Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as [[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because editors are evenly split between two options, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. Currently, there is no fixed supermajority requirement and consensus for closing any request is judged at the discretion of the closer (usually an administrator or another experienced editor).

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)

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


Tagged RFDs


April 2018[edit]

Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris[edit]

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

I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
хоҳак vs. "V. English: want. Tojiki: хостан."
панир not in source
нун vs. "N. English: bread. Tojiki: нон. Etym: Tajik?."
хварак vs. "V. English: eat. Tojiki: хурдан. See: жавак."
тиреза vs. "N. English: window. Tojiki: тиреза. From: Tajik."
пун vs. "Adj. English: full. Tojiki: пур. Etym: Yaghnobi, from Tojiki?."
панч vs. [pantʃ] Quant. English: five. Tojiki: панҷ. Hom: панч2. / N. English: key. Tojiki: калид. Syn: калит; Hom: панч1.
зивок vs. "N. English: language. Tojiki: забон."
Gormflaith (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I really don't have the time nor the energy nor the interest to do this all myself. I told User:Victar (and this applies to you too): if you go through and mark them all with, say, {{delete|Mass deletion of entries per RFD}}, I will finish the job and delete them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся[edit]

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

Move to -ущий, -ющий.
Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
@Benwing2, Wikitiki89, Atitarev, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. ука́зывающий (ukázyvajuščij) = ука́зыв (ukázyv) + -ающий (-ajuščij). The stem is -казыв- (-kazyv-), not -казыва- (-kazyva-). And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev: Why do you think the stem is not указыва- (ukazyva-)? It is present in all forms of the verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For verbs yes, better examples are: де́лающий (délajuščij) = "дел-" + "-ающий", призыва́ющий (prizyvájuščij) = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The stem of делать (delatʹ) is дела-, the stem of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыва-: that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?
Or are you suggesting we should apply the POLA? --Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This logic would require doubling all suffixes: for example, the agent noun of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыватель (prizyvatelʹ), which has a suffix -тель (-telʹ) with the same а in front of it. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-аемый[edit]

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

@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание (-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение (-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние (-nije) and -ение (-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание (-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать (pisatʹ), пишем (pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Move to -емый (-emyj); I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый (-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

porta-[edit]

Italian. See also Talk:porta-.

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

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

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

I Symbol support vote.svg Support deletion, though I’m fine with keeping it different from a prefix, too. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments here and here. @GianWiki, Ultimateria? Imetsia (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete it. — GianWiki (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of the entry itself, but I still believe the derived terms should be considered compounds. Ultimateria (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

anh hai[edit]

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

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

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

October 2018[edit]

odiatus[edit]

odiandus[edit]

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

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

I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.
I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talkcontribs) at 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
  • Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
  • Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?
-80.133.110.139 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō (salmon trout) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs[edit]

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

list

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

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

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

@RexPrincipum: I'm haven't heard of uncontracted forms ever being used in Koine (except in short verbs like πλέω), but if you can find any evidence of them, I'd be glad to see it. — Eru·tuon 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to |dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But ἀγαθοεργεῖν (non-contr - contr) in 1 Tim. 6.18. Akletos (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

grattis i efterskott[edit]

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

With the lack of an entry for i efterskott or indeed efterskott I suggest holding fire on this. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an entry for i efterskott ("in arrears"?), the Swedish Wiktionary doesn't have one even though it tends to be colloquial. --83.253.32.49 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
efterskott = efter (after) + skott (shot), similar to Nachhinein = nach (after) + hinein (into, in), cp. im Nachhinein? Hence: grattis i efterskott ('congratulations afterwards', 'congratulations after it happened'))? Looks like SOP, but lacks efterskott and/or i efterskott which is needed before deletion. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

SOS Alarm[edit]

"a Swedish state owned non-profit organization handling emergency calls". Isn't this encyclopedic? — surjection?⟩ 10:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article solely because it can be used synonymously with the words 112, 90000, and nittiotusen. It wasn't meant to be more encyclopedic than a dictionary entry.--Christoffre (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Synonym links can also be made to point to Wikipedia entries, although if it serves lexical purpose as a term for the number, it might be worth keeping (but the definition needs to reflect that). — surjection?⟩ 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no Wikipedia entry at the time of writing (but there is one now). Can you give an idea on how to improve the definition to reflect a more lexical purpose, or point towards any certain help article?--Christoffre (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The way I would personally do it is to either only have a definition that goes something like "synonym of 112 (the emergency number)" and point out that it is actually the name of a company in the Etymology section (along the lines of "From SOS Alarm, the name of the publicly owned company that operates the number.") Naturally, some editors may think otherwise, but as far as I know, there isn't a consistent guideline for this (the closest thing is the CFI policy on company names). — surjection?⟩ 09:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When used as a synonym of “112” (or "nödnummer”) in a collocation like “ringa SOS Alarm”, is it still a proper noun, or should it then be classified as a common noun? (Compare the classification of Xerox as (just) “Noun”.  --Lambiam 18:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an encyclopedic entry whose only reason for existence is because it didn't have a Wikipedia article at the time of creation, which it does now. Since synonym links can point to WP articles, this entry no longer serves a purpose. Glades12 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-deleted. Vininn126 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

鎖具足#Japanese[edit]

Term added by Mare-Silverus (talkcontribs), who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.

