “embarrased”, much weaker than “acutely aware of one's own offensive qualities”. But – unless this is more common than I think it is – I go with these uses being embarassing misuses.  --Lambiam 00:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, these are (apparently) at the ashamed/embarrassed end of that definition, which is the part mainly being questioned. Mihia (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting cites, but I'm not sure we're seeing another sense of obnoxious. Couldn't a reading of the second cite above, for example, be "I felt I was (being) a little obnoxious pulling the phone out [] ."? It could be self-awareness without shame, certainly. I don't know how to read the first one with any of the current or proposed definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the second cite, it seems too extreme to me that she would feel "obnoxious", in the true sense, about displaying her mobile phone. My feeling is that she means to say that she feels ashamed of it or embarrassed about it. Mihia (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
A perhaps more entertaining example of the 'self-awareness' reading is:
• 1895, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons[31]:
You are in a good way, my dear friend, when you begin to feel obnoxious to yourself, even as your sin has made you to be obnoxious to God. Self-loathing is one of the early stages of helpful spiritual life.
DCDuring (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Self-loathing may also be the final stage of spiritual life. That aside, is this not simply a transparent use of obnoxious? Otherwise we also may need a new sense for ugly: (preceded by "to feel") Ashamed; acutely aware of one's own lack of beauty. ([32], [33], [34].)  --Lambiam 07:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the "I felt a little obnoxious" and "feel obnoxious to yourself" citations still seem like the usual sense to me. (The "felt so obnoxious in college" could also be the usual sense.) I tend to agree this seems to have been misconcieved. - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

## bix nood

Seems to be part of a meme, but is this a word? - TheDaveRoss 01:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it is two words ; ). cited Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kiwima: 2017 looks like it attests a different sense (maybe "incomprehensible speech"?). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

## dabao

RFV-adjective sense. The first quotation useþ it as a verb. I’m not sure the second can be counted as referring to packed food. Also, I’ve created tapao, and I’m sure one of the verbs being described as an altform of the other is in order as they seem to be used in the same way. —⁠Desaccointier 13:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have converted the definition of the verb to an alt form of tapao, as that spelling seems more common. I am not sure what to do about the adjective, which might just be an attributive noun. Kiwima (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

## yeet

RFV for both purported verb senses: "to move quickly", "to throw an object a long distance or with a sudden or forceful motion". Seems like if it is actually used a verb, it's a nonce word with an ambiguous meaning. Also needs appropriate labels if it can be verified. — surjection?〉 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

For second sense:
2018 September 13, Stacey Ritzen, “What does ‘yeet’ mean—and how did it become a meme?”, in The Daily Dot[35]:
Yeet can take on any number of uses as a noun or a verb, typically as a way to express a sudden or forceful motion, such as throwing an object long distance.
2019 August 26, Allie Lembo, “13 slang words everyone is using and what they really mean”, in Insider Inc.[36]:
Finally, it's also used as a verb for "[discarding] an item at a high velocity," such as throwing an empty can into the trash. "Yeeting" something may be accompanied by the exclamation of the word.
2019 May 1, John McWhorter, “Why Grown-Ups Keep Talking Like Little Kids”, in The Atlantic[37]:
One now speaks of “yeeting” an empty can into the trash, and the word has even developed an irregular past-tense form, yote.
93 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are all mentions or at the very least mention-y. — surjection?〉 16:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• (Probably) cited. The Princetonian quote is a bit iffy. Julia 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I can definitely say it it used as a verb, but the meaning is indeed ambiguous. I added a sense "To destroy or obliterate" which in my experience may be the main usage, but then again, it is ambiguous, and I am unsure if it's even possible to define without appealing to experience. I believe it is part of the gag - the word has only a very general definition, and can be freely inserted in varied situations in memes or jokes. Ido66667 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

## Lychrel

A Lychrel number. DTLHS (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I see a few uses (also as if an adjective), but all are in blogs or such, not durably archived sources.  --Lambiam 08:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

## a well-slept child is a well-kept child

When I try to look this up, I only find entries to Japanese dictionaries that translate a Japanese proverb this way. — surjection?〉 07:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

## covfefe

Most of the sources in the entry do not look to be durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding definition 1, "A word used in a tweet by Donald Trump, the meaning of which was subject to speculation." ...and this is worthy of inclusion, why exactly? Is every single thing that this president does (including making a terrible typo) worthy of noting, especially in a serious (at least I try take it seriously, anyway, as do most Wiktionarians I think) dictionary? Between his toadies/admirers and those of the people that detest him that are constantly foaming at the mouth, things seem to be a circus these days.
...*ahem* "Definition 2, if actually attestable, may actually have a legitimate leg to stand on. Tharthan (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the cites on non-durably archived sources to the citations page. There still seem to be enough for the "coffee" sense to consider this cited. The first definition belongs more appropriately in the etymology section, indicating where the word came from. Kiwima (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kiwima Is the pronunciation for the coffee sense consistent so to speak? I personally recall hearing /koʊˈfɛfeɪ/, /koʊvˈfɛfeɪ/, /koʊˈfɛfi/ and even /koʊˈfifi/ over the course of the whole thing (that I remember). If the pronunciation given (which was not for this seemingly attestable sense) is the only pronunciation that we can find that is citable, how can we now justify its usage? Tharthan (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The second and third "coffee" sense cites are puns, not using the word to mean coffee. Also it is clearly not uncountable, since the fourth cite uses it in the poorly-constructed plural covfefe's. Does the New York Post have an editorial staff, or do they just spend all their money on headline writers? - TheDaveRoss 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There's also a COVFEFE Act. Equinox 22:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the usage independent? This reminds me of the endless mentions of an erroneously typeset word in some early edition of one of Shakespeare's plays. Is even the coffee "definition" attestable in durably archived sources? DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
How does one find out whether a given article has been archived on, say, Wayback, or another web archiver that might turn out to be durable? All the cites could use such evidence of being durably archived, at least if we are willing to stipulate that such archiving is sufficiently durable. DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"does it have an OCLC", is my personal view that probably isn't supported by others. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realize that it is so straightforward to get the archiveurl, which I found for all the relevant cites. But 3 of the four for the first definition look like mentions to me. For the "coffee" definition, the book can be found on Amazon, but not in the Library of Congress Catalog nor in WorldCat. I think we will have to count the Wayback archive as making the cites durable, but I don't think we've agreed to that. DCDuring (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

## Ebunu ebunu

Probably not capitailzed, possibly not English and I can't find much in either BGC or Usenet. — surjection?〉 14:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find is on websites that I am not sure are durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

## slatt

Rfv-sense "(slang, Atlanta) friend", original edit stated it was popularized by some rapper. — surjection?〉 16:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

# May 2019

## gossock

A remarkably specific word from @Sigehelmus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well there's 3 attestations, I'm honestly in a bit of a physical pain today and totally exhausted so if you could help cleanup the article in general I would really appreciate it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
All three are mentioning the word, not using it. Equinox 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, they do not genuinely attest the very specific meaning. It might as well mean “a gaunt, red-haired inhabitant of Kirkcudbrightshire”, or simply “an attendant” – how could one tell?  --Lambiam 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, @Equinox, @Lambiam just saw this again sorry, I honestly just copied the definition from Cumbric language. I don't know anything further beyond that.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also see these two links: [38] [39] The second claims gossock is a synonym of "Creenie"; the definition is unclear but seems to refer to immigrants from a part of Ulster facing Galloway. I have no idea what to think.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There are attestations in the plural, but they're capitalized. It also can be found as gossok in the Scottish National Dictionary. I'm wondering whether we're dealing with mentions in English of an obsolete Scots word. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And according to the entry in the Scottish National Dictionary it is a slur, like for instance boonga and coonass. At the very least, that should be noted.  --Lambiam 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice find! Hmm, this is perplexing. I am looking further, I wonder if there are any people alive in the area who still use or at least know of the term. And considering the cultural context I would be very surprised if it was used in any way but tongue-in-cheek. Edit: @Lambiam I double down on my last sentence considering that. But is this an insult that has been used sincerely in the past century? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz this dialect dictionary attests "gossok" as possibly obsolete, applied "in derision" to an "old type" of inhabitant of Galloway: [40] and this book attests the term was "still current" in 19th century and synonymous with capitalized Kreenie/Creenie: [41] --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Scottish National Dictionary, you'll notice that it cites the same dialect dictionary as its source. I don't think Wright considered Scots as distinct from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahh the old debate. Should it be relisted as Scots only or both languages? And what should be the proper definition(s)? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

