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/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 to be attested by providing quotations of their use



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. One of the reasons 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 requests for attestation. 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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • 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: The above is typical. However, in many cases, 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 consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'. In practice, however, some discussions drag on for a long time.

Tagged RFDs

March 2018[edit]




(Norwegian) Inflections of suffixes aren't usual in my experience, but I am not sure what the policy is in other languages. I doubt that this is of any use, users are more likely to look for inflections of complete words using the suffix. . DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, including the forms at the suffix lemma page is definitely useful. However, this doesn't look like a proper suffix to me, e.g. islending isn't is + -lending ("inhabitant of ice"?) but Island + -ing with a vowel change in land. Same for utlending (< utland), sørlending (< Sørland(et)). Same thing happens in Danish, but spelled -lænding.__Gamren (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete; per Equinox, inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix. And per Gamren, it's even worse: -lending should be deleted too. --Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that both should probably be deleted (though without outright supporting it), I contest your statement that “inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix”: in Germanic, especially Nordic, languages, nominal suffixes usually form the basis of the inflections of the words they derive, determining properties such as gender and countability. The same can be observed in much of the rest of Indo-European.  — J​as​p​e​t 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There may be two schools of thought with -lending, “-lending” in The Nynorsk Dictionary., and for example “islending” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., where it asserts it is Island + -ing. Thus I am not proposing the deletion of -lending. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In Russian, which is heavily inflected, we also inflect suffixes where appropriate. For example, -ский (-skij). —Stephen (Talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep: First, please ping the creator of entries that are nominated for deletion (anyone!).
Now, for the deletion request itself: suppose you look up a word in Wiktionary and have no luck. You may still be able to recognize that -lendingar is a suffix, and that way deduce the meaning of the word correctly by looking up the first part of the word and the suffix separately. While -lending might show up as a search suggestion when you enter -lendingar (currently it does not, in fact), by going to the page -lendingar you will be able to exclude the possibility that other suffixes have this inflected form.
In short, keeping entries for inflected forms of suffixes like -lendingar aids user navigation, just like keeping entries of other inflected forms does. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)
There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@-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)
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)

core Caryophyllales[edit]

Caryophyllales, like many higher plant taxa, has been undergoing revision in order to render it monophyletic. Some authors wish to discuss the monophyletic grouping without redefining the term (in order to avoid confusion), and therefore refer to it as the "core" of the taxon as usually defined. I don't think this kind of terminology is a true taxonomic name, just a delimiting noun plus a taxonomic name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, it's also not Translingual — it's English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The English problem might also be a matter of core and its related terms, and several other terms like angiosperms. - 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It is a term with specific hyponyms and hypernyms, somewhat variable over time, and synonyms used much more specifically than core + Caryophyllales. DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Almost all the usage at Google "core Caryophyllales" (BooksGroupsScholar) indicates to me that core Caryophyllales is used in a manner clearly parallel to that of other taxonomic groups with names that follow the older taxonomic naming practices. That the name is used in two of the databases in the entry suggests that it has gained sufficient currency when referring to a particular group of families to be used for an entry or section title. The usage may turn out to be relatively short term, as Caryophyllales is used by more authors to have the same families as core Caryophyllales. As long as both concepts are being used, the need for a distinguishing name may continue. That the name can be interpreted as SoP in the minds of a broad population of readers does not mean that it is so interpreted by the authors and their fellow professionals. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete. This is a sum of parts. As currently defined core in this sense is a Translingual word but I think it is English. I have sent it to RFV to see whether it is really Translingual. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete the Translingual entry, for reasons given above and because it doesn't seem to be translingual, as I commented at RFV. Whether an English entry would be idiomatic, eh, I'm inclined to say no, per Meta. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is core Caryophyllales used in multiple languages? It's a matter of WT:RFVN, but if it isn't used in multiple languages, it doesn't deserve a translingual entry. My guess is, it would fail RFV.
  • Is core used translingually? A matter of WT:RFVN again. If it is, Translingual core Caryophyllales could be SOP; if not, it can't be SOP translingually. Translingual core failed WT:RFVN, so Translingual core Caryophyllales (if it exists) doesn't seem like SOP.
  • Is English core Caryophyllales SOP? Could depend on the definition: If it's only given like "a main or prototypic form of Caryophyllales", it's SOP-ish. If it's given as "Caryophyllales with these specific features" it's less SOP-ish. Similar issue might arise with names of German dialects: Something like nördliches/östliches/südliches/westliches Schwäbisch defined as "Swabian spoken in the North/East/South/West" is SOP, defined as "Swabian with these specific linguistic features" isn't.
My conclusion: Keep, but move to WT:RFVN, where it likely fails. As for a possible English entry, use WT:RFDE for discussing it's SOP-ness. --幽霊四 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся[edit]

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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

@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)
Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@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)

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)

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)

Move to -емый (-emyj); I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep. Consistent with what I learned when I learned this language's grammar. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]


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)

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)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per my comments here and here. @GianWiki, Ultimateria? Imetsia (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd say delete it. — GianWiki (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
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)

July 2018[edit]

dar pitaco[edit]

SOP. dar + pitaco —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2602:252:d2b:3aa0:85a2:1a9e:d7f7:47bc (talk) at 12:23, 8 July 2018‎.

Keep. There is no need to delete it. It's a valid expression, and it's even indexed in some online dictionaries. CaiusSPQR (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It may be a valid expression, but it looks like a sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Inclined to Keep, unless pitaco is used with other verbs (mandar, deixar etc) – Jberkel 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
That’s a good point. The semantically similar term palpite does not have such limitations on what collocations can be made with it. I am inclined to keep it too, though since pitaco is a somewhat complicated term to translate, I’d rather see the main entry hold the definitional content and the collocation point readers to it. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

anh hai[edit]

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)

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)


See Talk:Pippi Longstocking. —Suzukaze-c 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletesurjection??⟩ 10:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)





Per utramque cavernam 11:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]



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)

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)
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).
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)
  • 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)?
- 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

November 2018[edit]


And all the codes of {{ccTLD}}. How is this lexical? --Per utramque cavernam 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation with a well-established meaning though. Keep Purplebackpack89 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. These are not used with meaning in running text, only in URLs. URLs are outside the scope of a dictionary. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all We are not a normal dictionary, and these might be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We're not a normal dictionary, but we're still supposed to be a dictionary. Per utramque cavernam 23:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. These have no semantics, they are computer codes for DNS server software. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
They do have semantics, as noted below. This one is a domain name suffix meaning 'associated with France'. Now, the names may be applied sloppily - google.fr may mean 'Google for French' rather than 'Google for France', and youtu.be has nothing to do with Belgium. And they do occur in speech; I've compared prices on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk in a conversation. We could argue that it's a suffix rather than an abbreviation. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Lots of domain names in .fr aren’t associated with France at all. They are sold freely, I could set up a website about Japan in Czech there if I would like. There is really nothing behind the .fr other than being a top-level DNS domain. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Setting up such a domain would be perverse. What would be the motivation? The interpretation of the name would be that there was some connection with France. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete; these are not lexicographic lemmata. Why not move that material to an appendix or to a sister Wikimedia project? —Born2bgratis (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all. I'd expect some folks to come to Wiktionary to look these up. It is advantageous to Wiktionary to be a go-to resource for all kinds of semantic lookup. These clearly mean something, ie, a given country, in the context in which they are used. There is even a grammar in which these are used. Why should users have to learn the arcane rules by which we exclude such things? I'd be inclined to revisit some of our decisions to exclude, say, airport codes, telephone codes for countries and regions, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Why stop at the top-level domains? amazon.com clearly means something, namely the company Amazon Inc., with which its subdomains are associated – in fact, much more consistently than those of .fr. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There are rules restricting company names on Wiktionary. But if we allowed amazon.fr, then its etymology would have to reference the TLD. There would also be an SOP issue. -- (late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong delete, with POSSIBLE exceptions for the very commonly spoken ones like .com and .net: as a guy who has spent his entire life in an IT career. These are definitely erroneous: the dot is a separator. In a string like bob.users.example.com, the units are bob, users, example and com (which express a hierarchy) and the dots only serve to separate. In everyday slang people use words like dotcom but it is ignorant and foolish to include the dot as part of every TLD in general. It's like having a phone number "0123-456-789" and telling someone that your number is "-456-789" and including that separating hyphen, when you omit the local prefix. Equinox 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: we could perhaps keep entries like fr, de, jp, but definitely not .fr, .de, .jp: that whole approach is so many shades of wrong. Equinox 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that in normal parlance, where TLD is an unfamiliar TLA, the '.' is part of the expression, just as with file extensions (.doc etc.). I can certainly imagine, "He used a .fr domain for his Czech website about Japan!" How would you account for the '.' in a grammatical analysis? --(late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think ".fr" is analysable at all within the grammar of natural language. It's simply spelling out the suffix of the domain literally. It can be argued that the speaker has parsed the URL wrong, but that's a matter of the person's understanding of URLs, not their understanding of English certainly. —Rua (mew) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: What about the phrase, "you're the bomb.com!"? Please note that "bomb.com" does not yet have an entry here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz Does .com actually have any meaning there? I interpret the sentence as meaning exactly the same as you're the bomb!. The .com part doesn't seem to contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence, and one of the requirements of WT:CFI is that terms convey meaning. —Rua (mew) 22:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This reasoning is thoroughly, impressively flawed and reads like a willing misinterpretation of CFI. Why do we record kitty-cat when neither part adds any meaning to the other; why do we record pathway when it means the same thing as path; why do we record ninnyhammer when the "-hammer" adds no apparent meaning to the term ninny? bomb dot com, or bomb.com or however it should be spelled, is undeniably a "thing". That's not to say it should have any bearing on the status of .com on its own -- just that to deny it for this swiss-cheese reasoning is patently wrong. M. I. Wright (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rua Yes; I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, the POS should probably be a symbol. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete all words that just have senses meaning the TLD itself. .com and .org probably have actual linguistic, figurative meanings (it's my guess), but .az, for example, probably doesn't. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Non-linguistic content. Fay Freak (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Was going to vote keep, but then noticed that {{ccTLD}} is out of sync (last update 5 years ago), so it's useless and potentially misleading. Delete. – Jberkel 16:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep, given that we have so many other "country code top-level domains." Imetsia (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

épater le bourgeois[edit]

Not an idiom in French. Per utramque cavernam 06:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Three cites: [1], [2], [3].  --Lambiam 11:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Cites aren't lacking; what I'm arguing is that it's not idiomatic. Per utramque cavernam 17:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
So is your argument that this collocation is SoP?  --Lambiam 18:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Though I'm not so sure now; I don't think I would have needed a dictionary had I encountered it in context, but it seems to be a genuine (obsolete) expression. Per utramque cavernam 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree: when you use this phrase, you don't take épater + bourgeois, you take it as a part of the French vocabulary. épater is not limited to bourgeois, you use bourgeois only because it's part of the phrase... It's really a set phrase. Lmaltier (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proof that it is indeed a lexicalised expression in French? Per utramque cavernam 23:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What would that look like? 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be probably be recognised as such by some dictionaries, or by some French speakers (other than Lmaltier, whom I don't trust in the least.) PUC – 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Compare own the libs. Fay Freak (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep. It is an idiom that has been adopted into English. I've encountered it many times. Merriam Webster and Oxford Reference both have it listed. A simple search in Google Books yields thousands of uses as an idiom.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sylvain1972: I've nominated the French entry for deletion, not the English one. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? PUC – 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. It probably "feels" more idiomatic because of the borrowing. A Google Books search returns mostly non-French sources. – Jberkel 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
By the entry épater, I would get épater le bourgeois (amaze the bourgeois (middle-class member)). amaze and shake/shock are somewhat different to me. But well, maybe épater needs an expansion? --幽霊四 (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. If we think that "confound" is as likely a translation as "amaze" then the distinction between "amaze" and "shock" is less important. This expression, which I have often come across, I wanted to modernize to "épater la PMC", and this entry was useful to me in designing my version. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 02:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC).
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, and you haven't signed your comment, so we don't know who you are. Struck. PUC – 10:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


Another odd Translingual entry, but this time not taxonomic, but planetological. Mountains on other planets do tend to be named in Latin, but I don't see how that justifies the existence of a Translingual entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You may recall that MW3 had a label "ISV", for International Scientific Vocabulary, which they used for many mathematical, scientific, and technical terms.
For us Translingual would seem a natural home for many scientific terms that are used in multiple languages. I see no validity to a claim that scientists aren't capable of combining words and morphological elements into terms that are intended to be understood by international communities of specialists.
Further I see no reason to make it difficult for someone in a specialist community to find common morphological elements by dispersing them into multiple languages and even multiple scripts.
Keep. DCDuring (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVN. In Latin it's Latin mons (no capital); if Translingual Mons (capital) is really a thing, a common noun, then it's obviously different. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]

triangle équilatéral[edit]

triangle rectangle[edit]

SOP. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § acute-angled triangle. Per utramque cavernam 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete both, SOP.  --Lambiam 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The equivalent entries have been kept for English. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep at least the latter: Triangle équilatéral might be SOP though it is a valid frozen expression in French geometry. Triangle rectangle OTOH is specific: rectangle when used alone is a noun meaning a rectangle which is a quadrilateral (with four right angles), not a triangle. When used in the expression triangle rectangle, rectangle is an adjective meaning right-angled (having a right angle). An other adjectival use (the only one I can think of) is in the noun phrase trapèze rectangle which means a right-angled trapezium (a convex quadrilateral with two adjacent right angles). A right(-angled) dihedron uses another adjective: un dièdre droit. — Tonymec (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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).