I think this is SOP, as simply (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor), but I'd like to get input from others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should create 具足 before deleting this. Also, is the usual English term not chain mail?  --Lambiam 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese 具足 created. This is an old term cited first all the way back to 722, but despite its age and Chinese-derived reading, I can't find evidence of a borrowing from Middle Chinese. My resources for Chinese are limited, so I'd appreciate it if any more-Chinese-savvy editors could have a look at the etymology.
Re: English chain mail, @Lambiam, were you commenting on the use of alt spelling chainmail at the 鎖具足#Japanese entry? If instead you were suggesting non-SOP-ness on the basis of the English term mail not corresponding exactly to 具足 (gusoku, armor), I would counter by suggesting that someone fluent in English would understand that mail in the context of the armaments of centuries past is broadly equivalent to armor on the one hand, and on the other, that someone fluent in Japanese and familiar with the same contexts would choose the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) instead, as indeed we see at the JA WP article ja:w:鎖帷子. In terms of raw Google hits (granted, only a very rough measure, but still), google:"鎖帷子" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) gets us 4.8M hits, while google:"鎖具足" "は" gets only 4.3K. At best, this would be an uncommon synonym, but I argue that it's not an integral enough term to even warrant an entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eiríkr— I was commenting on the senses listed for (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”. In English, just “chain” does not have the sense of “chain mail”; for someone not familiar with the meaning (and possibly also not with medieval armour), trying to figure it out from the literal translation 鎖+具足 = “chain”+“armour” might not work too well. I do not know if 鎖 by itself can have the sense of “mail”, or that this requires the combination 鎖具足. If the former, that sense should be added. If the latter, I am not convinced we have an SOP here.  --Lambiam 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam, I'm curious about your reasoning. You state, "the senses listed for (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”" -- no, they do not. For that matter, neither does English chain?
Japanese (kusari) generally just means chain. Indeed, so far as I know, any "armor" sense for English chain on its own only comes about from use of this term as a shortening of chain mail, so I'm a bit confused why you think Japanese (kusari) needs to have some kind of "armor" sense for Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) to not be an SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eiríkr— My reasoning is very simplistic. If I see that the meaning of compound noun X+Y, where X modifies Y, is rendered in English as A+B, then I expect that one of the meanings of X is A and one of the meanings of Y is B. So when there is a claim that this is a sum of parts (which I can see is the case for A+B), then I expect that an astute language learner can understand from the context which combination of meanings applies. Application of this simplistic formula in the hope of getting from 鎖+具足 to “chainmail”+“armour” requires 鎖 → “chainmail” and 具足 → “armour”. Chainmail armour, to me, is armour fashioned of chainmail. The notion of “mail” as a quasi-fabric used to fashion armour is absent from either of the components 鎖 and 具足, but paramount in their compound 鎖具足. So, apparently, 鎖具足 ≠ 鎖+具足.  --Lambiam 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Ah, I see now where we have our disjuncture. I perceive English mail in this context as synonymous with armor (technically, a hyponym). Thus, English chain mail = chain + mail = chain + armor, which I view as analogous to (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor). The usage of English mail in armor contexts is very limited, with (I think) only three such collocations allowed: chain mail, plate mail, scale mail. The more common senses of English mail could also arguably make the armor-related collocations more distinct lexically: we're not talking about sending these things via post, for instance. The usage of Japanese 具足 (gusoku) is not limited in this way, and I think this makes the collocation of kusari ("chain") + gusoku ("armor") less of an integral lexical item, and more of an SOP.
I'd also like to draw your attention back to the fact that English chain mail is not glossed as Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) in any reference I've encountered -- the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is used instead. In fact, there is no page at ja:w:鎖具足 (Kusari gusoku), and the article at ja:w:鎖帷子 (Kusari katabira) contains zero instances of the term 具足 (gusoku). In addition, the JA WP article links through to the EN WP article at w:Chain_mail and vice versa. See also bilingual entries for "chain mail" at Eijiro and Weblio, glossing this in Japanese as 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira). See also the lack of any entries for 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) at Eijiro, Weblio, and monolingual dictionary and encyclopedia aggregator Kotobank. For that matter, Weblio's page amusingly suggests that kusari gusoku might equate instead to "chain furniture".  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How chain mail is glossed in Japanese texts is (IMO) not relevant to the present issue. (This might have some limited relevance if the issue is whether the term can be verified.) I am not a native English speaker; I have always understood mail to refer primarily to the material, like one can say that early armour was “made from mail ”.[1] Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”,[2] but not *“a chain mail”. In French, the term maille from which the English term is derived, is just a single link; you can combine a lot to make a cotte de mailles. Two centuries ago the term chain armour would have been readily understood,[3], but today this is less obviously so.[4] On Wikipedia, the article Kusari (Japanese mail armour) states: “Kusari gusoku (chain armour)(鎖具足) is the Japanese term for mail armour. Kusari is a type of armour used by the samurai class and their retainers in feudal Japan. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that the kusari makes up the majority of the armour defence.” This is supported by a citation to a book entitled A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: In All Countries and in All Times that mentions kusari gama, kusari gote, kusari kabuto, kusari katabira, kusari-kiahan, kusari sode, kusari tachi, kusari toji, kusari wakabiki, kusari-zukin. It seems reasonable (to me) to include a definition of the kind “(of armour) chain mail”.  --Lambiam 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: The English Wikipedia's articles related to Japan are, far too often, a cesspit of pop-culture misunderstandings and imaginings about Japan. I generally avoid wading in on Wikipedia, as I simply don't have the time to simultaneously manage the morons while also assiduously citing every minor detail.
That particular article is one such example: the very first sentence in that article is plainly, patently wrong. What's more, the referenced work never uses the combined term kusari gusoku. Monolingual sources never mention armor or arms in definitions of the term (kusari, chain), and given my own subjective understanding of the term and its uses, I'm not sure it makes sense to add any such sense to our entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the terms kusari gama, ..., kusari-zukin listed in the cited glossary. Are these not romanizations of attestable Japanese terms of art, such as 鎖帷子?  --Lambiam 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Sure. Here's a brief breakdown to provide a bit more detail and context.
  • 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is literally (kusari, chain) + 帷子 (katabira, single-layer kimono, literally kata "single, one part of a pair", in reference to the usual double layering of a kimono + hira "flat thing" = "layer"). Strictly speaking, 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) refers to a single layer of chain mail used as a shirt-like or robe-like garment covering the upper body. This is arguably the single most common application of the material called chain mail in English, which I suspect is why bilingual sources tend to relate these two terms. The material itself, as a sheet of linked metal loops, is often referred to using the English-derived term チェーンメール (chēn mēru). Some dictionary entries will clarify that the item of armor is kusari katabira, and the material is chēn mēru, as indeed we see in the two sense lines at the Eijiro entry for "chain mail".
  • 鎖鎌 (kusari-gama) is literally (kusari, chain) + (kama, sickle, scythe). This is a weapon consisting of a short-bladed sickle with a long chain extending from the base of the handle. See the image at ja:w:鎖鎌, and more content in English at w:Kusarigama.
  • 頭巾 (kusari zukin) is literally (kusari, chain) + 頭巾 (zukin, hood, literally head + cloth). See also the images at google:"鎖頭巾". Lemmings-wise, monolingual JA sources do not treat this as a single term.
Looking further at the other kusari items in that index view:
  • Kusari Gote: 鎖篭手 (kusari-gote, literally chain + gauntlet)
  • Kusari Kiahan: not a Japanese term, presumably a mistake for kusari kyahan鎖脚絆 (kusari kyahan, literally chain + leggings, gaiters), referring to something like chain-mail greaves, only presumably also covering the back of the lower leg, not just the shin.
  • Kusari Sode (kusari sode, literally chain + sleeve). Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
  • Kusari Toji: I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. The toji element is presumably 綴じ (toji, binding, fastening)? If so, this doesn't seem to be any specific item of armor.
  • Kusari Wakibiki: 脇引き (kusari wakibiki, literally chain + armpit-pulling), from the way the material is pulled or drawn across the gap between the other parts of the armor: a piece of gousset. Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
I note a few other items listed in that index view, things like Krug, Kurdaitcha, and Kurtani, that cannot be Japanese terms. Given the instance of Kusari Kiahan, I am left uncertain if these are misspellings, or simply non-Japanese terms.
Anyway, HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The book is supposed to be a glossary for all countries, so it should not be a surprise to find Romanizations of Japanese terms in an alphabetical list in the company of non-Japanese terms.