## coon

"(US, racial slur, neologism) A black person who disagrees with left-wing politics." Equinox 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Poked around on Reddit a bit and it seems that this may be used specifically by black people to criticise other black people. If so, might need a usage note. Equinox 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess this relates to this verb sense of coon: “(African American Vernacular, of an African American) To play the dated stereotype of a black fool for an audience, particularly including Caucasians”. The person doing this is “playing the coon”, and I bet the noun “coon” in this sense is used in the black community to refer to black people who are seen to be playing the coon. The supposed neologism is likely an obvious extension to black people lending support to what is perceived as dominant white policies that objectively oppress black people. I think “racial slur” is a mislabelling – as is “African American Vernacular English” in the label for the verb sense.  --Lambiam 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
So a sort of synonym for Uncle Tom? Equinox 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Kinda, but more nasty, like calling someone a “sellout” is more nasty than accusing them of “playing along”. At least, that is my guess; I’m far from an authority on the use of the term.  --Lambiam 14:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My uninformed impression is similar. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion suggests that the definition is over-specific (and also, possibly not recent/'neologism'). - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

## *

Rfv-sense: “(derogatory) Former U.S. president George W. Bush”. --2001:16A2:4DF6:1000:918:D979:FA37:288E 15:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bush 43 was represented by a large asterisk in the Doonesbury comic strip, first under a hat, later under a Roman helmet (see this panel). I don’t think this counts as lexical, but theoretically Doonesbury fans could have used this representation textually. If so, I’m not aware of it.  --Lambiam 20:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I've occasionally seen this usage on the Internet. I could find it on (mentioned, not used) on this page and this page. The thing is, it's very hard to search for a character like an asterisk as a search term on sites like Google or Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There are some search engines that don't drop special characters, like symbolhound, but I haven't spotted any uses via them. - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## scorpion spider

Definition: Synonym of pseudoscorpion.

Everywhere I look, I see this as a synonym of sun spider, which is another type of scorpion-like arachnid. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I found it on several different blogs, so it would seem to be an informal name for pseudoscorpion. NBC News also called it such [42], though with a hyphen, unlike the blogs.
The Phrynus genus, Amblypygi order (whip spiders), and Pedipalpida order (false spiders) also seems to be called scorpion-spider. (which are also not Solifugae order (sun spiders))
-- 70.51.201.106 22:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I got my wires crossed on the sun spider part, I probably should have said whip spider. By the way, the correct way to refer to taxonomic names and ranks is rank first, then name: "The genus Phrynus, in the order Amblypygi" (not Pedipalpida, which is obsolete, and overlaps with Amblypygi). As for blogs, those mean absolutely nothing when it comes to our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Though, on further examination of the Google Books searches I was looking at originally, there are a number of references to Galeodes, which is in the Solifugae, and even some true spiders, such as Platyoides in the family Trochanteriidae. All of which is beside the point: there are zero references to Pseudoscorpions as "scorpion spiders". If you had done any kind of search, you would have had to wade through pages and pages of references to other orders of arachnids as scorpion spiders without seeing anything using "scorpion spider" as a name for pseudoscorpions. I still haven't found one after going through an unrestricted Google search that should have pulled in all of your blogs. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

## tumbarumba

DTLHS (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any hits that fit the definition searching for "a tumbarumba" or "tumbarumbas" on Books, News, Scholar, and Groups. DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some citations (which are sadly more "mention" than "use") that hopefully help to verify that the term does indeed exist. -Stelio (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2010, Bill Casselman, Where a Dobdob Meets a Dikdik: A Word Lover's Guide to the Weirdest, Wackiest, and Wonkiest Lexical Gems, Adams Media, chapter 5:
In Australia, tmesis is popularly called tumbarumba. Tmetic infixation is common in Australian street talk.
• 2012, Ethan Ham, Net Works: Case Studies in Web Art and Design, page 113, "Tumbarumba":
The poem, in turn, popularized tumbarumba as a synonym for tmesis—the inserting of one word in the midst of another word or phrase.
• 2017, Mario Brdar, Metonymy and Word-Formation: Their Interactions and Complementation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, page 18:
In addition to these two types, there is a similar phenomenon invariably called tumbarumba or expletive infixation, illustrated in: ¶ (11) a. kanga-bloody-roo ¶ b. abso-blooming-lutely ¶ c. abso-bloody-lutely ¶ d. guaran-damn-tee
Mentions, not uses. Canonicalization (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## Hindu (RFV-sense)

Rfv-sense of "An origin of many religions including Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism." I think the classification as a proper noun arose as a mistake, as the regular noun was early on miscategorised as a proper noun (diff). Before that a POV-pushing IP added this definition (diff) along with an even crappier one. If this is attestable, it would be desirable to improve the definition so that users can tell whether this is actually synonymous with Hinduism, etc. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## taphonomise

Not to be meaningfully found in a Google Web search. Equinox 10:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - All I can find is taphonomised, which we already have as an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## tutor

"(trading card games) To search one's deck for one or more other cards." Other than what? If this proves to be real, the etymology would be good to have. Equinox 12:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox Apparently a card other than the card that one plays in order to 'tutor'. [43] [44] Tutor cards are, so it seems, a class of spell/support cards in Magic the Gathering. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The original Magic: The Gathering set had Demonic Tutor as a card, and they continued the theme with further tutors. That's the etymology.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I doubt the verb form is citable, looking at Google Books and Google Groups. I've added a cite to the noun form, which would pass.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## beflow

To flow around, etc. Google Books finds a lot of scannos for bestow (with the long s). Equinox 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have found two possible cites, but they are a bit dubious. Another version of the 1949 has corrected the line to read "below", although the one I got this from clearly wrote "beflow". It is possibly a typo, although the "f" key is not close enough to the "e" or "l" for it to be a convincing fat finger error. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## cannista

Kiwima found three cites to make this a hot word, however it looks like all three are referring to a job title at a single store. I do not see any evidence of broader adoption, thus I don't think this even counts as a hot word. - TheDaveRoss 13:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, a single chain of stores (whose name is not always gotten correct). Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see is with the "independent" criterium of WT:CFI. —Rua (mew) 19:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
A possible counter-example might be tweet, which presumably applies only to Twitter. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
How does that fit into CFI then? They uses are not independent because they are all as a result of the Twitter company inventing and promoting it. —Rua (mew) 09:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit of a grey area, but IMO if there are people who are independent of each other and they use the term tweet, those uses are independent. Otherwise... well, how is it different from other coined words (e.g. in academia for particular species like the olinguito) that have subsequently caught on?
Other words to consider: Cablinasian, which apparently only refers to Tiger Woods (and for a quite limited window of time, too!), Windy City where various users are all referring to Chicago, and RPattz (kept at RFD) always referring to a specific person... - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe they went with this when "cannabarista" was right there... - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an ambiguous call, and I am going to let it pass for now. If it manages to survive after it's hotword status expires, then that is probably the correct call. If it doesn't , then it will be deleted in not too much time anyway. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

## hypocapnically

DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Adverbs are so hard to cite! Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

## bicamerality

Rfv-sense for all of the following:

• The hypothesis or theory of the Bicameral Mind, proposed by Julian Jaynes in 1976, to account for all the cultural and archaeological evidence that the earliest civilizations world-wide were built by and for humans without introspective consciousness.
• The hypothetical functional relationship between the hemispheres of the brain along with the underlying neurological structures and processes needed to produce the Bicameral Mind of an ancient human.
• The bicameral psychological processes of the right hemisphere “commanding” and the left hemisphere “obeying” that enabled ancient humans to make decisions and take action without introspective consciousness.
• The cultural, especially religious, products of ancient bicameral individuals and societies as expressed in their beliefs, activities and artefacts created without introspective consciousness.

surjection?〉 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the entry format has now changed or that bicameral and bicamerally now have similar content added by the same editor. — surjection?〉 10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
And bicameralism as well, in addition to a bunch of "Further reading" on the RFV'd page in question... — surjection?〉 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Such single-minded devotion to a PoV! DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

## smellfie

DTLHS (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Definition is unclear too: is it a picture taken in the bathroom? of a toilet? of a turd? Equinox 19:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
[45], not the sense in our entry. DTLHS (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Used with various meanings as a nonce, but no consistent meaning is accepted. Kiwima (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

## printer's apostrophe

1. A straight apostrophe ( ' ), used often in computer graphics interchangeably with the ordinary "curly" apostrophe ( ’ ).