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

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)

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)

@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)
@Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
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)

March 2019[edit]


SOP --Miwako Sato (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)



Incorrect. Should be CA. --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep (if it exist). --QueeroDeera (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep This form exists, but according to the official Spanish punctuation rules, it needs an extra space: C. A. Also nominated, but probably valid: C.C.A.A.Jberkel 17:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep if attestable. This should probably be sent to WT:RFVN. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
WT:RFVN is for checking the existence of CA, C.A., C. A.. If C.A. is incorrect or proscibed (according to whom? RAE?), but does exists nontheless, label it. For German, dots and spaces are prescribed (z. B.) (Duden), but z.B. ([4]) and zB. ([5]) can be found as well. Reasons why the proscribed forms are used, can be: it saves spaces and space; z.[smaller space and never a line break]B. which is more fitting can't be typed easily. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


incorrect initialism --I learned some phrases (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What does "incorrect" mean? If this is attestable, it should be keepable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, why "incorrect"? Too many dots (correctly STD?), too few spaces (S. T. D.?), too few duplications because it's plural (SS. TT. DD.?)? Keep, but move to WT:RFVN? --幽霊四 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]


A mere graphic device. Any word can be written with as many vowels as necessary to represent a drawn-out pronunciation. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We also list elongated forms if they can be attested, such as, for instance, nooo.  --Lambiam 14:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Why in the world? Can’t any number of o’s be attested three times? Google Books shows hundred of results for nooooooo, noooooooo, nooooooooo, noooooooooo, noooooooooo and so on. I don’t think anyone needs this garbage, may be it is worth changing? Guldrelokk (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
We specifically have a rule, approved by vote, that there can be a maximum of three repetitions of an element. So no, noo and nooo can exist, but not noooo and longer. —Rua (mew) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Writing is a mere graphical device. Generally for Wiktionary, text is conceptually encoded as plain text, split into words and each word with a spelling difference gets its own page. This can be very important for the student, who might well be confused by не-ет or looove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
He should open some reference on the orthography then. Any letter can be written any number of times in prose, arbitrarily including a few ‘elongated forms’ does not help anyone. I still don’t believe this is dictionary material, but whatever. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree.
Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. See Talk:seeexy, where I and other people suggest that all of those be disallowed. ChignonПучок 08:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The entry не-ет (ne-jet) is rubbish and should be deleted. (The transliteration "ne-jet" doesn't represent how it's pronounced.)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Since when has a personal opinion of "rubbish" been a reason to delete? Don't we follow WT:CFI and things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not true, at least in English. The complex rules on when consonants are duplicated in English are only resolvable by a dictionary lookup, and I don't think consonants are ever duplicated in English for emphasis. Maybe we can resolve when vowels can be extended, but I'm not sure it's clear to me when vowels can be extended, since digraph vowels are common in English orthography. In any case, we have had a vote on this matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You don’t need to do it for emphasis. You can do it for countless reasons in prose. You can do it to represent stuttering: b-but, b-b-but etc., or whatever else you want. A dictionary will never be able to help you with that. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not whatever you want; in your example, "b-b-but" separates things out with hyphens and leaves the whole word at the end.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The vote Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables deals with English and reduplications of vowels ("pleeeeeease", not "ple-e-e-e-e-e-ase", not exactly the same we have here with the use of hyphens, which is occasionally used to show the long pronunciations in Russian. I don't know if the vote is applicable to this case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No offense to Benwing, who has done exceptional work with Russian otherwise, but this is rubbish; delete. ChignonПучок 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, no offence to Benwing2, I didn't even look at who created the entry but there was a ruwikt entry, so, it was sort of expected. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev I created this because it was listed in the 20,000-word Russian word list by frequency. I have no objection to deleting it if others think it doesn't belong. Benwing2 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

grattis i efterskott[edit]

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

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)
There should be an entry for i efterskott ("in arrears"?), the Swedish Wiktionary doesn't have one even though it tends to be colloquial. -- 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
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)

May 2019[edit]


lorsqu' + il. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a policy or guideline for contracted forms? In English we have can't, don't, isn't, I've, I'd, and so on and so forth. For French we also have jusqu'à, jusqu'alors, jusqu'ici, lorsqu'on, qu'à, qu'au, qu'elle, qu'elles, qu'en, qu'eux, qu'il, qu'ils, qu'on, qu'un, qu'une, and probably some more I didn't think of. If we delete such contracted forms, we should try to be a bit consistent and not just delete a few random ones.  --Lambiam 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In absence of any policy, keep. Harmless and relatively easy to mistake for a word in its own right, for those who would not define this as a word already. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I was inspired by the request above for #d'une and #d'un. If all of these are included, what would prevent us from include things like qu'Anne? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete wrongly gives the impression that this is a word. Troll Control (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Is "they're" a word? — Dentonius 12:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
No, but it's a unit. Troll Control (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have lorsqu' which is the regular apocopic form of lorsque in liaison before a vowel. Lorsqu'il is neither a word nor a unit, it is the two words lorsqu(e) + il. The case is not different from that of lorsqu'Anne already mentioned or indeed of any other possible combination. — Tonymec (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


Is this a prefix? —Rua (mew) 15:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For an Ancient Greek word like ἄρθρωσις (árthrōsis), the answer should be that indeed the word was formed from a prefix ἄρθρ(ο)- (árthr(o)-) + a suffix -ωσις (-ōsis). Modern English arthrosis – not a direct loan of the Greek word, which means something else, viz. “articulation” (of speech) – mimics the way Greek words were formed in ancient times, so for the coiner the morpheme arthr(o)- was “morally” a prefix – and if medical researchers need to come up with a new word for something related to joints, they will surely feel quite comfortable to reuse this morpheme. My conclusion: calling it a prefix is a defensible position.  --Lambiam 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not prefixed to anything at all. Prefixes form new words by attaching to existing words, this one doesn't. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/April#Classical compounds in Category:English words by prefix and Category:English words by suffix where I argued that these are not affixes, but their own type of morpheme that follows its own rules. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So is there a term for a morpheme that is used to form new words but that does not qualify for affixhood sensu stricto?  --Lambiam 21:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that I suggested the term “classicistic component” in the prior discussion.  --Lambiam 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought "combining form" (from WT:POS) might qualify, but I guess it implies that there is a full word that the morpheme is a form of, so it couldn't be used for English morphemes derived from Latin and Greek that don't have corresponding full words, only for the Ancient Greek or Latin versions of the morphemes. So ὑδρο- (hudro-) is the combining form of ὕδωρ (húdōr), but hydro- isn't a combining form because there isn't an English word (*hydor?) that it derives from. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We could go with a generic "morpheme". There's a category for them already, why not use it? —Rua (mew) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, not a prefix. Canonicalization (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFVN? If there (enough) Latin formations, then keep like English arthro-, litho-, homo- ...; else delete. --20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:373F:4037:3C6C:85B5:850A:BEA0 (talk).

publika ĝardeno[edit]

SOP. 2600:1000:B111:FB4A:B04B:1245:328E:5BE4 10:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A public garden is not necessarily a park, and a park is not necessarily a public garden.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Just “park” is not a good definition. A better definition is “urban park” (which is always public), also called “public garden(s)” – I think the plural form is more common in English usage.  --Lambiam 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Urban parks aren't always public; there's at least one near me limited to the local homeowners. I'm not familiar with the phrase "public gardens" and using the phrase "garden" to refer to a place with mowed grass and tennis and basketball courts strikes me as wrong. A local park has gardens, where people can grow vegetables. Some of this might be my idiolect or American English, but if this is deleted as SOP, I'd like to see clarification on ĝardeno.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As seen here in British use, this “Public Gardens” (note that this is grammatically treated as a singular) is really a park (where one would not be allowed to grow veggies), complete with children’s play area and bowling green. In US use, “public garden” appears to mean what I’d call a botanical garden, at least according to the American Public Gardens Association. I think that a park in an urban environment with access restricted to residents, such as Gramercy Park in NY, would be called a (private) neighborhood park; most definitions of “urban park” define it as a public space, like here: “Urban parks are accessible to the public.”  --Lambiam 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
When I said "A local park has gardens", I think it sounded more general than I was saying; one of my local parks has a small gated area where people can grow vegetables. (Accessible by request and assignment of space only.) Unless public gardens are more limited in Britain than parks are in the US, I'd almost expect somewhere to have tried something similar, but it's not a common thing here.
It's possible this would be clear with more definition of ĝardeno, but this looks like a calique of public garden, which is opaque to me as an American and seems to be not entirely SOP with respect to British English.
Delete. The distinctions here seem speculative. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Note sense 1.1 of garden: “(in the plural) [An outdoor area containing one or more types of plants grown for ornamental purposes] to which the public have access.” (The plural form “have” reveals this was written by a Briton.) I don’t see which elements in the above are considered speculative, considering that everything is sourced. While it is obvious that a publika ĝardeno is public, it is less obvious that in this collocation ĝardeno is not a vegetable garden open to public use, but a park intended for recreational use by the public.  --Lambiam 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete because SOP, the discussion above about British vs. US translations is irrelevant. In Esperanto, ĝardeno is a garden, by default one where you might walk but not plant your own flowers or vegetables unless maybe you were the owner. Publika makes it "public", i.e., anyone may walk there but not on the flowerbeds if there are any and still (the way I understand it) not plant one's own vegetables if one is neither the garden's owner nor its gardener. This particular Esperanto noun phrase means nothing else than the sum of its parts. If there are swings or maybe dogs' toilets in that particular garden, they may be used according to how they are meant to be used; but the phrase publika ĝardeno doesn't say whether there will or won't be the one or the other. — Tonymec (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

energia eolica[edit]

energia nucleare[edit]

energia rinnovabile[edit]

energia solare[edit]

All are SOP: the meaning in English is in each case the literal translation.  --Lambiam 11:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't the same be said for English and other languages? Canonicalization (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not for English – for example, “solar energy” could also have meant the energy produced by the fusion process in the Sun’s core, about 384.6 YW, and not the tiny fraction that reaches Earth in the form of sunlight; also, the meaning of the English terms is not a translation – but, indeed, in most cases for many other languages. But not always; for example, Dutch duurzame energie, the equivalent of English renewable energy, literally means “durable energy”. Because of such exceptions, I think the English terms are defensible as translation hubs.  --Lambiam 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't your case for "solar energy" be applied to "energia solare"? Ultimateria (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can readily see that “energia solare” means “solar energy” in English; we do not need the entry for that. If someone doesn’t know what solar energy is, they may have to look it up. The notion that “energia solare” needs an entry just like “solar energy” because it could also have meant something else, should naturally lead to the conclusion that its definition needs to be rewritten:
energia solare f (plural energie solari)
1. energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the Sun; especially that part of this energy that is converted into usable thermal or electrical energy by humans.
 --Lambiam 23:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I hate to be the one to trot out the slippery slope, but there are several thousand multiword entries in Romance languages that could be deleted by the same logic. Perhaps we need to add more concrete rules for non-English terms to the Idiomacity section of CFI, disallowing "literal translations" of English, after first deciding what that means. Ultimateria (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a grey zone. I've been creating some similar entries in French, but that's one of those cases where I'm not sure I should. Canonicalization (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete as well. But I do agree it's a grey zone and that there may thousands more similar entries waiting to be deleted. So maybe we should take the discussion to a more public place like the Beer parlour or hold a vote or some such. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete. (Btw @Lambiam, duurzame energie is better translated sustainable energy, renewable energy is hernieuwbare energie.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep as set phrases. In addition, I think the English equivalents stand on their own merits and not merely because they're translation hubs. And lastly, the slippery slope argument is persuasive. Imetsia (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


Supposedly Albanian, but Index:Albanian implies, and the Wikipedia article on the language says it only uses Roman letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

During the Ottoman empire several scripts were used to write in Arbërisht: latin, greek, arabic, etc. Arbërisht (αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ) is still written in the greek Alphabet, but only by an minority group living in Greeve (called 'Arvanites' in Greek). Arbëreshë living in Italy use the latin Alphabet, same goes for modern Albanian. Arbërisht is Old Albanian. Also "Arbërisht" (the native term) is called "Arvanitika" in greek tongue. Arvanitika is an endagered language. I don't quite get why my entry should be deleted. Here's the Αρβανιτικα' / Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ - Alphabet (greek and latin script) + Standatd Albanian Orthography.

  • latin/greek/standardAlb. | IPA
  • A a / Α α / A a |[a~ɑ]
  • B b / Ƃ ƅ / B b | [b]
  • C c / ΤΣ τσ / C c | [ts]
  • Ç ç / ΤΣ̈ τσ̈ / Ç ç | [ʧ]
  • D d / D d / D d | [d]
  • Dh dh / Δ δ / Dh dh | [ð]
  • E e / Ε ε / E e | [e ~ ɛ]
  • Ë ë / Ε̱ ε̱ / Ë ë | [ə~ʊ̣]
  • F f / Φ φ / F f | [f]
  • G g / Γ γ / G g | [g]
  • Gj gj / Γj γj / (g) | [gʲ]
  • --- / --- / Gj gj | [ɟ]
  • H h / Χ χ / --- | [x]
  • --- / --- / H h | [h]
  • Hj hj / Χ̇ χ̇ / --- | [xʲ]
  • I i / Ι ι / I i | [i]
  • J j / J j / J j | [j]
  • K k / Κ κ / K k | [k]
  • L l / Λ λ / L l | [l]
  • LJ lj / Λ̇ λ̇ / L l | [ʎ]
  • Ll ll / ΛΛ λλ / --- | [ɣ]
  • --- / --- / Ll ll | [ɫ]
  • M m / Μ μ / M m | [m]
  • N n / Ν ν / N n | [n]
  • Nj nj / Ν̇ ν̇ / Nj nj | [ɲ]
  • O o / Ο ο / O o | [ɔ]
  • P p / Π π / P p | [p]
  • Q q / Κ̇ κ̇ / (kj) | [kj]
  • --- / --- / Q q | [c]
  • R r / Ρ ρ / R r | [ɾ]
  • Rr rr / Ρ̇ ρ̇ / Rr rr | [r(ˑ)]
  • S s / Σ σ / S s | [s]
  • Sh sh / Σ̈ σ̈ / Sh sh | [ʃ]
  • T t / Τ τ / T t | [t]
  • Th th / Θ θ / Th th | [θ]
  • U u / Ȣ ȣ / U u | [u]
  • V v / Β β / V v | [v]
  • X x / DΣ dσ / X x | [dz]
  • Xh xh / DΣ̈ dσ̈ / Xh xh | [ʤ]
  • Y y / Υ υ / Y y | [y]
  • Z z / Ζ ζ / Z z | [z]
  • Zh zh / Ż ζ̇ / Zh zh | [ʒ]

  • Macrolanguage: Albanian (sqi), code sets: 639-2/T, 639-3
    • Identifier | Reference n. | Code Sets
    • aat | Arvanitika Albanian| 639-3

IMIPER (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In the entry αρbε̰ρ and the text above (Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ) I see a tilde below the ε, but in the table above the diacritic is a macron below. Is there a (formal or de facto) authority for the orthography of Arbërisht written in the Greek alphabet? In this gif from a defunct web site I also see a ligature Ȣ ȣ not represented in the above table.  --Lambiam 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ȣ is there under U.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]


As a sort of testcase, because it was restored by @Robbie SWE, here is an entry for an ISO language code. Note: if we want to have these, we also need to check if they're attestable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

WT:About Translingual#Accepted: "Accepted" → "Codes" → "ISO codes such as [...]". "ISO 639-1 code" is an ISO code, so it's accepted as Translingual. Hence: move to WT:RFVN? --20:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:373F:4037:3C6C:85B5:850A:BEA0 (talk).

SOS Alarm[edit]

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Banca d'Italia[edit]

Do we want this? Would we want Bank of Italy? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's the central bank it's like the Bank of England. DonnanZ (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It is just the same as the Bank of England (though some functions have been removed after the lira died). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep, given that we have Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and so on. Imetsia (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]


"to have future/prospects". Wyang (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think they are trying to say that this is a metaphor based on the the literal meaning of 出息. idk. Glad to see you back! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep since it's in Guoyu Cidian: 比喻人有用,肯努力. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Tagalog, IP suggests that this isn't a word but a common joke. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is used as such, also as a joke, it is entryworthy – but we should then note it is meant to be humorous. Move to RfV?  --Lambiam 10:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a joke. I learned it in school over there. It's not commonly used ("upuan" is more common) but it is used as a real word. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 387mqr (talkcontribs) at 19:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVN or label it. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep, it is a recently coined word used mostly as a joke and a criticism to the excessive purism of the now-debunk Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. We can label it as such and inform readers about its past and its usage.Stricnina (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


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)

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)
  • 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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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 ”.[6] Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”,[7] 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,[8], but today this is less obviously so.[9] 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)
@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)
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)
@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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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.


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)

@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)
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)
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)


This seems to be a phonetic transcription rather than a practical spelling. The correct entry is at haꞌ. --Lvovmauro (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know anything about Jakaltek, but in the orthography presented in the Wikipedia article Jakaltek language I only see the grapheme h as the second letter in digraph combinations (ch, xh, nh), which precludes occurrence in word-initial position.  --Lambiam 18:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Many languages that got their orthography from Spanish (as did just about everything in the Americas south of the US) treat syllable-initial "h" before vowels as a silent placeholder. Since it has no sound of its own, this tends to be overlooked in phonological descriptions. 22:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The cited source uses a different orthography from Wikipedia. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

dar hora[edit]

Spanish: SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems idiomatic to me, but perhaps the definition is off. Not knowing Spanish, I might interpret a request like ¿Podrías darme hora? as “Could you tell me the time?”, in other words, “Can you tell me what time it is?” Is the sense of hora in dar hora “an hour” (60 minutes of your precious time) or “the time” (the time of the appointment)? In the latter case, the meaning is (presumably) “to communicate the time of an upcoming appointment”, which is not the sense conveyed by the current definition. In that case the term is indeed SOPpy; however, ¿Podrías darme hora, por favor? may be phrasebook stuff, or else there should be a usex at the entry dar (or both).  --Lambiam 04:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The phrase for asking the time would be ¿Podrías darme la hora, por favor? --Vealhurl (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Good to know, but we should not presuppose that the user of Wiktionary knows that. So what does ¿Podrías darme hora? mean? “Could you give me an appointment?”? Since “appointment” is not (listed as) a sense of hora, that would be idiomatic (unless that sense is unduly missing).  --Lambiam 11:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

sin atisbo de duda[edit]

Probably SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

ahora que hay modo[edit]

Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]

zoals gewoonlijk[edit]

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

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)
  • 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)
    @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)

December 2019[edit]

Real Academia Española[edit]

Probably not dictionary material. --Vealhurl (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not a great comparison. WT:CFI is the rules here, and United Nations might not be under any of the categories under place names, but it seems to be arguably comparable. Whereas Real Academia Española isn't a place name, and seems like any number of non-generic organization names, like [[ the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD is included, though) and the American Civil Liberties Union (again, ACLU is includable.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
WT:CFI#Names of specific entities might permit it. RFV it according to WT:CFI#Brand names and WT:CFI#Company names? Are there metonymic uses of RAE like refering to a Spanish grammar/dictionary of it? --20:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:373F:4037:3C6C:85B5:850A:BEA0 (talk).
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I think we only keep initialisms of institutions, organizations, etc: thus we have OED and not Oxford English Dictionary. (By the way, @Imetsia, what’s the percentage of vote needed for a word to get deleted?— I am new to this.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: There’s no hard standard for the vote percentage, and individual admins have discretion with that. In my view, 60% or so should be enough to delete an entry. Imetsia (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Imetsia: Oh. Is the editor who RFDs the word also counted in the percentage? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 02:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Imetsia (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
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)

January 2020[edit]


Spanish: female graduate. Not true. Just means ex student. Anything can be prefixed with ex. We have exalumna --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep if attested as alt form of exalumna. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


Keep both ex-alumno and ex-alumna - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)




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)


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)

@HeliosX: What is going on here? I don't understand you at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Math sense, it's the same sense as the other one. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 12:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC).

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
How transparent is this use to English speakers? Parallel mathematical uses in other languages are German sei and Latin sit, which I suspect to be a semantic loan of Ancient Greek (êi), as used e.g. by Euclid.  --Lambiam 10:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Inclined to keep. English let be also has a separate mathematics sense, furnished with a translation table. Canonicalization (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020[edit]

mayonesa vegetariana[edit]

Spanish. Like hamburguesa vegetariana, SOP --AcpoKrane (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If it actually means vegan mayonnaise it isn't SOP, because what it literally means is "vegetarian mayonnaise" (which is redundant since all mayonnaise is vegetarian). —Mahāgaja · talk 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It was an error - straightforward delete --Patsramon (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, I performed my own checks and found that this corresponds to a real-life entity. Whether or not it's a misnomer is irrelevant. People use the term. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 07:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Mahagaja, this is not SOP. Recipes for "mayonesa vegetariana" call for soy milk, so I think the original definition was correct.__Gamren (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


Oppose deletion. I created the *jilъ entry so that it would serve as a landing-point for the Proto-Slavic Wikipedia article which links to it in the noun tables. Additionally, if it were deleted, then the accentual information from the Verweij 1994, listing the noun as an Accent Paradigm-a noun, would be obscured. Finally, Vasmer lists the Russian descendant ил as being derived from an originally u-stem noun; so, it would be doing a disservice to readers to hide what very well may be the more accurate entry. BirdValiant (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: Creating entries for alternative reconstructions is pointless. --{{victar|talk}} 02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep like any other alternative form that can be demonstrated to have existed synchronically. —Rua (mew) 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion. @Rua and @Victar, Why delete it?[1] :v —— Gnosandes (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Does Proto-Slavic actually distinguish word-initial ji and , or are these simply notational variants of the same thing? If the two are truly phonemically distinct (i.e. if *jilъ and *jьlъ could have had different meanings and form a minimal pair), then I would not be opposed to keeping the entry separate. But if these are notational variants of the same sequence of phonemes, then I'd say this should be a hard redirect to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/jьlъ. Since our Recsontruction pages are language-specific, we need have none of the qualms about hard redirects that we have in mainspace. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dybo, V. A. (2000) , “*i̋lъ (u-stem)”, in Морфологизованные парадигматические акцентные системы, page 42

punta rota[edit]

Spanish: probably SOP --AcpoKrane (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. There seem to be many ways of saying this in Spanish. Ultimateria (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would "punta rota" be a SOP, when "split end" seemingly isn't? Generally "punta rota" refers to a "broken tip", such as in a pencil or knife that has lost its tip. To me it is not obvious from the parts that a hair with a "punta rota" is split. Actually "split end" appears more of a SOP, because it describes the phenomenon more precisely than "punta rota". Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
In Spanish Wikipedia I found this little chapter: "Tricoptilosis. Es una alteración conocida por «puntas abiertas» (llamadas coloquialmente «horquetillas»), el pelo se ve opaco y deslucido y esa división impide tanto peinarlos como que los peinados queden en su sitio una vez logrados." Google Images searches for "puntas rotas", "puntas abiertas" and "horquetilla" yield chiefly photos of split hairs whereas a search for "punta rota" gets pictures of broken tips of pencils and knives and "punta abierta" of shoes that are open at the toes. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


SOP due to non-unique referent; same reasoning as WT:RFDE#novel coronavirus (to be archived at Talk:novel coronavirus). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The instability of the compound is also indicated by the numerous hits of google:"新型的冠狀病毒". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep, cf. modifications like 新冠病毒(?). It appears that 新型XXX has become established among common people as a name for COVID-19. —Suzukaze-c 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep, 新冠病毒 and to a lesser extent 新型冠狀病毒 are the most common terms for COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. —Enervation (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, 新型冠狀病毒 does not entirely refers to COVID-19 and it is just a general term combining 新型 and 冠狀病毒. The title exists as a disambiguation page on Chinese Wikipedia.--Sun8908 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

gracias un montón[edit]

Spanish: Looks SOP to me --AcpoKrane (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There's also thanks a lot (thanks + a lot); treat both equally. --Bakunla (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


This seems to be SoP: 乜嘢 (what) + 嘢 (thing) = "what thing". It's analogous to 什麼東西 in Mandarin, which is clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep, I think it is a term meaning just "what" in Guangzhou dialect which has identical meaning to 乜嘢/乜 in some other Cantonese dialects. Sun8908 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sun8908: Do you have an example of its use in Guangzhou dialect? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2020[edit]


Sum of parts. 不敢 ("to not dare") + 出聲 ("to make a sound"). Not in any idiom dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: it's in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep. It's idiomatic in that it is defined as "to be cautious, uptight or scared", which cannot be deduced with the parts. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It only means "not dare make a sound". 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


This verb does not have an imperative form because it is always used in the negative. — 12:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two distinct Arabic verbs زَالَ(zāla). Does this apply to both?  --Lambiam 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
No, only the second one; the first has instead the form زُولِي(zūlī) owing to the different present vowel. Fay Freak (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Really always? In all times?
Fine in that case, but we cannot manually exclude forms from the conjugation tables, so bots recreate them (or if @Benwing2 runs his again, after all the additions in the last five years). Fay Freak (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fay Freak I can add support to allow particular forms to be excluded. Benwing2 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


Previously a fictional Latin noun; now a somewhat useless Translingual adjective. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


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)

Why? @victarKnyȝt 09:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@Knyȝt: Fair point, so an unattested ON *del, from *daljō + , which actually fits better semantically. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


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

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)
Kroonen reconstructs it for PG, though. —Rua (mew) 09:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
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)

nakaistar ako sa Melbourne[edit]

Seems unlikely to be needed. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's an example city at a phrasebook translation hub. I'd probably vote to delete all the translations there in favor of linking to the individual words. Ultimateria (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
That defeats the point of having a phrasebook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I would keep the translation tables at the English entries. There are zero Google results for "nakaistar ako sa Melbourne", so as SemperBlotto points out, this page is not useful. The translation is though. Ultimateria (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, translations should be ideally broken up into components but it's very time-consuming. I did break up some. Also ideally, transliterations for languages such as Thai and Khmer are either regenerated using languages specific templates or those templates are applied for translation purposes. E.g. ខ្ញុំរស់នៅក្នុងទីក្រុង  ―  khñom rŭəh nɨw knong tii krong  ―  I live in the city of ... generates transliteration automatically. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

唔知, 毋知, 毋知影, 無知[edit]

SoP: 唔 (not) + 知 (know) = to not know; 毋 (not) + 知 (know) = to not know; 毋 (not) + 知影 (know) = to not know. The Mandarin equivalent 不知道 has been deleted previously. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the verb sense for 無知 (Hainanese): 無 (not) + 知 (know) = to not know. See User talk:Justinrleung#不知道 as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose it's WT:Phrasebook worthy material. "毋知影" is an entry in the ROC ministry of education's minnan dictionary.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I think it is unnecessary to have pages or entries for insignificant negative clauses. Wiikipedian (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung @RcAlex36 Wiikipedian (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]


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)

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)
"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)


SoP: 帶 (have; contain) + 色兒 (lust; pornography; pornographic content). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


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)


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)

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)
Delete, for both wt:ATTEST and wt:SOP. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
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).
  • [10] (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’.
  • [11] 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.
  • [12] 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)

C. Padilla[edit]

Cebuano. One particular street. Ugh --Vitoscots (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • "For quotations using this term, see Citations:C. Padilla." The page doesn't exists.
  • Reference (for the etymology) with title "Mother of PB Member Dies of Pneumonia in Hospital" is English.
Does it exist in Cebuano? If it fails WT:RFVN, delete. If it exists, what's the difference between a country, city, town name and a road, street name? It's all placenames. Even the Romans had them: Latin via Appia = German Via Appia, Appische Straße / appische Straße. --幽霊四 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The difference is a practical one: there are far too many roads and streets with the same names to include on a single page in many cases. For instance, almost every US town of any size (there are thousands) has a Main Street, and pretty much every city has a First Street. Most local street names are only of interest to people in a very small area, but almost all of them meet attestation requirements due to local newspapers and government records. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

reine des abeilles[edit]

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)

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)
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)


Khmer for Tokyo. SOP, "Tokyo" + "city". Ultimateria (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Although, admittedly, city names are accompanied by the word for city, e.g. ទីក្រុងឡុងដ៍  ―  tii krong long  ―  London; the city of London. ឡុងដ៍ (long, London) is not used on it's own. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


SoP: "to be able to hear". It is included in 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典, but it is pretty clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]

Restore onomatopoeïa, poëticus and poëtica[edit]

--Apunite (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


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

أراك لاحقا[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)

No. *gallô is the ancestor of the OE form, and *gallǭ the rest. --{{victar|talk}} 02:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

O1, O−1, O-1[edit]

Relationship status in Hong Kong Cantonese. If they are allowed to be kept, every OX (where X is an integer) entry can be created. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Where would you suggest such things to be documented? At O? Not every OX can be created because not all of them would be attestable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: In the Cantonese section of O? RcAlex36 (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep, I doubt there can be enough of these to be disruptive.__Gamren (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

June 2020[edit]



Note: this was originally listed first, but I moved it down here and struck it, as the original RFD is no longer applicable (the meaning in question was deleted). — surjection??⟩ 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)






Pokemon, same as Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Jigglypuff (Talk:Jigglypuff) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Quadmix77Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
ブースター and ガラガラ should be kept. These are also used as noun, adnoun, or adverb. ケーシィ, イーブイ, グレイシア, and シャワーズ have no sense in Japanese lemma. 片割れ靴下 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete pokemon sense. —Naggy Nagumo (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

חנות משכונות[edit]

Apparently incorrect. --Huckerby980 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's used in the press occasionally, although בית עבוט is more common. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


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)

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

aapiji go[edit]

This entry violates the criteria for inclusion. It is not idiomatic phrase, but just a sum-of-parts. aapiji already means very, and go is simply an emphatic marker. It could possibly be saved as an alernative form of aapiji. SteveGat (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)

July 2020[edit]

لا أحد[edit]

SOP. Sense 4 of لَا() “there is not” + أَحَد(ʾaḥad, one, anybody) in the determinate state (+ relative sentence following, as such in Arabic by default does not have a relative pronoun). Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Literally the same as no one, for which we also have an entry, and the gloss definition links to the English which would also have to be SOP. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@פֿינצטערניש: Judging language by another language is a common fallacy. This is different. أَحَد(ʾaḥad) is not the word for the numeral “one” – unlike in Hebrew; it is وَاحِد(wāḥid) – but is the word for anybody. And لَا() does not have the sense of a determiner as in English no first etymology. Things can also come in between, for example: لَا يَخْفَى عَلَى أَحَد (lā yaḵfā ʿalā ʾaḥad, it is not hidden to any one, i.e. nobody can fail to see) (this time لَا() sense 2). One wouldn’t look this Arabic formation up specifically, because it is SOP. It is not “literally the same as no one” but rather something like “there is no man who”, and you would not create there is no man who. I likewise have difficulties seeing the Turkish hiç kimse given in the translation table of no one as not SOP, if that helps you to see that common translations of no one can be SOP. @Lambiam. Fay Freak (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know about the Arabic, but Turkish hiç kimse is somewhat similar to French personne (ne). By itself kimse just means “someone” or “anyone” – an unspecified person. When translating a negative sentence like kimse yok to English, one idiomatic approach is to move the negation to the pronoun, as in “there is nobody” – although you can also say “there isn’t anybody there” (and colloquially, “there ain’t nobody there”). And hiç is normally used to strengthen an already existing negation. Standalone use implies a negation, as can occur when a verb is omitted and left implicit in answer to a question (like “kaç kişi geldi?“ = ”how many people came?” — “hiç kimse [gelmedi]” = “no one [came]”), but if a verb is present, it is obligatorily negated. This also applies to the collocations hiç kimse and hiç bir şey and the univerbations hiçbir and hiçbiri.  --Lambiam 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point. I forgot that about وَاحِد vs. أَحَد; my Arabic is still improving. I retract my wish to keep the entry, except to voice my more general belief that anything that glosses to a valid English entry should be kept - which does not appear to be policy, unfortunately. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


# [[internal]] [[execution]]; [[during]] execution; [[runtime]]

Sum of parts, 実行 + . —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Senses aren't quite right either. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)



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

  • 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)

ultime gocce[edit]

A plural that doesn't exist (uncountable), equivalent to the English last straws (derived from last straw). Or, more precisely, the plural does exist but not in an idiomatic sense, at which point it becomes SOP. Imetsia (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

last straws certainly exists in English (e.g. "With each shitty new development I'd tell him that was the last straw.” She laughed joylessly, arcing around some kids making a sand castle. “There were a lot of last straws.” Pisces Rising, Martha C. Lawrence, 2010). I don't know Italian, but it certainly seems possible in Italian as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


RFD-sense: Wing On, a department store chain in Hong Kong. WT:BRAND. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

أي شيء[edit]

SOP — 05:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, one does not look that up. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

testgetriebene Entwicklung[edit]

Seems kinda sum-of-parts. — Eru·tuon 08:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No more or less so than test-driven development, right? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Right. I'm thinking this submission wasn't well-thought out now, though. — Eru·tuon 17:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


1) 睬 is not chhap, which should be 插. 2) It seems to be SoP, just a negation of chhap. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem a be a usual reading, but it seems to be the most common way to write it down as in [13] and [14]. The dog2 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: The Singlish dictionary doesn't seem to have the right etymon - it has (ch’hew) ch’haé from Medhurst's dictionary, which must be a different word. The Hi-native link doesn't exactly tell us that it's written as such, just that it "translate[s] to 睬". I guess it could be RFVed, but I also think it's SoP, which is a bigger reason for deletion. It being borrowed into Singlish doesn't necessarily make it non-SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

hmmm https://www.xyzdict.com/chinese-english/%E6%9A%82%E9%81%BF Troll Control (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Not in any of the major Chinese dictionaries, but seems to act as a verb inasmuch as we categorize them on Wiktionary. 拉薩市的居民紛紛走到室外暫避。官員們表示,超過13,000人不得不從火山周邊撤離,暫避在附近的難民營。正在開會的國會議員感到建築物搖晃,走到停車場暫避,15分鐘後返回會議廳。---> Tooironic (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Leaning towards a delete, but not sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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)
@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)
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)
I disagree. Where else would "book" come from —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC).
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)

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)

The phrase can be found in Latin texts, mostly literally as in Virgil, but sometimes with the verb in conjugated form.[15][16][17] These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb.[18]  --Lambiam 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@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)

nakatira ako sa Melbourne[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#nakaistar_ako_sa_Melbourne above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020[edit]

bailar con los cinco latinos[edit]

Just 5 google hits out there, all of which are either mentions or dictionaries (one from "Wiktionary" or something like that - doesn't look like it can be trusted). Please delete any incoming links from bailar and latino. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

, , [edit]

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)

“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[19][20][21] 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)
Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. @Erutuon? PUC – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
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)


Unneeded, νεκρός (nekrós) is perfectly sufficient. PUC – 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

-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)

@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)
The given sense (both for Bokmål and Nynorsk) does not cover all uses; see innlending and utlending.  --Lambiam 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
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)

-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)

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

ҡыҙыл һары[edit]

Sum of parts. Borovi4ok (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok Question: does this mean "orange", or "red and yellow"? Because in some languages, including English, such a construction would often mean "having parts colored in red, and other parts in yellow". See the examples below. If it does indeed mean orange, my next question is: can you always juxtapose two colours to denote an intermediate color?__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • 2010, Pierre Parisien, Blood and the Covenant: The Historical Consequences of the Contract with God, Trafford Publishing (→ISBN), page 223:
      Forty-five years later, an airplane flying the blue-white flag of the new state of Israel, ...
    • 2012, Muhammad Abdul Aziz, Japan’s Colonialism and Indonesia, Springer Science & Business Media (→ISBN), page 218:
      ... singing the national anthem and hoisting the red-white flag [of Japan], ...
    • year unknown, Volodymyr Viatrovych, Yaroslav Faizulin, Victoria Yaremenko, Maxym Mayorov, Vitalii Ohiienko, Anatoliy Khromov, 100 YEARS OF STRUGGLE: THE UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION 1917-1921, Український інститут національної пам’яті., page 16:
      Instead, all documents approved by the Ukrainian governments in 1918 confirmed the blue-yellow (blue or light blue upper stripe) color order.
    • 2014, Alexander Watson, Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War, 1914-1918, Penguin UK (→ISBN)
      The coup launched with these soldiers on the night of 1 November 1918, which took the city centre and led to a yellow-blue flag being flown from the city hall, ...
Hi @Gamren, thanks for cooperation.
This can be used to mean either "orange" (though not the most regular term for that) or "red and yellow". And yes, you can put together (with certain reservations) any two colors to denote an intermediate color or a mixture.Borovi4ok (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


Old English wealhstod has no cognates and an unknown etymology which makes having a Proto-Germanic excessively dubious. --{{victar|talk}} 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


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)

Delete. How will we avoid the lengthy cognate lists? Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


I added this (probably based upon inclusion in EDICT), but perhaps it is really sum of parts. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ya, pretty much any verb + 限り (kagiri, limit, extent) winds up meaning "to the extent that one [VERB]s". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
True, but some of these are common enough that are almost idiomatic. This entry is also listed in NHK accent dictionary as well so it's good to keep I guess. Shen233 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I find the inclusion in the NHK accent dictionary to be a bit confusing.
  • (かぎ) (kagiri) as a combining element is accented on the first mora:
  • The two combine in a simple additive fashion:
I still hold that this is a sum-of-parts term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
One interesting thing I noted in NHK accent dictionary is that they included devoicing on the す. I suppose sum-of-parts but idiomatic?? Shen233 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
If it's only a sum of parts, it's not idiomatic, and vice versa. Devoicing on an unaccented (su) just before an unvoiced hard stop like the initial /k/ in (ka) is pretty normal phonology for Japanese, I think, so there's no surprises there. The real question then is whether the meaning is idiomatic, or just a combination of the meanings of the constituent terms. In my understanding, 見渡す限り is just 見渡す + 限り.
By way of comparison, the roughly synonymous English phrase as far as I can tell is used commonly enough to have its own initialism, AFAICT. But, as we can see at that entry, the expanded phrase is a sum of its parts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Fixed enough. It also has an entry on Daijisen. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shinji, I'm curious why? What makes this a lexical item, any more than 想像する限り, or 食べきる限り? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
限り is usually a concessive construction. 想像する限り means “as far as I can imagine (but that might not be the case beyond that)”. 見渡す限り simply means “as far as I can see” without meaning “but that might not be the case beyond that”. You don’t say 見渡す限りでは, which would be possible if it was concessive. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I do note instances of this construction, albeit less commonly, as at google books:"見渡す限りでは". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


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

Is the syllable onset sr- even possible in French?  --Lambiam 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
FWIW, I find all of these jarring. I'd consider them nonstandard. PUC – 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Notwithstanding their jarringness, can they be attested?  --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


(French) RFD sense of the fictional character: "One of the Three Musketeers." It already says this in the etymology, and IMO that's enough if it's a rare male given name derived from the book. This RFD goes along with the RFD on English Aramis. Note the inconsistency also; we have Aramis as English, Porthos as French, and no entry for Athos. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Send to WT:RFVN and check regarding WT:CFI#Fictional universes? --21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4037:3c6c:85b5:850a:bea0 (talk).


Thai does not have infix concept. Even few words are formed by mimicking Khmer extension method (like เสียง > สำเนียง) but it does not make the extension (-ำน-) become infix in general. The extension is also meaningless. Almost Khmer loanwords are originally complete words (that are already infixed). --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


Incorrect grammatical analysis. Rex Aurorum (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Example: word tidak adil get circumfixed ke-an become ketidakadilan. Then it analyzed as ketidak+adilan which not exist in Indonesian grammar. Rex Aurorum (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020[edit]

pudse hunden på[edit]

SOP. pudse på + hunden.__Gamren (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@So9q I probably should have pinged you to begin with.__Gamren (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
As with the Norwegian and Swedish cognates, I would like to see a definition of the base verb pudse[22] before deleting. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum The relevant page is the third verb, [23]:
"make an animal, especially a dog, attack someone"
"(figuratively) make someone pursue some matter"
__Gamren (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Deletion is fine for me. I work on lexemes now mainly anyway.--So9q (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

, 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)

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


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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Delete and move all such hapaxes to an appendix. — surjection??⟩ 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
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)


Not at all clear why we should be reconstructing this. It's only needed for one etymology, where it can simply be explained, and it also isn't guaranteed that it's unattested, given the lack of a searchable premodern Bengali corpus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it Old Bengali? Or it may be presented as obsolete form under common Bengali instead. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be given in the etymology with three stars (“possibly attested, the present author lacks the information”) – am I correct to assume this is what three asterisks are used for or is it too obscure? Fay Freak (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


This word doesn’t exist beyond a vandalism on Spanish Wikipedia. The suffix -ón doesn’t form demonyms in Spanish. The only demonym that I could attest online is almatino, which makes much more sense. —Born2bgratis (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What if the Almatian is a really big guy? --Java Beauty (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete or move to RFV (where it will likely fail). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


WT:NSE. -- 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this a surname + given name situation? If not, I think we can keep it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, this is murky stuff. Apparently 《漢書·五行志》 refers the person as if "毐" were a personal name. It is difficult to ascertain whether this was by mere convention or based on actual, concrete knowledge. The name itself might have not been an actual "personal name" to begin with (see damnatio memoriae). The English Wikipedia article Lao Ai has a readable summary of the murky details. --Frigoris (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
@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)
  • Delete. — LoutK (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


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


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)

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)
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)
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)

kala jenkin[edit]

Typo, non-exist word. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we create kalajengking instead (cf. id:kalajengking on the Indonesian Wiktionary)? Note that the Malagasy and Polish Wiktionaries copied this spelling from here.  --Lambiam 11:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Created. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The Polish entry has been deleted.  --Lambiam 17:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
What about English Wiktionary? ―Rex AurōrumDisputātiō 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

kakilima beratap (2)[edit]

Non-exist word in Indonesian. But, found in Modern Malay books. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Kaki lima beratap literally means ”covered five-foot way”, which – judging from pictures in the Wikipedia article – is almost always an arcade. It may not have lexical status, being a SOP of kaki lima + beratap.  --Lambiam 12:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Listed earlier in March 2019; see #kakilima beratap.  --Lambiam 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


Sum of parts? 簿記 "bookkeeping" + "role; responsible for ..."

@WorldwideBallcapsSuzukaze-c (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


@Shen233Suzukaze-c (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


@AtitarevSuzukaze-c (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

October 2020[edit]


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)


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)

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



Combination of -z- and -inho / -ão. The interfix can be used with any suffix that starts with a vowel. The closest comparison I can think of is creating -sman to account for -s- + -man in words like draftsman, doorsman, salesman, etc. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

aritmetikkens fundamentalsætning[edit]

It may be a sum of parts but a similar discussion is given further above for the German entry starting from August 2020. HeliosX (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep by the same reasons as given for the German term Fundamentalsatz der Arithmetik.__Gamren (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: >SOP — Dentonius 06:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not really SOP, but theorems and lemmas (also e.g. Satz des Pythagoras = Pythagorean theorem) are rather somewhat encyclopaedic than dictionary stuff. For spelling and pronunciation, Satz + des + Pythagoras has all the information. [24] and [25] show that there are many theorems with personnames like Satz von * or * theorem, *'s theorem, should wiktionary really have them all? --幽霊四 (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @幽霊四 There's plenty of disagreement about where the limits of inclusion should be drawn, and maybe this should be discussed as a policy question on BP rather than on a random RFD entry. Personally I don't understand your rationale for excluding this. The fact that one could write an encyclopaedic article about the fundamental theorem of arithmetic seems irrelevant, since the same is true of dogs, cars and cats. Sometimes I'll encounter some term in an article that the authors can't be bothered to define, and if there's even a WP article about it, it'll have a long-ass lede and a motivation section, and then define the term somewhere in the body. A dictionary serves a different need than an encyclopædia: it just tells you what the word means, briefly and without wasting your time.__Gamren (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

pusse hunden på[edit]

This is a sum of parts, apparently. HeliosX (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • We do not yet have the sense of pusse used in this phrase. According to The Bokmål Dictionary[26] there are two etymologies. We have a derivative of German putzen (clean, groom). We need the second sense, a synonym of hisse derived from Low German. The dictionary has pusse hunden på en as its example use. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


SoP: 拳擊 "boxing" + 沙袋 "sandbag; punching bag". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

אגרוף תילנדי[edit]

Defective spelling that no one ever uses. Uziel302 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is used occasionally, but it's not nearly common enough to be mentioned in a dictionary. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

רוח קרב[edit]

Tagged by Dada por viva (talkcontribs) back in July, with the comment "probably bad Tbot entry".

The phrase literally means "battle spirit", and it gets some hits on Google [link], so it's not exactly wrong; but I'm not sure whether it's really a set expression. Interestingly, the first three hits (at least for me) are dictionaries: an AI-based dictionary that shows contextual translations from a large bilingual corpus [link], us, and a dictionary that doesn't actually have an entry for this phrase [link]. Not sure what to make of that!

06:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Here the term (in the hyphenated spelling רוח־קרב) is called a “frequently used combination” (in a Biblical context). From the context it would seem that this can be found in both Psalm 51:12 and Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26. I see the term also used here in a commentary on Pesachim 36 in the Jerusalem Talmud, but the text is almost unreadable.  --Lambiam 15:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I corrected the translation. It's definitely a common idiomatic expression. It appears as an entry in Even-Shoshan and Rav-Milim. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/akouhyō, Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/akouyō[edit]

User:Malku H₂n̥rés marked these two for speedy deletion with the rationale "useless now nothing links here." This is questionable to me so I'm sending them to RFD. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. If it had been "hy", it would have become "yy" and subsequently "i" in Attic Greek, and "y" from the beginning would have led to "i" too but there is no variant like this. The result has to be that it can't be kept. HeliosX (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


I created this in error seven years ago. It should be sum of parts. Not in any monolingual dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Definitely SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep To weigh in as an individual just learning Chinese, I'd rather keep it and have a better explanation of the concept of "to save face." It's a fairly common colloquial expression, that could benefit from a succinct definition. I also think that it has a slightly pejorative implication of trying to cover one for one's mistakes or misdeeds. Languageseeker (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
None of those are rationale for keeping this term according to Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. I have also added the collocation at the respective entries 挽回 and 面子, so the expression can still be looked up and translated if needed. Also, your understanding of pejorative is not how it is applied here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Then what about words such as 野鴨. It can be argued that this is also an SoP entry meaning wild and meaning duck. Mandarin tends to have much more words that can be argued to be SOP because that is how the language operates. How far are we going to go to purge all Mandarin entries that could be regarded as SOP? Languageseeker (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Technically, 挽回 is a verb according to the wiktionary, while is not. As a result, I would argue that 挽回面子 is a phrase while 野鴨 is a noun of its own. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fredrick Campbell: I'm not really sure how being a verb (which it obviously isn't) would be relevant to the discussion of whether 野鴨 is SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: It is my opinion that an entry that can be split up to more than one of the following (subject, verb, object (direct or indirect)) should be considered sum of parts while an entry that can not be split into one of those should not be considered sum of parts even though they technically are because in Chinese, adjectives can function in extremely specific ways depending on what the adjective is describing. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fredrick Campbell: I’m confused about what you’re saying. Being able to function as multiple roles in a sentence does not rule it out ad being SoP. There are plenty of non-SoP words that could behave like that. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I meant that since 挽回 is a verb and 面子 can be considered its object, 挽回面子 is sum of parts while is functioning as an adjective describing in 野鴨 and thus 野鴨 should not be considered sum of parts. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fredrick Campbell: Ah, gotcha. There are other entries that are V+O, but usually they are idiomatic or 2-character entries that are often in monolingual dictionaries. 野鴨 is keepable because 鴨 is usually not standalone in Standard Chinese unless in really formal contexts or compounds, and also we tend to allow 2-character A+N compounds that are common and often found in monolingual dictionaries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I understand that 挽回面子 is a common collocation, but it's still SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


SoP. 01:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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)
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. 23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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).

Porcelaine de Madagascar[edit]

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

  • If these are real, they can be moved to the proper spelling instead. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In 19th century naturalist books, Porcelaine is capitalized. Languageseeker (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    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)
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)


Productive in OE, so simply rǣdan +‎ -en. --{{victar|talk}} 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The word was in productive in Old English compounds, but the suffix was no longer productive, e.g. its replacement OE rǣding, "rule, government; ie arranging" (which needs to be separated from the strong verb derivation). Also it's attested in Gothic 𐌲𐌰𐍂𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌴𐌹𐌽𐍃 (garaideins). Burgundaz (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


Also productive in OHG, albeit not as common as in OE, so it's just wagōn +‎ . --{{victar|talk}} 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Again, just OHG trenken +‎ , assuming it even exists. --{{victar|talk}} 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Here's an example of why I'm against a lot of Proto-Albanian -- they simply often lack a solid etymology and you can derive them half a dozen ways. Case in point, hirrë. @HeliosX, ArbDardh, Etimo, Torvalu4 --{{victar|talk}} 21:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. – This is a bad example since the 2 IE roots given (if they're not in fact the same root) are practically identical in form and meaning, so definitely not a half-dozen ways. And if your problem is the IE part of the etymology, that doesn't justify removing the PAlb reconstruction, especially since it's reconstructed from the modern word (not from IE). Torvalu4 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Oh, I see what you've done now. You added several century-old theories about the etymology under the shtrungë page (not the PAlb page) in order the create the appearance of debate around the word's etymology. That's quite a stretch. Torvalu4 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
LOL. 1. WT:AGF. 2. the first etymology I list is the one prefered by Orel, which is an internal deviation, not warranting a PA entry. *strungā isn't even a citable reconstruction. 3. Meyer is the source of like, atleast, 50% of Albanian etymologies, so if you're going to go around blindlessly deleting Meyer etymologies, like you did on shtrungë, that would be quite inadvisable. The same goes for Barić, which you also deleted, and is, mind you, later than the one this PA entry is based on. --{{victar|talk}} 04:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Most of that wasn't about the PAlb page, the supposed subject of your delete request. The only thing that's pertinent is #2, which still doesn't justify deletion. As for citability, I seriously doubt that's a requirement (at least based on all the uncited reconstructions I've seen in other langs). All I know is you provided a citation for the etymology on the shtrungë page. Torvalu4 (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Every element of the etymology of shtrungë is relevant. Stop gaslighting. Any word with no cognates and of dubious origin shouldn't have an ancestral entry based off of it. Period. Full stop. --{{victar|talk}} 05:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editors should cease reconstructing terms arsewise, like claiming a form from an even more uncertain form which latter is partially claimed on the former’s basis. Like the connection of the Germanic term for mistletoe to *mihstuz (manure) made no sense and I had to move it from *mihstilaz to *mistilaz because there is no proof for ⟨h⟩ and there is a plethora of better derivation possibilities – even more in this case, there is apart from many more possible “Proto-Albanian” forms – a dozen ways, even some one does not even realize, noting the commonness of the sounds – no reason for “Proto-Albanian” as opposed to Dacian, Thracian, Moesian, Gepidic or whatever there was also spoken more east of Albania, especially since the alleged descendants are only Balkan Romance. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

M’, M’., M.’[edit]

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

Redirect to M'..  --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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).
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)
You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pretextmise.  --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
Lols --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
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)

pindarolas para ti[edit]

Portuguese SOP. pindarola seems to mean any “damn” (scilicet thing) and one has deleted damn you. Fay Freak (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We also have an interjection entry pindarolas. Altogether having this phrase would be similar to creating Russian хер для тебя́ (xer dlja tebjá). Fay Freak (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete, and pinging @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV to take a look at the stub pindarolas. Ultimateria (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I am more worried about whether this is attested. I’ve never heard pindarolas directed at someone, only ever used by itself. And I don’t think pindarolas would pass an RFV either; it is well-known because it is used in a popular comic strip but there is not much use elsewhere. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


Seems to be SoP: 麻將 (mahjong) + 協會 (association; club). Things can be added between, like 麻將競技協會, as said in the beginning of the video that was mentioned in the edit summary when this page was made. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be numerous places similarly named around Taiwan. They seem to be effectively mahjong parlours where you can just go and play mahjong, with the only thing that makes them "clubs" being that you have to register and pay a membership fee. And since gambling is illegal in Taiwan, they can't allow you to redeem your points for money, but as you can see in the video, they sort of get around the anti-gambling laws by allowing you to use your points to offset your membership fee, or to redeem them for some prizes. Calling them "clubs" is probably just a way to legally skirt around the legal prohibition on gambling. The dog2 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: I think this is bordering on being encyclopedic. How do you know they are actually trying to evade the law? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess I can't be absolutely sure, but they're operating openly, so they're certainly not breaking the law. The thing is, mahjong is a gambling game, but gambling is illegal in Taiwan, so if you want to operate a mahjong parlour in Taiwan, you'll need to be able to exploit some legal loophole. The dog2 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: I guess, but I don't know if this would be enough grounds for non-SoP-ness. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@TongcyDai, do you think this is sum of parts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, Sorry, I am not quite sure about this one. --TongcyDai (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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. 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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)
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)¨
@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)
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)
@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)
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). 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that the exact same expression exists in English: "of a certain age". (see Lexico, Collins). 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I doesn't need the preposition of. For example, “Once you reach a certain age, everything after that is downhill.”[27] Same in French: “Lorsque vous atteignez un certain âge, vous commencez à penser que vous êtes vieux.”[28]  --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete therefore. Fay Freak (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

أشهد أن عليا ولي الله[edit]

SOP -- 05:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


Based on one single Slovincian word, this entry is far too speculative. --{{victar|talk}} 09:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, one was far too credulous. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

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 07:11, 26 October 2020‎.


This entry is based solely on Vovin's nasal deletion theory, which, while it has some substantial merit, does not have the majority support in academia that I think we should be going for in reconstruction entries.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


The adverb entry only, not the noun entry: it's not a lemma, just the locative of domus and is already listed as such under the noun entry. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. The locative case wasn't functional by the time with which this entry corresponds. By the same standard, Russian до́ма (dóma) should be deleted as well. Thadh (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    It was functional, but marginal. You could use it with the name of absolutely any city as well as with a handful of other terms like domus. If a new city became known to the Romans, it had a locative. Even today, in literary Latin, new city names have locatives, e.g. Novi Eboraci. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    In the case of nouns, however, I would rather compare it to established expressions/adverbs (cf. Russian дома (at home), лесом (by (way of) forest), Ingrian eläessä (long ago), Finnish postitse (by mail), puhelimitse (by phone)). The question is not whether they are used, but whether they are viewed as declensions or as adverbs. Thadh (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    I understand what you're saying. But in Latin you can also use the locative with rus, and domus and rus also inflect differently when talking about origin and destination: for most words you use ad to talk about destination, ab to talk about origin, but in the case of domus, rus, and the names of cities and small islands, you use the bare accusative and bare ablative. So also in these marginal cases, you have a specific locative declension instead of using in + ablative. Calling it an adverb ignores the way these words behave differently with other spatial relations, behaving the same way that city and small island names behave. More information פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete, though I'd like to keep the antonym and the usexes. PUC – 22:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The locative usage is already mentioned on the page for domus, and the description there can be expanded with more information if necessary. There is no need for a separate page for Latin locatives. The Nicodene (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@פֿינצטערניש, Thadh, PUC: I think the swing factor here is that it can be an NP head, as in domī meae (examples), which an adverb cannot. This feeds into the POS against syntax doing syntax things problem, as I think it deserves more visibility than the puny mention of it being the "genitive/locative of domus". Brutal Russian (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Old Prussian meddo[edit]

User:Gnosandes marked this for deletion, with no explanation. Page has been around since 2009; at least it needs discussion before deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dumb. Sourced and removed. --{{victar|talk}} 02:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: It is actually a Prussian form with no structured spelling. I tried to make the form more structured: PBS *médu > OP meddu (Meddo in the monuments), PBS *álu > OP allu (Alu in the monuments), PBS péku > OP pekku (Pecku in the monuments). Usually a doubled consonant implies the [Dybo-]Kortlandt's law: *V́TV > VTV́ (VTTV). Gnosandes (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Old Prussian meddu isn't attested and should be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 08:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Victar: No, it is attested in monuments - =o is the human factor in the manuscript. The meddo must be deleted. Gnosandes (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Stop making up spellings that don't exist. --{{victar|talk}} 08:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Victar: Who comes up with when you have non-logical wordform chains under your nose? xd Gnosandes (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Victar: And yes, if you really want to keep the original, you have to capital letter the wordform, just like in German. And all this will be not regular and ugly in appearance. I just suggested such a "styling", this is also in the Mikkels Klussis dictionary. Gnosandes (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The point isn't to make it "pretty", it's to make it accurate. OPr alu isn't attested with a germinated consonant, despite any arguments of it being more etymologically "correct". *allu is purely a reconstruction. We do normalize the spelling of some languages, but that doesn't cover the insertion of consonants or the changing of vowels. --{{victar|talk}} 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Victar: The consonant insertion here is responsible for the location of the stress and that's all. It is quite consistent with the law. If you are so striving for "imaginary" accuracy, then please write nouns with a capital letter as it is written in monuments. And there is no need to arrange double standards here. This does not mean that such forms do not correspond to the laws according to which the Prussian language is brought into an adequate form. Or indicate inside for Prussian forms in IPA. (It would also be great to remember the Polabian language)
For example: meddja̲n ~ medjā̲i ~ medjamma̲ns Gnosandes (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Move to WT:RFVN, and maybe also add meddu there? --Bakunla (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit पत्त्रकार[edit]

@AryamanA User:शब्दशोधक says this isn't a Sanskrit word and requested speedy deletion. I can't judge so I've moved it to RFD. Benwing2 (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As always with "I don't think this word exists" deletion requests, take it to RFV. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2, शब्दशोधक, Bhagadatta: This word gets no hits on Google in Sanskrit, definitely not getting 3 citations anytime soon. I'm speedying it. IP has a history of Sanskrit neologisms. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 15:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA : Thanks for responding! Check this also - भोजनोत्पीठिका, created by the same IP. Undoubtedly vandalism. Any chance of that IP being blocked? शान्तनुः(मया सह वदतुमम योगदानानि) 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020[edit]


No phonogramic component, hence the reconstruction is unverifiable and the entry is not useful for readers. If this is accepted, we might as well have all Chinese characters in the Buddhist canon as "Old Korean" entries. These sort of entries only serve to dilute the usefulness of Category:Old Korean lemmas.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


Same with above.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


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)

  • 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)
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)

B. circulans[edit]

Could be viewed as abbreviation of Bacillus circulans, but also as B. abbreviating Bacillus + circulans. As for any species, the genus name can be abbreviated to it's initial character, this doesn't have any value. --13:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:372e:5559:e415:ca6a:8232:2eb1 (talk).

Delete. I would delete substantially all binomials, but especially the ones with abbreviated genus. Formally, one should mention the genus name in full before abbreviating it in a work. Some authors do not, especially the ones who can't spell or even remember Caenorhabditis. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


Misplaced (as dictionary entries for affixes should contain hyphens at the appropriate places), and duplicates gör-. Glades12 (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC), updated 08:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete. --幽霊四 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

a las chapas[edit]

I think Wonderfool made a mistake when she misunderstood something while watching an Argentinian film. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

DELETE. "a las chapas" is not a verb, and does not contain a verb in the expression, so it does not belong on the Spanish Verbs list. There are expressions such as "jugar a las chapas" or "venir a las chapas" that could be included, where "jugar"/"venir" are the verbs in the expression. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by CatFinanciere (talkcontribs) at 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC).

hacer cumplir[edit]

Spanish: Probably SOP Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete SOP, doesn't feel like a thing. Troll Control (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Spanish was the first foreign language I learned. I knew what "hacer" was. I knew what "cumplir" was back then. And believe me when I say that back then I did not work out "enforce" from both of them. Hi, @Friendly2Face. Would you like to keep the entry you created? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Tinker Bell (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Abstain. Compare Italian fare rispettare and, more generally, my comments here. Imetsia (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


Unknown etymology, which is why it was moved to a PWG entry, that in-and-of-itself being generous. Should be deleted. @Mnemosientje --{{victar|talk}} 03:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

Latin SOPs?[edit]

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

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)

vitam impendere vero[edit]

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

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

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)

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)

an sein[edit]

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

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.
  • 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)
    • In light of IP editor's comments: send to RFV. — Dentonius 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
      • KeepDentonius 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

חסר תקדים[edit]

חסר + תקדים; literally "lacking precedent". Seems SoP, although I'm not 100% sure. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. A very common idiomatic expression. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

לא נכון[edit]

SoP; "not" + "correct". — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's idiomatic as an interjection. I updated the entry. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)


This is an eye dialect of блядь (bljadʹ, whore; fuck, shit (expletive)). There are various way to distort a vulgar word, so that it's not caught by moderators or special software. Compare with with the English "fcuking" or similar. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So this is Russian for biatch? I'd say take it to RFV; if it's as well attested as its English equivalent, it should be kept. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@MahagajaNo. It is like English niqqa. Not actually pronounced like written. The given pronunciation is somewhat ficticious, as not reaching token level though possible in instances, as the vowels are not stretched that distinctly as is done in biatch; one can of course stretch the vowel when exclaiming блядь (bljadʹ), as with many interjections, but this does not make a different word here. It is similar to excluded-from-inclusion repetitions like woooow, hellooooo. Delete. I also invite @Dentonius to revise his keep vote. There must be some limits. Fay Freak (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: It's more like what Fay Freak said. It's not a spelling pronunciation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Dentonius 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    • send to RFV -- Dentonius 13:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
      Then again, KeepDentonius 08:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Ignoring Dentonius's vote. Not qualified. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
        How am I not qualified? — Dentonius 23:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
        • You're totally ignoring any principles of what we should include defined in WT:CFI, judging by all your votes and posts in the past regarding the term inclusion. Idiomaticity is the main principle and you don't seem to understand or support it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
          Why don't you admins delete things right away if they clearly violate the CFI? Why send them here? — Dentonius 00:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
          • It has nothing to do with Wiktionary administration and is not a clear case, otherwise it could be deleted on sight. Editors are supposed to responsibly assess if a term meets CFI and why. You may think I am picking on you but I am not the only one who thinks that you're not acting responsibly on this page - you may want to check how others reacted to your votes without any thoroughness. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
            • To me it feels like people here just want a rubber stamp: SOP, wait four weeks, delete. — Dentonius 00:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
              • A rubber stamp that says "keep" is no better than one that says "delete". Every single one of the deletionists you call "destroyers" has voted "keep" (not to mention "delete" on their own entries), and even the most diehard inclusionist has voted "delete"- except for you, of course. That's because they're reading the arguments and giving their opinions, rather than trying to implement a strategy. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
                • Chuck, there are always three choices: keep, delete, abstain. I choose to exercise two of them. One entry above, "winterse bui" is going to get deleted. I could go vote delete on it, but I won't. I don't need to. — Dentonius 01:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

de schoen zetten[edit]

SOP. You can replace de with another article or determiner, you can use another type of footwear instead of schoen, you can change the noun to plural. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the meaning of the verb zetten in this collocation idiomatic, though? Not only is the English sentence ”don’t forget to put your shoe” incomprehensible, it is also rather ungrammatical.  --Lambiam 20:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Certainly the bit about it being for St Nicholas is not discernible from the individual parts. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam Yes, I think it deserves a distinct sense at zetten. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam, Mahagaja, Thadh I have placed a relevant sense at zetten. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo In that case, maybe we could leave a hard redirect? I doubt any other language has this phrase. (that is, if we don't just move since it's neck and neck right now) Thadh (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to schoen zetten; It has an idiomatic aspect in it, but the article isn't necessary. I haven't ever heard the term being used with anything else but "schoen". (for reference: [29] there is even the noun "schoenzet"). Also, compare the WP article. Thadh (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Thadh Using zetten in this way is easily citable with klomp as the object [30] [31] [32] and it occurs marginally with laars [33]. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Hm, the more you know. I do have the feeling that these are mere regional variants ("(de) klomp zetten" seems to mainly be used in farming communities). Perhaps a little like de poes uit de boom kijken ([34]): it isn't the main form nor used often, but everyone would understand it. Thadh (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    But schoentje(s) zetten is also rather common. And including klompje zetten[35][36][37][38] in the count of klomp zetten adds up. And here is another laars gezet. The generic idiom is, apparently, (<zijn>) <schoeisel> zetten. Schoen being the most common designation for the most common type of footwear, it is not surprising that this is the form with the highest frequency. But if you compare the ghit count ratios of “de kat:poes aaien" (5650:695) with those of “de kat:poes uit de boom kijken" (39900:8), it is clear that de poes uit de boom kijken is a non-idiomatic variation. There are even more ghits (“about 16 results”) for de hond uit de boom kijken.  --Lambiam 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Dentonius 08:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Dentonius What do you think of the substitutability argument? Two components of this three-word phrase can be replaced with something else. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    I won't disagree with your reasoning. My view of what I'd like to see here is just different from yours. This is from Dutch Wikipedia by the way: "De schoen zetten is een traditie binnen het sinterklaasfeest waarbij kinderen 's avonds hun schoen plaatsen bij de haard vanaf de dag dat Sinterklaas in het land is aangekomen." [39] I would be okay with either "de schoen zetten" or "schoen zetten". I'd like to keep one or the other. — Dentonius 17:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Imetsia (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Move per Thadh's reasoning. Morgengave (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


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 미국-에서 (migugeseo, 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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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 dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?
Now, is there any reason for deletion? Dixtosa (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]

Kreis und Kreuzes[edit]

German. Tagged by on 29 March, not listed:

“Ungrammatical. The genitive can't be expressed in a collocation like this. If one absolutely had to use it, one would say "des Kreis-und-Kreuz-Spiels" or something like that.” J3133 (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Or leave it unchanged, like seen here (under "Weitere Informationen"), "Eigenschaften des kreis und kreuz". In any case, Delete.  --Lambiam 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If not keep, we might want to add this as a usage example to it component parts Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, move to WT:RFVN, where it probably fails. --幽霊四 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

deel uitmaken van[edit]

Dutch, SOP: "to constitute" + "part" + "of". Deel can be substituted for various alternatives (gedeelte, onderdeel). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Some other possible substitutions: de helft, het merendeel, de hoofdschotel, ruim 75 procent. And one can also say: deel vormen van.  --Lambiam 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (or at the very least, "deel uitmaken" without "van") — Dentonius 11:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Should we then also create entries for deel zijn, deel vormen en deel worden?  --Lambiam 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Lambiam, I know it was a rhetorical question but your examples aren't linguistically challenging. I want to keep deel uitmaken van because as someone who's still working on his Dutch, it's not an expression which is obvious to me. I haven't quite internalised this one yet. I understand it when I hear it but it doesn't come naturally to me when I speak to Dutch people... not yet, anyway. — Dentonius 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    Take a sentence like, “Dit zal deel gaan uitmaken van het onderzoek naar het hacken van de systemen.”[40] To analyze this, it helps to put this into a different word order: “Dit zal deel van het onderzoek naar het hacken van de systemen gaan uitmaken.” Parts that belong together, but became spatially separated by a standard transformation, have been reunited in the word order: “deel van ...”. For someone who is learning English, it may be hard to understand the meaning of the sentence, “This will be part of our investigation”. Such learners’ problems are not a valid reason to handle be part as a lemma.  --Lambiam 20:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Lambiam, you have wonderful arguments to show why things are useful (especially for learners). You have an opportunity in this forum to include it. So why not? The standards which exist on en.wikt today will not be the standards here a decade from now. Why limit our dictionary? Imagine this: smartphone in hand; you say "define deel uitmaken van" and it pulls up the free dictionary, Wiktionary, and starts giving you all sorts of cool information from that page. Wiktionary is the kind of free resource which will be used by all sorts of better technology in the future. It can be a huge repository of anything we want to feed our devices. Nobody here will buy that, right? — Dentonius 21:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Dentonius, if you have a problem with the WT:SOP policy, create a vote to change it instead of pretending it does not exist. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    Mnemo, I believe our CFI could be tweaked but I don't have a problem with it. Like any document, it's open to interpretation. It explicitly makes provisions for people who think like me. (Read the very same WT:SOP you directed my attention to). What I've seen here is that many people have a problem with people who vote "keep" or "abstain" exclusively. I don't see why? If everything were so clear cut, why have an RFD? We could let the admins erase whatever they felt like if they believed it violated the CFI. Then again, I'm active on Wiktionaries in other languages where they do that... and let's just say that kind of thing has a huge impact on the number of active editors. All in all, SOP is a matter of interpretation. Some see added value. Others don't. That's why we vote. — Dentonius 14:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    The "rare cases" clause hardly justifies blanket-keeping any entry nominated for deletion as SOP. That's a very strange reading of the policy. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If not keep, we might want to add this as a usage example to it component parts Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep by in between test, but move to deel uitmaken. The other examples mentioned (de helft uitmaken, deel vormen…) are less tightly bound so should not be included. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


Schwebeablaut isn't a root "variant", it's an environmental change. --{{victar|talk}} 00:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Eiserne Vorhang[edit]

This would only be used when referring to the Iron Curtain with a definite article (i.e. "der Eiserne Vorhang", otherwise just "Eiserner Vorhang"), so this should probably be deleted as there is already an entry for Eiserner Vorhang that needs its declension to be added. --MelancholicLinguist (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've converted it to an inflected form of Eiserner Vorhang since it's quite likely people with a beginner's level of German will look it up under this form. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep in the shape Mahagaja has converted it to, ie as a form of Eiserner Vorhang. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


Not enough evidence, most likely did not exist; one used *múh₂s instead for all kinds of mice. The nominated word, somewhat varying by form in literature, is also claimed on the basis of some Iranian forms, which however have two much more likely explanations I mentioned at Arabic جُرَذ(juraḏ, rat) (an Iranian stem related to biting and stinging etc. (semantically Russian куса́ть (kusátʹ), if it is not clear from an English horizon) and a Semitic borrowing from a widespread Semitic stem related to gnawing). Looking at the edit history @Victar has removed an alleged Indo-Iranian reconstruction allegedly descending from this Proto-Indo-European, likely without explanation because it is obviously baseless, before someone re-added the Sanskrit words गिरि (giri) and गिरिका (girikā, making hills, a mouse?) again, which apart from a new formation from the word for a hill may also be a borrowing like other words (from which we have Bengali ইঁদুর (ĩdur) etc., “from a lost Vedic substrate language”). Munda forms ɡoɖo ~ guɖu are not farther than the alleged Indo-European cognates. g + either r/l are too common consonants. Then, how has the paradigm given for the Indo-European page any relation to the paradigm of the Sanskrit word or the paradigm of the Latin word glīs, which has the stem glīs- or glīr-. Ancient Greek γαλέη (galéē) means a mustelid, which is an animal not that similar or not all confusable or confoundable. I realize that Latin mūstēla (weasel) contains the word for mouse, but it does so because the weasel eats mice, but the weasel is no mouse by utmost historical phantasy, they had and have to be kept apart. So the glossing of the Indo-European page “mouse, dormouse; weasel” is impossible – no language can use one and the same word for mice and weasels. The Thracian άργιλος (árgilos, mouse) is not similar at all and needs other explanations, which it has, mentioned in the linked article Studies in Thracian vocabulary I–VII. Fay Freak (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

ablaßen and most conjugated forms[edit]

läßt/abläßt/laßt ab are old spellings of lässt/etc.. Any form containing aße (ablaßend, abgelaßen, laße ab, laßen ab, laßet ab, laßest ab, stem form *laßen) is not, these forms have never been correct since the first Duden orthography. Maybe they were rarely used until mid-19th century, but the entry doesn't tell any context. --Androl (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Androl: That’s why it says obsolete spelling, because it is wrong so long. The entry does tell you thus much thus – it was used till about the mid of the 19th century though even then uncommon, just search … Fay Freak (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. They're attested words. — Dentonius 20:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

guter Hoffnung sein[edit]

German: “(idiomatic, euphemistic) to be pregnant”. Tagged by 2003:de:373f:4069:b534:361e:8aeb:9907 on 22 December 2020, not listed: “SOP? guter Hoffnung + sein”. J3133 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, redundant to guter Hoffnung, hard-redirect. Fay Freak (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC) The German Wiktionary entries was likely motivated by the fact that some idioms like einen Braten in der Röhre haben meaning “to be pregnant” need a verb. But the cases must be regarded in isolation. Fay Freak (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain. There's guter Hoffnung. I'm open to the idea of having the complete expression. I'd just need a little more convincing. — Dentonius 12:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Rather than delete, why not just Redirect?  --Lambiam 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

vạt áo[edit]

Sum of parts.

người thợ[edit]

Sum of parts.

Múa Ba Lê[edit]

Sum of parts and spelled wrong. (Should be lowercase, see ux at ba lê.)

bẫy chuột[edit]

Sum of parts.

All tagged but not yet listed. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "vạt áo" is a SOP. vạt is never used on its own to mean vạt áo, and the former is never used to describe any items of clothing that aren't tops. I think the definitions at vạt will need to be revised. --Корсикэн-Уара (юзэр толк) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

empresario de pompas fúnebres[edit]

Spanish. Seems rather SOPpy Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Abstain. The following seem like good possibilities too for "undertaker": director/a de funeraria; director/a de pompas fúnebres. If someone else seems interested in keeping this, I'll take a closer look. — Dentonius 10:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Week keep; it's a set phrase with unexpected word choice. Ultimateria (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • A tough one, but I'm leaning keep. This phrase is similar in several Romance languages and there is no alternative way to convey this meaning which is less SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Japanese ている (te iru)[edit]

This is not a lexical item, so much as a grammar point -- this consists of verb ending (te) and the auxiliary verb いる (iru). If anything, this should be a note at either (te) or いる (iru) or both, but not an entry unto itself.

What do others think? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

When things have contractions do they get entries? There's (contraction) てる (-teru) Troll Control (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a grammar point with a contraction. Troll Control (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
As a rough analogy for the contraction, this might be like having an English entry at -sn't for third-person singular verb ending -s + -n't. It's just weird. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Troll Control, to clarify my intent from earlier, in English words like doesn't or hasn't, we parse this as does or has + contracted suffix -n't from not. Note that we do have an entry for -n't, but we don't have an entry for -sn't. We don't consider the verb ending -s to be part of the contraction.
Similarly, in てる (-teru), I'd argue that the contraction isn't that ている (-te iru) itself is transforming, as the (te) remains unchanged. Rather, the いる (iru) shortens to just (ru). I don't think we should consider the verb ending (te) to be part of the contraction.
As such, I recommend that we include information about the contracted form in the (ru) entry, and not at either of the oddly segmented entries ている (-te iru) or てる (-teru).
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Huhu9001, Suzukaze-c, other JA editors -- what are your thoughts? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete and move the content to いる (iru) and てる (teru), the latter being clearly a single morpheme. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral on deletion, but regarding てる: what about とる<ておる? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete ている (teiru) but Keep てる (teru)/でる (deru). いる contracts in this manner only after て/で so て/で can be considered involved in this contraction, which is different from "-s" in "-sn't". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Change to abstain as I can see it's messy. Troll Control (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


I can't find anoþer or another in Middle English Compendium, does the word exist? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Zff19930930 (talkcontribs) at 12:14, 25 December 2020‎ (UTC).

Usually we present a term whose existence is in question first at Requests for verification. Although this univerbation is not listed in the MEC, it is easily attested: [41], [42], [43].  --Lambiam 16:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, per Lambiam. It's attested. It's a word. — Dentonius 10:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is for RFV rather than RFD. I don't find the links compelling (Google won't show me the first, the second has the spaced version making the single unspaced instance a rare typo, and the third like the second is a modern edition quoting old text). But both OED and MED do recognize the unspaced version, so I would keep at RFV. MED has a supporting citation for another under other: "c1300 (?c1225) Horn (Cmb Gg.4.27) 33/578: He schal haue another [ring]." By convention we use th as the standard form so I redefined anoþer as an alternative spelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Most uses in the second link are unspaced, but the spaced ones have a noþer, not an oþer.  --Lambiam 10:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I created another as the main entry. If anoþer is deleted probably another should be too. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

ad locum[edit]

Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:373f:4069:b534:361e:8aeb:9907 on 22 December, not listed: “SOP?”. J3133 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I wasn't familiar with this one before, but If I hear convincing arguments to keep, I'll take a closer look. — Dentonius 17:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's standard textual critics' jargon that's found its way into many if not all European languages together with things like q.v. and op. cit.. Google "grotius ad locum" and you'll find plenty of occurrences in early Latin prints. Brutal Russian (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


SoP: 香 "to die" + 咗 (perfective). Same as 走了 and 走咗, where 咗 is not needed. See google:"歲先香", google:"咁早香". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

het hele jaar door[edit]

Dutch, "throughout the whole year". SOP with a high degree of substitutability. The archetype is "[definite article] hele [noun for a time period] door"; this is also attestable for dag, week, maand, decennium, eeuw. Clearly it is undesirably to have this many entries, besides door functions like this in other contexts as well. This needs to be covered by an additional sense of door (etymology 1, adverb) for this type of temporal postpositive use. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Also used with terms lasting a period: de hele vakantie door, or denoting an indeterminate time period: de hele tijd door. The definite article is not essential: uren door. And ganse, or even godganse, may be substituted for hele: de godganse dag door. Everything except door is substitutable – or even that bit is: het hele jaar lang. It’s like the Tin Man of Oz.  --Lambiam 00:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with most of your analysis; but I would note that the use with uren door is het gaat uren door, where I would parse door as part of doorgaan, ergo: "it lasts for hours". Omission of the definite article does not feel wrong to me, but it does seem quirky and I do expect it to be marginal; so finding examples will likely be boring. Here's one example where hele is omitted.
By the way I attempted a definition at door; I'd appreciate your feedback @Lambiam, MuDavid. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo — What about “(occurring all the time – constantly, or frequently – during the specified time period}”? English all the time can mean both “constantly” and “frequently”, so it captures both “continuously” and “habitually or intermittently” – where the last adverb seems less suitable; it connotes to me the absence of continuity, not frequency or regularity.  --Lambiam 12:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
All right, Yes check.svg done. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I personally would like to see these kinds of entries which are useful for learners, but I'll stay out of this one unless I see that others are interested in keeping it. — Dentonius 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious SOP. Not useful for learners as a separate entry; should be replaced with nice usexes at door. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(1) "Obvious SOP". Is the idiomaticity criterion some kind of binding community rule which was voted on or a preference? You'll find that it's really just the latter. (2) Examples are only temporary. The next editor can come along and change them. — Dentonius 07:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(1) In the early days a lot of policy was decided through Beer Parlour discussions rather than votes. Codifying an idiomaticy rule may be difficult because of the exceptions. (2) In practice usage examples often last for years. I sometimes still find problematic examples that were added years ago. I am all right with redirects from het hele jaar door and de hele dag door to the temporal postpositive sense of door, but I don't know how feasible that is. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It can be done using {{senseid}} at the target.  --Lambiam 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, then I propose an alternative solution of turning het hele jaar door into a hard redirct to the relevant meaning of door and adding de hele dag door as another hard redirect. Any takers? @Dentonius, MuDavid, Imetsia, Lambiam ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
If it will save het hele jaar door, I agree to this compromise LBD: redirect. — Dentonius 13:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dentonius To be honest, I'm not sure that converting it to a hard redirect can be called "saving" an entry. Here's an example of a hard redirect let me show you my etchings. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo. It's acceptable. There won't be a red link and the forward will take you to the definition. — Dentonius 14:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with LBD's good work, and I'm cool with hard redirect (but not really a fan of it). @Dentonius, if there were no idiomaticity criterion, I'd support any move to introduce one. Having entries for everything is pointless and only leads to chaos. Usexes are how non-idiomatic phrases that are "useful for learners" should be presented. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
DeleteMnemosientje (t · c) 17:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


Name of an enterprise. RcAlex36 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Like Apple ? Troll Control (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete. According to CFI they have to "enter the lexicon" to be included. Ultimateria (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Leaning towards a delete. It is more of an RFV issue if we want to check if it has "entered the lexicon", though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


This word is ultimately based on data from Radcliffe-Brown from over a century ago, based on (as I understand it) shoddy methodology. More recent works on Jarawa by field linguists who have actually come to speak the language do not seem to have this word. Recent works on Jarawa that I've looked at all have or similar for this word, and "migway" appears to represent a variant of the multimorphemic m-iŋ-e (my water).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]


SoP: (jiǎng) + 義氣义气 (yìqì). Other similar formations are 講道德, 講衛生, 講道義, 講規矩, 講武德, etc.. RcAlex36 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete. -- 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete. There should be an example at 義氣 to illustrate this usage if it gets deleted. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


Tagged for imminent deletion by saying "proper spelling is tomata", and it is not yet deleted, so I brought it here, in order to have it discussed by editors who know about this. Anyways, I think any random IP shouldn't be allowed to straightaway mark an entry with {{delete}}. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 15:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


Tagged for imminent deletion by, reason - "irrelevant misspelling; main entry is at lunidìa". I was deleting pages currently in CAT:Candidates for speedy deletion, but I thought a deletion request by an IP should be discussed first. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