Gorget

Case in point. Imagine someone with a beginner’s level of Japanese who comes across the term 「鎖頭巾」 in a context where the meaning is not at all clear (such as an ad offering an antique 鎖頭巾 for sale). Since she cannot find the term in Wiktionary, she assumes it is a sum of parts, and looks up its components: 鎖 = “chain”; 頭巾 = “wimple, hood, gorget”. In her understanding of the term “chain”, it is a linear sequence of links. Neither ”chain wimple” nor “chain hood” make any sense to her, but after looking up the unfamiliar term “gorget” and seeing the image, she guesses that “chain gorget” could be a gorget worn on a chain, just like a “chain watch” is a watch on a chain. Is there a plausible way she could have discovered that in this combination 「鎖」implied an item made from mail?  --Lambiam 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: (after edit conflict)
... Where do you get the wimple or gorget senses for 頭巾 (zukin)? Those aren't in our entries. I can kinda see where wimple might come from, as the core meaning of the JA term is literally "head + cloth", and that's at least the right ballpark. But gorget is just wrong as a translation for 頭巾. The expected Japanese term is 喉当て (nodo-ate, literally throat + putting, applying, placing-against).
If you got kusari zukin and its mistranslation of "gorget" from the linked glossary by George Cameron Stone, I'm mystified -- I can't find any instances of zukin at all in that book, kusari or otherwise.
For the expected senses of (kusari, chain) + 頭巾 (zukin, hood, head covering), I wouldn't expect as much potential for confusion as you suggest. For example, google:"chain hood" comes right up with pictures of the expected hood made of chain. Similarly, google:"chain shirt" and google:"chain gloves" come right up with relevant armor-related images, and even the more unusual google:"chain sleeves" and google:"chain leggings" find armor-related hits within the first page.  :)
Some collocation-specific senses must be understood from context, even though the collocations themselves might not be lexical. Consider white crane. This could be a large white bird that inhabits wetlands, or it might be a white piece of construction equipment used to lift things. The term crane here is polysemic, but that doesn't necessitate that collocations using different senses of crane are necessarily lexical items unto themselves. So it is with (kusari) -- though arguably even to a lesser extent than crane, since the armor and non-armor senses for (kusari) are still about "loops of metal chained together". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, re: the erroneous gorget sense at ずきん, that is a mistake apparently entered when that page was created, which has not been replicated at the lemma entry at 頭巾#Japanese. I'm about to correct the ずきん entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If chain hood can legitimately mean “hood fashioned of mail” (as an instance of, more generally, chain NP meaning “NP fashioned of mail”, then a sense is missing at English chain.  --Lambiam 09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

zoals gewoonlijk[edit]

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

The usual English expression is as usual, short for as is usual, so the word usual is an adjective. The similar expressions as always and as before use adverbs. I think the word gewoonlijk is also an adverb, so the word-by-word translation (as usually) is somewhat unidiomatic. So this is not an open-and-shut SOP case.  --Lambiam 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is gewoonlijk (also?) an adjective like gewöhnlich? nl.wt has it as adjective and with inflection and as adverb. If so, it could (also?) give: zoals gewoonlijk (as usual). --幽霊四 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @幽霊四 It is both, but I think it is more commonly used as an adverb and deadjectival words suffixed with -lijk are usually primarily adverbs. The inflected adjective gewoonlijke is for instance rather easy to attest. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingo_Bingo_Dingo: We also have as usual. Is the Dutch expression really more soppy than the English one? Fytcha (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is. 1: this form strongly suggests an adverbial interpretation, which is a much less unusual and more productive construction that the English as usual is; 2: just about any Dutch adjective can be used as an adverb, so the substitionability is much higher. If this is kept, why not a whole slew of equivalent attested expressions? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Old English pseudo-prefixes[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.)  --Lambiam 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I struck eal(l)-, efen-, and self- out of the list (as kept) per my rationale above. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

ᠨᡇᡉᠷ[edit]

Written Oirat.

ᠨᡇᡇ᠍ᠷ[edit]

ᠨᡇᡆᠷ[edit]

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

ᠨᡇᠷ[edit]

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

@HeliosX: What is going on here? I don't understand you at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First and last one are deleted, as they were tagged by the entry's creator (obviously created in error). @LibCae could you confirm that the other two are also incorrect, so we can close this? Thadh (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I’m late :( The first variant was attested in Pozdneyev’s printed dictionary (although it’s not enough unless we find it in a manuscript). Should we keep the spelling for a while? The second one should be incorrect. LibCae (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted ᠨᡇᡆᠷ (nuor). This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

onca[edit]

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

I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user.  --Lambiam 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can be covered at the Panthera onca page. This is basically a cranberry morpheme that has no meaning outside of this one binomen. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered at Panthera onca, but that is of no avail to a user who looks up “onca” (unless they are savvy and persistent enough to click What, lynx here?). I still don’t see the benefit of deletion.  --Lambiam 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only used in Panthera onca ({{only in|mul|Panthera onca}})? Then people can find the species (and etymology etc.) if they just search for the epithet. --Bakunla (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect as suggested above. Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect, this should discourage people from adding it again. Thadh (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it can also be found in the synonym Felis onca. --RichardW57 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name Felis onca, then was transfered to the genus Panthera, which automatically changed the name to Panthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/daliþō[edit]

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

Why? @victarKnyȝt 09:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Knyȝt: Because it can be formed by dalr +‎ , making it's existence in PG questionable with no other cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@victar: That would render a **dald, which cannot be the ancestor of the descendants listed. The PG -i- is needed for the umlaut. — Knyȝt 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Knyȝt: Fair point, so an unattested ON *del, from *daljō + , which actually fits better semantically. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/gawihtiją[edit]

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

I don't know if such formation were productive in PWG but I'm incline to vote delete as I think this formation may be likely PWG. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kroonen reconstructs it for PG, though. —Rua (mew) 09:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kroonen reconstructs a lot of stuff that probably didn't exist in PG, like Latin borrowings into PWG, not to even mention PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

-erlei[edit]

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

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

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

Recategorize and (when Category:German words suffixed with -erlei is empty) Delete (and also the empty cat). May I suggest adding an etymology section to -lei that also explains how this is got to be suffixed to genitive forms of adjectives so that -erlei is a recurring ending?  --Lambiam 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither in common understanding [...] analyzed so" isn't correct. -erlei is present in several modern grammars (including Duden and PONS, see the entry for a bit more). So at the very least, -erlei should exist and point to -lei. --2003:DE:373F:4031:3515:67E:BD2C:B01B 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi[edit]

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

Related discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:Sunda-Sulawesi_languages_and_Category:Borneo-Philippines_languages. –Austronesier (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

草に草生やすな[edit]

It’s not a word but a sentence. See Wiktionary:Tea room#草に草生やすな. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also include phrases, which can be full sentences (e.g. you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t ). The Tea room argument is that it is not idiomatic. But how would one know that it specifically criticizes mixed use as seen in 草wwwwwwwww?  --Lambiam 06:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for both wt:ATTEST and wt:SOP. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These examples tend to support a case for ATTEST (except that they are mention, rather than use, of the phrase). But at the same time might weaken a case for SOP, as it seems like other references to "grass" or "growing" can be substituted (but but, I am now doubting that that conclusion can be drawn, at least from the evidence below).
  • [5] (わたし)質問(しつもん)しているのは「(くさ)草生(くさは)やすな」です。 「(くさ)()やすな」というのは()っています。
    Watashi ga shitsumon shite-iru no wa “kusa ni kusa hayasuna” desu. “kusa ni hayasuna” to iu no wa shitte-imasu.
    My question is about ‘kusa ni kusa hayasuna’. I understand ‘kusa ni hayasuna’.
  • [6] 2018年頃(2018 ねんごろ)からは頻度(ひんど)(すく)ないものの「(くさ)草生(くさは)やすな」(くさにくさはやすな)というフレーズも()られるようになりました。
    2018 nen goro kara wa hindo wa sukunai mono no “kusa ni kusa hayasuna” (kusa ni kusa hayasuna) to iu furēzu mo mirareru yō ni narimashita.
    From about 2018 the phrase ‘kusa ni kusa hayasuna’ also began to appear occasionally.
  • [7] たま~に(くさ)草生(くさは)やしてるやつをいいねで注意(ちゅうい)しに()きます
    tama~ni kusa ni kusa hayashiteru yatsu o ii ne de chūi shi ni ikimasu
    So~metimes I warn ‘kusa ni kusa hayashi’ peeps with a ‘like’
I can't decide whether this suggests keeping or deleting the entry. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, delete anyway as failing to meet WT:ATTEST. —Fish bowl (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reine des abeilles[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this should be deleted, but I did add the relevant sense to reine. Ultimateria (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is queen bee; queen bee at OneLook Dictionary Search. French abeille means "bee". How would I know this is the way of putting it in French? In Czech, we say včelí královna rather than *královna včel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

رأي[edit]

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

أراك لاحقا[edit]

Arabic. SOP. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Fenakhay (talkcontribs).