In fact, all the references I've found to the term "printer's apostrophe" that specify which one is meant say that it means the curly apostrophe, the exact opposite of our definition. E.g. [46], [47], [48]. The reference to computer graphics is also a bit weird. Mihia (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

## heterolalia

DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I find plenty of mentions, and I recall this term from when I was a student of psychology years ago, but cannot find any uses. Oddly, I do find plenty of uses of the obsolete term, heterophasia, which was replaced by this term. Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess you don't have any psychology textbooks from that period that may have used it? Maybe a term that was briefly promoted but never caught on. DTLHS (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## rhodostomus

DTLHS (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For a second there, I thought you were rfving the Latin. Aside from the fact that it looks like a translingual term made from two Ancient Greek words, this is the first time I've ever seen -stomus translated as "-nosed". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The meaning of the New Latin word, mimicking a loan of Ancient Greek *ῥοδόστομος (*rhodóstomos), should of course be something like “rosy-mouthed”. Cf. Ancient Greek ἀθυρόστομος (athuróstomos) “blabbermouthed”.  --Lambiam 22:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is, if anything, translingual, because Hemigrammus rhodostomus is the rummy-nosed tetra. I can only find one cite that uses rhodostomus on its own to refer to this fish, and even that one is iffy:
• 1890, Henry Augustus Ward, Catalogue of Specimens of Mollusca and Brachiopoda for Sale at Ward's Natural Science Establishment:
The variety “ rhodostomus,” however, shows signs of convalescence, for its lips are as rosy as Aphrodite's, and its face is gloriously tanned.
Kiwima (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## judgerly

DTLHS (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

## beehacker

Seems unattestable. 2600:1000:B12B:50FF:DCBE:7347:1306:8DD3 18:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

## rhombus star

Mitsubishi logo

Some kind of shape apparently? Equinox 03:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The meaning is unclear. The Mitsubishi logo features a shape composed of three rhombi that might be called a star. But is it a rhombus star? Otherwise, for any number of points larger than 4 – let’s call it N – you can take N copies of a rhombus with an acute angle of 360°/N, and arrange them around a given centre. I suspect this is what is meant; the latter kind is likely attestable. The most common case will be for N = 6; then you get the kind of stars seen on this picture of a quilt. You also get this if you flip the Misubishi logo vertically and combine it with the original, letting the centres coincide. The rhombus stars referred to here are also 6-ponted. This source shows a star composed of eight rhombi (Fig. 9 left at D5).  --Lambiam 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you're right. I tried to improve the definition a little. I'll try to do a picture some time. I also changed "Synonyms" to "Related terms" since none of the terms seemed to be synonyms. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

## endsome

Two citations given for this adjective: 1. "finally in the winsome endsome i am presented with a paper cup" (that's a noun, isn't it? does it mean anything?); 2. citation is sufficient gibberish that I can't be sure about the meaning; other opinions welcome. Equinox 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The References section links to OneLook and Century show that other dicts don't include the word. I could not locate any other cites. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've Deleted the References section. Leasnam (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Why delete something that has just proven useful? DCDuring (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It might be more useful to add it to swanling. Leasnam (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV of etymologies 1 and 2 ("person", "sex", "order, rank", "state, condition", and "to ordain, consecrate"). Etymology 3, the mining/slope-related senses, I have just cited. Btw "biological" is a weird context label. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the header of RFV pages, requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium. We have a template {{rfv-etymology}} for this purpose.  --Lambiam 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Etymologies 1 & 2 should be Middle English or rather Scots, and obsolete. Leasnam (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity: I mean I am RFVing all the senses in the etymology 1 section, and all the senses in the etymology 2 section. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

## causatious

Scannos for "causations". DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The example presently given ("I append notes of five cases ..." ) doesn't appear to be a scanno [49]. Another non-scanno is at [50]. Mihia (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The word appearing in the second link is not a scanno but a sloppo. The actual title of Dr. Polk’s magnum opus is Tuberculosis: Causations, Lesions and Therapeutics.  --Lambiam 11:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

## hele

### heal

RFV of the "hide"- and "conceal"-related senses. I don't like to RFV things without making a more rigorous search than I had time to make in this case (sorry), but I did make a cursory search which turned up nothing, and Century calls hele "a Middle English form". For hele, the EDD suggests the usexes "it heles in well", "it heles in badly" (about corn/seeds that can be covered over well in a furrow, or can't), but these don't turn up any hits. "Holen" (listed as a past tense form) seems to only exist as a dialectal, eye dialectal or pronunciation-respelled form of "holdin'". The EDD might have enough citations to attest at least one sense at the spelling heal. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A look at the Middle English Dictionary shows that helen₂ (to hide; conceal) was used right up to the end of the Middle English period, and it also shows some citations at and beyond 1500: 1500, Theyre gownys be sett with plytys fele, To schortt yt ys theyre kneys to hele.; 1500, Clothes of sylke ye shalle haue..Fayre townes and castelles to hell In your hede.; 1525, Þe yonger kynge henry..the lyddernysse that he hadde I-thoght to hys fadyr nold no lenger hellen. (though this looks much older, it is clearly given as 1525). Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

## astronomicodiluvian

Before I bother trying to clean this up, is it even citable? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See "The Origin of Pagan Idolatry" by Faber (1816), where it is spelled "astronomico-diluvian". Presumable a nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Doing an unrestricted Google web search for both "astronomico-diluvian" and "astronomicodiluvian", all I see are:
1. Faber himself, in several places.
2. Mentions that apparently come ultimately from us
3. Mentions in discussions of Faber, which seem to ultimately come from Wikipedia
4. Randomly generated nonsense sentences of the type used to defeat content filters
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I had a fruitless look. Seems to be a nonce word.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

## batchinate

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

## denarian

All senses. DTLHS (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I found does not match any of the listed senses. Everything I found that did not total to the requisite three cites is on the citations page, and I added one sense to the main page - pertaining to a form of numerology. Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

## vicenarian

All senses. DTLHS (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The noun is cited. Not the adjective. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

## tricenarian

DTLHS (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The noun is cited along with another, missing meaning. The adjective only has two cites. Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

## inosculate

Noun: "the act of inosculating". Weird that it's given as uncountable, too. How could it then be used? Equinox 17:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I could find very little evidence for this (only one quote, which looks to be by a non-native speaker). I did find evidence for use as an adjective, which I have added. Kiwima (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

## rickroll

Sense 2: "by extension, to harass with misleading hyperlinks of this kind." (Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so!) Equinox 17:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see a useful difference between the two given senses. It is as if we had two senses for the verb prank: (1) “To perform a practical joke on someone” and (2) “To annoy someone by performing a practical joke on them”. So IMO sense 2 can be deleted anyway without loss. I have never seen or heard the term used other than where following the link led to, specifically, a performance by Astley of the song “Never Gonna Give You Up”. Unless someone finds an evidently broader use, sense 1 should be narrowed.  --Lambiam 21:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

## macdink

"To repeatedly tweak the format and text of a document or other file to little practical effect." This is one of the words from the old Hacker's Dictionary, quite a few of which are unattestable outside of that work. Equinox 18:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can get to the cites later, but Google Groups shows what looks like three independent usages in that capitalization and a couple MacDinks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

