Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by Vininn126 in topic -dełko
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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for deletion of entries in any language for which there is no specialised RFD page according to this list:

Scope of this request page:

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


See also:

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

Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

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

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

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

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

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

Tagged RFDs

April 2018


Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris


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

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

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

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

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

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

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2018


anh hai


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

I find that "anh hai" is used outside of the family context as well; I am yet to find analogous ways of using the other "family relation + hai" expressions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

Keep. Not sum-of-parts because it's not used in Vietnamese broadly, but rather is a regional term. As per #anh cả below. Soap 10:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The regional character of the term derives from the regional character of hai in this meaning, though. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

October 2018




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

--Brutal Russian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

February 2019


Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs


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)Reply

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

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

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

December 2019


Old English pseudo-prefixes


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

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

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

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

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

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

I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.)  --Lambiam 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I struck eal(l)-, efen-, and self- out of the list (as kept) per my rationale above. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
For some reason in linguistics (Indo-European linguistics at least) adpositions and adverbs when compounded are considered affixes, but other wordtypes aren't. I don't know how that tradition arose, but changing it would certainly require a policy discussion. (It could be done for example the way it has been accidentally done under aġēn, but that would require a lot of changes in a lot of languages.) In that context, @Benwing2 what you've done above seems sensible to me, as most remaining prefixes are considered prefixes in cognate languages. Anyway, this can be closed, no? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFD-partly deletedCaoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2020




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

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

April 2020




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

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

August 2020


, ,


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

“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[1][2][3] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning.  --Lambiam 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. @Erutuon? PUC21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History > 00-002 and 00-094. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)


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

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

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)


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

@Sgconlaw This isn't a duplicate; there are two entries. Don't delete it.__Gamren (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, it looked identical so I thought it was a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It's an equivalent of -bøgg, -døl and -væring, not just a duplicate of -ing. Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

September 2020




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

Deleted by @Fish bowl (diff) but reinstated (in another form) by @Wikijb. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Full POJ has been widely used in Taiwanese Hokkien (including Quanzhou-like and Zhangzhou-like subdialects). Literature can be found at http://ip194097.ntcu.edu.tw/nmtl/dadwt/pbk.asp. Wikijb (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Wikijb: Can you show an instance of hîr in such literature? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, hîr (魚) appears in some Koa-á books, such as 新選笑談俗語歌 (1841) and 新歌林投姉 (1955). Wikijb (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Wikijb: Those are not POJ works, which means there is no attestation of the exact spelling of hîr in any POJ works so far. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I spoke too fast. I should say that these works were not originally written in POJ, and the pronunciation is given after, as far as I can tell. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's right. There were written in Han characters and then transcripted into POJ works. Wikijb (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply



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

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

October 2020


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

Looking up the parts in Wiktionary, I arrive at “to be afraid like a mouse is afraid of a cat”. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply



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

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

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms


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

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

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

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

November 2020


an sein


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

Move to ansein with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by an sein. (Compare ansein at the German Wiktionary.) -- — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs) at 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC).Reply
Is ansein really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:
  • Ansein (n.),
  • ansein as OCR-error of an sein (preposition + pronoun),
  • mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
  • 1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").
--2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Literally "to be" + adjective. Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is in my German textbook. RealIK17 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
ansein doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure pass me the salt is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective an can be used with other verbs too, like machen. How do we feel about creating an machen, aus sein, aus machen etc.? — Fytcha T | L | C 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): To have more natives' opinions. — Fytcha T | L | C 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Suyá ŋó


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

For a barely attested language like this, I feel like a single attestation in a single source might be enough for us to keep it at least as an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't really see any value in keeping ad-hoc phonological transcriptions when we can lemmatise at the established orthography. Thadh (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete ... we have this same problem with a few other languages, like Abinomn, where in some cases it's not clear what the proper spelling should be because two transcription methods overlap. But in this case, it's clear that ŋó is <ngô>, so I would move the word to the new spelling. Soap 10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply



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

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

January 2021




@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The English verb unite is also used as a euphemism for the sexual act: [4], [5] – not a reason to add this as a new sense.  --Lambiam 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

February 2021


1. This was created as "Mon-Pali"; Ungoliant changed the header to Mon, but did so in error: it's Pali. 2. This is a phrase used in a Buddhist context. However, it's not lexical as far as I can tell. @BhagadattaΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Create Pali entry, keep and soft-redirect as Burmese script form of said entry. This is a major set phrase in Theravada Buddhism and should be kept just like 南無阿彌陀佛南无阿弥陀佛 (Nāmó Ēmítuófó).--Tibidibi (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge, Tibidibi: Okay I suppose that can be done. Now every constituent word in that phrase has a Mon entry and they are all given the meaning "Buddhism". Is it correct and if it is not, could you fix that? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 07:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta, the relevant entries are နမောတဿ which is the Mon writing of Pali namo tassa (homage [be] to him), ဘဂဝတော (bhagavato) which is Pali bhagavato (to the fortunate one), အရဟတော which is Pali arahato (to the worthy one), and သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ, which is Pali sammā sambuddhassa (to the Supremely Enlightened One). They should probably all be soft redirects to Pali.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tibidibi, Metaknowledge: Thanks for the info. Just to clarify, should the Pali soft redirects be added in addition to the preexisting lemmas or should the Mon entries be converted into Pali soft redirects? Because if we do that, then these entries will lose the pronunciation and etymology etc as they should be at the main entry.
Anyway I think we should keep the phrase entry and keep ဘဂဝတော (bhagavato) and အရဟတော and delete နမောတဿ because namotassa has no meaning or relevance which cannot be gauged from its constituent parts namo (homage) and tassa (to him; dative) and thus does not warrant an entry. Also delete သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ for the same reason. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 09:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta, I think we can keep the audio in the Latin-alphabet Pali entries, just labelled as {{q|Thai Mon pronunciation}}. Pali is read differently by every Theravada culture, and ideally every Pali entry would have a transcription or audio for the traditional reading in every Theravada country. (This can probably be automated, but I know very little about Pali.)
@エリック・キィ, Octahedron80, do you happen to know if any of these Buddhist terms are words in actual Mon, or are they reserved for Mon readings of Pali text?--Tibidibi (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, we do not say lone portion of the verse anywhere; no one says "namotassa" or "bhagavato" etc in conversation except mantra. Each portion should be split into their relevent words. And in the end, they are pure Pali language, not Mon language. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with converting this to a Pali entry, the main entry of which should be at namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā sambuddhassa. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tibidibi: You mean for every province, don't you? This sound clip is representative for neither Burma nor Thailand. I suspect you would need an entry for every lowland SE Asian L1, and quite possibly for British and Californian English L1s. And do you really want an entry for every inflected form? A regular masculine noun has 16 forms, and a verb has about 80 masculine participial forms alone! RichardW57 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta, Mahagaja: The word boundaries are not as clear-cut as one would like. The majority choice seems to be for "sammā sambuddhassa" to be one word, but its written both ways in Latin script and in Thai script. Now, "namotassa" is a sum of its parts in the same way as "coalmine" is. But, if it is to be translated as "homage to him", it makes sense as a univerbation. Keeping it as a unit is common (but not the majority choice) in Burmese script text on the web, and I notice that my Tai Khuen Pali sample writes it as one word. Determining word boundaries is awkward - sometimes it is clear that spaces are mere aeration! RichardW57 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: Fortunately, redirects are cheap, as is {{alt sp}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tibdibi, Bhagadatta, Mahagaja, Octahedron80 I wonder if this phrase might be 'multilingual'. It's rather like hallelujah and allah akbar. I've just found another example. In the Burmese-authored English language web page [6] which says in a throw away remark that နမော ဗုဒ္ဓါယ သိဒ္ဓံ (namo buddhāya siddhaṃ, Homage to the Buddha; Success!) (or is is it 'homage to the completely enlightened one'?) is Mon. The contexts for it are associated with Burma and Cambodia. I think it's Pali, but I'm not sure it isn't slightly substandard Sanskrit. (The form of 'buddhāya' looks wrong for Pali to me, but perhaps I haven't mastered the rules for the choice of dative singular form.) I have found the phrase in a larger Pali context, and the first two words carved in stone in Sanskrit. RichardW57 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply



This is not a suffix in Standard Arabic. — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

If "Standard Arabic" is defined chiefly in terms of the case system, the conjugations, and the traditional grammars that come with both, one may find very many "dialectal" words that become "standardized" by adding the appropriate case markers when used, and with them whatever productive combination-forms and derivational patterns in the vernaculars, such as this very segment. Since its function is recognizable and it is fairly productive, I do not see why it cannot be classed as a "suffix".
The whole "informal" tag for Arabic entries, which I have been trying to remove gradually, albeit with some resistance from disgruntled IP's, is to me utterly absurd: the employment of the case system itself strips any supposed "informality" from speech, regardless of the lexicon. How could a word like بُوسَة (būsa) be "informal" when declined in the manner characteristic of speeches and books? And, to me, the use of this segment is analogous to it. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Roger.M.Williams, Fay Freak: The term بَلْطَجِيّ (balṭajiyy) is borrowed from Eastern dialects to MSA. The suffix is nonexistent in Standard Arabic whatsoever, which is the opposite of the prefix كَهْرُو (kahrū) in that it is productive and largely used. The suffix جِيّ (jiyy) can't be considered as such just because it is found in some borrowed words from dialects or other languages. Should we consider تِلِ (tili) (in تِلِفِزْيُون (tilifizyūn), تِلِغْرَاف (tiliḡrāf) and تِلِفُون (tilifūn)) an Arabic prefix because it is found in some borrowed terms, even though it was never treated as such in the borrowing language? — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The distinction between the dialects and the literary language is very often blurred when vernacularisms are "adjusted" to fit in the conjugation and declension systems. You are speaking of "MSA" and the "dialects" as if they were almost antipodal (perhaps like Chinese and Swedish), but if you scour through modern news articles and opinion pieces, you will probably notice that very many of them are written in some "standardized vernacular", while some have whole paragraphs that are entirely composed in the syntax of the vernacular. The more starkly "dialectal" elements are interrogatives and other like particles, and when those are excised, you end up with a composition that is lexically "dialectal" yet grammatically "standard".
So my question is this: is this segment used in vernacular and/or literary formations on the model of the borrowings? If yes, then I deem it to be productive in some language. The question whether this language is the literary language or a dialect assumes that the two do not spill over each other at all. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I doubt it is under no circumstances. It probably pops up too often in literature, though then not being as unmarked as it is now labelled (probably jocular? one hasn’t labelled it so on the other hand because it would be misleading because in basilects it is normal). Some words containing it are clearly part of the general standard, though one would have to seek examples where it’s not only by surface but the formation has taken place in literary use. بَلْطَجِيّ (balṭajiyy) clearly is manifestly general Arabic but not formed in it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't have an opinion on whether this suffix belongs in standard Arabic, but I do object to the ad-hoc post-Classical label. Most of the terms in Category:Arabic terms derived from Ottoman Turkish would deserve the same label, and adding the label should automatically put it in a category (somewhere under Category:Arabic_terms_by_usage, or Category:Post-classical_Arabic by analogy to Category:Post-classical Old Armenian or Category:New Latin). Would modern senses of words derived from classical roots deserve the same label? That is a lot of change to make. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Vox Sciurorum: It does categorize if one writes the classical lowercase. Incomplete module data. Fay Freak (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I changed the label to lower case, but the generated category contains only the one term so this is still a one-off solution as currently implemented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Vox Sciurorum, Roger.M.Williams: I have fixed the module data aliases, which @Brutal Russian had brucked four months ago. Now you can add the label in arbitrary capitalization and hyphenation as intended. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wow, what a clutz! I'm wondering though, why is it that the current alias substitution works even tho it's still different from the "Pre-classical" of the category field. Is it that the first letter only is case-insensitive? Why does categorisation even care what's written in the label if the category is unchanged?? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Brutal Russian: I thought you would understand: The dataset is called post-classical. To this argument of labels the aliases have to be mapped; of course everything is case-sensitive. display makes that all appear uniform. Fay Freak (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Right, so I should have changed display. Brutal Russian (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply



فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe you wanted to move it to a dialect entry. Egyptian–Sudanese Arabic would be appropriate. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay, sending these to RFD is not an appropriate way to handle an entry that obviously exists. In general, we should avoid bulking up a forum like this this with entries that obviously shouldn't be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply



فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

April 2021


посланець аллаха


Seems as SOP as Allah's Messenger would be in English. — surjection??08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which isn't very SOP. Without real-world knowledge of Islam, how is anyone supposed to know who Allah's Messenger is? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
The answer is easy: It’s always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete?  --Lambiam 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't trust a delete with a lean and hungry look. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.
In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
As such, keep, and ideally also include Allah's Messenger (if that is indeed an often-used term). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
In fact, Muhammad is the main messenger of all messengers of Islam. — This unsigned comment was added by Adamdaniel864 (talkcontribs) at 06:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

May 2021


منتظر ... بودن


This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.

I propose a hard-redirect to منتظر.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

June 2021




All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entry kawu, and two other entries kauo and kawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings of kawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at gawoo (and possibly also gabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete as per AndreRD's detailed explanation. Gawoo is the spelling and already appears in the Wiktionary. Native-title (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Please delete the Barngarla lemma warradya too, as the correct form is warraidya. Native-title (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Of course, Wiktionary is not paper. Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by @咖喱饭) currently (26 June 2021) given for Pali sugata is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses. "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

July 2021




All terms listed there are SoPs in my opinion. All redlinks, but the section would have to be blanked. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

"hyphenated compounds" like Volapük-Wörterbuch are, but still could pass due to WT:COALMINE. --17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Could, but let’s not make it come that far. WT:COALMINE also has exceptions. Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included, a requirement for any inclusion. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included"{{citation needed}}.
While the formation is trivial (language name + Wörterbuch), i see multiple points for inclusion:
  • It's "all words of all languages". These are words.
  • And they are single words, no multi-word terms or "spaced compounds". So for non-native there's also the problem of properly dividing Englischwörterbuch into it's parts.
  • The sections shows which terms exist, and which do or might not. (e.g. Klingonwörterbuch and Klingonischwörterbuch do not exist.)
  • Englischwörterbuch (etc.) could be both: 1. A monolingual, purely English dictionary like OED, or 2. a bilingual English-German/German-English dictionary. Maybe also 3. a bilingual English-French/French-English dictionary (same with other languages), but that might be trickier to attest.
  • There's no reason for exclusion, SOP doesn't apply.
  • There are two general problems, but that are general problems, and WT's bad entry layout is to blame:
    1. Many terms are both derived terms and hyponyms (e.g. Englischwörterbuch is derived from Wörterbuch and a hyponym of it). So properly they would have to be listed twice (like in Haus). An additional section "Derived hyponyms" would reduce repetions. (And as for "Derived hypernyms", "Derived synonyms", "Derived antonyms": there aren't as many as there are derived hyponyms.)
    2. It would be sufficient to only have "Englischwörterbuch (English dictionary)" inside of Wörterbuch. (As for the ambiguous meaning, there could be a general usage note or it could be added.) Then people could also find it and its meaning, and there would be no need for an (almost) useless entry.
--09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3721:3f99:5d35:2806:5b06:d485 (talk).
It's unfortunate that this is framed as a deletion discussion. The basic issue is that this is a Hyponyms section in an entry, not a list of all possible dictionary entries with the element "-wörterbuch". Yes, those would all be hyponyms, and CFI doesn't forbid entries for them (however useless most of the entries would be), but all single-word members of Category:German lemmas (69,246 entries) and Category:German non-lemma forms (211,074 entries) are hyponyms of German Wort- it's "all words in all languages", not "all words in all Hyponyms sections".
I would argue that including terms with -wörterbuch in them in this section is unnecessary clutter- no one who knows what a hyponym is would have any trouble determining that these are hyponyms, and anyone with any sense could figure out how to find them without consulting this section. In a case like this, the Hyponyms section should be reserved for terms that aren't so obviously marked as hyponyms, and if all possible hyponyms include -wörterbuch, then there shouldn't be a hyponyms section. After all, with thousands of languages having German names, it would probably be physically impossible to include all possible hyponyms- so any list would be incomplete. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Does WT:SOP (and more broadly WT:CFI) really pertain to the individual entries of such sections of articles? I thought it only applied to articles as such and it is thus fine to create permanent redlinks in such sections. Fytcha (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Remove, makes no sense to clutter the page unnecessarily. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. There's no clutter (the section is collapsed by default) and they would just be moved to Derived terms instead of Hyponyms so where's the benefit? — Fytcha T | L | C 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Remove. It's true that Wiktionary is not paper, but stuff like this is rather useless. I single example in the definition section would suffice. A lot of the ones under derived terms can also go in my view. Having size of a dictionary as a derived term of dictionary would be bananas. Wörterbuchgröße is not much less so. But we can argue about that. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFD-deleted I've deleted all hyponyms of type [language]wörterbuch. I've moved terms from the section derived terms that are hyponyms there instead. It's still too much, but I don't find it trivial to decide which are SoP. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply



This idiom does not add การ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is a tricky one to analyse. There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants. Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand. It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded. The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition, ถึง (tʉ̌ng) (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --RichardW57 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

See my message above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This idiom does not add การ- or ความ-. See การสีซอให้ควายฟัง --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

SOPs. Not sure about ورځ په ورځ though. SAb54iudwe1 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

August 2021




RFD of the noun section: "a sign for or representation of four", "the value four, e.g. as a score" and "(uncountable) a group of four". Unremarkable variations on the numeral definition that don't deserve a separate noun section. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment. English four, German Vier and Italian quattro also have a listed noun sense. Deletion of the noun section will also remove the information that this is a de word that has a plural on -en.  --Lambiam 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Lambiam. Morgengave (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep, edit the definitions if you will, but if it has a plural, then it is a countable noun and this section needs to exist. This, that and the other (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per above. It has a noun use that isn't likely to appear with large numbers, fractions, and the like. Soap 10:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I added examples, all three noun meanings are remarkable enough and frequently used. I don't think deleting them would be any useful — NickK (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nick, here. Removing these can cause ambiguity when one comes upon the use cases that would otherwise be provided.
KeepPiperium (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

apostolisch vicaris


Dutch, "vicar apostolic", SOP of apostolisch (sense 4) and vicaris (sense 1). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I'd understand the meaning from the components. A vicaris is not, in general, a titular bishop, and apostolisch also does not imply bishopric.  --Lambiam 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam But a vicar is often enough a substitute for a bishop, and a vicar apostolic in a sense is also a substitute for a bishop. I agree it's not a slam-dunk though. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
A vicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the apostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament of holy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones.  --Lambiam 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply



Deleted by Benwing (@Benwing2) on 5 July 2019 without discussion: “Bad entry title”. It should be undeleted, as there is no consensus on “the inclusion or exclusion of attested forms featuring trema” (Wiktionary:About Latin § Trema; see Talk:onomatopoeïa (2015, when the note was added)). J3133 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene): AG202 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@AG202 Thanks for resurrecting this. Personally I think the forms with diaeresis should remain deleted, but I will defer to the Latin community as a whole. However, I oppose undeleting unless we remove the stripping of diaeresis in Module:languages/data2. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea why we have a Latin entry onomatopoeïa as a soft redirect to onomatopoeia – and even also a category solely dedicated to this weïrd spelling – when, in its absence, users searching for the trematized form will be led directly to onomatopoeia. The alternative form is, moreover, senseless, since ei cannot be monosyllabic, so there is nothing to be disambiguated; we also have no entry deïnde. IMO we are better of without it. I merely brought this up as a counterexample to the statement that it is not possible to link to a Latin page with that name.  --Lambiam 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
"since ei cannot be monosyllabic": it can, e.g.
  • "dĕindĕ, and abbrev. dein [...]—in both forms ei is monosyl. in the class. poets; as dissyl., [Late Latin source]) [...]" (L&S)
  • "is, ĕa, id [...] dat. ĕï, in ante-class. poetry often ēi [...] ei, monosyl. [...] dat. and abl. eīs or iīs, also īs, [...]: eis, monosyl. [...]" (L&S)
And possible also in borrowed Latin terms like catapeirates (alt form: catapirates; cp. καταπειρατής (katapeiratḗs)), Fleischmannus (cp. German <ei> [aɪ̯]).
You're welcome. --22:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Apunite created a section here (WT:RFDN), “Restore onomatopoeïa, poëticus and poëtica”, on 15 May 2020 (before mine): “• Unright deletion without RFD. / • Talk:onomatopoeïa ended in "Keep".” J3133 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

October 2021


SOPs in Category:Hindi compound verbs with base verb करना


@Svartava2 What is your criteria regarding which are SOP and which are not? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: I guess you're thinking that I selectively nominated some of them; not like that, I actually got some urgent work so I had to stop my rfd nominations in between. Above I've made the list of my nominations so far, I'll add more to it since this isn't all, there are more sops there. Do you think any of those in the above list is non-SOP? Svartava2 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: They do appear to be selectively nominated because not every term in the category has been nominated. Wouldn't many of the ones that are not nominated yet such as डाउनलोड करना, ट्वीट करना and कलर करना be SOP as well? Although most of these terms are SOP, they were probably created because of their usefulness similar to Wiktionary:Phrasebook. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch I already told you that the above list is incomplete, I'll add more to it later. I'm not convinced they should be kept just because they're common and useful in speaking. If one encounters, say, समर्थन करना (assuming they don't know the meaning), and knows about the verb करना, it's only natural that they would look up for समर्थन rather than the whole since it isn't idiomatic with a non-SOP meaning. Obviously there have been terms that have been deleted due to them being SOP despite their commonness. Svartava2 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: Thanks for the clarification. So assuming समर्थन करना is deleted, it should not appear in the derived section of समर्थन and could be featured as a usage example at समर्थन, right? The entry for समर्थन already has a usage example for X (को) समर्थन देना, and X (को) करना X (का) समर्थन करना could be added alongside it if coverage for समर्थन करना is still needed. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: right, it shouldn't appear in the derived terms of समर्थन but no problem in giving it as a usex. its entirely up to the editor if they want to add that but I would probably not do that because करना is possible with almost anything. i would instead prefer to make a usage note at करना. (p.s. it would not be […] को समर्थन करना it'd be […] का समर्थन करना) Svartava2 (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: The copy-paste typo/error is exactly why that information should be featured/added to समर्थन with {{+posto|hi|का|means=to}} even if समर्थन करना is deleted .

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Should the same 'policy' extend to Urdu (Special:WhatLinksHere/کرنا) and other languages, or should the editors of those languages decide/be pinged?

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: I'm mainly concerned about Hindi and Urdu SOPs (I also tagged a few Urdu pages) but yes I think this should extended to other languages. the editors of those languages shud be pinged because they'd obviously know better. Re: that information should be featured/added [] — I don't think so, since it's (mostly) directly translated into english; eg का आदर/समर्थन करना = do respect/support of, की सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना = do help/wait of, से नफ़रत करना = do hatred from, पर आक्रमण करना = do attack on, etc. with adjectives it's mostly को - को बेकार करना, को अलग करना, को हासिल करना, etc. —Svartava2 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: For the following examples:
[object] का आदर/समर्थन करना - to respect/support [object]
[object] की सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना - to help/wait for [object]
[object] से नफ़रत करना - to hate [object]
[object] पर आक्रमण करना - to attack [object]
although the meaning of each postposition is debatable, it might be helpful to show which postposition (का/की/को/से/पर) goes with which word using {{+posto}}:
का/की: Genitive case (षष्ठी विभक्ति)
को: Accusative/Dative case (द्वितीया विभक्ति / चतुर्थी विभक्ति)
से: Instrumental/Ablative case (तृतीया विभक्ति / पंचमी विभक्ति)
पर: Locative case (सप्तमी विभक्ति)
आदर/समर्थन करना - to respect/support {{+posto|hi|का}}
सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना - to help/wait {{+posto|hi|की}}
नफ़रत करना - to hate {{+posto|hi|से}}
आक्रमण करना - to attack {{+posto|hi|पर}}
The purpose of {{+posto}} is to show which postposition (case/विभक्ति) goes with which term. If there are entries of the form X करना, {{+posto}} would go on the definition line. However, if there are no entries of the form X करना, how would this information be displayed? As you said with adjectives it's mostly को, this information may not be needed.
@Svartava2 Kutchkutch (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch Re: it might be helpful to show which postposition (का/की/को/से/पर) goes with which word using {{+posto}} — but it is obvious. I know English translations which we obtain directly by translating the Hindi are kinda weird — "to do support of X" because of the existence of verbs like "support" so it's generally directly said "to support X" — but that doesn't change the fact that it directly translates. friend's help = मित्र की सहायता, मित्र की सहायता करना = to do friend's help = to help [] friend. So it is obvious. Svartava2 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Anisht dev, Bigballlover69, Inqilābī, Msasag, Taimoorahmed11 It has been proposed that the Assamese, Bengali, Magahi, Punjabi and Sindhi terms in the collapsable boxes above should be nominated for deletion as an extension of the Hindi/Urdu nominations. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Anisht dev, Bigballlover69, Inqilābī, Msasag, Taimoorahmed11 Kutchkutch (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I lean on keeping all these verbs (more familiar with Hindi/Urdu and Bengali). They are compound verbs but they single units, words included in dictionaries. Not unlike Persian/Tajik "kardan" verbs (see e.g Category:Persian_compound_verbs_with_کردن. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Then, even the Persian category is full of SOPs. I don't think their entries in other dictionaries should bother us. The problem with SOPs is just that one can have endless list of FOO + करना and it is certainly not feasible/worthwhile to include ALL such combinations where they can be derived from its components. —Svārtava [tcur] 08:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: I understand the concern but we don't have any limitation on the number. Deleting them will remove useful information from users. Japanese verbs, which are simply formed by FOO + する (suru) have been handled - please see Category:Japanese suru verbs (currently at 8,244 entries, far from complete). Unless someone provides a way to incorporate करना (karnā) into a template for compound verbs (e.g. noun + "karnā" to form a verb in the same entry) and converts existing verbs to use that structure, the entries should be kept. Knowing which FOO can form such compounds is also important to users. Is the number of Hindi "karnā" verbs less than 500? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
P.S., I would support a new structure (similar to how Japanese suru-verbs are handled) on the verbs listed above, also for Persian "kardan" verbs. The list should be checked carefully, of course for pure SoP's (case by case) or where it's more than just (one) "FOO" + "karnā". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Can you show which important information will be removed if we delete all these? If it would be specific, i.e. if only a certain terms could form compound verbs with "karnā", I would agree with you to keep these; but it isn't so, because ANY term can form such compounds. Only a few terms like डाउनलोड करना appear non-SOP to me, because if SOP, it would be [(object) को] डाउनलोडेड करना ([(object) ko] ḍāunloḍeḍ karnā) (using accusative case) = to make (object) downloaded or [(object) का] डाउनलोड करना ([(object) kā] ḍāunloḍ karnā) = to do downloading of (using genitive case). So such terms should be kept, but others deleted. —Svārtava [tcur] 08:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: Which important information? All of it! You want to remove verb entries with their English translations. I am not convinced that any FOO can form FOO + "karnā" pair and work, even if the combination can be predictable and easily understood. Published bilingual dictionaries provide the pairs - they don't need to be split into separate entries as they are. Entries can be centralised by their main parts but this work needs to be done. This work was done (after discussions) before Category:Japanese suru verbs came about. This is not very different, believe me, if you may not be familiar with the Japanese grammar.
I have cast my vote and expressed my opinion with a constructive suggestion, so let's allow this RFD to take its course. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@atitarev: well then, can you provide a single example of a FOO which can't pair with karnā? I'm saying, ANY combination would work and grammatically etc. be correct. It may be rare or unattested but it would work. —Svārtava [tcu