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

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

@Fytcha: SOP, not idiomatic, but one of several possible literal translations. Fay Freak (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's an SOP but can be kept as a phrasebook entry. I have converted it to a phrasebook entry and made some fixes. Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems impeccable then, according to our current inclusion criteria. Fay Freak (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: Thanks. Calling the nominator for any further input: @Fenakhay. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/gallô[edit]

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

No. *gallô is the ancestor of the OE form, and *gallǭ the rest. --{{victar|talk}} 02:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this discussion @Leasnam: had said: "I've moved *gallō to *gallǭ, since the West Germanic descendants are weak. I've also added the descendants of *gallô to *gallǭ. I think we can delete *gallô."
But it looks like English gall and its ancestors were deleted about a week ago from *gallǭ. DJ K-Çel (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on whether we want to keep the *gallô page solely for the lone Old English galla. Or we could consider the OE term a gender change from Proto-West Germanic *gallā f from Proto-Germanic *gallǭ and place it there. Leasnam (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

חנות משכונות[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFVN.

all'attacco[edit]

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

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn’t we have phrasebook entries for war commandos like this? Fay Freak (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: I agree with Fay Freak. PUC – 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

死人#Adverb[edit]

Chinese. I believe this is best analyzed as [[VERB-死]-人], and 人 "someone" can be replaced freely with "I", "you", etc. The usage examples should be moved to . —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if we do keep this, I think it should be merge with the Gan sense under pronunciation 2. While it's analyzable as above, it seems to be fossilized as a kind of intensifier (at least in certain varieties). It's in some dictionaries, such as 南昌方言詞典 and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. I'm leaning on the keep side, but I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after some thought, the two meanings seem to be different depending on the verb/adjective. 南昌方言詞典 defines it as "用在動詞或形容詞後,表示令人非常(高興、生氣、難受等)" and lists 熱~, 笑~, 氣~, 煩~, 急~ and 冷~ as examples. To me, these belong to the definition that is being rfd-ed. @Mar vin kaiser who added the Gan sense recently. 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 defines it as "置於動詞之後,用來表示「非常……」、「很……」的意思" and lists 驚死人 and 貴死人 as examples. 驚死人 could be interpreted as the rfd-ed definition, but 貴死人 is harder to interpret as such. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

苦無術[edit]

手裏剣術[edit]

Japanese. Sum of parts, 苦無 "kunai" / 手裏剣 "shuriken" + "technique". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed for 苦無術. google books:"苦無術" "は" finds precious few hits, and most appear to be in Chinese-language texts at that. Delete.
  • Less certain for 手裏剣術. I note the existence of entries at Kotobank, though notably those are only encyclopedia entries. No dictionary to hand includes this as a term. I'm also uncertain how much to view (jutsu) as a standalone noun, or as a suffixing element. If the latter, presumably this suffix would form a new word, as opposed to two discrete nouns that happen to be next to each other.
In addition, google books:"手裏剣術" "は" finds ample hits of this in running Japanese text. I think I'm still undecided on this one, possibly leaning towards weak keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeh₂ǵos, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bazъ[edit]