## cornly

The given citation does not make much sense to me. I was not able to locate the work for further context. DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It can be viewed (in part) here [[51]]. Leasnam (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
THere is another here [[52]], however this looks like a mistype for comly (i.e. comely) Leasnam (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That in the sole citation it appears in quotes is highly suggestive that it is a nonce. DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Shall I speedy ? Leasnam (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

## wine-whine mergers

Tagged but not listed. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Plural of wine-whine merger. Does this have a plural form. Google results just show things like "the cot-caught and wine-whine mergers". No use of it as a plural form. RightGot (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## doll-dole merger

DTLHS (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## full-fool merger

DTLHS (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## hull-hole merger

DTLHS (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## fell-fail merger

DTLHS (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## fill-feel merger

DTLHS (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## pure-poor split

DTLHS (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## wholly-holy split

DTLHS (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

## biya

Eye dialect of "beer". Was originally added by Wonderfool as an entry in the language "Drunken English". Probably shouldn't have been taken seriously. Equinox 22:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The only time that I think that this could possibly be used, would be by someone in Boston trying to represent the local dialect. I could see that. Even then, it would probably be "beeya". Tharthan (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Foster's: Austraylyan for beeya. Khemehekis (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

## molage

Added by an artist to promote a term he made up. We need to see if anyone but him has ever actually used this. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

## sexfie

DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

## chestie

DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

## capac

The current quote is from a television show, so I am not sure whether the spelling of the word can be attested -- is a published script available? There is a lot of noise to sift through for this one, and I imagine that if it is used it is far more often spoken, so good luck. - TheDaveRoss 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Wouldn't the pronunciation mean the plural is spelt capaces instead of capacs? Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The word spec as informal short for specification is pronounced /spɛk/, not /spɛs/, and its plural is specs.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is one occurrence in a book: [53]. I think, though, that in this case it is an abbreviation, usually written as capac. and easily attested in that form, but here with the final full stop omitted; if the author had been asked to reading this text aloud, they would probably have pronounced it as /kəˈpæsɪti/.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## tredge

DTLHS (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added two quotes to the citations page. It seems to be a neologism coined by Barbara Mahar. At best, this would be a hotword. Kiwima (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

## goblina

I was tempted to just delete this, but I'm not that good at searching the places outside of Google Books (lots of scannos for "goblins", a chimpanzee named by Jane Goodall, names of characters in works of fiction, and a number of hits in other languages) and Google Groups (one hit in the description of a non-Usenet group) where this might be found. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would you be tempted to delete it when I specially flagged it as internet slang, something you can't find from written books? It's a word I have seen being used in sites like 4chan, Reddit and YouTube for years. Go-Chlodio (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read our Criteria for inclusion. For better or for worse, websites like 4chan, Reddit and YouTube aren't valid evidence of usage, especially in view of all the "Let's make up a word and fool everyone into thinking it's real" games that have been played in the past. Our rules are far from perfect, but they're the rules. At any rate, I wasn't able to find anything at all that matched the definition, which made me suspicious- but there are others who are far better at looking for such things, so I brought it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you rfving both senses? There's two senses there, and I'd like to also rfv the "female goblin" sense, as well as the "ugly woman" sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The "female goblin" sense was added after I posted this. If there had been two senses, I would have used {{rfd-sense}}. I see no reason not to include both in the rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

## writing as one word

Can a gerund be straightforwardly considered as a noun? In any case, I don't see many hits on GB. Canonicalization (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Although writing can also be a straightforward noun (as in “my writing is as bad as my spelling”), here we clearly have a verb form; you can’t say, *“my writing as one word was marked as an error”. Additionally, I think the concept is typically applied in questions like “should a posto be written as one word or two?”, so IMO the verb write as one word is a more useful translation hub. BTW, isn’t this rather a Tea room topic?  --Lambiam 16:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with "writing as one word" being a noun phrase, meaning the action of writing (something) as one word. I don't think we have a "Noun phrase" PoS, though, do we? So I guess it is just "Noun". If the entry was intended to define a verb then presumably the lemma would be "write as one word". As far as I can tell, the translations, which seem to be the only reason for this entry's existence, are nouns meaning "the act/action of ...", which to me is consistent with the lemma being "writing" and not "write". Mihia (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with “writing something as one word” being a noun phrase, but “writing as one word” is weird (“For his posing as a lawyer and writing as one word he was sentenced to 12 years in prison”). If the purpose is giving the translations, I expect very few people will use this collocation as a search term.  --Lambiam 05:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: I think this entry (and the French translation included therein) is nonsense - or at least awkward - and I want to see it deleted. I think it failing the attestation requirement will be the easiest way of accomplishing that. Canonicalization (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think the French translation is nonsense, but I have no objections to this entry being deleted, since (for the reasons I have stated) I think it is useless. If it is deleted, we should also delete writing as separate words.  --Lambiam 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In actual use, an object for "writing" would usually be given, but to me the omission of generic objects and subjects in lemmas seems permissible or even desirable. I don't agree, though, that "writing as one word" is always weird in real use: Google search throws up some examples such as: "Hyphenated spelling is considered an alternative to writing as one word" and "rules for writing as one word", both of which seem OK to me. Mihia (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an ambiguous term. What about bath as one word? At the very least, why isn't this at [[write as one word]], which at least is in lemma form? DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I assume it is not write as one word because the whole purpose of the entry is to host translations of the noun phrase "writing (something) as one word", not the verb phrase. (I'm not particularly arguing that this purpose is justified.) "bath as one word" does not make any sense to me. I don't understand the connection. Mihia (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Consider 'bath' as one word and 'writing' as another. or vice versa.
I found this entry and this discussion header confusing because of ambiguity. Because we don't have definitions for terms that are "translations hubs", any ambiguity of the term cannot be resolved without departing from that underlying concept and making the entry one that is subject to RfD. The problem can't be addressed with the use of {{&lit|en|writing|as|one|word}} either. Perhaps a term like spelling solid is less ambiguous.
I find it preposterous that we should allow translation hubs to exist for non-lemma forms when we do not allow translations for non-lemma forms of real entries, say coming to grief/come to grief. DCDuring (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In English these -ing verb forms are ambiguous. For many languages, the translations of the past participles will not be the same as for the gerunds, the latter being less predictable (écri-reécri-ture; explos-erexplos-ion).  --Lambiam 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The French, German, and Russian translations could easily be modified to fit with a verbal write as one word. In the case of French, écrire en un mot would actually make more sense than **écriture en un mot.

I can't judge about the others. Hungarian apparently as a verb egybeír so it would work there too. Canonicalization (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that the French translation given is ”écriture en un seul mot“. For the verb, I would use ”écrire comme un seul mot“. Don’t ask me why, but it “feels” better.  --Lambiam 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In languages that are more inclined than English to write things as solid (e.g. German or Hungarian), writing elements of a phrase together or separately can carry just as much importance as the difference between staring and starring in English. Even if it's not a big issue in English, it may well be a pivotal spelling difference in other languages. The entry is basically about this feature of spelling, cf. capitalization. Even if I can readily accept that it sounds unusual in English, no one would want to rename the entry on capitalization to capitalize as the primary term for this concept, or in the same vein, change the term for this spelling form. After all, it's a translation hub, so the way an English translation sounds needn't be the main factor. The English translation may not be well attested, due to the spelling system of English, but the concept can be easily attested in any language listed among the Translations. (Try Google searches for them, with quotation marks around the terms if they have more than one element; some even have their own entries in their native Wiktionary.)

On the other hand, I have no objection to renaming it to solid script or something else. The point is that the English-language Wiktionary shouldn't fail users who would like to find translations for this concept, no matter what leads them to this page (e.g. another language translation, "What links here", etc.). Google search has been around for 20+ years, the wiki system is based on hyperlinks, so we need to consider all the users who might find this content in any other way than typing any English translation of the term. Adam78 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is a fallacy that a dictionary "shouldn't fail users who would like to find translations for [a/any] concept". Dictionaries are about words. The number of words (or sentences, paragraphs, chapters, or volumes required to convey a concept is highly variable, depending on the language, the speaker, the hearer, the extent of common experience, etc. If translation hubs are based solely on this notion, they should be eliminated.
In this case it is not any weirdness in the sound of the entry title in English that troubles me and illustrates a weakness in the translation-hub concept, it is its ambiguity.
Remember if you would that there is no rule against using a transparent, SoP multiword English expression to define an expression that is a term, whether a single word or an idiom in an other language. There is also no assurance that some defining such a term in one language would use the same definition as another person defining a similar term in another language. That is, they would not know to look for the translation hub.
Also, I don't understand the reasoning that goes from "Google search has been around for 20+ years" and "the wiki system is based on hyperlinks" to "we need to consider all the users who might find this content in any other way than typing any English translation of the term". There are obviously at least one or two missing steps which my mind doesn't find obvious. DCDuring (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hyperlinks: for example, if someone wants to find how to express the German term based on the Hungarian term (or take any other single-word translation, e.g. in Scandinavian languages), then they can do so thanks to this entry being a translation hub. Try searching for any term, and Wiktionary will list the entries where it occurs, even if it's a red link. In terms of blue links (existing entries), you can use "What links here" to find the entry that lists other language equivalents.

Google search: e.g. if you look up the German term in Google, especially if it's followed by site:wiktionary.org, you can find other language equivalents, no matter what is the English head.

Are there still any steps missing?

You can also consider other translation hubs, the ones for elder/younger brother/sister, which have a single-word term in several languages. Just because "younger sister" doesn't sound like a distinct concept in English, does this fact disqualify the entry with its translations? Adam78 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

## bathmology

Could just be a neologism. Does it fulfil CFI? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a neologism[54] coined by Roland Barthes,[55], but easily attestable (although not easily definable), like also here and here.  --Lambiam 15:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a question of the independence of the cites. We don't consider every reference to an early printer's error in Shakespeare to be an instance of attestation. But at some point the writings of claques do seem to be independent uses. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I have cited this. I would say that the 1975, 2012, and 2019 quotes are independent. Kiwima (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

## zeophagous

Invention by SemperBlotto. DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## angiosperm

Adjective sense. Seems more likely to represent attributive uses of the noun. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## albophobic

DTLHS (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## abrachiocephalous

DTLHS (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## antifarcinous

DTLHS (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## antisocratically

DTLHS (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

## guilty as a cat in a goldfish bowl

Equinox 04:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

## yak shaving

Rfv-sense of "A less useful activity done consciously or subconsciously to procrastinate about a larger but more useful task." An IP removed this inspired by scepticism expressed on the talk page, but in my view at least the citation from 2002 seems to be this sense, so why not give it a chance through the usual procedure? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This book] supports both senses: procrastination and doing distantly-related-yet-necessary tasks. I’d classify this as a mention, but it strongly suggests that both senses are current.  --Lambiam 11:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
cited, although this sense is far less common. Kiwima (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## ylw

From an RFD discussion: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#ylw. — surjection?〉 10:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Easily cited, e.g. here, here, here, and [56]. Kiwima (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"RFV-passed' Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## broll

Given citation is Middle English and for brolle. 2600:1000:B121:511:B0BF:9DF3:E203:B719 18:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

## dumb bunny

A stupid person. I've heard of happy bunny but not this. Equinox 21:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've heard/read this before. Khemehekis (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit dated, but readily cited: at Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The recent cites are often backward-looking (eg, use in republications) or mentions. DCDuring (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## scritch

To scratch an itch. If this sense really exists, it should be in a separate etymology section as it is a portmanteau. Still, does it exist? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

cited. But I don't think it is actually a portmanteau, just another onomatopoeia. My sense of the word is that it is not as broad as scratch - you can scratch an itch by rubbing against a rough surface, for example, but scritching is always done with the fingers. Kiwima (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent cites, and from reading them, yes, I agree probably not a portmanteau. I rejigged the def a bit so as to avoid that seeming the case (and also to make it match the uses in the cites better). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## call-off

Is call off a British version of call in and call out (it is fun that those are synonyms)? If so I think that is the verb intended, and this is meant to be the noun form. I see lots of usage in the transitive form (call off the party) but not much which is clearly intransitive, or a noun. - TheDaveRoss 12:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I am a BrE speaker, and, FWIW, I have never heard of call-off in the senses presently listed ("A day on which an employee has called off", "An employee who has called off"), nor have I heard of verbs call off, call in or call out in any related sense, except in uses such as "call in sick", where "call in" in itself merely refers to contacting by telephone). The examples presently at verb sense #5 of call out are not understandable to me, except by guessing at a meaning from the context. Mihia (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The act of calling in sick is cited, but not the employee who does it. Kiwima (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
However, the definition "act of calling in sick" does not presently exist. The citations have been instead added to the definition "A day on which an employee has called off". In some of the citations it isn't very clear to me which of these two meanings is intended. Mihia (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, per Dave Ross, we shouldn't forget that there is presently no relevant verb sense at call off, even though "called off" in the definition at "call-off" points there, as if there is supposed to be. I would add it myself, except that I have never heard of it, and can't find it in any dictionary. Mihia (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I looked for "call off sick", "call off with the flu/a cold" and it seems to be a genuine usage, so I added a def to call off. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

## bicameral

Rfv-senses

• Relating to the relationship of the two cerebral hemispheres in ancient human beings ‘hearing’ the speech of gods or idols, according to Julian Jaynes's model of the bicameral mind.
CITATIONS have been added. B.Sirota (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Relating to the interpretation of historical phenomena as evidence supporting the theory of the bicameral mind, without implying a bicameral (two-part) structure.
• Of a disorder of reasoning, the inability to think conceptually, rationally, independently.
Each definition needs three independent citations. Citing Julian Jaynes three times gives one citation for purpose of RfV. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
> Each of the first two senses above have only one 'inline' reference to Jaynes as a source, adding a number of quotes to convey usage of the adjective in context. In addition, two independent citations are now included for the 'mentality' sense. Neither of these citations quotes Jaynes; they use or interpret the term according to the specifics of the defined sense, which is complex. Now what happens after citations are added? B.Sirota (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
All of the cites are formatted as from works by Jaynes. I don't understand the assertions in the preceding post, which seem to be either false or based on a lack of understanding about independent citations. DCDuring (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
> Referring only to the 'mentality' definition: Jaynes is cited once on the definition page, and the citations:bicameral page has two other authors, published in two non-partisan publications, many more than a year apart. Are the 'three independent citations' required to appear together to satisfy the Rfv? B.Sirota (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
They're not independent because the authors are specifically talking about what Jaynes wrote or talked about. — surjection?〉 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't looked at the citations page. Whether such commentary is independent, I'm not sure, though I think it is. I'd like to hear from others. DCDuring (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
> To quote 'surjection', "the authors are specifically talking about what Jaynes wrote", and that includes the phenomena to which Jaynes's terminology refers, and implications of his ideas. They are using the terms in agreement with Jaynes's meaning, and explaining their meaning in the context of his theories. What else should they be talking about? Aren't citations meant to verify the usage of terminology with a common meaning and common collocations? B.Sirota (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Something like luminiferous aether or relativity are spoken of without context. Jaynes' bicameralism seems to always be Jaynes' bicameralism. That's a big difference, that makes it marginal in terms of CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
> I've put a lengthy response on the "bicameral" discussion page under Talk:bicameral#re 'Mentality'. I'm sure there's a way to do a link. Help? B.Sirota (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I inserted the link into your comment. DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It fails to address how when people are talking about these senses of "bicameral" they've always talking about how it's Jaynes' definition and how he said or wrote it, which again to me makes those cites not independent. — surjection?〉 08:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
>Thanks for the link... Yes, Jaynes said a lot, and some people seem to have difficulty accepting that he definitely originated the term "bicameral mind" (idiomatic, not SOP) to express a complex original idea for which no prior term existed. Is the problem that 'Jaynes' is in every definition? I'd like to fix that by a proper entry for "bicameral mind", and Jaynes would go into the etymology only with the explanation of his analogy from 'bicameral legislature'. The derivative terms would then need no mention of Jaynes. Would that help? Would the (now) 5 citations for bicameral 'mentality' suffice? B.Sirota (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5 quotes suffice, but they can't really be used to justify all of the meanings. How is "bicameral mind" not SOP based on the definitions on bicameral though? Or is the idea to remove the definitions from bicameral and define it all around bicameral mind instead? — surjection?〉 08:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

### bicameralism

Rfv-senses

• Ambiguous misnomer for Julian Jaynes's theory of bicamerality, probably never used by Jaynes, rarely used in academic literature based on his work, but often found informally (compare bicameral mind and bicameral mentality):
• The anti-conceptual mentality, supposedly according to Ayn Rand, described in terms attributed to Julian Jaynes.

Looking specifically for independent cites; the definitions alone probably shouldn't be here anyway (do we really want to document the vocabulary of every fringe theory out there?) — surjection?〉 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Tosh. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
He might have had a few published followers who used his vocabulary. But it's hard to find cites that aren't encompassed by definition 1 in the entry. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

## absalonism

A dictionary-only word? Equinox 19:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not, since it has a citation. But IIRC was probably coined by Davies, so may not pass RFV anyway. Ƿidsiþ 12:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

## titanious

Sense 2: "very strong; titanic". (Sense 1, relating to titanium metal, seems fine.) Equinox 23:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

## carte soleil

Lots of cites in French, is this also used in English? Also, is medicare a common noun in Canada? - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is used in English. (the statement here says that Quebecers use it). This English-language dead tree newspaper uses it as such (the statement it is used in implies it is normal to do so) ISSN·0384-1294ISBN-9780820450223[57][58]/etc -- 70.51.201.106 22:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## catcallee

This seems like it should be attested. - TheDaveRoss 15:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Two cites: [59], [60].  --Lambiam 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
And I found one more. cited (See citations page). Kiwima (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## Cattach

"Someone from Sutherland" - can we cite this? Also, if it is a thing, what is its register/vernacular? - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Someone from the Isle of Wight" - same deal as above, can this be cited, and if it is a thing what is its register/vernacular? - TheDaveRoss 15:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have cited caulkhead, but could only find one use and one mention with this casing. Kiwima (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## caze

Rfv-sense "a vagina". My theory that every combinations of letters in every alphabet has, at least once, been used to refer to genitalia or drugs notwithstanding, can we cite this? - TheDaveRoss 15:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

## muzrat

Seems unattestable2600:1000:B12F:6804:B8F2:8371:D677:14ED 19:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## cotton

Rfv-sense: "(transitive) To provide with cotton."

No cites. It may well be that rewording will be required. One def. might be "to insert a wad of cotton into a container of tablets etc.".

Also, we don't have two senses that Century had: "To rise with a nap, like cotton." and "To envelop in cotton; hence, to coddle; make much of."

The latter is in addition to the definitions "To agree; suit; fit or go well together." and "To become closely or intimately associated (with); acquire a strong liking (for); take (to): absolutely or with to, formerly with.", which we have under Etymology 2. DCDuring (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

cited - I have subdivided this into various special cases, as well as adding two cites for cases that seem more like one-offs. Kiwima (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I wonder how that compares to OED coverage of the verb. DCDuring (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## ornate wolf

Unable to find any examples of usage on Google Books where the term refers to Lycaon pictus. There was only one source which said anything close, and it said, "The translation of Lycaon pictus is painted [wolf] or ornate wolf." It's on Wikipedia but there's a Citation Needed template there (I put it there). --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As with many vernacular names, they appear most often in lists of vernacular names associated with taxonomic names, which we normally consider mentions. African wild dog is the more common English vernacular name. DCDuring (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring But that one source says, "Lycaon pictus translates as "ornate wolf"", which I don't really think would count as an example of usage. Has the name "ornate wolf" appeared on three or more such lists, which I think would be necessary if I recall the guidelines correctly? I've seen African wild dog, African hunting dog, painted dog, painted wolf, and painted hunting dog used in sentences of the kind "The foo does bar", where 'foo' is one of the aforementioned names. 'Foo' has never been 'ornate wolf'. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree. AFAICT it's a calque that didn't catch on. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring There's the two examples I can find, here and here. Both are, as I mentioned, statements of the kind: "X translates as Y". It's not even a 'calque that didn't catch on', as there's no mention of the term outside scenarios of "X translates as Y". It's like saying "hwamei translates as "painted eyebrow"" and then creating an entry for painted eyebrow.
Edit: I found these two references to "ornate wolf" outside an "X translates as Y" context, but both are self-published books and one seems to be a copy of Wikipedia. How reliable would that be? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I am more inclined to have a term such as this as a synonym in any common vernacular names or taxonomic names rather than give it a full entry, if some of the three required citations are in lists of vernacular names. DCDuring (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## petakatal

DTLHS (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

## terakatal

DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

## yoctoampere

DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kiwima, I think you forgot some superscripts?__Gamren (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## zettametre

DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Do these systematic names need to be individually attested? Mihia (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if they are challenged. DTLHS (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## zettameter

DTLHS (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## willer

The current sense 2 is not given in the unabridged OED and extensive research has not yielded a single instance of it. Aabull2016 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I did find a couple:
"For if the actuality of a last will and testament takes effect only with the fact of the death of the willer and testator, ..." [62]
"Remember that a will has no power to be enacted until the willer of the will has died." [63]
Mihia (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

cited. (I did not use the second quote provided by @Mihia because I don't think it was durably archived.) Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

# June 2019

## quincke

I think this should be Quincke's edema. Equinox 00:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## doober

A unit of drag on the Lockheed HC-130 aircraft. Equinox 12:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## asshelmet

One result on Google Books. 2600:1000:B118:B011:9CC1:B9C2:EEB7:C4DB 17:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## proclaim

"To state excitedly, verbosely and candidly." This was the original page content (except that it said "describe", not "state"; I've changed that since clearly it doesn't mean "describe" and you wouldn't "proclaim" a film's plot to a confused friend). The other more recently added sense, "announce or declare", seems to cover whatever this was trying to convey. Equinox 17:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## cidre

English humorous spelling of cider. Note it's a brand name used in the UK for a cider made by Stella Artois, so you might find references to that brand. Equinox 18:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of this as a "humorous" spelling, but I did find it spelled this way to refer to "French-style" cider (In fact, that is why the Stella Artois product uses that spelling). Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I would consider at least 3 of your 4 cites to be French. (One is "cidre doux" and another is "cidre brut", despite the appearance in English sentences. Some are also in italics, and one talks about whether or not something is a true French cidre.) Equinox 23:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## only

RFV adj sense 2:

1. Alone in a category.
He is the only doctor for miles.
The only people in the stadium were the fans: no players, coaches, or officials.
That was the only time I went to Turkey.
2. Singularly superior; the best.
He is the only trombonist to recruit.

It seems to me that the "trombonist" example for sense 2 does not illustrate anything different from sense 1, i.e. that that person alone should be recruited. Yes, the statement as a whole may imply that that person is superior, but "only" does not itself mean this, or so it seems to me. I do not understand the Shakespeare quote. If sense 2 does exist I think we need a clearer example. Mihia (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The sense is real.
MWOnline has, as first definition, "unquestionably the best : peerless
is convinced that his team is the only one"
only in The Century Dictionary, New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911. had, as fourth definition, "single in degree of excellence; [] special"
Oxford has, as a subsense, "Alone deserving consideration.
‘it's simply the only place to be seen these days’"
AHD has, as second def, "Most suitable of all; superior or excellent
This is the only way to cook a good steak.
The AHD example appeals to me as not being readily subsumed under our first definition, ways to cook a good steak not being a natural category, though certainly construable as a category. DCDuring (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the older cites seem to support a definition not quite the same as the way we use only now. Peerless and special seem somewhat different to me. DCDuring (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
To me, the function of "only" in "This is the only way to cook a good steak" seems the same as that in "He is the only doctor for miles". Out of all the possible ways/doctors, only one satisfies the requirement. You could just as well say "This is the only way to mess up cooking a steak". Even in "This is the only way to cook a steak", or other examples such as "it's simply the only place to be seen these days", the sense of "superior" or "best" is in my opinion conveyed as a result of an implied statement of objective, rather than by the word "only" itself. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
It did subsequently occur to me that "This is the only way to cook a good steak" can be interpreted in two ways. In the first interpretation, "good" is a explicit statement of the desired cooking objective. This is the way I naturally read it. In the second interpretation, "good" describes the type of steak before it is cooked. In this case there is an implied statement of cooking objective ("if you want to ...", "in order to ..." etc.). Mihia (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I usually defer to professional lexicographers' assertion of a definition, though I may want to reword it; label it obsolete, archaic, or dated; or qualify it with a context label. I am also loathe to rely on interpretations that require additional context not in the usage example. It is usually easier to distinguish definitions when the collocations for the definitions are sharply different. Sadly, it is hard to produce sharply different sets of collocations for a word like only without a well-annotated corpus with KWIC display software.
IMO the only doctor for miles would usually mean that there was not another doctor for miles, though it could mean "the best doctor in the area". Simlarly, This is the only way to cook a good steak. probably means "no other way of cooking does justice to a good steak ("piece of meat")", though it could mean "there is no other way of cooking that leads to a good steak." The interpretation that there exists no other way (besides the one just mentioned) to cook a good steak., which would be definition 1, is quite implausible. DCDuring (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. I see two ways to interpret the "steak" sentence, both of which are definition 1. I do not agree that definition 2 applies. Mihia (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

## bistronomically

Creative invention or protologism. DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## gastrolatry

Not sense 1 ("excessive devotion to eating"), but sense 2: "worship of food". I don't believe this word is used for actually bowing down before a loaf of bread etc. Equinox 14:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have the impression that in these quotations the term “worship” is not meant in a literal, religious sense, but as hyperbole for being very fond of the products of the more refined cuisine.  --Lambiam 22:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
That may be so, although it seems to have a somewhat different nuance than "excessive devotion to eating". The 1874 goes on to talk about a focus on improving or elaborating cooking techniques, and the 1988 goes on to talk about "Gastron", the god of the stomach. Kiwima (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

## convan

Perhaps a misspelling/brand name? Can't find anything related to the claimed def. – Jberkel 07:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is short for conversion van.--Rhinozz1 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that doesn't match the definition "shipping container". – Jberkel 10:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## vector field

Rfv-sense "(mathematics) a construction in which each point in a Euclidean space is associated with a vector; a function whose range is a vector space". Especially the last part, where the concept is apparently being extended to general vector spaces? Also, the first part suggests that a function ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{3}}$ is also a vector field.__Gamren (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

## yeet

Rfv-sense: "To destroy or obliterate." Julia 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

## wantedly

(India) "to do on purpose or willingly". GB mostly returns scannos in the form of "un- wantedly" – Jberkel 21:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I updated the definition, since this is an adverb, not a verb. Easily citable. Leasnam (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I wonder whether this corresponds to a word (or fixed expression) in Hindi or other language of India. DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a reasonable hunch Leasnam (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## late enough dates

Any takers? Supposedly used in the phrase "for all late enough dates" - which has zero Google hits. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems SOP to me. Similarly in mathematical texts you can find 'for all large enough numbers', 'for small enough values of p', and so on; AFAICT there's nothing idiomatic about the construction with 'late' and 'dates' slotted in. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I expect it can be attested (barely) in our usual corpora, but the meaning seems SoP: "dates that are sufficiently late (relative to some reference time)". DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
It claims to be "plural only", but "a late enough date" is abundantly attestable.
To summarize the attestation-relevant facts:
1. One part of the usage note is wrong: "all late enough dates" is not attestable.
2. The other part of the usage note ("It is also equivalent to the phrase for all sufficiently late dates.) implies that the expression is SoP.
3. The inflection line is wrong: it is not plural only.
Delete. DCDuring (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This whole thing is weird to me. What is a "constant" moment in time? I don't even understand the "hurricane Matthew" example sentence -- I'm not sure if this is because there actually is an idiomatic expression here that I don't know. The two quotations, about the baptisms and the sheep, seem to have nothing to do with the definition. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The "constant moment" wording seems to me to be a naive attempt to cover the fact that the phrase requires a reference time, either explicit or implicit. Since we have no context for the "hurricane Matthew" usage example, we need to look at actual uses, which are rare for the plural form. DCDuring (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at usage of late enough date (ie, singular form) provides much more evidence, especially of the SoPitude of the expression. DCDuring (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I understand the phrases "late enough date" or "late enough dates" in ordinary usage, such as in the quotations given, and in the Google results that I see. However, since I don't understand the "hurricane Matthew" sentence, with or without any additional context that I can easily imagine, I wondered if there might be another special usage. OTOH, maybe the whole entry is just misconceived. Mihia (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd go with misconceived, given the outright errors. DCDuring (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## above ground

Noun: The portion of society that is not underground.

Possible, but I didn't find hits that were unambiguously noun usage, neither in this spelling nor as aboveground. Was the PoS section made with the thought that there should be an antonym to underground#Noun? DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## ScotE

Google Books results are for scote.72.10.127.162 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Quite easy to find if you add other appropriate terms, e.g. I tried BrE ScotE language. Equinox 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## helio

"Used as an abbreviation of many words beginning with helio". Hopefully we can split this into the actual individual senses, since this "meta-sense" does not seem ideal to me: it has no specific meaning and cannot be translated. Note some original defs that failed RFV in 2015 (Talk:helio): I have restored "heliotrope" with 3 citations, and saw some possible mention of a "helio method" in printing (heliotypy)? Equinox 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## boyle

IP tried to change the L2 to Middle English; should be converted to Middle English if not attestable in Modern English. — surjection?〉 16:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## capsule

UK Suffolk dialect for a weasel?! Equinox 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I skimmed a search and got mothing...semantic connection is also difficult besides sense of being something small and oblong. Or maybe it is a fixed correction of some obscure dialectal term?--Sigehelmus (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

## churchtown

"A name given (or appended) in the south west of England to a hamlet or village distinguished by the location of a parish church. eg Zennor churchtown" - TheDaveRoss 19:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added 3 cites and tweaked the def. Equinox 19:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## followed by

Preposition: "before"

Can we find uses that are not as easily interpreted as uses of the past participle of follow? DCDuring (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

## fakeup

"Cosmetics used by an unattractive person." Equinox 01:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems more like a nonce that is used for a wide variety of meanings. Kiwima (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

## whore, whore, whore

Apparently attestable on Google Groups (see edit history), but humour me... Equinox 14:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## sunnah

rfv-sense: custom, system, a method

Are we able to find 3 independent English quotations that use such a broad, generic sense? The entry has another sense, "Muhammad's way of life, as recorded in the hadiths, especially when viewed as a model for Muslims to emulate".

Sense added by Lo Ximiendo in diff, 2017. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (uncountable, religion, Islam, usually capitalized) The entire body of such accounts.

I request lowercase attesting quotations of this sense. Uppercase uses with the definite article and a singular ("the Hadith is ...") are of a proper noun and already covered in Hadith. The example sentence "The Hadith are believed to be the words of the Prophet ..." attests a plural rather than an uncountable sense, as witnessed by the use of "are". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

## Jay

Rfv-sense: A female given name. Julia 01:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anecdotal, but I've seen it used a couple times for a (young) woman but very rare and was short/nickname for something like Jocelyn.--Sigehelmus (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
There's the actress Jaye Griffiths (different spelling though). Equinox 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One trick I use for checking to see if a name is used by a particular gender is to search things like "Aunt Jay" and "Grandma Jay", in this case I didn't find anything that was clearly a first name, rather than a bird or what could be either a first or a last name. - TheDaveRoss 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Good plan. I see that "daughter Jay" finds some stuff. (Why do male names always end up becoming female ones in the US? There's even a female Michael in that new Star Trek, admittedly fictional.) Equinox 20:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
There is definitely general truth to what you are saying about male names becoming female (and, in many instances, I see no problem with that), but I would assume that if there is a character in a new Star Trek film who is female that is named "Michael", that there are fair odds that there is a misguided social message that is trying to be pushed that the giving of that character that name is only one part of (alternatively, it could be the only instance of such agenda-pushing in the whole film, but I would suspect that if they are going to go so far as to call a female character "Michael", that they would probably not be shy in their insertion of social political agenda in their films). Of course, it's also possible that there are legitimate (or at least partially legitimate) character-specific reasons for them being named that (perhaps "Michael" was the name of a beloved ancestor of theirs, or perhaps they were some particularly un-Earthish extraterrestrial being [wouldn't surprise me, since it's Star Trek] who never knew their own parents, and as such was dubbed "Michael" by someone else for whatever reason), but given the social climate today, my first assumption would sadly have to be the former.
As for "Jay", I think that it sounds quite cool as a female name. It makes me think of an aloof tomboy who walks to the beat of her own drum. Tharthan (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One of my best friends is a woman named Jay Swan. Both her first name and her last name are birds! Khemehekis (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Added 3 book citations. Equinox 13:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