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

  • The beech isn’t in the range (!) of the Proto-Indo-European homeland.
  • The Slavic page is properly *bъzъ. The Serbo-Croatian descendant does not count for *bazъ because Proto-Slavic generally gives a in Serbo-Croatian, the Russian and Ukrainian given are obscure dialectal forms, as well as the Bulgarian, which are unstressed while Bulgarian has suffered vowel reduction and Bulgarian а (a) and ъ (ǎ) are very close; ominously one gives an Old Church Slavonic only for *bъzъ. The current Slovak form which I added, apart from being anomalous as a feminine, can also be from ъ, this can be seen *dъždžь → dážď and the variation for *čexъlъ. Against the evidence from all Slavic languages one cannot posit such a byform, more easily *bazъ is an etymologist’s fabrication to shoehorn all into an Indo-European-etymology. Which does not work anyhow because the Slavic words mean elder, not beech. These plants are not confusable.
    • The page is in ESSJa, ’tis true, but apart from the entry’s age as I have noticed often, they do not take a stand for every entry in their Proto-Slavic dictionary, which is but hypothetical. They apparently create some index files, here motivated by Pokorny, and look what they can find to support the form, then they publish all anyway if the result is negative. See the RFD already filed for the adjective *bazovъ in WT:RFDO, Useigor did not understand this and created bare objectionable entries this way.
  • Proto-Germanic *bōks means “book” but there is yet no proof the Germanic peoples used beechbark writing or anyone else as opposed to birchbark writing. And how can *bōkō (beech), different paradigms, be from the same Proto-Indo-European form? There is something unaccounted. The existence of that word also conflicts with *bʰeh₂ǵʰús (arm) giving *bōguz, as the consonant outcome differs and because “the slot is filled” i.e. the alleged word for a tree is too similar to a word for the arm for both having existed.
  • Albanian bung is very tentative and random as always.
  • Armenian բոխի (boxi) has been thrown out of the equation meticulously after the creation of the PIE, much reasoned at its entry.
  • Where is the Gaulish word attested? Probably fishy if it is claimed to be only Gaulish but not retained in other Celtic languages. What do the other Celtic languages have? With such things I am accustomed to have the suspicion that it is somehow conjectured from unfathomable placenames.
  • The Latin word may be an early borrowing from Northwest Greek φᾱγός (phāgós), like even mālum (apple); as Italy was Greek-settled and the beech is found in Italy only at some places and not right at Rome, only somewhat outwards. Whereas the beech is very frequent in the Proto-Hellenic area. In Latin likely a foreign word. I say this also from general impressions about substratum origins of Latin plant names, after having dealt with many Latin plant names and their origins.
  • This is well a loanword after Proto-Indo-European when Germans, Italians/Romans and Greeks took new settlements judging by analogy. Remarkably the Slavic words *bukъ and *buky are Germanic borrowings for some reason, apparently because the Slavs settled right at the Northeast of the distribution of the beech, of course also Hungarian bükk (beech) is loaned. So if not even the Slavs before expansion (3rd century CE) had a word for the beech, the Proto-Indo-Europeans hadn’t either; if the Slavs borrowed this word, the Germans and Greeks and Romans did it likewise earlier. The correct etymologies for the German and Greek words are “borrowed from an unknown source common to [Greek|Proto-Germanic]”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: agreed. This has always been a dubious reconstruction, made worse by shoehorning more descendants to it, and further comical by reconstructing it with *-eh₂-. Also see {{R:ine:HCHIEL|86}} --{{victar|talk}} 18:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. So I have found it is actually a debunked canard since half a century ago, called beech argument. It might have went past the Soviet theorists. In Krogmann, Willy (1954), “Das Buchenargument”, in Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen (in German), volume 72 1./2, DOI:10.2307/40847908, page 13 it is expounded how the Gaulish name is derived by reconstruction, from placenames. It is to be added that the literature finds it problematic that the Greek word means an oak and not a beech. Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Where else would "book" come from —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 72.76.95.136 (talk) at 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
It says where it possibly comes from. Often explained as in Germanic from the word for beech, which last is a word borrowed from somewhere. I do not need to have an explanation for or know everything to disprove an etymology. Your argument is none. Otherwise aliens built the pyramids because “how else”. Fay Freak (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several invalid arguments here.
1) “Transformed” Pokorny stuff, ominously sourced by the Leiden school." -- This is frankly just rude, not reasoned. Kroonen's dictionary is extremely respectable (even if one disagrees with it) and tested by peer-review, unlike this nomination for deletion. The reconstruction is cited by philologists in other "schools" than Leiden. Check out e.g. Ringe (Pennsylvania/Oxford). Wiktionary should be reflecting the general scholarly consensus, not novel, non-peer-reviewed proposals of independent-minded contributors.
2) "beech not in homeland" -- irrelevant, as many words change in meaning over time, and with different environments in different geographical locations
3) "yet no proof the Germanic peoples used beechbark writing". No, but Germanic peoples' first contact with "books" would probably be Roman writing-tablets, which were often made of beech wood. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindolanda_tablets)
4) "Latin word may be an early borrowing from Northwest Greek φᾱγός" -- Even if that is true, that still leaves Germanic (NW Indo-European) and Greek (S Central Indo-European) as cognates, which is generally regarded as sufficient to support the hypothesis that it is ancestral to both of those branches. But what on earth is "an unknown source common to [Greek|Proto-Germanic]" other than the common ancestor of the European side of PIE?
Signed: an anonymous academic peer-reviewer, who is a tenured Professor in a Philology Faculty (no, not Leiden). But the decision about whether to delete the page or not should be taken on the merits of the arguments alone. 82.132.228.243 11:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the argument that “the slot is filled” i.e. the alleged word for a tree is too similar to a word for the arm for both having existed" is unreasonable, because homophony and doublets are actually perfectly common phenomena cross-linguistically. 94.196.220.242 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are rude and not reasoned, okay?
Bare editors are stricter about meaning differences than I am, e.g. I presume @Metaknowledge mildly not amused about this lumping beeches and elders and what not. To reconstruct we need to pin down a more or less vague meaning, which these equations do not meet, and formally it is a scarecrow greater than many reconstruction pages we decided to delete, just not on first glance, but after a review of the possibilities (possibilities are hard to assess for the casual observer by magnitude, hence all those antivaxxers; our judgement needs specific training for the assessment of specific possibilities, so even if you are a professor in one area you may stay without insight in a closely related area and ignore its possibilities even though these should influence the decision).
We all have read very odd things that are peer-reviewed, as some academics have built parallel universes to make a living. And the beech argument is one of it, not a respected theory any more (if I understood respect correctly as being more than being constantly repeated out of courtesy and the university habit of citing everything that is available) but a fringe view, certainly not adding, in the traditional meaning of science, to our knowledge, but you are right that the decision about whether to delete the page or not should be taken on the merits of the arguments alone, since you yourself know your colleagues enough to distrust them.
It is symptomatic though that a tenured professor in philology fails to consider the presence of unknown language groups before Indo-European; that’s how one regularly comes up with reconstructions that should never be made: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, if you only know Indo-European, “everything” is from Indo-European. It is partially not your fault, given that the other language groups of Europe are scatteredly or not at all attested, and partially it is your fault in so far as you never deal with language areas where well-documented languages have stood in manifest contact (the usual case with the bulk of scholarship about Greek and Germanic and Germanic languages, you know those who live in a Germanic country and study Germanic do kind of a cheap thing, and if a European classical language is added this only opens the horizon a little).
Different semantic fields of a language have various propensities to contain borrowed terms, plant-names are especially notorious in it. If I was only an Indo-Europeanist I would hardly know but in the Semitic, Turkic, Iranian languages half of them (I exaggerate but little) are certainly loans from each other or other less-known or completely unknown language groups; e.g. another Wiktionary professor saw that خُلَّر(ḵullar) is surely borrowed and likely Hurrian but for the Greek ὄλυρα (ólura) the mainstreamers fail to do anything but speculate Indo-European (native or “pre-Greek”) origins although with the Near East data they should have classified it as wanderwort. However about every second time I open a Greek etymology Beekes claims a Greek word to be pre-Greek: while the intrinsic value of this label is close to zero due to the multifariousness of the frequent Pre-Greek claim, the idea of unknown sources of borrowings has been defended very well and is being concretized while we edit Wiktionary etymologies more and more.
So we pray you, Professor, to register and solve words occasionally, and especially if to disprove people as rude and uneducated as me. The more you learn of this dictionary business the more you realize that there is a thin line between daring comparisons—adding to our knowledge by maverickism—and academic dishonesty. And IPs are evil. After all you already do not rely on the majority of the comparisons on which that PIE “reconstruction” is made, if Germanic and Greek are left: In our experience the farer away a reconstructed historical language the more descendants one needs, and for PIE two are regularly (without very good reasons) not enough, while for Proto-Slavic not rarely one is enough—if a term must have been formed in Proto-Slavic, e.g. *mězgyrь, while for PIE there are too many millennia in between of what could have happened and we do not know that *bʰeh₂ǵos must have been internally derived in PIE (usually between Arabic, Iranian and Turkic and often inside their language groups themselves we know where a term was formed and hence whence borrowed by our understanding the internal morphologies of the languages: all things you do not know for this term).
This is all to say that, in comparison to more certain etymologies, here you know absolutely nothing. But you should somehow be confident about a reconstruction rather than many mismatches and coincidences and alternative scenarios (and I have engaged in shaky reconstructions out of excitement, but this is so shaky that it crumbles apart the more you think about it—if it were better I would come to maintain this PIE term: obviously I come correct in thinking about reconstructions, you will hardly deny this experience in having a consistent and carefully weighed approach about reconstruction entries). Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

latet anguis in herba[edit]

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

The phrase can be found in Latin texts, mostly literally as in Virgil, but sometimes with the verb in conjugated form.[8][9][10] These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb.[11]  --Lambiam 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PUC, Lambiam:It seems like the idiomatic part is the noun phrase, while the verb can be omitted without loss of meaning, which seems to be the ultimate criterion for determining an idiom. It's obviously an allegory originally, and a good allegory is always ripe for becoming proverbial; nevertheless, I think this only happened after Erasmus, as it isn't found among his proverbial mountains of proverbs. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

, , [edit]

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

“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[12][13][14] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning.  --Lambiam 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. @Erutuon? PUC – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History > 00-002 and 00-094. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

νεκρο-[edit]

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

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

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)[edit]

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

@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether -lending technically is a suffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that -lending rather than -landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an entry for -lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The given sense (both for Bokmål and Nynorsk) does not cover all uses; see innlending and utlending.  --Lambiam 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. Supevan (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)[edit]

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

@Sgconlaw This isn't a duplicate; there are two entries. Don't delete it.__Gamren (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it looked identical so I thought it was a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/gamal-[edit]

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

Delete. How will we avoid the lengthy cognate lists? Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I imagine that a Proto-Arabic is the ultimate source of the wanderwort. We could therefore conceivably host everything in a separate list at جَمَل(jamal), although this would require a good explanation to make it clear that we're not talking about attested Arabic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the Old South Arabian cannot be from Proto-Arabic, innit? And the Ethio-Semitic forms will also be earlier borrowings from the times when the Ethio-Semitic speakers settled in Southern Arabia. Similarly Modern South Arabian, a niece-language group of Old South Arabian. Host at Reconstruction:Undetermined 😆? Fay Freak (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: You make a very good point. There's also Proto-Berber *a-lɣəm, which is thought to be a very old borrowing from a Semitic source that underwent metathesis, and is apparently the source of Hausa raƙumi and various other words. Now, this is a very unorthodox solution, but what if we created a page like Appendix:Semitic wanderwort gamal (or an alternate title; I'm sure there's a better phrasing) to discuss the problem, stick in a couple references, and host the descendant list? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, is there a reason the list couldn't just be in the etymology section of one of the words (e.g. Proto-Arabic) with an appropriate qualifier, like "the ultimate origin [of this proto-Arabic word] is a Semitic wanderwort which was also the source of [... ... ...]" ? - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Granted, it may not have existed in PSem., but I think that it better to have a central entry and explain its existence in the reconstruction notes or etymology. Should be moved to PWS though. --{{victar|talk}} 22:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to Reconstruction:Proto-West Semitic/gamal-, which at least is better than having it at PSem. @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak --{{victar|talk}} 23:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure that it can be safely reconstructed to PWestSem, and I don't see any references for that statement (besides the lazy authors who simply consider it to be PS, which we know is untenable). We know it is a wanderwort; I suppose a defensible lie is better than an indefensible one, but I was hoping for a more honest solution. Note to closer: all the incoming links still have yet to be fixed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a solution -- I still stand by my original reasoning to keep -- but since this is only found in WSem. it belongs as a PWS entry, regardless. --{{victar|talk}} 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-srice[edit]

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

Is the syllable onset sr- even possible in French?  --Lambiam 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be possible as an onset cluster if it's preceded by a vowel. We have listing for six French nouns ending in -srice, all actually in -ssrice: successrice, prédécessrice, intercessrice, assessrice, professrice, possessrice. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I find all of these jarring. I'd consider them nonstandard. PUC – 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding their jarringness, can they be attested?  --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one (prédécessrice) is actually suffixed. I agree with your point below and suggest sticking with -rice. Whose category, incidentally, has only 3 pages compared to 23 at -trice. Ultimateria (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If professrice is analyzed as profes + -srice, shouldn't we then not also have -drice (used in ambassadrice) and -trice (used in actrice and inspectrice)?  --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a mistake. Modern French doesn't allow such a cluster, in onset or between two syllables (with /s/ as coda and /r/ as onset), so if you're dealing with Middle French you should use "mfr". If they were used in Middle French, the fricative of the aforementioned cluster would have undergone a fortition leading to /tr/ in Modern French. Also the productive feminine agent noun-forming suffixes are -eur (without any distinction with masculine, given that the latter acts as the neuter), -eure (almost never used but recently coined by the Academy, although no institution can ever rule a language) or -euse (the regular feminine form of "-eur"), and the ones which forms standard feminines of the words above are definitely -eur (by far the most used, though indistinguishable from the masculine without context) and -eure (somewhat better according to the said Academy). Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems a little silly. The only attestations i can find for the words that end in ssrice are indications that they are incorrect forms for which correct forms already exist. The etymology proposed for them (based on the existence of a Latin form) looks sketchy, too, because they are almost certainly neologisms based on the existing masculine form. Finally, splitting ss in the middle doesn't make any sense when they always act as a single letter in French, so the suffix, if these terms are attested, would be -rice. (cf. masculine -eur).SteveGat (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find some attestations for some of the words, but the proposed suffix remains frivolous. French wiktionary doesn't have it, and the words there that end in ssrice are proposed to have the suffix -rice, based the -eur/-rice pair. In any case, this suffix should be deleted. SteveGat (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Btw, Wiktionary distinguishes between [[Category:French words suffixed with -rice]] and [[Category:French words suffixed with -trice]], but Wiktionnaire doesn't: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Mots_en_fran%C3%A7ais_suffix%C3%A9s_avec_-rice (only a sub-category for -cultrice). Thomas Linard (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

, 希望[edit]

I'm not sure if we should be doing Japanese given names for Chinese. See also all those entries at Category:zh:Japanese male given names and Category:zh:Japanese female given names. RcAlex36 (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

伊織, 千尋, 太郎, 晉三, 由紀夫, 秀吉, 翔太, 三保子, 明日奈, 有希, 直美, 詩織, 大和 (sense), (sense), (sense), 日向 (senses), 百合 (sense), (senses), 新一#Etymology 2, 正義#Etymology 2, 純一#Etymology 2, 聖子#Etymology 2, 星子#Etymology 2, 真理#Etymology 2[edit]

Requesting deletion for the rest of the entries in Category:zh:Japanese male given names and Category:zh:Japanese female given names. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gangaba[edit]

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

Unless the ancient Persians spoke a Latin dialect – but the historical linguistic evidence argues against this – the cited passage is actually a clear indication that this is not Latin.  --Lambiam 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think current practice is to keep hapaxes mentioned as being from foreign languages in ancient languages, as there is no good alternative way of including them without tons of speculation on the base form and base language. The entry should, however, reflect that it is simply mentioned as a foreign word as opposed to being a word that was actually in use in Latin. If we delete entries like these, we miss out on some of the most interesting mentioned words from antiquity (my personal favorites are μέδος and haliurunna). So yeah, keep, please. I have edited the entry to reflect its foreignness to Latin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mnemosientje: Not sure about such practice, the majority of comprehensive reference works omit them, being thus strict as including what really belongs to a language, like the σαπάνα (sapána) I yesterday found and most of these names in Dioscourides – should we add those thousands of – often insecurely read – names from there? And I account for the space being unlimited here. I’d rather avoid this kind of entries, if feasible, without tons of speculation. @ZxxZxxZ: does it remind you of any word? Maybe we could mention it on some Neo-Persian word as its oldest attestation; also we need translations for porter (I only know حمال(hammâl). These entries stay misleading and have properties of ghost words, if they are titled “Latin” and are in descendant lists as Latin, and even have pronunciation sections like normal Latin word as haliurunna has; maybe haliurunna should actually be presented as Gothic, gangaba as Old Persian, while σαπάνα (sapána) as undetermined? That would be much truer. But in any case we also need to categorize such lacking entries somehow.
I mention that it seems like taxonomists have built moth names on this porter word: Mamerthes gangaba, Elachista gangabella. Fay Freak (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added all I found, and couldn't found anything related in Middle Persian, though this is probably from some other Middle Iranian language. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that these words need some place to stay, and especially in antiquity it often is hard to determine what exactly was the donor language. We can't be sure how well the antique authors knew from which language a word really derives. For example, the haliurunna word may not be Gothic proper at all (what if it's Vandalic instead, or some other EGmc language? Antique authors regularly conflated them with Goths), the word medos I mentioned is of uncertain origin, etc.; their forms are determined by how respectively a Latin and Greek writer made sense of these words they heard, they are therefore in terms of form probably not (exactly) as they would have been in their source language. Thus, it is not a bad solution per se imo to just keep such words at the language of the text in which they are attested, while clarifying that they are supposed to represent words from some other language. Perhaps "Undetermined" could be a solution, I have not thought about that much. I mainly just want them to have entries, as they are often (etymologically and otherwise) very interesting words. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the pronunciation from haliurunna btw, you are right that it made little sense — Mnemosientje (t · c)
I've seen a dictionary (w:Dehkhoda Dictionary) that actually includes hapaxes. But also it's a good idea to include such pages in the categoriese of the language of origin: σπάκα is the only directly known Old Median word, mentioned in a Greek text. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many dictionaries do; L&S for example, which is a Latin dictionary linked on the gangaba entry, includes it, as it does many other hapaxes of non-Latin origin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and move all such hapaxes to an appendix. — surjection??⟩ 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appendixes is where words go to die, it is much preferable to just have them in mainspace where they'll actually be found by people looking for them. Again, it's hardly unheard of for Latin dictionaries to list such Latinised foreign hapaxes among more standard words (with an appropriate disclaimer, ofc), and there is no reason why we shouldn't. They're far too interesting to relegate to an appendix, imo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