## haliography

Both senses. DTLHS (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Misspelling? How is this an entry? Also, I cannot find a single Google Books entry of Haliography, because it isn't a thing. I would delete this.--Rhinozz1 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Sense 1 is in the OED, but with an obsolete label, and with only one cite. Dbfirs 11:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

## aere

"air". — surjection?〉 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's middle English - not sure how to format that. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto I changed the definition now, what do you think?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monumentum%20aere%20perennius https://www.dictionary.com/browse/aere-perennius https://www.wordgamedictionary.com/dictionary/word/aere/
It is borrowed from Latin as a part of a phrase from Horace, am I correct? Rhinozz1 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That is the Latin word, the RFV is for the English word of the same spelling, purportedly meaning air. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's a WordReference section showing it as English. Aere Perennius is a quotation used in English as a metaphor, like "bon voyage", "faux pas", "fait accompli", or "bona fide." Bona fide is actually Latin itself, yet it is shown here as a dictionary entry.--Rhinozz1 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rhinozz1: there are some phrases which have been adopted into English from foreign languages, but the component words of the phrases have not. Bona fide is a great example of this, aere perennius is perhaps another. That isn't actually relevant, though, since the sense in question is not the same as the component of the Latin phrase, but a wholly different word meaning air. In the Latin phrase aere perennius aere means bronze not air. - TheDaveRoss 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I will change the definition.--Rhinozz1 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

## crashmate

"Someone with whom one is in a crash, such as a car accident." I found one likely use in Google Books (referring to military people who crashed in the same aircraft); the only other hit was a scanno for "that was a serious crash, mate!" or some such. Equinox 19:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought that this would be a pal that someone crashes with. Dude! Tharthan (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Or applications that die at the same time because they were sharing the address space, like in Windows 3.x. Equinox 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

## brutum fulmen

Supposedly English. I'm pretty sure that it is Latin - the examples used in English sentences seem like instances of code-switching. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The term is actually not used in other languages—I was unable to find any instance of it in a non-English language on Google or Google Books postdating (or antedating for that matter) the 16th century. It derives from a pamphlet that was written in English (Brutum Fulmen, Or the Bull of Pope Pius V) as per the etymology section. The term is not found in that sense in classical Latin either; Pliny's original usage, cited in the article, is literal and not in the sense of the lemma. See the Oxford Guide to Latin in International Law (unfortunately behind a paywall but you can see the relevant part in the free preview): "Brutum Fulmen was originally the name of a 1681 pamphlet by Thomas Lord Bishop of Lincoln denouncing the Papal Bull of Pius V". Cf. other English expressions derived from Latin like ad hominem. Nizolan (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: I have tried to clarify this further in this edit, but I'm not sure how exactly to state that a term wasn't used in a particular language. Nizolan (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I have also now cited each sense 3 times (apologies for the sequential posting). Nizolan (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## Contextionary

Any takers. Zero hits on Google ngram viewer. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

## mellismatic

Not in other dictionaries; Google redirects to "melismatic". — 85.211.54.79 04:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn’t this be called a misspelling rather than an alternative form?  --Lambiam 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the entry has now been changed to say misspelling. Dbfirs 11:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

## wolfaboo

Originally posted as an RFD. My reasoning was that the term is not used much (if at all) outside of Deviantart and Youtube. The term's meaning is also oddly specific: "wolfaboos" believe it is never justifiable for a human to kill a wolf (and consequently favour the extinction of humans), that healthy, unprovoked wild wolves could never harm a human, and that wolves could defeat every other land predator in a fight. "Wolfaboos" as defined on Deviantart also tend to make art featuring "wolves" with cliched backstories (e.g. parents killed by hunters) and with unnatural colours and markings, and with a body plan unlike a real wolf.

Apparently having an oddly specific definition is not enough to get a term deleted. The term is labelled 'chiefly Internet' but does not seem to be used outside of DA and YT, and even so 'wolfaboo' is largely confined to Deviantart. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not cited. 2012 is an indisputable mention; 2019 is good, but suggests that the current definition might need to be tweaked a bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## LaRouchebag

No results on Google Books. 69.116.145.18 10:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

## bloviatingly

The given (semi-)citation is the only one in GBooks. Equinox 09:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

## unibody

Rfv-sense: "euphemistic: mobile phone/tablet/laptop computer design with user-irreplaceable battery due to non-modular back cover.". Say what? --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

i.e. the phone is built as one monolithic object so you can't change the battery but must throw it away and buy a new phone. Equinox 12:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Added one possible citation referring to a "fluid, unibody motif" and mentioning the battery replacement problem. However, I think we might do better to change this to a generic adjective meaning something like "manufactured in one piece". Equinox 13:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Equinox about redefining this definition. I have placed 5 citations at Citations:unibody to illustrate the range of non-electronic, non-automotive uses of the term. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I may be that definition three could be modified to include the citations.
Here are 2 examples (not durably archived) of use that meets an adjective test. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Much better! The definition makes sense now. Thank you for your help. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a particular badly written definition, as well as being tendentious. DCDuring (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

## scibile

When it does appear in English it's in the context of discussing other Latin works. DTLHS (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the uses are almost always italicized (or else between quote signs), typographical clues that these uses are code-switching. Additionally, the plural used appears to be the Latin plural form scibilia, not scibiles. I think we need an entry scibilis.  --Lambiam 20:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
If the English-style plural scibiles exists then that's convincing. Equinox 22:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

## plectrum

Rfv-sense: "An anatomical part resembling a plectrum in shape." I don't find this in major Onelook dictionaries, nor does a Google search provide useful links. Mydictionary.com and askdefine.com have it, but they cite English Wiktionary as their source. The sense has been added by a blocked user Anemos in 3.2.2006 [64]. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The OED's Third Edition updated September 2006 has: "Anatomy and Zoology. Any of various small, stiff projections of bone or other tissue; esp. (a) Entomology a ridge forming part of some insect stridulatory organs; (b) a part of the columella of the amphibian ear. Formerly also: the uvula, or the tongue (obsolete rare)." with eight cites from 1792 to 2001. I think we can keep the entry. Dbfirs 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

## possibilium

### possibilia

This is strictly about the entries under the heading English. The quote at possibilium uses the plural form “possibilia”, which, I believe, is the (Latin) plural of the noun possibile, the nominal use of the neuter of the adjective possibilis, meaning “something that is possible”. If someone uses possibilium as a singular noun, it can only be out of ignorance of Latin. (I have not seen any such uses, though, except in this lemma form.)

As to the plural, while it is used in English texts – as is the singular possibile – I think this is code-switching; compare scibile above.  --Lambiam 21:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

## possibilia (rfv sense 2)

I have put the whole English entry up for verification (see above), so if it is deleted the following becomes moot. Next to questioning whether possibilia is an English noun (and not a Latin noun used in code-switching), I dispute the very specific second sense. Quoting from the cited book: ‘I will call this layer “possibilia”. The reason I decided to use possibilia is that the term linguistically connects utopia with possibility. This term is, to the best of my knowledge, usually not used in this way; it is also not applied to the contemporary debate of migration and borders.’ This makes it abundantly clear that this sense is specific to this text, and not a sense in general use as should be listed in a dictionary.  --Lambiam 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)