악성비루스[edit]

This just means "the malign virus" in Korean. In this article we can see that North Korea has also called Ebola and MERS the "malign virus". Delete as sum of parts.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And since Korean has no definite article, it may just as well mean “a malign virus”, which these viruses certainly are in the medical sense of “harmful, potentially lethal”.  --Lambiam 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the gloss is correct, though, 악성비루스 refers not to the virus SARS-CoV-2 but to the disease COVID-19, which would technically make it not SOP anymore. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahagaja: There's no actual evidence that the gloss is correct. The creator is not a native speaker, and the actual NK statement in late July (quoted here) that presumably prompted this creation was about "a defector to South Korea suspected to have been infected by the 'malign virus'" ("악성 비루스에 감염된 것으로 의심되는 월남도주자"). The word used here, 감염 (gamyeom), is usually for viruses and not diseases.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — LoutK (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could the use of this term be considered a euphemism? MSG17 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mahagaja. If the provided definition is correct, it is obviously not a SOP. This seems more like a verification issue to me. Fytcha (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hîr[edit]

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

degjôj[edit]

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

In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is this spelling attested in writing anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a pronounced form? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

กลัวเหมือนหนูกลัวแมว[edit]

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

การชยันโต[edit]

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

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

空燒[edit]

Chinese. SoP. 49.179.157.161 01:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More information is needed to motivate this. The parts are hard to lend themselves to the definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
空 (in vain, for nothing) + 烧 (to cook). 空走一趟 (to make a journey for nothing), 空煮 (to boil nothing), 空蒸 (to steam nothing), 空炸 (to fry nothing), 空炒 (to stir fry nothing), 空找 (to find in vain), 空喜歡 (to like for nothing), etc. 49.180.102.209 23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it only means "to boil/burn in vain", then delete, but it seems different based on the current definition. @Fish bowl, RcAlex36, Tooironic, Mar vin kaiser:, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about this one, sorry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same with @Justinrleung:. But I have no idea how to verify the definition currently there. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelaine Tigre[edit]

French. Tagged by Languageseeker today (“erroneous spelling. tigre should be lowercase”), not listed. See Porcelaine tigre. J3133 (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be lowercase, not just "Tigre". Please stop this user from creating more entries. 2A02:2788:A6:935:351D:18F4:E607:A40 10:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the page histories of Porcelaine Tigre and Porcelaine tigre and then moved the result to porcelaine tigre. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the 19th century, Porcelaine was capitalized and tigre was lowercase. It's not appropriate to move it to porcelaine tigre because the current lowercase French spelling is porcelaine tigrée because an orthographic revision to agree tigre with porcelaine in gender. When you moved Porcelaine Tigre to Porcelaine tigre, you seemed to have overwritten the part on Alternative Spelling that I think I put in Porcelaine tigre. tl;dr porcelaine tigre does not exist in French. It's either Porcelaine tigre (old) or porcelaine tigrée (new). Languageseeker (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's less common, but I am finding instances of porcelaine tigre (and porcelaine-tigre with a hyphen), lowercase, in recent French texts. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, I found both porcelaine tigre and Porcelaine tigre. To resolve this, I'm going to add a section for alternative spellings. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Languageseeker (talkcontribs) at 13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Porcelaine de Madagascar[edit]

2A02:2788:A6:935:351D:18F4:E607:A40 10:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If these are real, they can be moved to the proper spelling instead. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 19th century naturalist books, Porcelaine is capitalized. Languageseeker (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't waste time and space on alternative capitalizations of an initial letter. Move to porcelaine de Madagascar, no redirect necessary. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in ancient books capitalization was very inconsistent, trying to respect it would be rather Sisyphean. But maybe the actual spelling could be mentioned alongside each reference when we correct it. -- Olybrius (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, move to porcelaine de Madagascar, the normal spelling. All animal French names may be used capitalized (and all words as well, when beginning a sentence). Lmaltier (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M’, M’., M.’[edit]

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

Redirect to M'..  --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  1. I would certainly have thought a redirect was more appropriate than a delete for each.
  2. As to what the typographical symbol is see this cited source:
    One archaeologist asserts that the stroke after the M is a well-known abbreviation for the prænomen Manius; but this is generally M❜ ; a small comma-like figure being introduced after the M.
    The "small comma-like figure" in the source is different from a comma and from an apostrophe, but I'm not sure what it is, how widespread the use of such a distinct symbol was, or whether it would matter to Wiktionary.
Jnestorius (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe to the same with a straight apostrophe ', so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either.  --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “M”.  --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manius (praenomen), citing various sources, says the name was originally abbreviated with the five-stroke M, and later abbreviated as M + the apostrophe-like thing. Given the source above and other sources I see when I search for things like "Manius, abbreviated" or "abbreviation of Manius" which say M' was the standard abbreviation of Manius (including ones talking about how that was easy to confuse with the abbreviation M. for Marcus), I take this to mean both abbreviations were found in period, whether in inscriptions or elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Re “it is general practice [] to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.” —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs) at 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
That's just what I was going to say. When I click on the red link I’m I am not taken automatically to I'm. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pretextmise.  --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain stuff I did in 2019. I can't remember what I did last Tuesday, mate. Equinox 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lols --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft- or hard-redirect to whatever form(s) we decide to make the lemma (of this version of the abbreviation, as distinct from the five-stroke M version). - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

d'un certain âge[edit]

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

Certain is quite idiomatic here and is a euphemism for 'older'. It has this meaning only when used before (and not after) 'âge'. In "un certain temps", "un certain nombre" the meaning is much vaguer and does not imply a larger quantity but on the contrary a small one (as per the TLFI: exprime le caractère particulier difficile à préciser ou la faible mais réelle quantité). It is also referenced in the TLFI (at 'âge', not at 'certain'): (Être) d'un certain âge. Ne plus être jeune.
It shouldn't at least be deleted before adding these acceptations of 'older' and 'small and undefined' to the "certain" article. Or maybe create "un certain âge" as a phrase? - Olybrius (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
d'un certain âge certainly has some claim to idiomaticity, but I don't think it deserves an entry. It should be a usage example at certain (which indeed is missing the sense we're talking about).
"certain" doesn't mean "older", it means "quite high/big". That might not be entirely relevant, but "vieux" doesn't collocate with "âge" in French, you can't say "*vieil âge" ("old age" would be "grand âge" or "âge avancé").
No one here suggested that certain by itself means “older“. I dispute that it means “quite high/big”. Used as a determiner, the meaning is basically the same as for English.  --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)¨[reply]
@Lambiam: All right, "quite high/big" maybe isn't a good gloss either. I believe "(quite) some" is closer to the truth.
Regarding the other part of your message, well, how should I interpret Olybrius' first sentence? ("Certain is quite idiomatic here and is a euphemism for 'older'. It has this meaning only when used before (and not after) 'âge'")
What I meant in my answer is that not only does "certain" not have that meaning by itself (is this grammatical?), it does not have that meaning in combination with "âge" either. "older" is simply not a good gloss.
Anyway, what do you think should be done with this entry? 2A02:2788:A6:935:E553:100B:D4FC:35E4 14:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that certain per se carries a connotation of “quite some”. It is the context in which it is used that may imply this – or not, depending on that context. In many cases, “un certain nombre de” is best translated as “a number of”. In “il faut un certain temps à un corps quelconque pour traverser d’un point A à un point B”, it merely means that a body cannot travel instantaneously from A to B; the time needed may, however, depending on the case, be measured in femtoseconds or in eons. However, it cannot be denied that most uses of the expression d’un certain âge serve as a euphemism for “middle-aged or even older” – not just “middle-aged” as the current definition reads. In view of such cases as “atteindre un certain âge“, perhaps the lemma should be un certain âge, with a usex involving d’un certain âge and a label marking it as a euphemism, and then d'un certain âge can redirect there.  --Lambiam 21:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Now I wonder: are you yourself d'un certain âge? 2A02:2788:A6:935:319E:F100:EA75:8B13 22:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't agree that "certain" imply a small quantity. When, for example, someone says "Ça fait un certain temps que je me pose cette question", they mean that they've been asking themselves that question for quite some time (i.e. for a rather long time). 212.224.227.168 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the exact same expression exists in English: "of a certain age". (see Lexico, Collins). 212.224.227.168 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't need the preposition of. For example, “Once you reach a certain age, everything after that is downhill.”[15] Same in French: “Lorsque vous atteignez un certain âge, vous commencez à penser que vous êtes vieux.”[16]  --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete therefore. Fay Freak (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like this is the original fixed phrase, and the other variants (including of a certain age) are derived from it – Jberkel 11:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proponent, or at the very least move to (un) certain âge. @Jberkel, what do you mean by "other variants"? PUC – 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that the shorter variants are all later usages, and less specific. But that's speculation. – Jberkel 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hard-redirect to certain âge. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jberkel. We can have an additional entry for "certain âge", but if it's derivative of a longer phrase, both should be kept. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

أشهد أن عليا ولي الله[edit]

Arabic. SOP --50.60.48.28 05:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

(Notifying Atitarev, Benwing2, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, ZxxZxxZ, عربي-٣١, Fay Freak, AdrianAbdulBaha, Assem Khidhr, Fenakhay, Fixmaster, M. I. Wright, Roger.M.Williams, Zhnka): 449 days, not a single comment. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha I'm not sure what the CFI says about phrases like this. It *feels* to me like the basic phrase لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ(lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāhu) ought to be present because of its ubiquity, but surprisingly it's not; instead we have the fuller version لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِ(lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāhu muḥammadun rasūlu llāhi). Per Wikipedia, the longer version comes in several variants, e.g. with أَشْهَدُ أَنْ(ʾašhadu ʾan) inserted in the middle, and of course the Shiite variant comes with عَلِيٌّ وَلِيُّ ٱللَّٰهِ(ʿaliyyun waliyyu llāhi) (which switches to the version in the title when أَشْهَدُ أَنْ(ʾašhadu ʾan) is added). I'm trying to find equivalents in other contexts. We don't have any part of the Nicene Creed (credo in unum deum, etc.), but it could be argued this does not play the same sort of role in Catholicism that the Shahada does in Islam. We do have workers of the world, unite, also translated into many languages, likewise I think therefore I am, and of course the whole phrasebook project. So I don't know the answer, but I'd suggest that if we do include parts of the Shahada, it should be short parts separately, without the أَشْهَدُ أَنْ(ʾašhadu ʾan). Benwing2 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, we even have I came, I saw, I conquered as well as veni, vidi, vici (in English and also Latin). Benwing2 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article is not very significant, yet it does not hurt to leave. If the article did not exist, people could still review each single word or build an analogy from similar phrases. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-no consensus. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms[edit]

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

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

I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا(sāʾū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active of جَاءَ(jāʾa) is given only as جَاؤُوا‎(jāʾū) (not جَائُوا(jāʾū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ(yajīʾūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʾūna)).
A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʾūna).
I couldn't find the verb سَاءَ(sāʾa) but it has أَسَاءَ(ʾasāʾa). Barron: the third-person masculine plural past active is given as أَسَاؤُوا(ʾasāʾū) and the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative only as يُسِيئُونَ(yusīʾūna). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached out to the IP user but I am not sure they will engage in a discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء(ʾ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ(ʾ), but ؤ‎, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʾūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ(ʾ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا‎ and correct to شاؤوا‎ even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا‎ should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 2020[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁óytos[edit]

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

  • Delete; I remember that one has argued not without reason that this is a Celtic borrowing, and the likelihood of a Germanic-Celtic isogloss in comparison to a borrowing heavily speaks against this reconstruction. Fay Freak (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to *h₁ey-, which in any case ought to mention at least Celtic *oytos. A loan is a likely possibility, and these details would be better discussed somewhere else such as on the PG and PC pages (and the latter does not even exist yet!). Note though also Greek οἶτος (oîtos) as another suggested cognate. --Tropylium (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two words don't warrant a PIE reconstruction. Highly speculative. Ghirlandajo (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin SOPs?[edit]

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

tace tu[edit]

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

vota vita mea[edit]

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

vitam impendere vero[edit]

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

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

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

iuniores ad labores[edit]

laus Deo[edit]

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

an sein[edit]

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

Move to ansein with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by an sein. (Compare ansein at the German Wiktionary.) -- —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs) at 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of IP editor's comments: send to RFV. — Dentonius 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is ansein really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:
  • Ansein (n.),
  • ansein as OCR-error of an sein (preposition + pronoun),
  • mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
  • 1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").
--2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally "to be" + adjective. Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is in my German textbook. RealIK17 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ansein doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure pass me the salt is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective an can be used with other verbs too, like machen. How do we feel about creating an machen, aus sein, aus machen etc.? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): To have more natives' opinions. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suyá ŋó[edit]

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

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

ანგელოზივით[edit]

აღმოსავლეთისკენ[edit]

აღმოსავლეთისაკენ[edit]

მათთვის[edit]

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

Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში (-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით (-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ (šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solarkoid: Why do you suggest deletion if the only problem is that the definitions are imprecise? We can treat them just like any other form-of entry. No? Dixtosa (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictiona