Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

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

Oldest tagged RFVs


September 2015[edit]


Is this attested in Classical Latin? Old Latin is a separate language on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 01:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this is Old Latin, but it appears that Cicero used it once (Epistulae ad Atticum —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There is something that looks like "authemonis" in that letter, but there seems to be some doubt about whether it is "aut hemonis", Greek αὐθήμερον, or a corruption of something else. See the footnotes here: [1]. But I'm no expert. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]


Latin. May be attested in New Latin to mean "moth", but I'm not sure what else. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See Ancient Greek φάλαινα ‎(phálaina), alt form of φάλλαινα ‎(phállaina) ("whale, moth, monster"), related to Latin balaena ‎(whale), cf. baleen whale. I don't know quite how to sort this out. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
To start with, we don't have Ancient Greek sections in either of those entries. As far as I can tell, the one with the double letter is the original form, but it has been displaced by the later form with the single letter, which was also borrowed into Classical Latin, except the "ph" changed to a "b", for some reason. I think we're dealing with two different, but homographic words in Ancient Greek, with only the one meaning whale making it into Latin. The one meaning moth is used in taxonomic Latin, giving rise to the obsolete generic name Phalaena, and appearing in compounds such as Phalaenopsis. Even if this spelling exists, it should be changed to an alternative form of balaena, which was the only form common enough to have descendants among the Romance languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
So far I've only been able to find this and this. Note that both are discussing Ancient Greek word use in Ancient Greek texts. This is a mention in an English footnote that seems to say that phalaena is found as a variant in one manuscript that contains a fragment of a Latin text. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Anything before 2015? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I found this from 2013. Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm - that link doesn't seem to work - here's a formatted cite:
  • 2013 August 15, Ann O'Dea, “Interview: Richard Florida - Talent loves Tolerance”, in Silicon Republic:
    Author of The Rise of the Creative Class and many other tomes along similar themes, since his self-described conversion in the late Nineties, he has preached to all who will listen his doctrine of creative progress, and the necessity to ‘creatify’ even our most lowly service jobs.

Kiwima (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, this one from 2014:
  • 2014, Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class--Revisited, ISBN 0465038980:
    Every job can and must be creatified; every worker must be able to harness his or her own inner entrepreneur.

Kiwima (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think above-quoted cite, as well as the Silicon Republic one, are a different sense than the one currently defined in the entry. This sense may very well be attestable, but the sense currently featured in the entry seems to be an unattestable protologism. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Supposedly English. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick Google Books search ("the Mannlein" | "a Mannlein" | "Mannlein are") with and without umlauts, and there appears to be very limited use in English. I'm not sure though how many are true uses, and not German words in English, or mentions... Leasnam (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Added some cites. Leasnam (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Leasnam: The cites added are for a variety of spellings: männlein - lowercase, Männlein - ok, Mannlein - no umlaut, Mannlein - no umlaut. Do you have more luck searching for the exact spelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really...there is so much interference from German texts, and from English texts using Mannlein as a surname... I'll keep looking Leasnam (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Leasnam, any update? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
No, not at this time I'm afraid Leasnam (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

blame Canada[edit]

Rfv-sense: "A catch phrase for shifting attention away from a serious social issue by laying responsibility with Canada."

Basically, can we find three citations that aren't literally blame + Canada. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the quotes I inserted in 2007 are figurative. I'm not finding others. DCDuring TALK 21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this should pass. But I'm not an admin so I can't pass it. It's clearly used in many sources as not just blame + Canada but also has other denotations as well. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


@Algrif placed this comment next to the sense "(fishing, Australia) A tackle rig with a heavy sinker at the end of the line, and one or more hooks on traces at right angles spaced above the sinker": "Why Australia? AFAIK this meaning exists in UK and US and probably other English speaking countries, too". Smuconlaw (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the evidence available to the contributor was limited to the context given. We can't very well limit the contributions we accept to perfect ones! Why not make the change you know to be true and let someone else challenge the more inclusive context or definition. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not following ... I don't know whether Algrif's hidden comment is correct or not, which is why I'm posting the comment here. Should we just leave the comment on the page? Smuconlaw (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the three subsenses subordinated to the "rosary" sense (including this challenged one) are etymologically/metaphorically connected to that sense, but are not subsenses IMO. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It is my custom to put a hidden note in chages of this nateure. English fishing enthusiasts use paternosters. Fact. So I just put a little hidden note, incase some earlier editor decides to reverse my edit. It leads directly to a quick discussion such as this. and an equally quick solution -- ALGRIF talk 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not just start a discussion directly? Saves a step! Smuconlaw (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


I agree this is an actual word, but I'm not convinced that either of the two current senses are attested. In terms of its science fiction meaning, there is a 1980 novel by that name, and a Star Trek TNG episode, and also a 1992 film. However, its not clear to me (not being acquainted with any of them) that they actually revolve around "A multi-dimensional treatment of time", as opposed to just a more generic story of time travel ("timescape" being possibly chosen as simply a cool sounding word related to time); and, these works might be seen as attesting Timescape (with a capital T) as opposed to timescape. So it would be good if someone acquainted with these (or other science fiction) works could attest this particular sense.

Likewise, for the physics sense, a search of arXiv reveals the existence of a "timescape model" or "timescape cosmology" (see e.g. this paper), but it is not clear to me that "A function of time that is dependent on the position of the observer" is actually what "timescape" means here. So once again, it would be good if someone with a background in physics/cosmology could confirm if this definition actually matches how physicists use the word, since I have some doubts about that as well. SJK (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Would the sci-fi sense be a timeline, or set of timelines? A skim of Google Books suggests that a timescape might be any given way of looking at time, or measuring events in time. It's even sometimes used in the context of scheduling business activities. Equinox 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Benford novel, the word is used in Chapter 46, and in the 1992 Bantam Spectra paperback there is an afterword by Susan Stone Blackburn that discusses the word briefly. I would suggest a definition like "the geometry of time". This applies to the linked-to arXiv preprint above., which is introducing the name to emphasize that cosmological features of the model are derived from temporal structure. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I found Klaus H. Goetz, Jan-Hinrik Meyer-Sahling, The EU Timescape, Journal of European Public Policy Special Issues as Books, Routledge 2013, p. 147, which says:

We have borrowed the notion of a timescape from the sociologist Barbara Adam (1998, 2004, 2008), who define a timescape as 'a cluster of temporal features, each implicated in all the others, but not necessarily of equal importance in each instance' (Adam 2004: 143). Its key elements include time-frames, temporality, timing, tempo, duration, sequence and temporal modalities (past, present, future) (Adam 2008).

This doesn't appear to match either the science fiction or physics sense. As best as I can work out, it is a study of the temporal structure of some phenomena (in this case a political entity, the EU), emphasising the way its temporal structure is determined by non-temporal considerations, especially spatial considerations. SJK (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

man down[edit]

while it makes sense as the opposite of man up, I've never heard it with that meaning, and it doesn't look common (if it exists at all). It does appear that there's an idiomatic meaning here, but this isn't it, AFAICT. Maybe "to reduce in manpower" and/or "to weaken or diminish", but I don't see three clear cites for either of those either. WurdSnatcher (talk)

I find enough cites for "to reduce in manpower":
  • 1913, Fiji. Legislative Council, Debates, page 36:
    The Hon. HENRY MARKS: We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates, and included in the Estimates I find Mr. Mortle mans down here again.
  • 1973, Canadian Labour - Volume 18, page 10:
    The employer is usually attempting to cut out manning down on a particular piece of equipment, and they have a meeting with us to try to get some kind of an agreement.
  • 2011, Denise A. Bates, House of Bull: Book Three, ISBN 1452011672, page 392:
    These men have gotten word that the fort we left, Ridgeway, is manning down.
There is also some evidence for to intimidate:
  • 1924, George Allan England, The White Wilderness, page 160:
    A famous champion, he; super-expert in the art of "manning down" his opponent, and sometimes in the heat of battle glowing with such an ardour of excitement that he would make wide jumps, quite against every rule, and sweep off pieces wholesale.
And I found one quote to support the supplied meaning:
  • 2013, Alexei Auld, Tonto Canto Pocahontas:
    Normally, I'd psych myself out of approaching her. I looked at her, trying to find something that reinforced my manning down.
There also seems to be a meaning having to do with falconry - from context it looks like a process of reducing food intake to cause weight loss:
  • 2014, Ben Crane, Sparrowhawks: A Falconer's Guide, ISBN 1847977103:
    When taken directly from the chamber, initially Mrs Woods showed a high level of fear but when manned down, she went on to show no aggression whatsoever.
  • 1995, Association of Avian Veterinarians. Conference, Main Conference Proceedings, page 176:
    This critical period involves manning down the raptor, slowly lowering the body weight, and controlled flight training.
Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've made a citations page, found one more for the falconry thing and taken a stab at writing a def for that one, also added the manpower one. I found a second use for "to intimidate", but that's still only two. I've switched this rfv to be for the "lose courage" sense, which still only has that one cite you found. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose we could combine the two courage ones into a single definition - something like "To lose courage or cause to lose courage", and then use the three cites for that. Kiwima (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 1973 Canadian Labour manpower cite is good. It is at least ambiguous. I find the more natural reading to be "the employer is usually attempting to (cut out) (manning) (down on) a particular piece of equipment."
Another reading would be that it was a blend of "cut out" and "cut down" resulting from a mid-sentence edit of speech.
They all look like nonce creative exploitations of "man"'s normal meaning by verbing it. The heterogeneous nature of the uses suggests that there are probably other meanings also. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


The first adjective sense and the example for the first noun sense are identical. Is "junior" actually a noun or an adjective when one says "She was three years my junior"? Under the entry for "senior", this sense appears only as a noun. Dylanvt (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The definition is clearly an adjective, although the example is not. As an adjective, the word can apply to anyone or anything. A junior brother, a junior daughter, a junior computer, a junior partner, a junior competition, etc. Anyone or anything younger than its companions can be described as junior, with "junior" as an adjective, irrespective of whether the people or things could also be described as "juniors" in the noun sense (and in most cases, they probably could be). It might be a clumsy way to look at it, but if the word stands on its own, it's probably a noun, but if it modifies a noun or pronoun, it must be an adjective. In the example given, "junior" is probably a subject complement, rather than an adjective modifying "she". But even if I'm right, it still doesn't mean that "junior" isn't an adjective when applied to a noun or pronoun. P Aculeius (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In that particular sentence it's a noun: "she was my junior (by three years)". Equinox 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The example has been moved to a different part of the entry. Could you clarify whether you're not sure that "junior" can be an adjective meaning "younger", or has moving the example rendered this RfV moot? P Aculeius (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I added three quotes, although a better definition might be "young" or "child". Kiwima (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a comparative adjective, meaning "younger" or "newer". I don't see "child" as an equivalent, except as a noun sense. P Aculeius (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

en passants[edit]

Are there three attesting quotations for this meeting WT:ATTEST, including in permanently recorded media? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I added 2 more. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
They're identical copies... Equinox 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry, that was just a mistake. Fixed now. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


To develop characteristics of a chicken. I am doubtful that that sense exists. I would probably say chickenize if I needed to -- which oddly enough does seem to be a valid word, though not with that meaning. WurdSnatcher (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be gallicize, although that also has a different implication. *Imagines chicken in striped shirt and beret* Delete as nonsense, and per similar discussion over "house" at RfD. P Aculeius (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added the other sense to this RfV under the L3 heading below to take advantage of any searching for the above sense. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

avoid as a result of fear[edit]

"(intransitive) To avoid something as a result of fear."

Does this sense of chicken#Verb shown exist other than in chicken out? If not, we need at least to modify the entry to show the required complement, though I think it doesn't belong in this entry. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Searched "he chickened" -out. Got a few hits, all of which seem to be shortened versions of "chickened out", with the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was originally going to rfv that sense, but saw it has some use. I was curious if there are any phrasal verbs whose first component can't be a standalone verb. I guess this sorta counts since I'm sure chicken out came first, so there must have been some time before chicken was used on its own (at least 1946). WurdSnatcher (talk)
I searched for "he chickened the" on Google Books, hoping for something like "he chickened the dare". All I found was "he chickened the rest of the way out", which I think is some kind of resultative construction (cf. "died a death", "the dog barked me awake"). Eirikr is right about! Equinox 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I parse that more as an alternative construction to "he chickened out the rest of the way". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What I was getting was "he chickened before he could do blah" and similar hits. Should be chickened out, but with the out omitted. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's actually marked intransitive. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention. Equinox 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a few that look questionable to me: [2] [3] [4] WurdSnatcher (talk)
Those look like good cites. I think that the sense of chicken in question is a backformation from chicken out, ie, a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Cited and moved to a different etymology. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a backformation, just elision of the word 'out'. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Omission rather. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

slide off[edit]

To leave a place, or a meeting, early without being noticed slid off from work gets zero hits, so I'm dubious that this exists, at least in this form. slid off work, slid off at work and slid off the meeting don't get any hits either. Could maybe be SOP even if it does exist (slide can be mean to "pass unobtrusively", so it's not clearly idiomatic IMO -- slide out is probably how I'd say it though, but that seems even more SOP). WurdSnatcher (talk)

  • Sounds OK to me, keep. Donnanz (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a mistake for slip away. P Aculeius (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't ring a bell with me...I have to admit, it sounds like a mistake for slip off (from work, etc.), which gets at least a few hits here: slip off from work Leasnam (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To keep the challenged sense we need citations, not votes. Opinions are of value principally for their contribution to encouraging or discouraging people from getting citations. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 19 November 2015
  • How about these:
  • 1982, John Le Carré, The Quest for Karla, page 162:
    Soon as he could, he slid off to Jim's rooms to make sure he'd left nothing around that a journalist might pick on if a journalist were clever enough to make the connection, Ellis to Prideaux.
  • 2009, David Nobbs, I Didn't Get Where I Am Today, ISBN 1409066967, page 444:
    Susan and I slid off to an Indian restaurant in Shepherd's Bush, and I slid off on to the floor.
  • 2011, Lamont Z. Brown Phoenix King, ‎& Lamont Z. Brown, Between the Gates of Heaven and Hell, ISBN 1426952619, page 10:
    As Simone and the crowd praised Drew I slid off to the back hurt, ashamed, and pissed off.
  • 2013, Steven Gould, Impulse, ISBN 1429987545:
    I slid off to follow her and I heard the scrape of a board on snow.
Kiwima (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well those don't support the given def. Something like "to sneak" might be valid, but I'm not sure. slide can mean "To pass or put imperceptibly; to slip" and those uses sound like that def + out. You can also slide away, slide by, slide past, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Perhaps the definition needs refinement, but I think they are the meaning that the author of the definition was intending. If you consider it just SOP, that falls under requests for deletion, not requests for verification. Kiwima (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Those just look like slide + off for me. The part that makes it idiomatic is "early", but those cites don't suggest anyone is leaving early. WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In what way do those not support the given def? To "leave without being noticed" is pretty much synonymous with "sneak off". Just for the record, I remember this a very common phrase from my youth when avoiding school/work/chores was done at every available opportunity. SpinningSpark 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
None of those give us any reason to think they are leaving something early. I agree that it's common, it's just not idiomatic. You can slip off, but you can also slip over, slip in, slip away, slip down, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
I am not arguing this point, but if that is your objection, move this to requests for deletion. It is not a question of verification. Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The definition that I'm challenging is idiomatic. If it is real, it should be kept. The definition that you cited and that SpinningSpark is talking about is SOP. WurdSnatcher (talk)
No more so than slip off, which is not challenged. Kiwima (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
MWOnline has, for intransitive, the following:
4 a : to move or pass smoothly or easily <slid into the prepared speech>
[4]b : to pass unnoticed or unremarked <let the criticism slide>
Why do our definitions for basic verbs suck? DCDuring TALK 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Because not a single one of our editors is a professional lexicographer. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

holla back[edit]

Two senses as a verb, I don't see any clear uses of either one on Google Books or Groups (some uses are describing a reply, but they are also literal holla + back, there's no use I see where it just means "reply"). There is a popular song called "Holla Back Girl" (which implies "holla back" should mean "to respond to a man's sexual overtures") but I don't see any citable use of that as a verb either (that one's not given in the entry, I just wanted to throw it out there before anyone asks about the slang def). I'm not sure about the noun defs 1 and 2 either, but not nomming them right now. WurdSnatcher (talk)

It's really common American slang, especially for hip hop culture. I'd be surprised if there are no cites because it's what one in ten American boys born in the 80's or later says if they want you to contact them later for any reason. "Holla back at me!" will be heard every ten seconds if you go to any big city, often with an affectionate nigga at the end especially if the speaker is a black man or a white teenager. AliHautala (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

cliff notes[edit]

"CliffsNotes" seems to be a trade name for a provider of study notes. Can it be cited as a genericised term? This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

More common as "Cliff notes" or "Cliff Notes", but citeable.
  • 2014, CP Moore, Legacy of the Gods, CP Moore (ISBN 9781506191577)
    Well, of course there's more, a lot more. But that's the cliff notes of what faces us once we find Sanderson.
  • 2012, Gary Wayne Clark, The Devolution Chronicles: Rise of the Chimera, Lulu.com (ISBN 9780985343828), page 105
    Ryker stepped forward and blurted out the cliff notes of the current crisis.
  • 2015, Jack Fisher, The Escort and the Gigolo, Lulu Press, Inc (ISBN 9781483429977)
    “If this is you being serious, I'll just give you the cliff notes of the plan for tonight,” said Ray.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
That's very good, and I've put that in the entry. But the sense in these cites is different from what is in the entry now: "A summary of a much longer work designed to allow a student to quickly learn the key points of the longer work". Can that sense be cited? This, that and the other (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just stick with the broader "summary of anything"-type sense. Purplebackpack89 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the citations, it seems to have entered the lexicon. I would prefer us to have Cliff capitalised (Cliff notes) like the first name it derives from; is that not more common than the lower-case form? Equinox 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


I don't think any of these senses make it as English, but before converting the entry to Middle English (probably with a different lemma form), I thought I'd bring it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just an alternative spelling of quede. Dbfirs 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
quede and qued should be merged. Since there is more at qued, I suppose it can go there (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I also believe that quede and qued should be merged, because these two are just two different forms of the same word, and in my opinion, they should be treated as such. Mountebank1 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"qued" spelt thusly is in Roget's Descriptive Word Finder page 141 by Barbara Kipfer, 2003, meaning "evil, bad". Sk4p (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the OED's quotations at their entry for quede and its numerous alternative spellings show the qued spelling after 1450. This looks to be a Middle English-only spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

pack in[edit]

One of the oldest requests for definition (open since 2009) is the use of "pack in" in American football. I can find no citations that are specific to American football - mostly I find things like "pack in the crowds", which is covered by another definition. Kiwima (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a non-SoP US football sense, but I also can't think of any other non-SoP senses - and evidently others think they can. I guess I should just pack it in as an amateur lexicographer. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's generally ok to remove {{rfdef}} when there are other definitions and no citations. How are we supposed to guess what the other meanings are without even evidence to look at? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Without the RfV we could be seen as asserting that there definitely is a US football definition, though we can't word it properly. Conversely, the RfV is a challenge to any US football definition. The citation search work for any US football sense is generally not too much more than for one.
An alternative is to have a comment (displayed or not?) in the {{rfdef}}. I lean toward allowing the RfV of a def line with only a label and {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a couple of cites from rugby (that's the same as American football isn't it? just not so much girlie protection) but I'm not sure that the vrbb is not pack plus the preposition in.
The first one is clearly just "pack" plus the preposition "in": The next sentance begins "Before deciding how to pack, ". The second one looks similar, but is not as clear Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The citations do not seem to me to be using in#Preposition, but rather in#Adverb. That might make it SoP or it might be a phrasal verb. The citations make it seem that there might be a "technical" meaning for pack#Verb in rugby. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)



Rfv-sense for Frenchman. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Just google for "žabar" "francuz" (with quote marks) and you'll find results that corroborate such usage. Fojr (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence? I tried it and it gets tonnes of hits, but in Polish. Also Google on its own not an acceptable source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Examples of usage with the sense "Frenchman", from the first couple of pages of Google's results : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fojr (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Any CFI-meeting ones? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The number of occurences of that sense suggests a "clearly widespread usage". Fojr (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no, then. Bare in mind it's not up to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Mormon film industry"; @Keith the Koala, I know it's real but I see a lot of mentions and few (if any) unambiguous uses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they are mostly mentions, but some move more into the use territory, and the 2012 cite is definitely a use:
  • 2007, Brigham Young University Studies - Volume 46, page 142:
    LDS filmmakers had reacted against Hollywood's stereotypes but only succeeded in creating their own, and some detractors pejoratively dismissed the entire Mormon film movement as "Mollywood".
  • 2007, Robert Van Voorst, Anthology of World Scriptures, ISBN 0495503878, page 362:
    One exception is the Latter-day Saint church, which has its own motion-picture operation (nicknamed Mollywood).
  • 2012, Elisha McIntyre, Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, ISBN 9004226486, page 74:
    Mollywood is not an official Church institution, although the Church has been using film as a tool for religious education since the early twentieth century.
  • 2012, J. Michael Hunter, Mormons and Popular Culture, ISBN 0313391688:
    The fledgling movement had earned the nickname “Mollywood” and audiences who had flocked to God's Army and The Singles Ward now avoided anything with Mormon material.
  • 2013, Nadia Marzouki & ‎Olivier Roy, Religious Conversions in the Mediterranean World, ISBN 1137004908:
    Rigal-Cellard's comments about 'Mormon culture' demonstrate that, more than a mere religion, Mormonism indeed appears like a culture, a way of life encompassing all aspects of daily life. American Mormons have their own music (the Church-sponsored traditional Mormon Tabernacle Choir or non-Church sponsored Mormon boy band 'Evercleen'), are encouraged to dress 'modestly', and there is even a Mormon cinema ('Mollywood').
Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure mention is strictly forbidden. CFI requires citations "conveying meaning" which could conceivably include mentions, provided they aren't "made-up examples of how a word might be used". Although all but the first citation might fall under that, the strongest cases are the 2013 and the two 2007 quotes, with the term nearly appearing as an appositive. I mean, how would we feel about the example given in CFI if it were slightly modified?
  • They raised a small sail forward of the mainsail (the jib) in order to get the most out of the light wind.
Is this substantially different from the one explicitly allowed? DAVilla 06:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Usages in brackets are still usages, but the 2013 quote has single quotations with it (books.google). The cites with quotation marks IMHO are just mentionings, but see also Shiaphilia, its version history and the talk page. As for the cite with "nicknamed Mollywood", I'm unsure about it, but I'd tend to "mentioning". The 2012 cite of Elisha McIntyre is a usage. If it is RFV failed, then the term could be added to Appendix:List of protologisms/G-P#M. -Ikiaika (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]


From Bailey's An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721), via Webster 1913. Bailey does give this definition (though it's a bit longer and stylistically different) but no examples. Any usage? Equinox 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What I get from this [5] is that Bailey's original definition was of writing that was unnecessarily great or prodigious. This would fit with the "monstrous" etymology of the word. Johnson's contraction of Bailey's wordy definition has somehow lost the original meaning and our entry has followed Johnson. It seems to me that there is a valid third meaning but it needs rewriting. Richard Kearney seems to think that this is a medieval term (study of monsters - all too credible for that era) and he is re-coining it with a new purpose;
  • This third approach I term—borrowing from medieval parlance—a teratology of the sublime in that it focuses on the "monstrous" character of God.[6]
  • ...I would identify a more recent and widespread tendency to remove evil from the realm of a properly human interpretation: what I call a postmodern teratology of the sublime.[7]
With "study, or writing, of monsters" as a definition, or even Bailey's "monstrous writing", there are more cites available;
  • Mieville's fictions as sublime backwash, inclusive of teratological angels and teratological shit, inclusive of the language of flowers and of the solar anus...[8]
  • In this way, this analysis has aimed at expanding gaga feminism by undertaking a critical teratology, that is, of course, the study of monsters.[9] (they're talking about Ladu Gaga!)
  • In Jack London's urban gothic, the city's teratological economy comes to light in grotesque animal allegories.[10]
  • A Final Teratology [11] (section heading)
  • Miranda Francus notes that in the West, the image of the fecund female has often been associated with monstrosity: 'misogyny and teratology have always met in the image of the maternal monster'.[12]
  • Despite being productive in embodying and critiquing human problems, however, teh incorporation of the cyborg into teratology overlooks one important aspect that distinguishes this cybernetic creature from the rest of the monster phylum: we are able to choose how to fabricate and use the cyborg.[13]
SpinningSpark 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

bosom friend[edit]

Rfv-sense - sense "body louse". SemperBlotto (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the citations page, but they're not particulalrly strong ones. SpinningSpark 23:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


"The belief that human beings have a spiritual nature beyond the physical body characterized by in-dwelling Divinity." I can see the word in Google Books but it seems to mean something like a human-centred view (anthropocentrism). Equinox 10:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a few quotes:
  • 1866, John Quarry, Genesis and Its Authorship: Two Disserations, page 108:
    Such a representation would present a real difficulty, if we were obliged to understand all this in its strict literal import, implying, as it would, very unworthy conceptions of God on the part of the writer. The difficulty vanishes, however, when it is perceived that this is only and instance of a prevailing anthropism which charaterises the whole narrative.
  • 1992, David Kolb, New Perspectives on Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, ISBN 079141437X, page 67:
    Homeric, and to an extent Hesiodic, myth amounts to "perfected anthropism," depicting the divine-made-human
  • 2014, G. V. Loewen, Place Meant: Hermeneutic Landscapes of the Spatial Self, ISBN 0761864938, page 172:
    In transitioning from anywhere to everywhere, we must reinvent the means of reading the world as containing both an autograph—though we do not presume to attach it either to a divinity or to an anthropism—and an hermeneutic.
Although I have some doubts about the 2014 quote. Kiwima (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I found another one:
  • 1979, John Carew Eccles, The Human Mystery: The GIFFORD Lectures., ISBN 3540090169, page 2:
    I have seen the question asked "why should mind have a body?" the answer may well run "to mediate between it and other mind". It might be objected that such a view is undiluted 'anthropism.' To that we might reply, anthropism seems the present aim of the planet though presumably not its enduring aim.
Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


A male given name. I seem to recall there was a guy called Egg in This Life (1990s sitcom thing) but I assumed it was a nickname. (Update: it was short for Edgar.) Equinox 09:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Short for Egbert ? Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox, Leasnam: I see sufficient citations at google books:"Egg said" to demonstrate that males goes by this name. One of the cites makes it clear that it's short for Edward, but the others seem to be ambiguous. What do you think we should do to the entry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should mention that it is also a surname (Thomas Egg, Joanne Egg, Rudolph Egg, et al.); and just mention that Egg as a forename (given) name can be a shortened version of Edward, and Egbert if that be the case Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


I always thought this term was made up for the Star Trek episode it appeared in. Judging by Google Books, this seems to be the case: there are only three hits, with the only relevant one a mention of the Star Trek episode in an essay. In Google groups, there are lots of hits- but all except for one quote the same line by the same person, which is a direct quote from the episode.

Note that CFI requires that it not only must be in use, but that it must be used outside of the fictional universe. It's possible that there might be a real term behind this- but not with this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the spelling should be "dunsel", not "dunsail". According to Memory Alpha, this is the spelling used in the script for "The Ultimate Computer". I can't say whether this is where the term originated, but it is the earliest occurrence I've found, and I don't find it in OED or Webster's Third. It does seem to have received sufficient independent use to qualify as a word in the sense of "a part which serves no useful purpose, especially a part of a ship, or applied to a captain with little or no authority." There are also multiple references to "dunsel caps", but I have not determined what kind of caps these are, or whether the meaning is related to the sense of "useless". Only two of these come from books, although the phrase "dunsel cap" does occur in a number of blogs as well. Many hits for the term (in English) seem to be misreadings of "counsel" or "damsel".
  • 1982, Marteen Dee Graham, Silver Sundown (Dell Publishing), p. 42: "If I'm not part of the crew and earn my keep, then I'm a dunsel. And you'll not have a dunsel aboard long..."
  • 2003 T.F. Campbell, The Light in the Stones: ...from the tales of Fibinacci... (iUniverse), page 248: "The President 'Dunsel' has engaged so-called exterior terrorism, by committing two-hundred thousand son 'n' daughters trying to checkmate the settlers who sit on the ancient oil fields."
  • 2007, Mark Kadrich, Endpoint Security (Addison Wesley), p. 234: "...so one thing we need to do is to remove all the dunsel default user accounts."
  • 2011, Kevin J. Anderson, Scattered Suns (Simon and Schuster), glossary: "DUNSEL – slang term for token human commanders aboard EDF rammer ships." Also used by the same author in Of Fire and Night (also 2011).
  • 2015, Chris Mentch, As I See It: Reasons, Rhymes, and Reflections; the Spirit of a "Well-Versed" Philosophy (WestBow Press), "In the Face of Her Storm": "I struggled down through the galley. And again up to the mast. I even checked on the dunsel, Wrapped my girl's sails down, I wrapped 'em low and I wrapped 'em fast."
  • 2015, Solitaire Parke, Flight of the Aguiva (Lulu Press), page not numbered: "For the first time in years I felt dunsel or un-needed. Ordinarily I don't do dunsel, I mean who I am says I have a purpose..." Used again by the same author in Egg of the Amphitere (also 2015).
  • 2011, Joani Lacy, Hollister House: The Banyan Tree Awakens, page 83: "Her long white hair was stuffed haphazardly into a dunsel cap..."
  • 2013, Thomas Berger, Reinhart in Love: A Novel (Open Road Media), pages not numbered: "In the school yard he saw his grammar-school self in dunsel cap and leather boots..." P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this it is "like a ski cap with a tassel", and according to this it is a navy term for a w:Watch cap (wich redirects to w:Knit cap) so evidently a knitted cap. SpinningSpark 03:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Created entries for dunsel (apparently created before, but deleted for lack of attestation other than in Star Trek) and dunsel cap. Suggest "dunsail" be indicated as a misspelling for "dunsel", or converted into a redirect there. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Well, it is certainly defined on the BBC's vocabulary page as described. Also at OLDict.com
  • 2013, Guernsey Press, 'Inbreds' email exchange published
    Gâche à panne mon viaer, I'm a Donkey me!
    [NB: this seems to be a durably archived example of casual speech?]

January 2016[edit]


--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A few cites?
Pretty sure these are the same POS. I did also find other POS'es, probably not the same one. AliHautala (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Republican[edit]

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat[edit]

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


It is given as ńīr- in George Starostin's Proto-Dravidian database, without the final vocal, but apparently with a palatalised (?) n. — Ivadon (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Starostin is definitely not reliable for something like this. @AxaiosRex might be able to help reference this reconstruction. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know “A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary” by T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau whence he derived his work? — Ivadon (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Given as “3690 Ta. nīr” in T. Burrow (1984). I see no difference in quality to G. Starostin's version, but at least there were no bad Nostraticists at work at that time! --— Ivadon (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My memory is that Burrow & Emeneau put them under Tamil rather than actually reconstructing the PDrav roots (hence the Ta. above), weirdly enough. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to have been a common practice to put Tamil on the same level as Proto-Dravidian, probably because of its long written tradition. — Ivadon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "website"; there are only two pages of Google results for google:"網処の" -"辞典", google:"の網処" -"辞典", and google:"網処を" -"辞典", a decent percentage of which seem to have been written by non-natives. (yes I am implying that jisho.org is responsible for half of the results)

Should I also rfv the other sense too? Exactly zero Google results on those pages seem to relate to fishing.—suzukaze (tc) 12:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

EDICT has the meaning. And also means "URL" too. (Look at WWWJDIC; I rely on this site) --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Its appearance in EDICT means nothing. Wiktionary includes words that people actually use. —suzukaze (tc) 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You ought to know that not every words in (any) dictionaries are actually used; they are published and referable. Wiktionary is a dictionary too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Edict is not considered a reliable source. We're following WT:CFI here.This is not an RFD page here. You don't have to vote but provide evidence for the entry to be kept. Otherwise, it'll be deleted in due course. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)
I found one on this page: http://ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.jimdo.com/ --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Also this at the bottom: http://www.shi-yaku-jin-no-hokora.org/ --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Octahedron80, those are websites, which do not meet WT:CFI requirements for term citations.
The first is, oddly, on http://www.jimdo.com/, what appears to be a US-based "create-your-own-website" service, suggesting that the original page creator / maintainer might have been from the US. The linked page itself mostly consists of the line "新しい網処へ * To the new website" at http://www.ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.org/. This latter site contains zero instances of the term 網処: google:site:ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.org "網処"
The second site clearly states that "shi-yaku-jin no hokora is both this virtual online shrine and an actual, small, family-owned, • minzoku NEO-shintô shrine located in the Twin Cities, Minnesota." This suggests that the Japanese on the site might not be reflective of native-speaker usage.
The only reputable native-Japanese reference work I could find that includes this term at all is the 世界大百科事典 (Sekai Dai-Hyakka Jiten, “Big World Encyclopedia”), in the entry here on the Kotobank reference aggregator site. In this case, the term literally means “net place”, as the “place” where a stationary “net” would be set up to catch fish. The reading would presumably be amido or the contracted form ando, or possibly amidokoro. This entry on the less-reputable Glosbe site lists this older meaning as well as the purported new meaning of website, but again, Glosbe is not known for the quality of its entries.
google:"網処" "は" (adding the "" to explicitly capture just Japanese texts) generates 1,210 apparent hits as shown at the top of the page, collapsing to just 108 when paging through (though apparently listing 113 actual hit links). Some of these are scannos, and some more are just dictionary listings. I cannot find many instances of this term used to mean website, and those few that I *can* find are 1) often in contexts suggesting non-native users of Japanese, and 2) not sufficient for WT:CFI.
I suspect that this is a rare protologism. Searching Google Books for this term in works since 1990 doesn't find any apparent uses with the website sense.
It appears that this term does not yet meet WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the Latin adjective's declension. Tagged but not listed. The reason given was "Please verify the declension. E.g. it should be more likely that the nominative neuter form is 'monoīdes' like it also is 'neuroīdes' (neuter noun) and not 'neuroīdēs'." — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I made an exhaustive check, and can confirm that neuroīdes is a hapax legomenon and is only attested in the nominative singular. AFAICT, the only evidence that suggests that the e in the ult is short is that it represents, etymologically, an epsilon rather than an eta. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries mention words ending in -oides in different ways. Sometimes it's like "āeroīdēs, is (ἀεροειδής)" and sometimes like "nētoīdēs, es (νητοειδής, ές)". So in case of netoides it's said that the neuter form is short. In case of aeroides it might look like the neuter form is long (i.e. all nominative singular forms being the same), but it might also be short as it is in case of netoides and Greek νητοειδής. Furthermore:
  • In case of some words ending in -oides dictionaries state that the accusative (also) ends in -ēn (instead of -em).
  • Why should the neuter nominative plural end in -ia and not in -a and the genitive in -ium and not just in -um? In case of Latin adjectives it might be -ia, but Latin words derived from Greek aren't always declined like normal Latin words, thus normal Latin declension doesn't proof anything.
  • As for rhomboides:
    1. Googling for "rhomboidium" didn't seem to bring up any good results. In biological/medical terms that is a form of an adjective as in "Veryhachium rhomboidium". But I couldn't find any Latin usage of "rhomboidium". "rhomboidum" instead lead to an Latin sentence where it is used next to "rhomboidibus" and to a German example ("Theilung der Rhomboidum"; Germans once declined Latin words like Romans do, which includes the usage of vocative and ablative).
    2. Some dictionaries state that it is feminine, while others state that it is neuter. Maybe it's both depending on the author? Or maybe there are (older) text where the gender isn't obvious. In case of neuter gender, the plural should rather be "rhomboidia" or "rhomboida". Googling didn't seem to bring up a result for that. That is, the plural might be different (maybe "rhomboide" like it is pelage for pelagus), or maybe the plural for the neuter was never used, or maybe it never was neuter and some dictionaries are incorrect.
- 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
An interesting find:
  • diopetēs” on page 546/3 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82):
    diopetēs ⁓ēs ⁓es, a. [Gk. διοπετής] Fallen from the sky.
So the OLD does explicitly make the length distinction in the neuter for that adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

English disease[edit]


This is a tricky one. I can find quite a lot of citations along the lines of "The French used to call sweating sickness "the English disease"", but these aren't much good for our purposes. Not only is it a mention rather than a use, it's just a translation of a foreign language term rather than an English one (it would be like if we had an entry for "bottom of the bag" meaning cul-de-sac). I've collected a lot of citations at Citations:English disease, but quite a few still need bulking up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(There are also some senses - syphilis especially - which can be cited, but only from historical fiction that uses the term anachronistically. An Englishman wouldn't call syphilis the English disease, they'd call it the French disease, but quite a few 21st century authors seem to have made that mistake. I suppose that still counts for RFV purposes, but it's strange) Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is hard as hell, and I don't want to close it, because I'm sure those senses are real, just hard to find. @Kiwima or @Equinox or somebody, help! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Considering this RFV is asking for 3 cites for each of 15 senses (i.e. 45 cites minimum) I think we've done pretty well. It'll live on, on the talk page, anyway. Equinox 02:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have bulked the citations page out. Now each sense has at least the required three cites. It is up to others to decide if any of them are too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if we can say which particular senses were calqued from which language? DTLHS (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
In Dutch, Engelse ziekte refers to the habit of writing compound words with a space between the parts, which is normal for English but not for Dutch. Would this sense perhaps have bled over into English as well? —CodeCat 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "(Cantonese) quarter of an hour" sense. I was unable to find an independent source for this outside of the Unihan Database. Bumm13 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bumm13 I don't know if this is how it's written (since it's a loan from English quarter), but it is used in Cantonese (pronounced as gwat1). —This unsigned comment was added by Justinrleung (talkcontribs) at 18:03, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC).
FWIW Cantonese Wikipedia has the relevant page named "". —suzukaze (tc) 05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


English. Entered to mean (humorous) Expression of disturbance and confusion because someone has been running circles around them (see Etymology). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books has 0 hits. All uses in a regular Google search seemed to be either quotations from Blackadder (the program in which the word was introduced), or non-quoted borrowings from its lexicon by the show's fans for message board postings, blogs, or user names. I couldn't find any evidence of independent usage, and certainly nothing to suggest that the word is ever used for its literal meaning, which is hardly surprising, considering that 1) there would be few occasions in one's lifetime where such a term would come in handy, children on a playground notwithstanding (they're unlikely to know such a word); 2) only fans of Blackadder would have the slightest idea what the user was talking about; and 3) since combobulation means "arranging, composing, or organizing", pericombobulation actually means the opposite of what it's supposed to, thereby making the term even less useful and more confusing (although not quite arising to the level of being discombobulating). P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
google books:"pericombobulation", google groups:"pericombobulation", pericombobulation at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
All of which translates to zero usability. Just because Google Books turns up a book doesn't mean the word is in it. If you search the text of the listed books, you won't find "pericombobulation" in them. Even without looking I can state without fear of contradiction that it does not occur in The Cat in the Hat. If the word were used in any of the books, there would likely be a quoted passage for each one showing the usage. The only hit is "Urban Dictionary", which as we all know is a perfectly useless web site for establishing that a word has an established, independent usage. All of the message board hits appear to be direct quotations of the dialogue in "Blackadder". The online dictionary search turned up zero hits in real dictionaries; the only hit was for "Urban Dictionary". So we're exactly where we were before. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The searches I posted are for convenience of whoever tries to attest the term, including a search that includes Usenet. Of course, not every hit found in these searches meets WT:ATTEST. A similar helper template generates pericombobulation - OneLook - Google "pericombobulation" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is attestable from Usenet, and have just added 3 cites (one for the plural). It always appears to be used self-consciously with the knowledge of its Blackadder origins, though not always as a direct quotation. Our definition might be too specific. Equinox 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WT:ATTEST, "Attested means verified through: 1) clearly widespread use, or 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year...." We're definitely not talking about a word in widespread use, so it must meet all of the criteria in the second clause. Does the word "convey meaning" in the example sentences?
  • Example 1: "We have identified an anuspeptic [sic], some would say phrasmotic [sic], phased paradigm shift in the market of interphrastic proportions. It's causing much contrafribbilarities [sic] and indeed much pericombobulation in the ABC1 sector. Frankly, we're Donald Ducked." The preceding sentence makes clear that this example was deliberate nonsense intended to confuse an audience. The word was not used to convey meaning.
  • Example 2: You'll have to excuse Justin's hypersyllabic pericombobulations. Someone dropped a thesaurus on his head and he's still a bit dizzy. Here the writer apparently meant peregrinations, but used the wrong word. He was describing someone using very long words (hence "hypersyllabic" and the reference to a thesaurus), not a state of disarray induced by being run circles around. Probably the writer did not have a clear idea of what the word meant and did not care, as long as it sounded very complicated and would not be recognized by his audience, consisting of fans of the Toronto Blue Jays.
  • Example 3: Oh come now, I for one am quite phrasmotic for the pericombobulation Paul has suffered, and can only wish that in future he will have the sense to complete his assignments more interphrastically. The sentence makes no sense, as its meaning depends not just on the term in question, but upon two other nonsense words from the same source, neither of which has any known definition. It is possible for the word to have its alleged meaning in this sentence, but out of context we have no idea what it means, or whether the unfortunate Paul has been run circles around at all, and since the rest of the sentence is nonsense, it seems highly improbable that the word was used for its ostensible meaning.
  • Example 4: I hope this is not causing the poster any pericombobulations. It is not apparent from the context whether the word is being used for its alleged meaning here, or if the user simply meant "discomfort" or "difficulty" and chose the second cousin once removed of the word intended. Searched all of the posts on the message board with the title cited, and found none by the alleged author. Searched all of the author's posts in that forum for the whole year, and could not find the word. Given the average length of his posts, it seems unlikely that he meant anything other than "distress"; he was not using the term for its specific meaning.
Lastly, the uses are supposed to be independent. Example sentences 1, 3, and 4 are all patterned directly on the original Blackadder dialogue; the first sentence combines five nonsense words from the program; the third uses three of them, and both the third and fourth parallel the original's statement of remorse for having "caused you such pericombobulations." They're not direct quotations, but somewhat of a paraphrase, but they're certainly not independent. So what we really have here is a word that's seldom if ever used independently of references to Blackadder, and so far there are no other instances in which it's used for its purported meaning; generally it seems to be used solely to confuse or befuddle the audience, or imply general discomfort, without any sense of discomposing people by running in circles around them. P Aculeius (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


"Someone who pretends unity with an oppressor or the oppressed. A scab who crosses the picket line is a wannabe hoping for crumbs in exchange for treachery." Really? What do they "want to be"? Chambers has no such sense. Can we also confirm/deny the newly added synonyms bootlicker and suckup? Equinox 19:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Those synonyms seems more like hyponyms coordinate terms (perhaps not all wannabe's go to such an extreme...). Prob better to list them under that heading or 'See also' (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say that second sense (if verified) is dated...it reminds me of the mindset of some from the 1940's and 1950's in segregated America Leasnam (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We could probably find missing definitions for large numbers of words if we could find a corpus of leftist English-language newspapers. But the oppressors have made that impossible. 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd say the usage example is just sense 1, but nevertheless, there are some promising hits (although the sense would be better as "Someone who aspires to join or assimilate with an oppressor or the oppressed")
  • 1991, Nancie Caraway, Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism, Univ. of Tennessee Press (ISBN 9780870497209), page 95
    Contemporary Black women remain victimized by — and often perpetrators of — the "wannabe" (as in the "I wannabe white" phenomenon dramatized in Spike Lee's film School Daze) ideology that contributes to their own and their Black sisters' oppression
  • 1994, Carol Camper, Miscegenation Blues: Voices of Mixed Race Women, Sister Vision Press (ISBN 9780920813959)
    What I never want to hear again: "Mutt" "Half-breed" "Heinz 57" "Wannabe" I never want to face another door opened by a mother who calls the child of her own body racist names.
  • 2014, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960–1975, Revised Edition, University of Oklahoma Press (ISBN 9780806145372), page 261
    I'm part Indian but don't know anything about being Indian. I've tried to talk with the Indians here but they called me a wannabe when I told them about my background.
Arguably, there are two separate senses here, with one being a derogatory term for someone of mixed race. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel like those citations definitely cite something, but I can't figure out what. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "a wooden chopping block" sense. This sense is used in the Unihan database but isn't showing up in any other online dictionary source that I've looked at. Could be in the Kangxi dictionary as I haven't checked there yet (not in English). Bumm13 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Although the ctext page mentions that in the Unihan definition field, the Kangxi simply says that pronunciation 頹/堆 is "coffin cover" and pronunciation 敦 is "withered" (reflecting the current content at 橔#Chinese). It's tricky - even zdic says it in the English, but the English is generally less reliable since it's Unihan-sourced. Nibiko (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "hawthorn". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Japanese variant form appears in the term 山査子 ‎(sanzashi, hawthorn). The Chinese equivalent appears to be 山楂 ‎(shānzhā, hawthorn; rose hip), as given at online Chinese dictionary MDBG, with that entry clearly listing 山查 as a variant spelling, using this same character. As such, I'm inclined to think the hawthorn sense is valid, but that might just be me.
@Wyang, @Kc kennylau, @Anatoli, other ZH editors: can any of you shed more light on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: [14] says 查 zhā 2. 同“楂”, which means that 查 and 楂 are equivalent. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In case you need another confirmation - in Pleco: 查 or 査 with the Mandarin reading zhā, Cantonese caa4 is same as 楂 as in 山楂.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Not caa4, but zaa1. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

scheisse (as an English word)[edit]


I'm very skeptical that any of these—but especially the ones spelled with ß—are used as English words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The ones spelt with ß are rare but appear to be existent. [15] & [16] --Romanophile (contributions) 14:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've heard it used several times over the years by native English speakers, as a way to avoid saying shit. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Amusingly, Germans use shit as a euphemism to avoid saying Scheiße. However, spoken usage doesn't verify the spelling and capitalization. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added three or more quotations for each sense of scheisse and Scheisse. I've also added one quotation for each sense of Scheiss, but I can't find any more. As a side note, the redlink scheiss seems to be attestable as an English word from Usenet and Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger, I added a citation page for Scheiss, but I can’t find many results for the interjective sense. This is italicized and this appears to be spam of some sort. --Romanophile (contributions) 06:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Using the first search that Romanophile linked to above, I've added three quotations for the noun senses of Scheiße and scheiße. When I looked at the second search, though, I didn't see three independent unambiguous uses of Scheiß or scheiß. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (obsolete) To make a fool of, to cause to look ridiculous.

Only cite is from Shakespeare. Two more needed. DCDuring TALK 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering how widely-read Shakespeare is, that there are whole dictionaries devoted to words used by Shakespeare, and that there are far fewer published works from the Elizabethan era that can be drawn on for evidence of a word's existence, shouldn't we include Shakespeare's writings under some sort of a notability criterion? I'm aware that there is no such criterion for English, but it seems odd to me that someone (like me) looking up a word they found in Shakespeare wouldn't be able to find it in Wiktionary because of our rigid CFI. This especially considering how many times the play from which the quote used to illustrate this sense is included in compilations of Shakespeare's plays, or reprinted in some format (see here).
As a side note, I'm fairly sure senses 2 and 4 are identical. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There used to be a criterion like that, but it was removed by this vote. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The well-known work exception to the requirement for three cites from well-attested languages allowed all Shakespearean, Joycean, and Pynchonic nonces to be included. With only a single use how is one supposed to determine what the "conventional" meaning of the term is? DCDuring TALK 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Senses 2 and 4 are certainly identical, but I'm not sure sense 3 should be distinguished from sense 2 either. If they're combined, then only one more citation would be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about any of these, but what I found was this: Another, but different Shakespeare reference with the same (or highly similar) sense:
  • 2002, Carol Chillington Rutter, Enter The Body: Women and Representation on Shakespeare's Stage, ISBN 113476779X:
    'O heat, dry up my brains,' says Laertes, facing a sister 'anticked' 'in deed' by madness that Hamlet only 'played'.
Another transitive use of antic as a verb with what looks to me like a similar sense:
  • 1964, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts:
    Whether one's surroundings were anticked up or not, one often felt one was living in another century at Roque.
And finally (and most dubiously)
  • 1982, The Picturesque Tour, page 25:
    Surtees became a friend of Walter Scott and played a very "anticking" joke upon the author.
Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Looks weird without a space. Google Books finds mostly a nickname "Pizzaboy". Equinox 02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Groups gets some valid results. Surely not all of them are amateur speakers. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - an employee of IBM. Any takers? (I've only ever heard of IBMer) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Bgoldnyxnet and I have added several quotations, and I think the form "Beamer" is now adequately attested. The form "beamer" only has two quotations, so unless more can be found, I suggest moving the sense to Beamer. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And User:Bgoldnyxnet has made the move I suggested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
And the move was undone by someone at some point. And the lowercase form now has two citations; can we find one more? - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Of a language: having the future tense. Not apparent in Google Books. Equinox 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

All I can find is this master's thesis which uses the term in quotation marks. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This transcript of a TED talk is presumably durably archived somewhere, but I couldn't actually prove it. SpinningSpark 13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keith Chen, "Could your language affect your ability to save money?", TEDGlobal 2012, June 2012.
  • What you see is that these bars are systematically taller and systematically shifted to the left compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.
There is also a lot of people writing about Chen's talk, this Huffington Post article for instace ("Futured language speakers, presumably seeing the future as distant and less important..."). So do we accept the Huffington Post as durably archived? And more generally, do we accept articles talking about Chen as being independent? SpinningSpark 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The master's thesis linked to above is also just quoting Chen. I wish economists would stick to economics and let linguists do the linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
and perhaps you also think that Samuel Morse should have stuck to art and left telegraph design to the engineers? SpinningSpark 22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not knowing anything about telegraph design, I'm not in a position to say whether Morse had as poor an understanding of it as Chen has of linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This one is unarguably a print source as Infotrac returns the page number: SpinningSpark 13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wan A Hulaimi, "The connection between language and money", New Straits Times, p. 22, 6 September 2015
  • Futured language speakers, he says, tend to save less than those whose language is unfutured.
If the "he" in that sentence refers to Chen, we still don't have independent usage. So far, everyone using this word is either Chen or quoting Chen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. If this does fail RFV, the link from futureless needs to go. Equinox 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Dahl uses the term futureless repeatedly in Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe which I found from the bibliography of this published paper by Chen (don't know why I didn't find that earlier). Chen also, after several mentions, actually uses the term without quotes: "In Europe for example, most Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages have been futureless for hundreds of years ." SpinningSpark 17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Equinox is saying that the link to futured in the entry futureless should be removed if this fails (which I agree with), not that the entry futureless should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I misread that comment. SpinningSpark 12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Sources are needed for this accented variant. The word exists in Italian (language typically used for musical dynamic indications) only in its non-accented form, and it is unclear how can one infer the existence of an accent while claiming that it is " used [...] in its abbreviated form f " --Gengis Gat (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's attested, I'd call it a misspelling. In fact, I predict this misspelling is more common for forte in the sense of 'strength, talent' than in the musical sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added another sense (with quotations) to the entry, and converted the rfv to an rfv-sense as a result. For the challenged sense, I've only been able to find two citations [17] [18], of which one uses quotation marks and the other uses italics. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
While not being a French speaker, I'd argue that even the use of forté in the sense of "strong" could be considered a (possibly common) misspelling, as the word does not exist in French. After a quick search in various online dictionaries I was only able to find it in the Urban Dictionary, which I guess is not an authoritative source. Anyway, I am only sure of my opinions for what concerns the musical meaning. (Disclaimer: I've come here because of today's xkcd comic). --Gengis Gat (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a third quote: [[19]]. In addition, there are a few that are the same basic idea, but not really an adjective: [This] is a noun, [[20]] simply calls it a musical term, and [[21]] describes a stop on an organ. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Scientist. Seems to be creole or learner error. Equinox 14:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[22], [23], [24], [25]. That’s just the singular. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I went through the Google Books results. The best label for the current sense is archaic since it’s primarily obsolete but occasionally used in modern fiction. There also seems to be a distinct sense used in Afro-Caribbean religions. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]


google books:"la chichevache" seems to get two valid hits for Chichevache both of which seem to refer to Chaucer's works directly (one a translation of Chaucer, one a reference to him). If we find a third citation, I suppose we need to move to Chichevache and gloss as Chaucer, we raises the possibility that it's a fictional-universe only word, and might not meet CFI even with citations. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If the only English-language use is in Chaucer, it needs to be moved to Middle English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Organized gymnastics, dance and yelling at team games." How is this different to "A physical activity in which people (usually women) organize elements of dance, gymnastics, and tumbling for judgment or to cheer on a team"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's obviously the same definition restated with "yelling" added in place of the implied "cheering", which really doesn't improve the entry. However, I think that "for judgment" in the existing definition ought to be stricken. Cheering for a team (an athletic team, not the chess team or the debate team) is the primary function of cheerleading, even though teams of cheerleaders occasionally compete against one another. Also, male cheerleaders aren't rare, especially in college, even though they don't wear the same uniforms or perform the same routines. They're often needed to assist the female cheerleaders with the most physically-demanding activities. So the definition could stand to be tweaked, but the new wording isn't the kind of improvement it needs. P Aculeius (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, the nature of cheerleading has changed over time. It used to be men standing in front of the bleachers and yelling through a megaphone. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to rfc or tea room as existence is not being disputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

north by northeast[edit]

"The compass point between north and northeast."

  • Synonyms: north-northeast
  • This direction does not appear in w:Boxing the compass, which presents traditional (prescriptive?) terminology for the 32-point compass rose as well as others, including 128.

A related wordreference.com discussion including this: "Thanks, panj, for the link. So wiktionary is wrong then?"

A following post had: "I don't know what the philosophy of Wiktionary is, but most modern dictionaries follow the practice of reporting actual usage, and "north by northeast" does indeed seem to have been used when speaking of the direction between north and northeast, as can be seen in a Google search here, where I have limited the search to books written before 1900."

There are morphologically quite a few possible compass points (and their abbreviated forms) using by (eg, NNW by NW and NNWxNW).

If we can't maintain quality on such definitions by having citations, we shouldn't have them. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The fame of the movie w:North by Northwest suggests to me that, if we can only attest a limited number of these, north by northwest should be one of them. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

east by northeast seems to be the only other entry we have in this form. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is west by south missing anything useful? Should anything be dropped? I have added the corresponding images to the 16 standard "by" compass point entries, but not all of the other things. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why we are wasting our time on a usage this common, but I added three cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
What we are looking for attestation of a specific meaning, ie, "north-northeast". Or is it just used to sound like a what a mariner, explorer, etc would say, even though it is not a standard way of referring to any direction. The citations would support the latter more than the former. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentences in the citation don't provide enough context to tell what the meaning is, other than "a direction". DCDuring TALK 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There are book sources on technical subjects [26][27][28][29][30][31] that explicitly define north by northeast as synonymous with NNE. The term is also used by many other reputable sources that are clearly not just trying to sound nautical, for instance Monthly Weather Review. SpinningSpark 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The sense is wrong. There are two points between North and Northeast - NxNE and NExN (northeast by north, and north by northeast). This is very old, a 32 point compass (there is also a 128 point compass in which each point gains a "by half" to either direction.) - Amgine/ t·e 18:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly British sense: "Intended to be perceived as spectacular, but actually perceived as extremely poor quality". (Not the US sense, which just means spectacularly crap.) Equinox 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for Cat:English autological terms... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The first citation is a mention. The others don't seem to clearly distinguish which sense is intended. The 2003 cite seems nearer to the more pejorative British sense, and the Simpsons one to the more positive US sense. — Pingkudimmi 05:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


French section. Needs cleanup and formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's remarkably hard to cite because of the number of hits for the English word 'average'. But if you follow the links (copy and paste as they are unformatted links) there are two citations for the word 'average' already in the entry. http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/definition/average provides adequate information to cite it in Old and Middle French. http://www.anglo-norman.net/D/average confirms it just refers to our definition #7 of average. Personally I'd just detag it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Except it's a French entry, not Old French or Middle French. Two cites won't do for modern French, especially since only one is a use, as far as I can tell. There's also the issue of whether any usage that could be construed as modern French might be construed instead as Norman. This can all be cleared up, but the entry as currently written appears to be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
English definition 7 must belong to a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I've split the English entry into two etymologies based on the Middle English Dictionary and on the Bosworth/Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. You may notice that it's the result of Norman Old French derivational morphology used on a word of Old English origin, so it's a bit hard to pin down exactly what the language was (which is normal for that time and place, I guess). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I checked the SOED (1993) which links that sense to Medieval Latin averagium and the other senses to what we have in the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You'll notice in the MED entry I linked to that it gives the origin as both "AF and AL". I suspect the Anglo-Latin has pretty much the same origin as the Anglo-Norman, or is from the Anglo-Norman. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

This is too damn easy. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but that can be remedied: those are all cites of an arithmetic sense, equivalent to what's now Etymology 1 of the English. It looks like that should be added. The rfved sense is equivalent to what was definition #7 and is now Etymology 2. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And it gets even more complicated: see the footnote on the last cite. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In ... statuts et coustumes..., suggestion 1 by Romanophile, the section title includes "Des pasturage ..." and in Annales du Midi, suggestion 6 by Romanophile, "de donner à mégerie et cantal de l'average des boeufs, juments, asnesses et autres bestiaux" both seem to describe types of rent from tenants to seigneurs.
In Droit anglais..., suggestion 3 by Romanophile, the section title is "De Le Moyenne (average)" and looks to me like a French explanation of the English term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] --Romanophile (contributions) 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The footnote I referred to earlier: "on entend par averagi les brebis en général et le droit de pâture en certains lieux". Since the word footnoted is average, I think "averagi" is an error for that word. At any rate, it looks like the uses in Provence, at least, refer to grazing animals and some sort of right to pasturage for those animals. That means the first and last of your first batch (the rest are the arithmetic sense), and all of your second batch.
It looks like there really is a French word, but all the original cites which use the rfved sense are mostly something to the effect of "this is what they used to call it in England", which look like mentions to me, and all of your cites are for other senses not found in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Determiner. An example would be something like "How often did you go there?" / "Couple times"

I haven't found it called a determiner in OED or the OneLook dictionaries that use 'determiner' as a word class. We need to have citations for our claim that it is a determiner. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We have coupla as a noun, which it clearly isn't. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"couple times" is AmE. It is not valid in BrE. This should probably be noted against any definition. My impression (as a BrE speaker) is that "couple times" is a shortening of "couple of times" that has no grammatical explanation or justification. 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's somewhat informal in AmE. I'd not be shocked to find it in the wild in UK, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If it did occur in the UK, it would, according to my understanding, be interpreted either as an Americanism or as a mishearing or misunderstanding of the phrase "couple of ...". 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Some recent examples from Google News::::For example: "Miraculously, after a year out, Hutchinson decided to return to the game, re-signing with Chelsea and featuring couple times in 2011-12, including his first Premier League start,"
Rory McIlroy (UK): "I guess the last couple times I've played here I've done pretty well, so I'm sort of going for three in a row in Dubai with winning here last year and then with the DP World at the end of last season," McIlroy told reporters in Dubai on 3 February,
About a death in Manchester: "Still remember the couple times I made sure you got home ok either with or without Ze Ze Solomon."
None of these are durably archived, but they do suggest that the Queen's spoken English includes determiner couple. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Americanisms (as well as errors) do arise in BrE. However, they remain Americanisms (or errors) until such time, if ever, as they are generally accepted. I am not sure about Northern Irish English (yes, I know it is part of the UK). 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not exactly mainstream AmEng either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Couple things: 1. It's exceedingly common in speech and in newspapers, especially in interviews. 2. It could be analyzed as an aphetic pronunciation of a couple. 3. Coupla can be analyzed similarly and looks more informal, though it honors the memory of of with an extra syllable. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The very conservative AHD includes:
adj. Informal Two or few: "Every couple years the urge strikes, to ... haul off to a new site" (Garrison Keillor).
Their usage note includes: "The of in the phrase a couple of is often dropped in speech, but this omission is usually considered a mistake. In 2013, 80 percent of the Usage Panel found the sentence A couple friends came over to watch the game to be unacceptable."
Some style manuals rail against a couple of, which is at least obviously grammatical, because of its imprecision. Since precision is not a requirement and may be an impediment in normal speech, speakers have simply ignored the "rule" and gone further to eliminate the obvious, but cumbersome, grammaticality of a couple of in favor of (a) couple (adj.) and (a) coupla. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suppose couple could be a determiner ("two or a few; a couple of") of the quantifying variety. But it still needs cites. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    I have added a definition for determiner and one for adjective. There is no semantic difference, but there is a grammatical difference. The citations illustrate the difference, I hope. Could someone take a look? DCDuring TALK 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


I think it's a misspelling of berserker, not an alt form. I tried a search in Google Books but it only seemed to turn up the other spelling. Equinox 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a misspelling. Wouldn't make sense, etymologically, without the r, so it seems unlikely to be a historical variant. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but there are alt-forms that started out as misspellings, and even some main forms (pea, for instance). We need to see if it's made that transition. It would seem to me quite normal for speakers to simplify a cluster like "rs" between vowels, especially since the "ber" has lost its connection to "bear" for most speakers. It may very well be that the drift from berserker to beserker is inevitable, given enough time. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes; compare beserk, which constituted one in every fifteen or so uses of the word (beserk,berserk) until around 1985, per Ngrams, and which has made its way into various translation- and other auxiliary- dictionaries (google books:beserk dictionary). "Beserker" itself is around 1/40th as common as "berserker". Lammas: Celebrating Fruits of the First Harvest by Anna Franklin and Paul Mason is one book that uses "beserker(s)" several times and doesn't use "berserker(s)". (In books that use both spellings, it's more likely that the nonstandard spelling is a misspelling, but in books that consistently use one spelling, it's more likely to be an intentional, albeit nonstandard, spelling.) - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

allied arts[edit]

allied means "related"; this occurs in phrases like "architecture and the allied arts", i.e. those related to architecture. I don't believe it's a thing on its own. Perhaps suitable citations can prove me wrong though? Equinox 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox It can easily be cited without the word "architecture", if that's what you mean. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It is just an example: X and the allied arts means "X and other arts allied_with/related_to X". DCDuring TALK 21:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. This is another one of your hybrid RfD/RfVs. If I find three citations for "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts", the other words in the sentence are irrelevant because it still passes RfV, but...
  2. I believe that there are plenty of citations for "allied arts" that are not constructed in the forms "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts" Purplebackpack89 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two citations (spanning 50 years) for "allied arts". I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a third citation of the form "X and the allied arts", and then this RfV can be closed. Purplebackpack89 23:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Cited: Entry now has three citations. This is not the place to discuss SOP. Purplebackpack89 23:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The first two citations look good to me, but the third citation doesn't seem to mean "fine arts and related disciplines". Rather, it seems to mean the SOP sense of "related arts". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • [after e/c] The first two citations seem to establish "arts allied to each other" or "arts allied to something that everyone knows they are allied to". The third does not IMO. It seems to be clearly an SoP use of the term. Can you find another like the first two? It would be nice to have three citations that allowed us to look at the context. It would also be nice if we had three unambiguous citations for at least one of the definitions I gave, because they seem quite different to me. I note that no other dictionary at OneLook has the purported expression, so we apparently cannot rely on authority, but rather our own lexicographic skills, however meager they may be. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    Consider this from Encyclopedia Americana 1924:
Those, then, of the decorative arts which are applied to the beautifying of useful objects, may properly be called the industrial decorative arts. (See Interior Decoration). Under this classification would be included all decorative weaving, textile work and basketry; decorative metal-work in iron and bronze, silver and gold, etc., applied to the adornment of implements or furniture; decorative woodwork in furniture, including wood inlay; and all decorative pottery and ceramics. When, however, any of these arts is applied to the decoration of permanent or immovable structures instead of movable objects, they become ancillary to architecture, and are often called "the allied arts" or "the accessory arts,* along with mosaic, ornamental carving and stained glass.
That is a mention rather than a use, but it offers a clear definition and suggests that the term means or meant something different in the context of architecture from what it means in education as the Encyclopedia definition does not fit correspond to the definition in the entry. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring@Equinox@Mr. Granger I have added an additional citation which I believe does not apply to the SOP definition, giving us three "non-SOP" citations, even though SOP is not an RfV issue. Purplebackpack89 01:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2014 cite is SoP. The cite from the J of the AIA belongs to a separate definition, as explained above. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Will you stop bringing up RfD policies in an RfV? And I hope you three realize how you guys are coming off. I write an entry, you say it's SOP. I add citations, you say they're not good enough. How 'bout less, "this isn't good enough, this is SOP, Purplebackpack do it over", you actually try and find a citation yourself to replace the one you claim is SOP? Purplebackpack89 04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm simply describing what the cite seems to support. For most multi-word expressions there is at least one, often many, SoP interpretation. The first job of a citer is to exclude those. You don't seem to have been doing that.
If you don't understand the difference or notice the difference in the meaning of the cites, then you shouldn't be wasting your time or ours pretending that you know how to define a word and cite the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring You're not improving how I think of you with that comment. If you're wondering why this project burns out users, it's processes like this one and comments like that one. And if you consider adding an entry that has at minimum two implacable citations a "waste of time", you give me pause on thinking you're actually here to build the project. In the time you have spent criticizing me here, you could probably have found that third citation. So get to it! Equinox tries to make me a dancing monkey; now it's your and Equinox's turn to dance! Purplebackpack89 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Appropriately selective burn-out is not necessarily a bad thing.
The time waste is in your apparent inability to discriminate among citations. I don't believe that the challenged definition in the entry is worth saving, so I'll wait for the next dance. I would stipulate that the collocation allied arts is abundantly attestable, but not the definition under challenge. We need much better citations than we have. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, so you admit that you neither care about adding new editors nor about adding this entry, even though it's at most one citation away from passing RfD. OK, glad we're clear on that. You also admit your unwillingness to do any work on it; which I continue to believe is completely disingenuous with holding me in scorn for the work I have done. Finally, lest you forget, there are at present two definitions (counting the one you added last night), and as you forgot to convert the RfD into an RfD sense, both of them are technically at RfD right now, with the one you created closer to failing RfD than the one I created, as the one you created has only a single citation. Purplebackpack89 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the oversight. Would you like to challenge the architecture sense? It seems marginal and it's probably dated. It might even be US only. But there I go again, splitting hairs. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This is "Request" for verification: no one is obligated to do anything. The normal practice is that anyone who feels like it provides cites, and any perceived shortcomings in the cites are pointed out until either a consensus is arrived at that they're adequate or the rfv fails. The creators of the entries have an interest in not having them deleted, so they typically do a good part or all of the work. It's nice if people pointing out problems with the cites help in finding better ones, but they don't have to. Some nominations are disingenuous and/or unnecessary, but that's for the process to sort out. The only thing out of the ordinary here is your histrionic tone and demands on those who have the temerity to question any detail of these obvious manifestations of your brilliance. I know you're sincere about this, and not intentionally playing any games- but it's a bit much. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not convinced that any of the meanings are justified by the citations given. Sense 1 isn't even a definition; if the other two fall, then the whole entry should go. Sense 2 has two citations: the first one appears to use the phrase to mean "humanities and the allied arts" (i.e. arts related to the humanities) while the second one is vaguer, but seems to mean "arts related to each other" in the context of an artist colony, and is sum-of-parts within that context. The use given under sense 3 means "arts related to architecture". The fact that the American Institute of Architects has or had a "Committee on Allied Arts" doesn't give the phrase a specific architectural meaning, any more than its "Committee on Publicity" gives publicity a special architectural meaning. In each example cited under both senses, allied arts means nothing more than "arts related to whatever topic is under discussion," and is therefore sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    You may be right about the architecture definition. I viewed the Encyclopedia's definition as suggestive rather than conclusive. But there seems to be or have been some institutional reality to the association between any of several decorative arts and architecture. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some implication to allied that is not in the words related or connected. Architecture seems to be dominant with a changing cast of decorative arts. Are they all in common cause under the leadership of architecture?
The following made me doubt my intuition: "to say nothing of those near neighbors and practitioners of the allied arts, Fan Dancer Sally Rand and Philosopher John Dewey." DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius The last time I searched for citations, to avoid the SoP you and others are concerned about, I asked Google Books to exclude any references to "and the allied arts" or "and allied arts". Purplebackpack89 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that all of these examples still read like sum-of-parts to me, because the only way you can tell which arts are allied is by reference to the subject under discussion. And then all it means is "whatever arts are similar to or involved with the main topic." For instance, with the architectural journal, it probably means arts related to building; such as tile or mosaic laying, carving decorative figures such as cornices or molding, design of lighting fixtures, plumbing fixtures, decorative woodwork or ironwork for stairways, elevators, grates, railings; painting, wallpapering, paneling; design of carpets and rugs, furniture and other accessories that may not be integral to the building's structure or overall layout, but which might be coördinated to match or compliment those things. There's not going to be a fixed list; it just means any art closely related to architecture. If you see an article describing the "allied arts" of architectural design, you might see a dozen different categories listed; but another article using the same phase might give only 9, and only partial overlap; or maybe 15; and over time some might not be important enough to describe, while others might. For example, the design of gas jets and gas lighting fixtures might have been considered an allied art in 1890, but not in 1920; while electrical fixtures and outlets might just have been a minor matter in 1890, but an allied art in 1920. P Aculeius (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In the context of US primary and secondary education there might be a group of subjects of an artistic nature which are allied in the common cause of seeking restoration to the curriculum from which they have been driven by the w:Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core). DCDuring TALK 21:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the phrase "allied arts" is used on its own, without any context that would limit or identify which arts are meant, to mean a specific and regular group of arts? In all of the examples given, there is context: the humanities, an artists' colony, an architectural institute. I don't believe that the phrase is synonymous with "fine arts", or any other identifiable subset. Its meaning always seems to depend on the context in which it is used. P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)



Unlikely-looking non-standard adjective formations. The closest I can get for either is NIMBY-est. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of results for the capitalisation "NIMBYest" on gnews [44][45] but I'm not sure they are durable in any case. SpinningSpark 10:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    In the second one, NIMBYest is actually in the comments rather than in the article itself. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)



I'm only seeing scannos for nimbler and nimblest. The fact that all the apparent hits are from before 1900 is a bit of a give away. If all four of these fail, then nimby#Adjective might not be demonstrable. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

nimby#Adjective seems to have been cited, not that it's strictly relevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


"Judaism; Semitism". Religious isms are -教, other (political, etc.) isms are -主義. —suzukaze (tc) 09:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the core issue here is that the entry creator doesn't appear to know either Japanese or Wiktionary conventions very well. This particular Japanese term does exist, but the meaning is more like Semitism or Zionism -- Judaism refers more to the religion, which (as you rightly note) would be ユダヤ教 ‎(Yudaya-kyō) instead. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Poking around, it seems that Mekikin (talkcontribs) has made several hundred edits on the JA Wikt, mostly on Hebrew entries, but they have never responded to posts on their Talk page there. Perhaps it's not that their Japanese is weak, so much as their English? Or perhaps both? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Eirikr: I think we can count this as RFV passed based on the fact that citations can be found, but it wouldn't hurt to add them to the entry. More importantly, could you please come up with a better definition (and maybe a gloss)? Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: Re-pinging so this can be closed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

čárka, čárky[edit]

I haven't tagged them so far as I'm not sure about the exact rules, but the facts stand like this: čárka is the Czech word for acute accent, čárky its plural. However, both have English sections, which are "cited" at the former with two examples of the singular and two of the plural. Now for the fun and games:

  • The first citation (1993) is by "Olga Parolková and Jaroslava Nováková [...] self-published by Olga Parolková" - obviously Czech speakers, presumably unaware of the term acute accent.
  • The second (2000) is by "Jarda Cervenka", an obvious Czech name, the work may be a translation by somebody (the author himself?) unaware of the term acute accent.
  • The third (2009) is "by Autumn Pierce" but with a Czech title and the Google Books link reveals (scroll up just below the cover) it was translated from German Englisch Aufbauwortschatz by Lenka Pecharová, another Czech name, thus translator presumbaly unaware &c.
  • The fourth (2011) is per its Google Books link by another born Czech speaker, "now an assimilated American" but quite possibly unaware &c.

To sum it up, we have four citations for a Czech word (two for the singular and the plural each) used in English instead of its normal English counterpart, all of them by Czech speakers presumably unaware of said English counterpart. Does this suffice for the word to be perceived as attested as an English word? --Droigheann (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. There is a certain tendency to use native names for diacritic marks when discussing them in English, even when English has perfectly good native names for them. Sticking with the acute accent, fada is often used in reference to Irish Gaelic—usually by people who are native English speakers, and sometimes (e.g. the 2006 quotation at the entry) alongside "acute accent", proving that it isn't a matter of ignorance of that term. And although we don't have an English-language entry for it, I know I've heard people refer to it as accent aigu when discussing French orthography in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but my point is that unlike fada or accent aigu, čárka seems (by the evidence provided at this moment) to be used exclusively by people who are not native English speakers. --Droigheann (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with your analysis. I tend to agree that English quotations of what looks like a Czech word used by Czech speakers writing in English are questionable, but I do not remember any clear en wikt practice or precedent in that regard. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
All right, I tagged them now. --Droigheann (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


As an adjective: It's merely attributive use of the noun. Donnanz (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think hairpin can also be a short form of hairpin bend (in motor racing?), but that needs to be verified. Donnanz (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A portion of a road, path, route, etc is not exactly shaped like a hairpin, though the metonymy is obvious to most of us.
We could add a definition like "Any object, especially any kind of path or route that resembles a hairpin when represented on a map." to make the attributive use more obvious. This would accommodate all likely attributive use not covered by the other noun senses. The existing definitions already accommodate more direct physical resemblance. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Added the noun for a road bend. Equinox 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the time, it looks like an attributive noun to me, but I did find the following:
  • 2001, Dornford Yates, She Fell Among Thieves, ISBN 1842329804, page 95:
    Into and out of a valley, with the fall and rise of a lift...slow round a very hairpin, and then all out at a hill like the side of a house ... round to the left, to find a furlong waiting, straight as a rule ... and then a four-tier zigzag, to bring the needle from eighty to seventeen...
  • 2007, Roy Vincent, Listening to the Silences, ISBN 1847474721, page 98:
    The road over the Shu'uff mountains was very hairpin-bendy, and very hair-raising in a truck with bald tyres and a body that indisputably had a detached life of its own, as the tailboard hung over a precipitous drop, while we edged and reverse, edged and reversed around any one of the many hair-pins.
  • 2011, Rue Green, Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal, ISBN 0132660377:
    If the intercluster call is not hairpin/looped back to the same cluster, the former behavior of location based CAC logic applies.
  • 2014, Gerald Seymour, The Untouchable, ISBN 1444760408:
    Beyond Banja Luka the road deteriorated. It was hairpin and cut out of a rock wall beside a fast river.
Kiwima (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to check the references you've dredged up, but one of them is actually "hairpin-bendy", a rather informal-sounding adjective, not "hairpin". Try Googling "hairpin-like" and "hairpinlike" which are relatively common. Hairpin is still not an adjective in my opinion. Donnanz (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And I think "hairpin/looped" should read "hairpin-looped". It checks out on Google, as well as "hairpin loop". Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    They strike me the same way. At best they are rare metaphorical uses, all of which are readily understood in context by likely readers.
    In addition, the first cite strikes me as using very ‎(true) (adjective), which is consistent with the literary-dated language throughout the work. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    I wonder whether government would pass this test: 'her style is very government'. It seems to me that nouns actually can be qualified with 'very'. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully that will remain a hypothetical question. Nobody has been daft enough to make an adjective out of government. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually Wiktionary:English adjectives#Tests of whether an English word is an adjective does say that others parts of speech can be modified by too/very. For example I found a hit for very FBI. So being used with 'very' doesn't make it an automatic adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
* Only the 2014 cite of hairpin is an actual adjective; the 2001 is a noun (where very = real, genuine, utter, total). I agree hairpin is only a noun used as a modifier, and since we have entries for hairpin bend/curve/turn, there's no need for this adj def - which cannot be freely applied to other nouns. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the chess sense, please. The chess sense seems to be a literal translation of the English term. But even though it's a correct literal translation from English to Latin, that doesn't mean that this Latin sense exists.
(The Latin term here for king for example is also a literal translation of the Spanish, French, German term, so it's more likely that it exists.) - 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've run it through the Gaffiot which has post-Classical Latin as well as Classical, and it doesn't have it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources for Latin chess piece names:
  • De Ludis Orientalibus Libri Duo is in Latin, uses the word Scachorum and Scaccarium, mentions several names for chess pieces and has "Caroli Magni. / Rex / Regina / Sagittifer / Centaurus / Elephas / Pedes". Later the text contains the word "Episcopus", but it could also refer to the etymology or to religious bishops.
  • Scientiarum omnium encyclopaediae (1649): "Atque hic est ludus scacchiae, de quo circumfertur versus: Turris, Eques, Pastor, Regem, Regina sequatur. Quae nomina sic ferè exprimuntur: Rex, βασιλεὺς : Regina, [Greek] : Turris, seu Elephas, [Greek] : Sagittarius, τοξότης : Eques, ἱππεὺς : Pedes, seu Rusticus, [Greek]."
Secondary sources:
  • In A. v. d. Linde's Quellenstudien zur Geschichte des Schachspiels it is "Rex, regina (= Amazone), sagittifer, miles, elephantus turritus." which should refer to chess pieces.
  • A van der Linde, Der Roch. Zur wissenschaftlichen Entscheidung einer Heraldischen Streitfrage, p. 8f.: "Sein tükischer Sprung machte ihn zum Auflauerer (explorator, speculator, insidiator) und dann später zum Schützen (arcer, arcifer, sagittifer, sagittarius – Vida 1525 sagittifer, Rabelais, um 1550?, und Gruget, Paris 1560, archier; Gustavus Selenus, Leipzig 1616 Schütze)" and "Ein unbekannter lateinischer Dichter des Mittelalters hat die Schachfiguren sogar astronomisch gedeutet: Rex est Sol, pedes est Saturnus, Mars quoque miles, Regina virgo Venus, Alphinus Episcopus ipse est Jupiter, et Roccus discurrens Luna."
  • Antonius van der Linde, Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels. Zweiter Band: After "Die Figuren heissen" Latin names should follow and it should refer to Latin texts related to Chess.
  • H. F. Maßmann, Geschichte des mittelalterlichen, vorzugsweise des Deutschen Schachspieles, p. 40: "wie der Läufer bei Karl dem Großen sagittifer hieß"
  • Chess Player's Annual & Club Directory 1890 has a table with several names. It could have "Rex / Regina / Turris, or Rochus / Sagittarius, or Calvus / Eques / Pedes" and "Turritusfit / Scacchum / Mattum".
So Latin episcopus should be attestable, but sagittarius and sagittifer should be more common. -Ikiaika (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

huat ah[edit]

Supposedly English. The example sentences are all "mentions" (use the term in quotes). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a Singaporean, I'd say this term has not been fully assimilated into English. However, because it is an interjection and thus not used within a longer sentence (e.g., *"She wished him huat for his examinations"), it is going to be virtually impossible to tell from quotations in print whether the speakers were speaking English or Hokkien (Min Nan). — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the person who added it believes it to be Singapore English when used in English contexts. I added four citations for the interjection to the entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, of the ten quotations currently in the entry and the citations page, the three from 2015 are the only ones that are durably archived. Two of those are from the same author, Howie Hau B.H., so we only have two independent durably archived citations. We need one more to keep the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]


Is this used in Chinese? Also, Unihan gives gòng, but it's currently nū. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a Korean creation. See w:Talk:Gugyeol. —suzukaze (tc) 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Of the three Google Books hits, I can't find it in two (but they're Japanese, anyway), and the character Google OCRs as 莻 in the third one is actually something else. zh.Wikt's entry has only ever been edited by bots. Does anyone from this Wiktionary notify our colleagues at zh.Wikt when we find spurious entries like this? We should. - -sche (discuss) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not spurious. Korean-made characters have corresponding pronunciations in Chinese too, which can be used when the characters need to be used in Chinese (e.g. (shí) in zh:李世乭). It is used to represent the native Korean syllable (neuj, root of 늦— (neut-, “late”)) and may be read as , nǎi, nūxi or gòng. See this page for some historical usages. Wyang (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Seems to be a mention-only term except for one use on Google Books Chuck Entz (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The German translation Automonosexualismus seems to exist. So why shouldn't the English term exist too? Examples I found by a Google books search:
  • Studies in the Psychology of Sex: "Rohleder, who confers upon this condition the ponderous name of automonosexualism" ["name of", could be a mentioning]
  • The Transgender Studies Reader: "belongs in the area of what Havelock Ellis calls autoeroticism, that Hermann Rohleder has described as automonosexualism" ["calls" and then "described as", could be a mentioning]
  • Sexual Strands: "Aroused by own body (automonosexualism)" [usage, but no complete sentence]
  • Variant Sexuality: Research and Theory: "If the object is homosexual, we get a variation called 'narcissism' or 'automonosexualism' [...]" ["called", could be a mentioning]
So the English term seems to exist. -Ikiaika (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


--- LexiphanicLogophile <3:04 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

I've gone through the citations in the entry and removed the ones that are mentions, leaving three uses. Unfortunately, two of the three are by Anthony F. Bogaert, so we still need one more to keep the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


Can this be considered an English word? None of the examples are really in English. "mee siam mai hiam", "Laksa, mai hiam", "Mee pok Ta hiam jio zway zway." aren't English phrases. When people speak multiple languages they tend to mix words, but this doesn't make the result valid in any particular language. I suggest the article for deletion. 16:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(If it makes it easier to judge the [non-]English-ness of the quotations, FWIW mai means "I don't want" and ai means "I want".) —suzukaze (tc) 17:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Every one of the quotes currently at that entry illustrates quite plainly that this term is not considered to be "English" by the authors themselves. I see no reason why we should disagree with them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. There is no evidence that this is an English word. I don't know what it is. Delete (even though this is RfV) SemperBlotto (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Admittedly, those citations are most transliterated Chinese. But Google Groups has one that reads "Chef's specialty: Sambal fried rice, mega hiam, $4" - where it means 'spicy', which is a start. And the citation that reads "For example, ‘Laksa, mai hiam’. He could have said, ““May I have a bowl of spicy noodle soup without chilli please”, had he wanted to use Standard English" is English at a stretch. Nevertheless, most examples seem to be of "mai hiam" (i.e. hold the chilli, when ordering a dish) - which may be Singaporean English, but it is unclear if that matches the definition given. There seems to have been a lot of discussion at one point around a Singaporean politician saying "mee siam mai hiam" - i.e. mee siam (a type of noodle dish) hold the chilli - though apparently he actually said "mai hum" which is some type of profanity. Not that any of this helps with the actual sense here. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I just searched for "very hiam" on Google and there are lots of hits - enough to suggest it is in common use in Singapore English. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Of the first page of hits at google:"very hiam", only one stood out as definitely applicable (towards the bottom -- a blog post entitled "Meeeeeeeeeeeeeee very Hiam"). There were a couple instances of people described as "hiam" ("I not very hiam about it", or "But she very hiam"), which makes me wonder if this might be a different word altogether. All told, Google reports only 245 hits for the whole web, quite a small number really. Paging through, this collapses to just 39. The evidence for this collocation is quite scant. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, scant perhaps, but 39 suffices CFI, does it not? Given that the query here is about the word 'hiam', so not restricted to the collocation 'very hiam' - I just had searched for that as it is a good way to locate adjectival uses. But, more important here is the meaning, as it is defined as spicy in the taste sense, but there is also a fig. sense, as in hot/good-looking/etc. - so that'd need sorting out as well. Hopefully, I'll be able to get around to it sooner rather than later. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: CFI, yes, 39 suffices -- provided that enough of these 39 are actually 1) English, 2) from this same Singaporean etymon, 3) used to express the same part of speech, and 4) used to express the same meaning. Raw googit counts don't actually count for much (pardon the pun). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that the following examples from Google are all good cases of hiam used in English contexts. There is little on Google Groups, but that is only because Google Groups does not contain much Singlish.
* but quality a bit not consistent... sometimes very hiam..... sometimes not tt hiam........ Chelzea.
* Had kacang-ma from the leftover last night.I don't quite like it very hiam, gonna eat those kind of stuffs during confinement next time.
* Most Teochew people would cook in white wine…very “hiam”.
* Very hiam but so very good.
* oic. even if ruyi oil is not very hiam, also cannot?
* Very hiam. Essence of chicken.
* Pepper for adults, but not very hiam.
* Cause forum people say till like very hiam nothing much to eat like this.
* cos my mum happy happy accepted the box of mooncake and quickly put in the fridge and my papa share his very "hiam" rojak with him
* That makes sense, actually. Kim chi - very 'hiam' one. (Very chilli).
* Wow the laksa very hiam man.
* You need this after your very hiam looking lunch.
* Sambal fried rice, mega hiam, $4
* I hear there are two types of ginger – the clean ones not so hiam and not so wangi.
* bluey, xx, the not so 'hiam' version of ruyi oil brand is bao xin an.
* hehe spicy level 3.. my friends say not so hiam..
* Will there be a girl in Singapore who will be content with char kuey teow extra hum extra hiam ($5)
* White Carrot Cake extra hiam $2
* Come and pick me up and bring me out for Jewish food (sorry but I like my mee pok dry with extra hiam)
* "When ordering, always go for extra hiam, extra chor, extra lard. Extra yums!"
* I like it black, no eggs, cut in small pcs, extra hiam, chye poh oso extra chang.
* With extra hum, extra tam, extra hiam.
  • Considering this evidence, I would like to suggest that the word is common enough to pass CFI's "in widespread use" criterion - which it is in Singapore English. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem[edit]

Previously rfc not rfv with the same summary. I've looked through the first 50 Google Book hits. This does not seem to be Latin. By which I mean not used in Latin with this meaning (or indeed any meaning). It seems to be used in English and French with this meaning. Obviously it is coined based on Latin, a bit like biology coined based on Ancient Greek, but not Ancient Greek (no Ancient Greek entry at biology ‎(biology)). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at books published before 1771 found quite a few in Latin using the exact phrase. I therefore didn't look as those involving other forms of argumentum. I don't know in what vintage of Latin earlier than New Latin this might have occurred. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if it was used in Latin, wouldn't it be a sum of parts of argumentum, ad and homo, roughly "argument at or to human"? -Ikiaika (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As a Latin entry it could still be SOP. But maybe the first editor incorrectly added an English phrase or noun derived from Latin as a Latin noun anyway (August 2008‎) -- to which then another editor added an English example (February 2013‎), but to which a bot added the Latin pronunciation (Kennybot, 17 April 2014‎).
As an English noun it is attestable and one can find the English plurals argumenta ad hominem and sometimes argumentums ad hominem.
As it originally was an RFC request and as it has an English example, I changed the entry from a Latin one into an English entry, that is I cleaned it up.
A Latin section whith Latin examples, labels (New Latin?) etc. could still be added -- and then one could have a RFV process or a RFD dicussion (SOP?) for the Latin term if there are doubts. -Ikiaika (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)



  1. punitiveness

There are thousands of Google Books hits, but most of them are scannos of impunity or the result of "im-" at the end of a line/page and "punity" at the beginning of the next. There are a few legitimate examples of a noun with this spelling- but not with this definition. If someone would add a definition corresponding to that usage, this should be changed to an rfv-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Google can’t file for bankruptcy soon enough. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

When I won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes the guy delivering the check tracked mud on my carpet. - TheDaveRoss 18:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: the difficulty in finding terms isn’t some trivial inconvenience, but is extremely important to any search engine. The scanners will frequently confuse letters for numbers or other letters, confuse unrelated words for compounds (even in modern texts), misinterpret paragraphs, and will even insert foreign characters into perfectly native texts. Some pages are only partially scanned and are missing words, search options can eliminate completely valid results, the scanner’s interpretations are sometimes replaced with the pages theirselves, and sometimes even an exact phrase won’t appear in the results, but will in the pages theirselves. On top of all this, we have hundreds of books printed entirely in Latin but still have no way to search for Latin books—never mind minority languages. The technology is so shoddy that it could have been designed in the 1980s, just like Google’s closed captions. (Even the ones on my old television were more circumspect.)
Google—an opulent corporation—could solve all of these problems if they desired, but they have decided not to. --Romanophile (contributions) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile: I understand that it is not perfect, however there is a good reason we don't all use Bing Books as our first search which questioning a word. Google has probably put more legal resources into Books than they have development resources. Mostly what I am saying is don't look a gift horse in the mouth; we are far better off with Google Books, warts and all, than we would be without it. - TheDaveRoss 11:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dubious Gothic translations[edit]

These are all in the translation sections of English entries, so there's nothing to tag:

The problem we keep having with Gothic is that there are people trying to revive Gothic as a language, with online dictionaries and even a Gothic version of Wikipedia, and these websites have fooled even some fairly seasoned editors. The truth is, though, that Gothic died out as a written language by the 10th century at the very latest (for all practical purposes a couple of centuries before that).

Anything after that is either reconstructed based on terms in other Germanic languages and related terms in Gothic, or extracted from a certain nether orifice by modern enthusiasts in order to make up for deficiencies in the corpus of real Gothic.

I've already speedied some translations for things that were unknown in the time of the Goths, such as Iceland and television, but these are just close enough in time that they might be attested (however unlikely), even though sources such as Gerhard Köbler's Gotisches Wörterbuch don't include them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  • This seems a good spot to toss in two questions that would rather suit the beer parlour but are at least partially relevant to this issue: 1. I do use Köbler to look up Middle Low German, because he's extensive and free, but is he a reputable source? He's a doctor of law with a focus on legal history and trade, and I can't seem to find a proper documentation of his sources and method of work in creating his dictionaries. So I'm hesitant to use it to create entries here. 2. Purely out of interest: Which condition must be met so that a language is revived enough to allow neologistic entries? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I see Köbler as an aggregator of reputable sources rather than as a reputable source himself, along the same lines as etymonline, for instance. I wouldn't cite him as a reference, any more than I would cite Google. Nonetheless, he seems to be pretty thorough, so I would interpret absence from his lists as a pretty good preliminary indication that there's likely nothing there. Please note that I'm running this through rfv. If I were placing undue weight on his reliability, I would have just deleted everything.
As for the second question: It doesn't matter how many people speak it, Neogothic isn't Gothic- there's no continuity. It's been a thousand years and any traces of the culture and speech patterns have been dissolved in a sea of other influences and washed away. Languages such as Latin and Sanskrit have never ceased being used, and there's a tremendous body of text and information that can be used to fill out what's missing. The same is true of revived and reviving languages such as Hebrew, Cornish and Manx. Aside from a lack of information on vowels, there's about as much to work with for Akkadian or Ancient Egyptian.
Neogothic is a conlang: an artificial construct modeled after Gothic and designed to look like it, but not really alike at its core. If it has native speakers and takes on a life of its own, we should have entries for it- but not as Gothic. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Gothic has an extremely limited corpus. To the best of my knowledge, everything actually attested in Gothic can be found at oldwikisource:Bible, Gothic, Ulfila (original script at oldwikisource:Gothic Bible in Ulfilan Gothic Script with correct i). I regularly delete all Gothic words in translation sections and etymologies that cannot be found on that page. None of the terms listed above is there, so as far as I'm concerned all are speediable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
There are a few other works in Gothic, none very big. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, these should all be removed. They are unattested, and mainspace is not the place for Neo-Gothic. — Kleio (t · c) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In fact, I just went ahead and did it myself. If someone has any objections let me know, but since this had been here since April I don't think anything is really forthcoming. Going to be working through the rest of the nonsense added by soon. — Kleio (t · c) 16:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My preference would be to dump all of the Gothic protologisms into an appendix. If that’s insufficient, then maybe somebody’s user page. --Romanophile (contributions) 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How about Appendix:List of protologisms/non-English, like this? -Kirsea (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

pro domino[edit]

Supposedly an English noun. If it does turn out to be English, then it is probably an adverb. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It probably works like pro bono. From the current definition, I can't really work out what it means. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any English citations except in longer phrases like "such an action was brought tam pro domino rege quam pro seipso". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed, 1999) says it means "As master or owner; in the character of a master". I suppose another way to put it would be "in the capacity of a master or owner". — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In German texts one can find pro Domino meaning "for the Lord". E.g. "Pro Domino, für den HErrn ist gestorben, der H. Paulus [....] Marter-Tod pro Domino". Maybe the same phrase was used in (older) English too? But well, that would be spelled differently and is another phrase.
  • "Cape Times" Law Reports: "[...] as of right and pro domino to occupy [...]". That's a usage of the phrase.
  • Natal Law Reports: "[...] no longer permissively but pro domino; he [...]". That's a usage too.
So two usages (with italics) were found. A third usage is needed to verify the phrase. -Ikiaika (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's a third; "Pro domino or otherwise? M. C. Bosman states that D. S. du Toit possessed as owner and I accept his evidence on this point too, corroborated as it is by the circumstances and the probabilities." (1957: South African Law Reports - Volume 1 - Page 505 ) Kiwima (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The definition is still that of a noun; it should be changed to an adverbial definition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


Always scannos, I think. Has to be spelled penny-ante with hyphen or space. Equinox 10:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly scannos, but I found genuine uses in Computer Privacy, Why Me?, and National Right to Work Newsletter. Also, The Littlest Stowaway has both pennyante and penny ante (where the latter is a question by a character who presumably does not recognize the idiom in the first instance). Kiwima (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin countries[edit]

In some cases I don't doubt that these names are used, but that there are durably archived Latin sources. For example, Finish Nuntii Latini and German Nuntii Latini don't seem to be durably archived but might use some of these New Latin country names. -Maggidim (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Maggidim: This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.
  • Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
  • Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
    In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
  • Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
  • Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
  • Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
  • Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
  • Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
  • Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
  • Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
  • Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.
-Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maggidim: Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching google books:"Iraniam" haec shows that Irania is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.
In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.
  • Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
  • Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
  • Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
  • Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). dictionary.com states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran#English, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
  • Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.
So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.
-Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Niger (as a country)[edit]


Papua Nova Guinea[edit]








In the entry there was this rfc tag: {{rfc|Are all these senses real?}}. By the comment it's not a matter of rfc but of rfv.
For me the senses seem to be be valid, though some senses might be dated nowaydays like linguistics should be the usual term and glossology or glottology should be rare and dated nowadays.
Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 897 (books.google) still mentions some of the senses, but uses the words "old-fashioned" and "rarely". -Ikiaika (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RFV is for disputing existence not whether 'glottology' is more common nowadays or not. The glossary sense seems to be easily attestable on Google Books, google books:"glossologies", the medical one seems harder to cite but real and I think the linguistics sense is real as well. Let's put it this way, it definitely means something as there are thousands of Google Book hits for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I've found two for the tongue one though they both refers to the same person, Benjamin Ridge, one by him and one by another author (and I don't know who specifically) commenting on his work. Both from 1844 so far so not spanning a year yet either. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood me. This wasn't really my rfv request, and I know that rfv is unrelated to the commonness of a word.
Thanks. Maybe here is a third cite:
  • MacBryde's Signs and symptoms, 1983, p. 118: "Indeed, by 1844, glossology had become so important a part of the medical art that a physician named Dr. Benjamin Ridge proposed the fantastic theory that the viscera were represented by definite areas on the tongue and that an abnormality in a viscus was reflected in this predetermined area." — It refers to Benjamin Ridge too, but should be a usage and not a mention.
  • The essence and scientific background of tongue diagnosis, 1989, p. 4: "Moreover, the Classic of Internal Medicine recorded that tongue diagnosis, or glossology, can be used to predict the prognosis of a disease."
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether you tagged it with rfv or it was someone else; it still needs citing (this is true of anything apart from an obvious bad nomination, like where thousands of citations are easily available). It looks like the medical definition needs a usage note or context label to say that all the usage refers to one person. Which by the way, doesn't mean it's not valid usage for CFI purposes. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


In addition to the Marvell quote there appears to be one more: "Neither was Verbatim when it said: "Your adlubescence at this romp-through should be undiminished, and that's no fadoodle."" but I am unsure of the context or if this is a quote from some other work. DTLHS (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on Google Books suggests that Marvell is the only person to have used the word as anything other than an example of a linguistic curiosity. All of the others, including the quotation above (from 1978) seem to be listing it among other weird and wonderful words that aren't actually used by anyone. The quotation appears to be a silly example of two such words being used for no other purpose than to give an example of their use in a work mentioning or discussing them. That said, knowledge of the word is widespread, even if usage is not; the meaning is well-known, and it isn't something recently coined. It seems unlikely that there are three actual uses of the word outside the realm of "here are some strange words you've never heard of!" But is there an appendix for words like this? P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The word does appear in the OED labelled as "rare", and adds the following usage note: "App[arently] revived from dictionary record." In addition to the Marvell quotation and the 1977 one from Verbatim, there is one dated 1656 and an album review from "New Rec." in 1981. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius Appendix:English dictionary-only terms DTLHS (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk to SageGreenRider 02:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad there's an appropriate place to keep it, but those "citations" really don't satisfy me, since every one is either a definition of the word, or an example made up for the express purpose of using the word in a sentence. Only Marvell seems to be using it in any sense other than, "I bet you've never seen this word before!" P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

open bobs[edit]

Equinox 23:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the one cite already in the entry, I found one more:

  • 2016, “Periscope's new update comes with Global 3d map – Eugene Tech Time”, in Daily Star Gazette (Albany):
    Trolls are rampant on the service and the term 'Open Boobs' or 'Open Bobs' is very popular.
    Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a mention, not a use, though. Equinox 11:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i'm a user of Blab.im and Periscope (both video stream apps) where the term open bobs is used every day, and everyone knows what it means Amin wordie (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find it at Google Groups (ie, UseNet +). DCDuring TALK 22:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is the type of phrase for which we will find cites on durably archived sources. Which makes it a decision on whether it is sufficiently common. Amin wordie clearly thinks it is so. Does anybody else? Kiwima (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even find it at non-Usenet portion of Google Groups, but it is visible on the WildWoolieWeb. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel a dire urge to impishly clear my throat and blush before typing this, but: I happen to have two friends who are rather more liberal in their sexuality than I am and spend some of their spare time broadcasting on cam sites with their partners. The phrase 'open bobs' is so absurdly abundant in these fields that they already use it in their own language regularly as a sort of in-joke. In general they use 'open' for all kinds of actions. I'll add an etymology, because it raises the question whether 'English' on Wiktionary is meant to cover 'English as used by non-native speakers'. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we shut this down as "clearly widespread use"? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is clearly widespread. Citations aren't easy to find, and I gather that the "widespread" rule mostly exists to prevent trolls from RFVing terms like "dog" and "when". Equinox 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]


This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (tc) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumikotalk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

chanter en yaourt has a better chance of meeting CFI. Equinox 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I do like it when someone cites a source that suggests the word may not exist: "There's nothing available from Gallica, nor from wordreference.com, nor from the Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française, so (pending asking Francophone friends) I need to fall back on general web search." Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Even better it's in the Dico des mots qui n'existe pas (Dictionary of words that do not exist). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The complete title is Le Dico des mots qui n'existent pas (et qu'on utilise quand même): Dictionary of words that do not exist (and are used nonetheless). Lmaltier (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's actually used. Here are a few examples:

    • Et il programmait la plage aussitôt, repartait, one, two,three, four ! en yaourtant avec son accent épouvantable. (Stéphane Daniel, Si par hasard c’était l’amour, 2010)
    • On a fait comme dans le local, et Jo a repris le micro pour yaourter en english. (Maud Lethielleux, J’ai quinze ans et je ne l’ai jamais fait, 2011)
    • Je yaourtais, comme on dit, et quel plus bel hommage rendu à la langue américaine que cette maladroite singerie ? (Juan Goytisolo, ‎Jean-Marie Laclavetine, ‎Michel Le Bris, Je est un autre - Pour une identité-monde, 2010)
    • Voilà des semaines, des mois que j’écoute leurs titres en boucle, que je me réjouis à chaque nouvelle possibilité de les voir sur scène, que je m’acharne à yaourter sans honte sur leurs chansons et je réalise que je n’en ai jamais parler ici ! (lesmusicovores.fr/wordpress/tag/the-weasel-and-the-wasters/)
    • On ne comprend rien à ce qu'elle dit mais ça me fait penser à ces télés-crocheteurs qui chantent en anglais et qui bien souvent doivent yaourter sans que je m'en aperçoive. (forum.lixium.fr/d-1855365107.htm)

Lmaltier (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The first person past historic and future of that entry give a pronunciation /e/ for ⟨ai⟩. Is that correct? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Latin verb "to measure". Not in Lewis and Short, who do have emodulor ‎(I sing or celebrate). Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some cites, although I cannot verify the meaning. DTLHS (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Should be cleaned up now, but shoud be checked if it really is.
The third cite at Citations:emodulo has the word "Sirenes" in it. That should be the plural of Siren, a mythological creature known in English as siren. So the cite could refer to their sining and could have the word ēmodulor (deponent, translated as "to sing, celebrate" in Lewis & Short) in it.
-Ikiaika (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Lasch gives this word as ewi, which is proved correct by the reflexes later recorded. This form on the other hand is not clearly reflected in later reflexes, nor do I see how it would come into existence. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat Projecting the Cat-signal into Gotham's sky. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Does Koebler's dictionary have anything? —CodeCat 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Ten minutes of futile navigation attempts and two search engines later, he only lists the word with a single consonant. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Two observations:
  1. The etymology for euwi is copypasted from the entry at eowu, with "Old Saxon ewwi" replaced by "Old English eowu", but otherwise unchanged (notice the position of Dutch in both).
  2. Philippa's dictionary at etymologiebank.nl (here) mentions both ewi and euwi, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be sufficient attestation for a less-documented-language term according to CFI, though one could quibble about the lack of a list of accepted sources at WT:AOSX. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

etlich, einig[edit]

"er ist etlich" and "der etliche" (with der as article and not as relative pronoun) shouldn't exist, "ein etlicher" might exist but should be colloquial or dialectal. Similar "er ist einig", "der einige" and "ein einiger" shouldn't exist for the sense "a few". Note however that "einig" also means "united" as in "ein einig Volk von Brüdern" (Rütlischwur) which is missing in the entry. Maybe compare with [www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-Indef/Pron-einige3.html canoo.net].
Also the masculine or neuter genitive singular of both words should be cited with at least one quote as it could also be "einiges" and "etliches" (compare with jeder, manch and adjectives which could or can have both endings). - 13:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary's entries on words like this are often messy; compare the words described at User_talk:-sche#German_ordinal_numbers, many of which still need to be standardized as to the placement of the lemma and the labelling of the part of speech. Bare etlich is attested in older works (google books:"etlich und" has many citations well into the 1800s; citations ostensibly from more recent centuries seem to all be quoting works from the 1800s or earlier), but the lemma form where the content is should probably be etlicher, based on modern usage. Bare einig with a relevant meaning is similarly (infrequently) attested but obsolete (Citations:einig); the lemma should be einiger, reflecting modern usage. The Duden reaches that conclusion in both cases, though it prefers forms with -e rather than -er — I have no strong preference for one or the other, but Wiktionary's practice has been to lemmatize -er rather than -e when not lemmatizing a bare form. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The examples with einig seem to mean one: einig und zwanzig, einig und dreißig, einig und sechzig, that looks like ein und zwanzig or einundzwanzig etc., that is 21, 31, 61. Well, it could also mean "twenty and a few more". But then ohngefähr in "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" could be pleonastic. As one can also find "etlich und zwanzig" etc., it might actually mean twenty and a few more. "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" then could mean twenty and a few more, maybe just ten and some more, maybe even thirty and a few more, like 15 till 35 and not just 21 till 29. However, after searching for "einig and zwanzig" etc. these phrases should be very rare and just barely attestable.
einig as in "wir sind uns einig" is still common, so it shouldn't be moved. Maybe it should be split like einig as an adjective meaning united and einiger as a pronoun meaning a few. In any case there should be two different declension tables. Adjective: das Volk ist einig, ein einig(es) Volk, das einige Volk; pronoun: einiger Wein, einiges/einigen Weines, pl. einige Weine, einiger Weine, and no der Wein ist einig, ein einiger Wein, der einige Wein.
Regarding einiger and einige: Other sources might use the plural as the plural is more common and as the singular is used in "special" cases like with singularia tantum, material nouns, uncountable nouns, abstract nouns. By semantics, "some" and "a few" are in the plural. einiger Wein (Wein as material noun or uncountable noun comparable to water) means a little more amount of the liquid wine, while einige Weine (Wein as an appellative and countable noun) means a few bottles of wine or a few different kinds of wine.
As for etlich, it should be a pronoun etlicher, but as with mancher and manch there is also etlich (eg. "Von etlich[en] anderen vierfüßigen wilden Thieren", "Nachdem sie sich etlich[e] Tag[e] erquickt", "noch etlich[e] Meilen sey geritten"). The declension should be like etlicher Wein, etliches/etlichen Weines, pl. etliche Weine, etlicher Weine, and no der Wein ist etlich, ein etlicher Wein, der etliche Wein. - 10:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - Latin noun. Not in Lewis and Short. Needs headword correcting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not really a Latin word, it's an Aramaic word in Latin transliteration. Many English translations also use "raca" in Matthew 5:22, but that doesn't make it an English word either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking, it's a Latin transliteration of a Biblical Greek transliteration (ῥακά ‎(rhaká) of an Aramaic word (ריקא ‎(reika, empty one)). My Vulgate spells it as racha and my Peshitta spells it as ܪܰܩܰܐ ‎(raka)/רַקַא ‎(raka). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In Latin there's also āmēn, which can also be found in dictionaries. So raca could be Latin too.
Georges' dictionary has raca, see raca in Georges' dictionary at www.zeno.org: "raca (see note below), eitler Wicht, ein Schimpfwort, Vulg. Matth. 5, 22. Augustin. de doctr. Chr. 2, 11, 16.".
Some Vulgates have the spelling raca, like Latin Vulgate (Clementine), others have racha, like Wikisource's Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Stuttgartensia) and Nova Vulgata.
So the word should be attestable in Latin. However, gender and declension could be unknown. -Ikiaika (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Some additions:
  • Note to Georges' text quoted above: The Semitic characters at www.zeno.org are different from the characters in Georges dictionary. They seem to be similar to but different from ריקא.
  • Augustinus Hipponensis - De Doctrina Christiana libri quatuor - Liber II spells it Racha. Other editions have it as Racha or racha, often with italics or quotation marks, but there could be an edition with raca.
    BTW: Different spellings of the other foreign words in this example are: Amen, Halleluja (Halleluia, Alleluia), Hosanna (Osanna).
  • Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur contains "et raca". Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte has the same example (though it has Geennam and not gehennam) and mentions a source: Hieron. adv. Jov. II, 20, which can be found at Hieronymus - Adversus Jovinianum Libri Duo - Catholica Omnia (PDF page 54, column 328). Latin text: "Qui fratri dixerit fatue et raca, reus erit gehennae (Geennae)".
    Is this the same word? Georges has another raca, see racana: "rācāna (rāchāna, rāchēna, racēna, rāca od. rāga), ae, f., eine Art Oberkleid, bes. als Mönchstracht". Without reading the text and just by the context with Gehenna, i.e. Hell, I'd guess it also contains the word meaning idiot. This English translation translates it as: "He who says to his brother, 'thou fool,' and 'raca,' will be in danger of Gehenna."
  • This Latin text seems to dicsuss the word Raca.
-Ikiaika (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


--Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some cites, so it should soon be RFV passed. -Ikiaika (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Of the six cites in the entry, three (2008, 2014, and 2007) are mentions and two (the two from 2002) are of the spelling M17N. I only see one use (2009) of the challenged spelling. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(Australia) To clean drains." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is almost certainly spurious. However, when searching for it, I came across an apparently dialectal Scottish term puggled, meaning "drained" (in the sense of "tired"), which we don't have (see [51] and Chambers Crossword Dictionary). This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at this again, I don't think this is spurious, but I think it is the same as sense 2 ("to poke around" etc). OED has only that sense in the "puggle" entry, which is labelled "Eng. regional (chiefly south-east.) and U.S. regional", and it has a quote from an 1863 article (word list?) which mentions the example "to puggle a drain". So this word does seem to exist, but it is quite a rare dialectal form and could be difficult to cite. The Australia label is certainly highly doubtful. This, that and the other (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(algebra, order theory) join, supremum". Tagged in diff but not listed. Google Scholar is able to find mathematical symbols if you search for their Latex input codes (\vee, \lor), and Google Books almost certainly OCRs this as "v" most of the time, which should help when searching for examples. @Kephir, Msh210, are you familiar with this and if so can you think of collocations / find examples? - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost completely sure this is correct, but I haven't time now to look for cites, I'm afraid. Not a collocation but just another word on the same page can be poset or meet or infimum.​—msh210 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this the right sense? I can't tell; I'm not even sure if it's ∨ or v:
  • Ecker Peterson, in Proceedings of the Princeton Symposium on Mathematical Programming (Harold William Kuhn):
    Theorum 5A(i). If primal program A is consistent, then it has a finite infimum MA if, and only if, dual program A is consistent. Proof. [...] Suppose that A and B are both consistent. From Lemma 4B it is clear that v(y) ⪳ MA ⪳ G0(x) for each x and y feasible for A and B respectively. [...] Theorum 5A(ii). If dual program B is consistent, then it has a finite supremum MB if, and only if, primal program A is consistent. [...] Now suppose that A and B are both consistent. From Lemma 4B it is clear that v(y) ⪳ MB ⪳ G0(x) for each x and y feasible for A and B respectively. Thus MB is finite and the proof of Theorem 5A(ii) is complete. [... Next] If primal program A and its dual program B are both consistent, then primal program A has a finite infimum MA, and dual program B has a finite supremum MB, with MA = MB.
- -sche (discuss) 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
No, it's a function called v. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the symbol is ∨ or ⋁ or another similar symbol, and can't be sure of the sense, but from context this might be the right sense:
  • The Case of the Fuzzy Filter Functor, in Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets:
    Proposition 4.2. Assume that L is a complete distributive complete lattive. Let X be a set and M,NL and f,gLx with fg = we have M(f) ∧ N(g) = α. If the supremum MN exists, then for every hLx we have (MN)(h) = fg=h M(f) ∧ N(g)
- -sche (discuss) 14:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This, OTOH, seems like the right sense:
  • 1984, Mathematica Japonicae, volume 29, page 81:
  • [...] if and only if (A, ·, 0) is a DLBCK-algebra in which xy (resp. xy) is the supremum (resp. infimum) of x and y with respect to the BCK-order.
- -sche (discuss) 14:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in these examples they are both used as operators. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 1967, Set theory (Kazimierz Kuratowski, ‎Andrzej Mostowski), page 150:
    Theorem 3: If φ is a permutation of the set T and the supremum Vt∊T ft = g exists, then the supremum Vt∊T fφ(t) also exists and is equal to g (analogously for infimum).
- -sche (discuss) 14:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 1991, Ralph Henstock, The general theory of integration, page 28:
    if x, y ∊ K, pair (x, y) has a supremum x ∨ y and an infimum x ∧ y.
@Msh210, what do you make of the citations above? google books:"supremum v" and/or google books:"supremum x v" seems to find additional citations. - -sche (discuss) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Cites 1, 2, and 4 use the small symbol between others () and 3 uses the large one to the left of others (). (There are many similar pairs of symbols.) It seems to mean supremum in all four cites.​—msh210 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Those citations look good to me too. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


The "adjective" - just a noun modifier, isn't it? Donnanz (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Also, the given citation is for cocktail music, which seems to be a term of its own. Equinox 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh right. You could move the quotation perhaps? Donnanz (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Equinox 20:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
However, there does appear to be an obsolete adjectival meaning - from the cites I find I think it probably means something along the lines of dashing or ostentatiously sophisticated:
  • 1830, Sporting Magazine:
    It looks very cocktail to be seen riding through the streets of London in a scarlet coat ;
  • 1840, The Sporting magazine:
    The Prince had nothing particular about him but a monstrous smart whip with a gold stag for a handle, which was pronounced a very cocktail looking instrument by the Leicestershire farmers, with whom His Serene Highness is no favorite
  • 1998, Boulevard - Volume 14, page 137:
    A model dressed in a Santa's suit: red crush, white cuffs and collar, a stocking cap. A Very Cocktail Christmas.
  • 2008, Christine Kelly, Mrs Duberly's War: Journal and Letters from the Crimea, 1854-6, ISBN 0191579912:
    She always goes about with a brace of loaded revolvers in her belt!! Very cocktail and no occasion for it
Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It meets attestation standards, but it follows a general pattern by which many (any?) noun meanings can be exploited in the way we call an adjective. IMO it adds no value whatsoever to early-stage learners, ESLers living in an English-speaking country, or native speakers. It's too uncommon for an early-stager and the others can decipher this kind of thing and put it in its insignificant place. I suppose there may be some others who find this useful. DCDuring TALK 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Are we not to follow the adjectival criteria that you have long advocated for? I don't understand your objection. DTLHS (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that isn't being used as an adjective in those citations. I'm arguing that the adjective sense is trivial. For example, any proper noun can be used this way, eg, This argument is so DCDuring. [He] went to a grammar school and then to a university, very red brick and provincial. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? I find nothing trivial or obvious about the connection between a scarlet coat or a brace of pistols or a huge whip --- and a cocktail. If you see such a connection, perhaps we need another definition of cocktail as a noun. Kiwima (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of connotations? Do you think all connotations should be rendered as definitions? DCDuring TALK 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to know what obsolete sense is meant in those quotations and we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I agree with DCDuring. Donnanz (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

With regard to what the sense of these might be, it might be considerably less positive than currently defined: Century defines cocktail as a noun with these senses: (1) a certain bird, (2) a certain insect, (3) a horse which is not thoroughbred, hence an underbred person (citing Macmillan's Magazine, "But servitors are gentlemen, I suppose? A good deal of the cocktail about them, I should think."), and (4) an American drink. The old Imperial Encyclopaedic Dictionary likewise defines it as (1) a half-bred horse, (2) a poor half-hearted fellow, (3) a kind of compounded drink, (4) a kind of beetle. Most if not all of the citations above seem more likely to mean "lacking in manners" than "festive". - -sche (discuss) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


Probably nonsensesuzukaze (tc) 23:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is some, other results are more specific and refer to 水火雷電神. However in Chinese, seems 雷電神 is used generally to refer a god of thunder and lightning? Perhaps it is a new adaptation from the Chinese to expand the Japanese? 天人了 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To lay open; to expose to view; to examine or exposit." What does this actually mean? It is not mentioned in the OED. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers either to laying some physical thing open to view with the eyes, or to revealing something, as opposed to the other sense (to explain and lay a topic open to understanding with the mind). I can find some citations where the object of the verb is a physical thing rather than a concept, but even there it seems to refer to "explaining" the thing, not the RFVed sense. For example:
  • 1639, Michael Jermin, A Commentary: Upon the Whole Booke of Ecclesiastes, chapter 9, page 343:
    One such righteous man, one such wise man, is able in danger to deliver a City, for so it followeth. [...] They who expound the city to be the body of man, expound this poore man to be synderesin & dictamen rationis, [...]
- -sche (discuss) 17:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The usex in Webster's 1913 had the object of the sense in question being "both his pockets", ie, something physical, not a topic of discussion. The sense was labelled obsolete. But even Webster 1913 didn't use the verb exposit in the definiens. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)



  1. naturism, nudism, social nudity.

There's been a sort of half-edit-war between User:Xanderox and User:Dmol over this. Obviously, naturism and naturalism aren't the same thing- but that doesn't mean that some people don't use the one term for the other. If they do, we have to include it, but we might tag it as proscribed, or the like. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's right or wrong, it does exist, and fairly commonly. As you say, it could be marked as proscribed, or a usage note added. --Dmol (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

How does one mark "proscribed" or add a usage note? I'm not sure how "fairly commonly" can be defended... Ex: http://www.wikidiff.com/naturalist/naturist User:Xanderox (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Also: https://sites.google.com/site/emilyrussavage/prescriptivism

We have a template for labeling things: {{lb|en|US|UK|proscribed|nonstandard|etc.}}. For usage notes, you just put a "====Usage notes====" section after the definition and say something like:
Usage notes
  • Referring to nudism as naturalism is often considered an error, since the primary term for that is naturism, though some people do use it that way.
As for evidence: there are a couple of mentions in reference works here and here, and actual uses here, here, here and here. See our Criteria for inclusion for details on our requirements.

As for evidence that the "couple of mentions" are just that - a very small proportion of "improper" usages - please note this section from the Google Sites page I listed earlier:

"There were 1888 total tokens for the word "naturist" in Googlebooks. The word came into the corpus just before the 1900s and has since enjoyed increased popularity, especially in the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1990s. Early on, most of the tokens dealt with the religious sense. It wasn't until 1937 that naturist came into the corpus meaning "nude". It actually came from a direct translation of a German magazine "Nackt Leben". The next usage of the word "naturist" referring to nudity came in 1959:

    "One such setting is the British Sunbathing Association, in which several members recently fomented division by proposing that "naturist" be used as a substitute term for "nudist."  

It wasn't until the late 1970s that "naturist" became frequently used as "nudist", but now the term is almost exclusively used for practices of nudity.

There were over 300,000 tokens in Googlebooks for the term "naturalist". The usage for "naturalist" has decreased slightly over the last 200 years, but still remains constant. In the first 100 tokens for the 2000s, 97 referred correctly to art and/or nature. The remaining three, however, dealt with the incorrect use of religion." Xanderox (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


This word is variously cited as Vulgar Latin and Late Latin, sometimes giving the seventh century as a date. It is not classical and I am not sure where to find an example if it is indeed Late Latin. If it is Vulgar Latin, the Romance language etymology citations ought to be changed, and the word ought to be moved to the appendix for VL. reconstructions. I am not sure that the nineteenth century German dictionary implies there is an actual Latin source, but the word is also referenced as Late Latin here: https://archive.org/details/etymologicaldict00diezuoft The word is also described here thus: `spoken Latin camminus, first documented in Spain in the seventh century.' (hyperlink: https://books.google.com/books?id=8c2k5GSn8eAC&pg=PA6&dq=camminus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjioKfY8-TMAhXMK48KHSiGBysQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=camminus&f=false ) I do not know if spoken implies not written. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot judge the context of these cites, so they may be invalid.
1663, Johannes Heringius, De Molendinis[52]:
Rudiergo & simpliciori secule camminorum usus fuit incognitus.
1804, Jacopo Durandi, Notizia dell'antico Piemonte Traspadano[53], volume 2:
[] et dictum Jacobum Vidalis certos nuncios et ambaxatores universitatis ad petendum et recipiendum a vobis securitatem camminorum, et ad tractandum vobiscum ea pedagia []
1716, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis[54], volume 12:
Christiani enim secundum Evangelium spiritus prompei sed carne infirmi, a sacrilega contaminatione camminorum reperto compendio suas animas rapuerunt, imitati presbyteri Raziae in Mechabaeorum libris exemplum: nec frustra timentes.
DTLHS (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking. The first and third are misspellings for caminorum. The Johannes Hering citation itself corrects the double-m spelling to caminis in the chapter heading and camini in the passage numbered 28, which also speaks of smoke and fumes. Saint Augustine is talking about pyres, and in other texts the spelling is caminorum. In the Italian and Spanish translations the words are roghi and hogueras (regrettably I can't find an English translation).
Where the translations speak of `imboccata la scorciatoia' and `encontrado el atajo,' that is, `taking the shortcut,' this is for `reperto compendio,' not a sense of `camminus.' Of course it would be more than surprising to find Augustine to use it in the fifth century.
The second citation seems to be a genuine mediaeval usage; the text offers the date of the cited document as 1268. One would not be surprised by this usage, though it is far from Late Latin. I would like to mark the sole definition as mediaeval and offer this text as a citation, with a pointer to the seventh-century comment in the references, if this seems reasonable to others, and pending earlier citations.
Isomorphyc (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Particularly pleasing or agreeable.". "Peachy" maybe. I don't see any evidence that something agreeable can be "very peach" or "more peach" or any other common adjectival collocations. DTLHS (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It possibly should be classed as a noun modifier if anything (see noun sense 4). In fact Oxford doesn't list an adjective, not even for the colour [55]. Donnanz (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A noun, yes - "His goal was a peach." not "His goal was peach."   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"I was just peach to deal with" ? [56] Siuenti (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Balotelli's goal was just peach, an absolute stunner." [57] Siuenti (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a third one:
2000, Marc Behm, Afraid to Death, ISBN 1901982653, page 174:
'That'll be just peach with me.'
Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Neither of Siuenti's examples are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 10:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Any organic material rich in proteid molecules considered a dietary source of essential amino acids." --Is this obsolete like the other definitions? Or just another definition for "protein"? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks for complicated than that and more than our definition as well. See this, taken from Webster 1913. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Also see “protein” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001).. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
To me this boils down to one definition instead of current three: proteid is an obsolete term for protein. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I regard the RFV as "failed". --Hekaheka (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to dispose of". Other dictionaries do not seem to recognize this sense and the only citation does not appear to support the definition: "Here are blank warrants of all dispositions; give me but the name and nature of your malefactor, and I'll bestow him according to his merits." --Hekaheka (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Also the sense "give in marriage" seems to be missing from other dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The marriage-related sense reminded me of sense 3 of give away in marriage, which at least some dictionaries have as a distinct sense. MWOnline, for example does not have it as a distinct sense as the identity of the subject (eg, father), object (bride, object's relationship to subject, or the name of the bride) and "in marriage" amply restrict the way in which give and away can be interpreted. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a quotation from Shakespeare to "give in marriage" -sense, and consequently removed rfv-tag from that sense. Sense "to dispose of" remains. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
bestow in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has both senses, each with a single citation. Webster 1913 had the same citation for the marriage sense, which I am about to add to the entry. I still have trouble seeing the marriage sense as not just a trivial specialization of other senses of bestow. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A further consideration: should the two senses be labeled "archaic" as they are missing in current dictionaries? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The "dispose of" sense seems obsolete to me, The marriage sense seems SoP and dated.
The "dispose of" sense makes etymological sense as directly from be- + stow, the other senses seeming to be developments, but I can't base it on our "Etymology" as we don't have definitions for the Middle English terms or entries for them. DCDuring TALK 05:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense -- this doesn't make sense, novae have all sorts of luminosities, saying 1000x times the luminosity of a nova does not make sense. -- 11:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2013, Koutarou Kyutoku, The Black Hole-Neutron Star Binary Merger in Full General Relativity, page 11:
This event is named a “kilonova” in [55], because it is brighter by a factor of ~103 than a nova.
This suggests that scientists might be willing to informally use both nova and kilonova as measures of the brightness of typical astronomical events of the type mentioned. That this use might be imprecise is not a problem to them and less so to us. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Although that sounds reasonable, the only cites I can find refer to the event rather than the luminosity. Not being a physicist, I am not always sure, however. Here are the questionable cites I found:
  • 2013 November, V Paschalidis, SL Shapiro, “A new scheme for matching general relativistic ideal magnetohydrodynamics to its force-free limit”, in Physical Review D:
    Moreover, during merger neutron-rich matter can be ejected that can shine as a kilonova due to the decay of r-process elements [2–13].
  • 2013 December, YZ Fan, YW Yu, D Xu, ZP Jin, XF Wu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, volume 779:
    The observed energetics and temporal/spectral properties of the late infrared bump (ie, the "kilonova") are also found to be consistent with emission from the ejecta launched during a neutron star (NS)-NS merger and powered by a magnetar central engine.
  • 2015 January, R Fernandez, D Kasen, BD Metzger, “The effect of black hole spin on winds from neutron star merger remnant accretion disks”, in American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #225:
    Disk winds generally contribute to a ~week long transient peaking in the near-infrared (kilonova), although an optical precursor can manifest as a signature of delayed black hole formation or high black hole spin.
  • 2015, R Fernández, D Kasen, “Outflows from accretion discs formed in neutron star mergers: effect of black hole spin”, in (Please provide the title of the work):
    This component can give rise to an ≲1 d blue optical 'bump' in a kilonova light curve, even in the case of prompt BH formation, which may facilitate its detection.
Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you. We certainly don't have any unambiguous evidence that it is used that way. I saw some uses that referred to the radiation pattern rather than the hypothesized cause. I'll leave citations to the astrophysicists. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for second definition of -- "eight dou (斗) of rice". This definition isn't in any of the regular English (dictionary) online sources I've checked. I haven't checked older non-English sources such as the KangXi dictionary. Bumm13 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is defined thus in the Kangxi. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


This isn't an Italian word, but a Venetian alternative spelling. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Isn't the Venetian word something like "góndoƚeta"? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's no evidence for usage in Italian, we can convert it to a Venetian entry. Either way, there are thousands of Google Books hits, so we can't delete it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the correct spelling in Venetian would be gondołéta or gondoƚéta, but since there are so many hits, I propose a conversion as a Venetian alternative form linking to the correct spelling. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 12:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]


Rfv-sense: "A small hand tool or material-handling implement specialized for specific types of processing such as is used in the kitchen or a laboratory." Seems redundant to the first definition: "An instrument or device for domestic use, in the kitchen, or in war." BTW, the OED only lists the one sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've revised def 1, added a new def 2 and would delete def 3 as redundant to 1 & 2, ie, treat it as an RfD matter. DCDuring TALK 09:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
My impulse would be to keep def 3 and get rid of 1 & 2 as overly specific. But I agree that this is an RfD matter, not an RfV matter. Kiwima (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Definition 3 is about twice as long (in syllables) as a typical definition of a competing monolingual dictionary. Many competitors only have sense 1. Some have both senses. I have not yet found one that has a definition as long-winded as definition 3. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, MW Online has an exemplary discussion of the "synonyms" tool, implement, instrument, appliance, and utensil. I wish Wikisaurus had something similar. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


What kind of "Egyptian" is this? Where is it used? ばかFumikotalk 12:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Knowing the IP that added it, this is from Bing translate. It's easy enough to find raw Google Books hits for it, but I suspect those are transliterations of foreign terms. Someone who knows Japanese will have to sort through them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR version: エジプシャン ‎(Ejipushan) on its own seems to be often used to refer to the Bangles song, “Walk Like an Egyptian”, per the Kotobank entry from Daijisen and a cursory look at google:"エジプシャンは". Past there, it's the first element in a number of compounds borrowed from English, such as エジプシャン・マウ ‎(Ejipushan Mau) from Egyptian Mau ‎(a breed of cat).
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Google search throws up a few seemingly "native" uses of エジプシャン, for example (just one at random), 最初にベリーを始めたとき(5年位前かな)、先生がエジプシャンだった。("When I first began belly dancing about five years ago, my teacher was Egyptian"). However, my Japanese is not good enough to tell whether this is normal usage or something special or different. 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Can you comment on what 86 found? Fumiko is champing at the bit to get this deleted, but I'd prefer to save the entry if it's actually used. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed ばかFumikotalk 13:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @ばかFumiko -- Um, no. The term エジプシャン ‎(ejipushan) is clearly used to mean Egyptian, which a very minor modicum of research clearly uncovers. There are definite restrictions on its use, which the entry should include in a ====Usage notes==== section, but this does not constitute a failure of the RFV criteria ("durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question"). Μετάknowledge asked specifically about Google Books, and google books:"エジプシャン" provides more than enough instances. Fumiko, you can read Japanese. You have no grounds for closing this as failed when a simple search provides ample evidence that this entry is valid, if somewhat lacking in detail. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Lol, no I don't read Japanese. I can only decipher some text from manga and anime that I've already known the meaning, or at least the context, of. That's why I never claimed to be a ja user (if anything, only a newbie learner), why my "translations" can be very flawed, and why I requested for verification for this entry, which is not working for a month. Why don't you provide the required citation if you're so sure about it being Japanese? I'm totally dubious about the use of transcriptions such as エジプシャン as "Japanese". They might just be mere pronunciation guides, not true Japanese. It's probably similar to a situation where a Vietnamese keeps saying things like "I don't care", but no sane Vietnamese would call that "Vietnamese": it's just an English phrase those young A-holes've adopted from a Korean song. There are such things as "foreign words used in native contexts" you know, and as far as I know, they don't qualify as "loanwords" either. It's kinda hard to see the boundary between such words and loanwords in Japanese though, because all of them are written as transcriptions with kana. ばかFumikotalk 02:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Aha -- it would be great if you could clarify that with a JA-1 or JA-2 box on your userpage. You currently don't have anything for Japanese, and from your involvement in editing JA entries, I had misjudged your ability. It looked like you were offloading the work of finding citations because you didn't want to do it, rather than because you can't do it.
Now that's cleared up, I'll see about adding citations. Please note that I am unfamiliar with our Citations infrastructure and formatting conventions, so this will take me some time -- and given how busy I have been lately IRL, please don't expect immediate results. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr No dude, I seriously can't do it. I don't read or speak Japanese, let alone find citation in complicated sources. My best buddies are mostly manga, which have very clear contexts that can be used to deduce the meanings of the dialogues (not to mention available translated versions everywhere). I understand why you misjudge my capability since I've been committed to Japanese entries a lot, but I've never said I was a JA user, hence the lack of JA-1 or 2 or whatever. ばかFumikotalk 10:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to fill a tooth". Wiktionary seems to be the only dictionary which has this sense. I tried to look for usage in Google but with no success. E.g. "tooth was inlaid" produces one hit of a Fiji tribesman whose tooth was inlaid in the club which killed him. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added four cites, but found many more. I would, however, suggest adding "dated" to the entry, as the cites are all rather old. Kiwima (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
From the citations as presented one couldn't tell whether inlay refers to a special technique, a standard technique using different/non-standard materials, or to filling teeth in general. I suggest that we keep this in RfV until this question is resolved or that we remove the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
inlay#Noun implies, but doesn't clearly state, that an inlay is something that is formed outside the tooth and inserted into it. That differs from filling#Noun. Presumably the nouns' semantics transfer to the verbs'. This 1922 dental dictionary (p 152) makes it clear that the formation of the inlay does not occur in the mouth. The same source's definition of filling makes filling seem either a hypernym of or a technique distinguishable from inlaying. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring. That is what I picked up when I was huntin for cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

keep the wolf from the door[edit]

Rfv-sense - to delay ejaculation.

Well, I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't recall hearing this meaning, and can't see anything on a quick Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm certainly familiar with one use:
1997, Steve Coogan as Alan Partridge, “Alan Attraction”, in I'm Alan Partridge, written by Peter Baynham, Steve Coogan and Armando Iannucci:
Do you mind if I talk? It helps me keep the wolf from the door, so to speak. Jill, what do you think of the pedestrianization of Norwich city centre?
Annoyingly, the only video I can find starts just after the line (takes place in a pitch-black room, but I guess the audio could be considered slightly NSFW), but it makes the context very clear. A Google search for things like "keep the wolf from the door" + "orgasm" finds a fair few hits but only one I think is citeable.
2014 December 1, “Carnal Calendar”, in Men's Health[58]:
If you haven’t got the self-control to keep the wolf from the door yourself, ask your partner to help out. She’ll enjoy being the one in the driving seat for a change.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is one or not -
1981, Redbook: The Magazine for Young Adults - Volume 158, page 164:
"In some ways that's not too dissimilar from the Victorian notion that 'it' was a big thing that could destroy a happy family, and you had to keep the wolf from the door. Sex is something that exists between people. There is no such thing as 'my sexuality.' There is our sexuality — how we are erotic with each other."
Kiwima (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I found a clearer example:
2014 August 18, “Should I tell future partners I'm a virgin?”, in The Guardian:
all masturbation for a few weeks before the big event. While what you're saying generally makes sense. I might take some further advice on the last point. Seems to me that won't help with keeping the wolf from the door ;).
Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The absorbent pad an ink cartridge rests on in an inkjet printer. One patent, not many other durably archived uses. DTLHS (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to RFV both senses of Gatorade

  1. A Gatorade sports drink.
  2. (by extension) Any sports drink.

There's a RFD of the 1st sense taking place (WT:RFD#Gatorade) but I'd rather use the RFV process. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The self-referential definition is just plain stupid and needs improving. I don't think the second definition is correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SemperBlotto Why do you think the second definition is incorrect? Is there any evidence to say it isn't, or is that just your gut? Purplebackpack89 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the self-referential definition. I suppose you could use quotes like the following for it:
  • 2009, Connie Strasheim, Insights Into Lyme Disease Treatment, ISBN 0982513801:
    I may also recommend that they take Peltier Electrolytes from Crayhon Research, which is kind of like glorified Gatorade, but which works well to replenish some of the cell's missing elements.
  • 2010, Anne Canadeo, A Stitch Before Dying, ISBN 1439191417, page 50:
    I like to say it's Gatorade for the soul.” Phoebe turned to Lucy.
  • 2013, Sydney Finkelstein, ‎Jo Whitehead, & ‎Andrew Campbell, Think Again, ISBN 1422133370:
    It seems highly likely that Smithburg's brain was “imprinted” with an ability to recognize a Gatorade-type situation: a category leader in a fast-growth niche with potential for further development.
As for the second definition, it's hard to show in a quotation that the word is referring to a generic sports drink, rather than Gatorade brand, but I figure the following quotes work because they are talking about a homemade concoction:
  • 2001, Mary Hance, Ms. Cheap's Guide to Getting More for Less, ISBN 1418535796:
    We figure that we save nearly $200 a year in mixing our own Gatorade,” she boasts.
  • 2002, Ronald J. Mikos, Dragon's Breath, ISBN 0595260306:
    I had lots of homemade Gatorade, two big burgers and a few minutes later I was cruising like the machine again.
  • 2011, Suzanne Boothby, The After Cancer Diet: How To Live Healthier Than Ever Before, ISBN 0983839557:
    Add a splash of lemon or lime and a hefty pinch of a high quality sea salt and you've just created a homemade Gatorade without all the extra sugars, neon colors, or added ingredients.
Kiwima (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kiwima Another thing to look at is the term "Gatorade bath". In American football, especially college, there exists a phenomenon where a coach is showered with sports drink upon winning a big game. It is invariably referred to as a "Gatorade bath" or "Gatorade shower", even if the type of sports drink used cannot definitively be proven to be Gatorade. Purplebackpack89 14:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
That's just evidence that "Gatorade bath" and "Gatorade shower" may be idiomatic, not that Gatorade is a generic term. For one thing, it doesn't have to be sports drink that's used: it can be just about anything handy of sufficient quantity that's cold and wet- even the contents of an ice bucket (see w:Gatorade shower). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Re "mixing our own Gatorade": the makers of liquid Gatorade also sell Gatorade powder, which users can mix with water on their own to make what is IMO lexically the same (branded) drink. "...without all the extra sugars", in turn, is making a drink which is being likened to Gatorade (brand drink). - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The "like glorified Gatorade" example looks to be a comparison of the other sports drink with brand-name Gatorade. It does show that the author expects their readers to be familiar with Gatorade, but that doesn't make Gatorade a generic term- just the name of a well-known brand. The "Gatorade-type" quote is an example of someone referring to Gatorade as a brand, and is more about marketing than about Gatorade. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 02:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another early entry by the same editor as above. This one looks to be easily citeable from Google Books- as an uppercase proper noun. It's only been edited once by a human between its creation in February of 2005 and your edit today, and there was a conversion script that moved everything to lowercase in June of 2005- so I've moved it to uppercase and changed it to a proper noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


This entry was requested at WT:WE. But please check if it's attestable.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: It it, just about. Here are two more citations:
  1. 2013 October 4th, Ryan N. Felice and Patrick M. O’Connor, “Ecology and Caudal Skeletal Morphology in Birds: The Convergent Evolution of Pygostyle Shape in Underwater Foraging Taxa” in PLoS ONE IX, № 2: e89737 (publ. 26th February 2014), § 2: ‘Materials and Methods’, sub-§ 2.2: «Skeletal Morphology and Analytical Approaches»:
    These metrics were collected at three serial positions within the caudal vertebral series. The first (i.e. post-synacral) free caudal vertebra, the vertebra halfway along the length of the caudal series, and the last (i.e. propygostylar) free caudal vertebra.
  2. 2015 January 5th, Han Hu et al., “A New Species of Pengornithidae (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Lower Cretaceous of China Suggests a Specialized Scansorial Habitat Previously Unknown in Early Birds” in PLoS ONE X, № 6: e0126791 (publ. 3rd June 2015), § 4: ‘Results’, sub-§ 4.7: «Description», sub-sub-§ 4.7.2: ‹Vertebral Column and Ribs›:
    A caudal vertebra appears partially incorporated into the pygostyle as the propygostylar vertebra; the transverse processes are still identifiable.
I have seen no evidence of this word used as a noun. It is, I believe, an adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


No use. DTLHS (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A mere handful of older texts refer to "apic acid", apparently a component of bee-stings. Equinox 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

misandristically, misandrically[edit]

No use. DTLHS (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Misandristically" could definitely pass from Usenet newsgroups [59]. The other one I doubt. Equinox 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added two quotations for misandrically, but I can't find a third. For misandristically, it's true that there are lots of results on Google Groups, but the ones I looked at were all by the same author. I added one of them to the entry, but I can't find any by other authors. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


This form needs verifying. ばかFumikotalk 03:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(Relevant: w:ja:Talk:ナミビア) —suzukaze (tc) 04:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


The given citations are mentions. Nibiko (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

eastside, westside, northside, southside[edit]

Discussion moved from the Tea Room [60]. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

So far, I've only looked for westside. As is stated in the Tea Room discussion, most hits are (Capitalized) names for neighborhoods in certain cities, but there are also some uncapitalized uses, both as a noun meaning the west side of a region, and as an adjective (or possibly the noun used attributively?):
Adjective (or attributive noun) uses (the 2012 quotes are, IMO, the most convincing):
  • 1983, K. Leroy Dolph, Site index curves for young-growth incense-cedar of the westside Sierra Nevada:
    Estimated heights of dominant and codominant trees where site index and breast-height (b.h.) age are known for young-growth incense-cedar of the westside Sierra Nevada.
  • 2012, H. Jesse Walker, Artificial Structures and Shorelines, ISBN 9400929994, page 124:
    During periods of no dredging, choking of the entrance channel is rapid and a hooked spit develops at the westside top of the breakwater at Blankenberge.
  • 2012, Paul Madyun, The Candidate, ISBN 147714871X:
    Apaullo entered the bank's westside revolving doors, and followed the arrow directing him down to the lower level vault, which housed the boxes.
  • 2013, Rod Gragg, The Illustrated Gettysburg Reader, ISBN 1621570738:
    When he reached Gettysburg on July 1, he was greeted with blunt news: General Reynolds was dead, and he was now the senior Federal commander on of Gettysburg's westside ridges and General Reynolds's “bold front”—as Howard put—had given the Federal army the advantage of choosing the battlefield.
  • 2013, Dave Aquino, Personal War, ISBN 1771430540, page 37:
    “I live in the westside 'hood of Paradise Cottages,” Eddie replied.
  • 2013, William J. Chandler, Audubon Wildlife Report 1989/1990, ISBN 1483215830, page 138:
    Although environmentalists may see the westside old growth in danger of being liquidated because of extremely high cutting rates in 1987 and 1988, the industry claims that many trees cut in the past few years were originally scheduled for logging in 1981 or 1982.
  • 2014, Dr. Larry H. Spruill and Donna M. Jackson, Mount Vernon Revisited, ISBN 1467121843, page 63:
    After 100 years, the older southside and westside houses were in disrepair.
  • 2014, Lowell Cauffiel, Masquerade: A True Story of Seduction, Compulsion, and Murder, ISBN 9049980201:
    They signed the lease for Casper and the same day enrolled in a westside methadone program called Private Health Systems.
  • 2014, David R. Butler, Fire Lookouts of Glacier National Park, ISBN 1467131148, page 113:
    The westside photographs provided coverage along Lake McDonald from roadside points one and two; much of the forest on the west side of Lake McDonald burned in the Robert Fire of 2003.
  • 2014, Tom Snyder, Pacific Coast Highway: Traveler's Guide, ISBN 1466868341, page 41:
    Redondo Beach and other westside beach cities first opened up as resort areas when the Big Red Cars of Pacific Electric began making weekend runs.
And, for rounding things out - the noun usages for the west side of an area:
  • 2012, Henry F. Diaz, Climate Variability and Change in High Elevation Regions, ISBN 9401512523:
    These watersheds were selected because they are reasonable representations of altitudinal cross-sections of the westside and eastside of each park, and also have sufficient longterm climatic and hydrological databases to provide input for modeling.
  • 2013, Treasure Blue, Fly Betty, ISBN 1936399318, page 186:
    When Betty had taken care of all her business, she'd simply spend the rest of the day gaining her strength back by usually walking around Central Park, that stretched from 110th Street all the way down to 59th Street from Eighth Avenue on the westside to Fifth Avenue on the east and back around.
  • 2013, Dana Coyne, Be Well, Detroit, ISBN 1481759981:
    Detroit is Mexican Village and Greektown and the eastside and the westside and Woodward Avenue.
  • 2014, Poketa L. Moore, Through These Brown Eyes: A Novel, ISBN 1499064802:
    I went over to his apartment over in Learing Homes on the westside to work out some details.
  • 2014, Bruce Russell, Chinatown County: The Sell-Out of Marina del Rey, ISBN 1304850943, page 37:
    Santa Monica is the dominant city on Los Angeles County's westside and the decision of the Outlook owners to close the newspaper because of a drop-off in advertising left the city without a voice.
  • 2015, Christopher Noxon, Plus One, ISBN 1938849434, page 208:
    But even Alex had to accept that the westside had one thing the east just didn't: All the good doctors.
Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Virtually all of those quotations seem to be from American sources, and I guess the same would be true with the other three. This is what I suspected in the first place. I have gone ahead and created east side, west side, north side and south side as alternative forms for the time being, but they could be upgraded to main entries. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


This is the same case as Talk:aerophobia where the plural is not attested but countable usage is. Nibiko (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


I'm not sure that this is a genuine suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Any word made up from side is normally splittable, whether it's the first part of the word, or the last part. This is unlike a true suffix or prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Donnanz By "splittable", do you mean that all words ending -side are compounds? I think this should probably be at RFD, rather than RFV, since it's a debate about the grammar of the word. Anyway, "side" is not an adverb, so in a phrase like "He went airside", it clearly can't be split like *"He went air side". -side behaves like a classic suffix: it has predictable behaviour, it can change the part of speech of a word, it is productive (there are relatively recent coinages like planetside and spaceside), and the resulting words do not always make sense as a literal sum of parts (neither planets nor fires literally have "sides"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I RFVed this as we need to find out whether reputable dictionaries recognise it as a suffix, Oxford for one doesn't. Wiktionary shouldn't always be a renegade.
I repeat the assertion that every word including side is splittable, separable, or divisible, whether this normally happens or not; in fact there are many terms which normally aren't combined, such as credit side and debit side. Words such as hillside also have a different form (sidehill); fireside, by the side of the fire; airside is actually listed as a noun by Oxford, not as an adverb. Place names such as Humberside are also separable (the side of the Humber). I could go on and on, but I won't. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
"sidehill" is dialectal and not a generalizable pattern ("sidefire" seems to mean something totally from "fireside", and an airport worker would be totally baffled by "sideair"); "by the side of the fire" is a circumlocution and again not generalizable (*"by the side of the air"?); regardless of what Oxford says, airside clearly behaves like an adjective and an adverb, and Chambers and the OED have it as both; you can't take proper nouns apart (Newtown isn't just a new town) and at any rate, it's not just [river]+side: the River Mersey flows through Warrington, but Warrington is not part of Merseyside while Southport is despite not being on the side of the Mersey. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I have checked Cambridge, Chambers, Collins and Oxford, and they all redirect you to side when searching for -side. Of the points you raised, airside is a strange one: it doesn't mean on the side where the air is, but the side where the aircraft are. Apparently the antonym is landside, but I've never heard it used. Newtown is a very unimaginative name, did it never occur to people that it would ever get old? But it may be newer than some other town. The term Merseyside may have been in use before the local authority was formed, I don't know. But there is not much sense in having some terms listed under -side and others listed as hyponyms [61]. It's all very confusing at present. DonnanZ (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As Smurrayinchester says, this is productive and changes the part of speech of the word it applies to, e.g. "I'm going planetside tomorrow" (although our definition is currently inadequate) is grammatically like "I'm going down tomorrow" and can't be replaced with "I'm going planet tomorrow", "I'm going side of planet tomorrow". Some of the things currently listed as using "-side" may in fact be noun + noun compounds using "-side", but some do seem to be using a suffix "-side".
Unfortunately, the only books I can find that mention a suffix -side mention it in Asian varieties of English only: J. Raimund Pfarrkirchner, A Natural Fortress (ISBN 3848220962), page 81, describing a Sherpa who says things like "It is down-side from Lukla", says: "It became common to hear, as did the use of an adjective or noun plus the suffix '-side' to denote relative location." And Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler, Darrell T. Tryon, Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific (ISBN 3110819724), writes: "Two other CPE [Chinese Pidgin English] features, not in the table, which were probably introduced by Chinese immigrants are look-see (from 1924) and the suffix -side as in topside (from 1934)." A number of other references mention a suffix -side used in forming the names of sugars, which however seems to be a misunderstanding (glucoside is glucos(e) + -ide).
- -sche (discuss) 17:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - voting despite this being RFV since the nomination is not RFV-ish. As for "I RFVed this as we need to find out whether reputable dictionaries recognise it as a suffix": Please read WT:CFI, in particular WT:ATTEST. RFV has nothing to do with "reputable ditionaries". In RFV, we don't rely on dictionaries, reputable or otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Sense 2 is cited, in that stateside, planetside, dirtside and spaceside are attested and "side" cannot be a noun in those constructions, so they must attest something like this suffix. Sense 1 is debatable; one can say "a fireside chat" as well as "a fire-side chat" as well as e.g. "a road-surface covering", where the second element is a noun but the end result is or functions as an adjective, so it seems unclear if citations of the usexes given actually use the suffix or not. Senses 3 and 4 are even more debatable. Is there a way to tell the suffix apart from the noun in senses 1, 3 and 4? If not, is this perhaps an RFD issue more than an RFV one? - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The entry does not even have the PoS-changing adverb sense.
In all three of the senses in which -side supposedly produces an adjective, it is easy to argue that it usually produces a noun that can be used attributively, which eliminates those as valid senses.
How would the PoS-change argument apply to sidesaddle? Should we have an entry for -saddle? DCDuring TALK 13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It's sense 2: "Forms adjectives and adverbs describing position in relation to a dividing line or other separation." I've made the examples more explicit about this. As for -saddle, it's not productive - there are no other similar words, so sidesaddle is a one off oddity. If there was a whole load of adverbs denoting various riding styles, all ending -saddle, and ideally if it also allowed the production of readily-understood nonce words, then we could consider it as a suffix. Smurrayinchester (talk)
What needs doing for this to pass RFV? Three citations for every sense? Trivial but tedious. Equinox 08:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Each sense is attested (and thus now RFV-passed), in that sufficiently many attested words using it are mentioned above. The question, AFAICT, is over whether senses 1, 3 and 4 belong at -side or at side, which — because citations would be identical in either case, and hence citations cannot answer the question — is an RFD question. - -sche (discuss) 23:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Needs verification. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In clearly widespread use. Siuenti (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more like a candidate for RFD, why don't you try that? Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

is this true?[edit]


Looking through several Google search result pages, [62] seems to be the only clear usage of this name. —suzukaze (tc) 23:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


There's a temple by this name, but I can't tell if it has use as a surname... —suzukaze (tc) 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Google finds one 山田 華実子 but seemingly no other people. —suzukaze (tc) 23:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Google finds many people with this name. Strucksuzukaze (tc) 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


According to the Google results someone once wrote a blog post about getting spam from "中山実母沙"; no other usage. —suzukaze (tc) 23:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Appears to be unused. —suzukaze (tc) 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Google finds usage in only one person's name. —suzukaze (tc) 09:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 09:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Google finds usage in only one person's name. —suzukaze (tc) 09:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 04:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Appears to exist... —suzukaze (tc) 04:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


According to the Google results there is one Facebook user by this name; no other usage. —suzukaze (tc) 23:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

suzukaze (tc) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Britain, in Arthurian fantasy". I reckon we oughtn't to have this on grounds of WT:FICTION (see Widsith's argument at Talk:gramarye), not to mention the fact that White capitalises the term, so even if more cites were dredged up, I assume they would be for Gramarye. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This usage certainly seems to predate T. H. White’s work; Kipling used it in w:Puck of Pook’s Hill back in 1906:
Trackway and Camp and City lost,
Salt Marsh where now is corn—
Old Wars, old Peace, old Arts that cease,
And so was England born.
She is not any common Earth,
Water or wood or air,
But Merlin’s Isle of Gramarye,
Where you and I will fare.
Of course, given the nonstandard capitalization here, it’s hard to tell if it’s actually being used as a proper noun for Britain or if it just means »Merlin’s isle of magic«. —Vorziblix (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


I just see cutesy spellings of "romantic". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Cited. DTLHS (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly the Gothic descendant of *ehwaz. I can't find it in the Gothic corpus using wulfila.be (not by itself nor as part of a compound), but I may be overlooking something. — Kleio (t · c) 01:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's apparently attested in compounds, but not on its own. Köbler marks it as reconstructed. I suppose this should be moved to the Reconstruction namespace. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, in which compound does your source find it? — Kleio (t · c) 01:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
aiƕatundiΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I had actually found that one but the semantic gulf between [thorny] bush --> horse was a bit too much for me, assumed that element must've been something else. But plant names are often pretty weird in other languages too. To the reconstruction namespace it is, then! — Kleio (t · c) 02:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

double aunt[edit]

Doesn't this definition imply some kind of odd incest? Also, I found a book with a different definition: "eventually a double aunt as she was her father's sister who married her mother's brother". Does not seem a common term anyhow. Equinox 01:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there are definitions that have yet to be added. There are several ways to become a double aunt or uncle Leasnam (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a new definition. We hardly need to list every possible way of being a double aunt. One example is enough. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Current definition seems overly watered down: anyone's aunt will be one parent's sister and the other's sister-in-law, as long as their parents are married. --Tropylium (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The usual sense is siblings marrying siblings. However, marital status does not confer aunt-ness; that is, the parents of the child need not be married but the sisters of both mother and father are still aunts. Marriage of the parents' sibs to otherwise-unrelated people can confer aunt-ness, so a marriage of an existing aunt to a parental sib would 'double' that connection. - Amgine/ t·e 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hard-to-type character in computing. This comes from the Jargon File, many of whose terms are quite unattestable. Equinox 11:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cited, I think. They're all clear uses, but two are "cokebottle", one is "coke bottle" and one is "CokeBottle". The sources are a little fuzzy, since they come out of snippet view; I put Adventures in Microland on order, but that would probably be better verified from the Byte magazine, which I believe can be found online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


One use, a bunch of mentions in dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

𐌱𐌰𐍂𐌰, 𐌼𐌰𐍂𐌷𐍃[edit]

Another couple that seem untraceable, added by the same guy in 2008. — Kleio (t · c) 00:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

𐌱𐌰𐍂𐌰 ‎(bara) should be *𐌱𐌰𐍂𐌰 ‎(*bara), assumed based on Latin baro. Likewise, *𐌼𐌰𐍂𐌷𐍃 ‎(*marhs) is assumed. Leasnam (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Personally, I don't consider it as a Thai term, but rather an English term written in Thai script. It's never come into general use, though it may be found in some technical colloquialisms. --YURi (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the term meet WT:ATTEST? Since, general use is not a requirement; it is only one of the alternative criteria listed in WT:ATTEST. Does "ดาวน์ซินโดรม" mean Down syndrome? Am I right to think that ซินโดรม is part of ดาวน์ซินโดรม? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
ดาวน์ซินโดรม is often used in books. But I am unsure that ซินโดรม is used solely somewhere. I guess doctors usually speak the term. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Been here since 2012...listed as an adjective (should be a noun); I find mentions only, and one use stating that the word is a blend of firm & warmth Leasnam (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the POS and Def to fit Leasnam (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Can this have at least a "rare" label? 20:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It can have whatever label you want, but it will be deleted unless you can find two more citations. DTLHS (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not the one advocating its inclusion. 02:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw some others online, which use the word per the def, but they are not durably archived Leasnam (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I would contrast this with the well-attested coolth, which uses -th in this sense. DCDuring TALK 04:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

con drop[edit]

Evident on the Web but I find nothing in Google Books or Google Groups. Equinox 13:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Ido for baobab. I can't find anything on Google Books or Google Groups, though there is some interference from Esperanto, Italian, and other languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger: Dyer 1924[63] seems to have baobobo. Is that one attested as Ido? For reference, Ido was placed to baobabo by Razorflame. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any uses of baobobo either. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Such term does not exist. Gymnast is called นักยิมนาสติก in Thai. --YURi (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have rarely seen นักกายบริหาร, นักกายกรรม, นักพลศึกษา that also mean the gymnast. นักยิมนาสติก is used in sports. นักกายกรรม is used in shows. However, never seen นักพละ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
+Perhaps นักพละ is the shortened speaking of นักพลศึกษา --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


The correct term is นักพนัน. --YURi (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@YURi: Thai entered to mean gambler. Entered by User:Alifshinobi, who declares himself to be th-3. นักการพนัน found by Google translate. Apparently found at google books:นักการพนัน in space-free blocks of text. Are you sure the term does not meet WT:ATTEST? We are not here concerned with "correctness", merely with attestation in actual use.--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Put differently, how do you explain all those hits at google books:นักการพนัน? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's one example from Google books I was sort of comfortable with (can't guarantee a good translation):
เขาเป็นนักการพนันตัวยง  ―  kǎo bpen nák-gaan-pá-nan dtuua-yong  ―  he is an expert gambler
source--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • นักการพนัน is used among Thai-speaking people. นักพนัน and นักการพนัน are both "correct", although the former is used more often than the latter. Just because one form is used more often than other forms, doesn't mean that the other ones are not used at all and therefore are "incorrect". --A.S. (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Found one questionable use. DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


Does this non-erhua form exist? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem to be any shortage of this on Google books, unless I'm missing something. But 個 is normally 4th tone... Siuenti (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]


RFV-sense: "a traitor or oath-breaker" and "the Devil, Satan; a demon". See diff. Can we determine (1) whether these senses were used, and (2) whether they were used recently or are obsolete? And (3) is the "Satan" sense properly capitalized, i.e. "the Warlock"? - -sche (discuss) 00:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The OED only has Old and Middle English citations (not with the same spelling), so you might be able to find some from the 16th century. Nothing beyond that seems likely. For "The Devil; Satan" the latest citation is from 1568, and it is variously spelled warlau, warlo, warloo, varlo (none spelled warlock, and not capitalized). DTLHS (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm then we should note those senses as obsolete. Benwing2 (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Someone asked verification at RFD; this is a RFV issue since attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST need to be found.

The one quotation in the entry is mention, IMHO, since the term in quetion is in the phrase 'called an “TERM-IN-QUESTION”'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  • There are enough citations on Google Groups, if anyone wants to capture them. bd2412 T 15:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    The hits from Google Groups are from actual Google Groups, not Usenet. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's something:

  • Never had an assgasm that powerful before, alt.toys.transformers
  • Whichever girl loses the match has to give the other girl an assgasm, rec.arts.movies.erotica
  • The couple fuck and sucks their way to the final plateau where only one taboo remains - the "assgasm", rec.arts.movies.erotica
  • For the second time in two days he'd experienced an amazing assgasm, alt.sex.stories

--Dan Polansky (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Ido. Can User:Robin van der Vliet find an attesting quotation? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I myself don't really speak Ido that well, but I do speak Esperanto. I don't really know where to find an attesting quotation for this word. The suffix -et- is a diminutive in both languages and the root word nazo means nose in both languages. I added nazeto and nazego, because they were requested on this list. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added one quotation, but I don't see any more. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Not many Google hits, and almost no Books hits, most of which are (the same) mentions. The English Dialect Dictionary has a few citations of other spellings. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

axle tooth with a space looks more promising. Equinox 04:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Added 2 citations, with all the different spellings a third seems likely somewhere. DTLHS (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Now cited, although you may want to move it to a different title. DTLHS (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

friend girl[edit]

friend girl ? Leasnam (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I hear friend girl and friend boy fairly often. They refer to a girl or boy who is simply a friend, but not a boyfriend or girlfriend, which are romantic relationships. friend girl and friend boy originated in African American Vernacular English, and are synonymous with chickfriend and guyfriend. —Stephen (Talk) 07:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it attestable ? Leasnam (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
btw, @—Stephen, where is it that you hear this often (city, country, region, etc.), if I may ask ? Leasnam (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Never heard of this. I only hear "My girlfriend -- I mean, my friend-that's-a-girl -- told me this shirt looks good on me". Furthermore, in my experience, "guyfriend" is no less ambiguous than "boyfriend". --WikiTiki89 21:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I found some attestations here and here and here and here. I have been hearing friend girl and friend boy for at least 15 years. I usually hear it on TV court shows (such as Judge Joe Brown). Some of the court shows are filmed in Los Angeles, but the litigants may come from anywhere. —Stephen (Talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)



Are these symbols actually used with these meanings? I'm familiar with <= and >= used with these meanings, but not =< and =>. I know that searching for symbols like these is very difficult, so if anyone can provide convincing evidence that these are actually used, even if not durably archived, I'll withdraw the RFV. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Never seen these (edit: used for this purpose) in any of numerous programming languages. Just asked a more pure-mathematical friend, who hasn't seen them either, and says that => would mean "implies". Equinox 14:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
=> is used in some languages in associative arrays to introduce the value of a key (key => value). It is also used as a generic arrow symbol. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I recall seeing these in typed mathematics problems sets/texts with the meanings shown. Even our miscellaneous character set does not have U+2265 () for "greater than or equal to", for which ge was also used. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't swear that =< and => were ever used, rather than <= and >=. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen seen => used many times as an arrow. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI there are a few search engines that allow searching for mathematical symbols, including Google Scholar (if you use Latex notation, which may not help with very simple symbols like this) and supposedly search.mathweb.org and latexsearch.com. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Symbolhound.com also seems to be useful. Using those, I've found some programming languages that seem to use the symbol =< this way, including Prolog, and two durably archived uses, which I've added to the entry, so I withdraw the RFV for =<. I still can't find any evidence that => is used with this meaning. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


One citation given. Otherwise, I can only find errors for lactonization, or something to do with the Laconian variant of Greek. Equinox 15:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


"In need of a brother or sister or friend." Equinox 18:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It goes back to the second-ever edit (and separate into its own sense with the third-ever edit) in April 2004. I think it's just a pure error that's escaped detection for 12-and-a-bit years. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Obsolete spelling of fon, which itself failed RFV, see Talk:fon. - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's glossed as Chaucer which is of course Middle English. The Wikisource edition of The Reeve's Prologue and Tale has a hit for the singular and the plural, and not a scanno for sonne either in this case. "[M]en will us fonnes call" (men will call us fools). Renard Migrant (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv ばかFumikotalk 02:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are some occurrences but the spelling ギニーピッグ ‎(ginīpiggu) is much more common and matches the English pronunciation closer. Rename to "ギニーピッグ" - easily verifiable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pizza Hut[edit]

It needs citations that meet WT:BRAND. A RFD discussion what created for it today, but I believe this is rather a case for RFV.

McDonald's looks like a comparable case. See Talk:McDonald's for past RFV discussions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Song lyrics translated from a different language so as to fit the original melody. Equinox 16:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone please RFV fail this. Nothing in Books, Groups, or News except for the word being a portion of song/album titles (i.e. in its capitalized form). This won't make it. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


From economy: slang: "Mass-produced and made to be affordable, with no regards to quality or craftsmanship." Equinox 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added two quotes, but can't find a third, unless you want to count related terms such as ecky-beckey or ecky thump. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
ecky thump doesn't seem to have a related meaning. Equinox 13:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it an ancient Lancastrian martial art? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it means something along the lines of appalling. Kiwima (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

best girl[edit]

"(fandom) One's favorite female character in a piece of media, especially in anime or video games." Had a very brief look on Tumblr (big fandom place these days) and found mostly references to a specific scene in Titanic where Jack/DiCaprio calls someone his "best girl" in the other (girlfriend) sense. Equinox 06:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

google:"asuka is best girl". Compare waifu. A related phrase is "<name> a shit" ("your waifu a shit") but it's probably not as common. —suzukaze (tc) 15:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, maybe this comes from the My Little Pony Internet meme of "Fluttershy is best pony". In that case it's just an SoP, with a whimsical omission of the definite article. Equinox 15:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is almost certainly SoP. See best girl. It just means "a favorite female character", "favorite" = "best", "female character" = "girl". Philmonte101 (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the unusual grammar would drive readers to search for "[[best girl]]" though. Personally leaning towards keep if verifiable. —suzukaze (tc) 06:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I can affirm that this is a commonly used phrase within the online anime fandom community (often used cynically or sarcastically, might I add), however I'm not sure whether it counts as its own thing, or whether we should just treat it as two words used together for a specific context. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 08:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As someone with weeaboo friends, this is a staple of their slang. Spend some time on boards like 4chan's /a/ and you will see it all the time, always without definite article. I think it should probably be kept. — Kleio (t · c) 21:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Uncited in a month. Ergo deletable. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

come to the fore[edit]

Rfv-sense: "to assume a leading position". Is this sense real? I don't find it in other dictionaries and the usex "The winner didn't come to the fore until the race was nearly over" could as well be of the first sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is surprising how difficult it can be to find unambiguous examples here. I have added three quotes that use the phrase in the sense of becoming prominant rather than becoming obvious. Kiwima (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems like an SoP entry, by the way: e.g. "bring to the fore" is also common. Equinox 18:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. "at the fore" is also attestable, and we have an entry for to the fore too. I think this is just a figurative sense of fore. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Manx by User:Embryomystic. How can I verify this meets WT:ATTEST? I apologize if this is obvious to Manx contributors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's in several online Manx dictionaries, though I don't know to what extent they're reliable enough to meet the standards of WT:ATTEST. A single mention in a reliable dictionary is good enough since Manx is an LDL, but I don't know the literature well enough to say which online dictionaries are reliable and which aren't. This is from what I'd consider a reliable dictionary, but it uses the spelling thalleyr rather than thalhear. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I got it from Fargher's English-Manx Dictionary, but it doesn't appear to be online in any useful way, and I admittedly am lazier about citing when it just amounts to writing out the name of the paper dictionary it came from. 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv of the kanji spelling specifically. The bird certainly exists.—suzukaze (tc) 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • アメリカ白鶴 is a valid alt form, but from this, I can see where 亜米利加白鶴 comes from. 亜米利加 is an old (18th Century style) rendering of アメリカ. I'd presume most online sources would use アメリカシロズル or アメリカ白鶴, but we can't rule out that 亜米利加白鶴 doesn't appear in print media from earlier decades. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 08:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If we can't verify it, then it fails RFV, no? Until and unless someone can find concrete examples of those potential earlier appearances in print media, we must go with what we have -- and what we have shows zero instances of 亜米利加白鶴. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If we're talking that far back, then it is worth remembering that the kyūjitai of is , but even 亞米利加白鶴 produces no hits. Nibiko (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Whenever 大辞林/Daijirin and 大辞泉/Daijisen include such a term, they always gloss the toponym in katakana. I've only ever seen the toponym glossed in kanji at Japanese Wikipedia, and I find the practice weird. Nibiko (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't really have particular sources. I just follow the superficial rules of using ateji for place names, in these cases, for the animals names, on a couple of Japanese Wikipedia articles. It is in fact extremely difficult to find all-kanji forms many animal names with place names in them. Please delete those pages as you wish if they fail the required criteria. ばかFumikotalk 07:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)



I only see one usage and that's as a part of a jukujikun, namely 襣褌 (fundoshi). FWIW there is the term 犢鼻褌 (tokubikon). Nibiko (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Since this entry only appears in JMdict, I'm wondering if there are citations to back up each of the two senses. When I tried searching, the closest thing that I could find was 侏優 (shuyū), which is defined on this page as "小人の道化役者" ("dwarf clown"). However, this uses affixally with the meaning of "dwarf" and does not support either of the two standalone senses, so, they still need verification. KANJIDIC is superweird, it defines "侏" as "actor;  supporting post", but the character actually means "dwarf" - so, it looks like the JMdict noun definition copies the KANJIDIC definition. Nibiko (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)



  1. Pronounced wěi? (archaic) a type of reptile (similar to a lizard)
  2. Pronounced wèi? (archaic) long-tailed monkey (similar to a macaque but larger). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I can find some evidence for it, but not in any durably archived sources. Meanwhile, I added PGO as in PGO wave, the most common meaning for this acronym. Kiwima (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


English by Philmonte101. I can't quickly find attestation in English. google books:"Egyptiote", google groups:"Egyptiote", Egyptiote at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I can only find one use: [64]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You guys are right. Sorry for my misjudgement after Googling this term. Although, according to Books, I see this same term being used in a few different languages. The sad part is, none of those languages seem to have this noun attestable. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A Muslim imam DTLHS (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I see one possible use: The mosque is not only a place of worship, but a school and a college, and it is not unusual for the pastor to invite a "manlavie" of renowned scholarship or piety to take charge of the instruction. I also see several uses of the phrase Muslim pastor on Google Books, some of which say things like "An imam is a Muslim pastor", but these seem to be uses of the more general sense of pastor ("Someone with spiritual authority over a group of people"). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It's just POV-pushing by guess who. Even the "manlavie" citation is probably the general sense just happening to be applied to a Muslim. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't we just modify the definition to something like "A religious leader in any religion."? Same as with church, "A (non-Christian) religion; a religious group." (though this sense is technically incorrect, but is still attestable and used, that's why I added the "informal" tag, and we should probably do the same here) Philmonte101 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)



Is this attested in modern English? —CodeCat 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. You can find it in A dictionary of archaic and provincial words page 13. You can find more than a dozen examples of it in A dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words by Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. It's still quite rare though. Mountebank1 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
However, it mostly occurs in the form "ac" in there. Mountebank1 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It can also be found here An Etymological Dictionary of The Scottish Language under AC. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Also here The Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial English Containing Words from the English Writers Previous to the Nineteenth Century Which Are No Longer in Use, or Are Not Used in the Same Sense; and Words Which Are Now Used Only in Provincial Dialects. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Another one The Glossary of Archaic and Provincial Words. Mountebank1 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You will need to provide uses that aren't from dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The best I can do is the early to mid 15th century stuff, so it's Early Modern English at best.
P.S. It is a dictionary word (attested in oral form). It is only found in dictionaries. Mountebank1 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it. If you want you can migrate the entry to the Middle English section. Mountebank1 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have done so. DTLHS (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Early to mid 15th century would qualify as Middle English Leasnam (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
While we're here it would be nice to have citations for the sense from Maori. DTLHS (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot find any proper citations for the sense from Maori. It would appear that Archdeacon Williams in his "Dictionary of New Zealand Language", said thatː Ake,ake, ake meant for ever and ever. It looks like just another dictionary word for which no dictionary provides any correct citations. The whole thing was best summed up by pegggi on collinsdictionary.comː "How ridiculous. This is not a word. All your examples are typos for take and ache".
However, for ake (as in ache) there are plenty of citations here. Mountebank1 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv of this specific spelling. —suzukaze (tc) 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why 亜米利加アリゲーター but not 密士失比鰐? Nibiko (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

clue card[edit]

Rfv-sense: A printed card with basic entries listed for a global distribution system. I'm not sure what this means and I can't find citations for it. DTLHS (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Created by User:Dmol, who adds plenty of aviation stuff and presumably works in the industry. Can we ask him? Equinox 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I work in travel. I had a look online, and almost everything there is a pdf with clue card only in the title. The following links should show some examples.






--Dmol (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be used in writing... @Kiwima can you find any cites for this? DTLHS (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned in my original response, it does only seem to be in the title of the documents shown. Finding text about it is difficult due to a similar named game, and the other definitions discussed below. But it's clearly wide-spread and has been around for decades. I could easily find another dozen examples from different airlines, hotels, car hire companies, etc. --Dmol (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I can find quite a few hits for something to do with "stiffened shells of revolution" used by NASA, often capitalised, and containing load distribution information:
The other close hits I got were in books by Thomas Sawyer on facilities planning, which are control distribution cards containing location, description, etc for a control location:
Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Some US politics thing. Most Google search results are in scare quotes, introducing a new term. Equinox 01:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So? Just because they're in scare quotes doesn't mean it isn't a word. You will concede that there is a great deal of coverage in internet news articles, will you not? Purplebackpack89 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - A thermodynamically irreversible interaction. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It usually takes a while, but whenever I find myself straining my brain over how to figure out whether a new definition on an advanced scientific subject makes sense, I eventually check the IP that added it- and almost inevitably it geolocates to Greece. This is the same idiot who's already wasted an enormous amount of our time by making up stuff in all kinds of difficult fields in hopes that no one will be able to call them on it. It's true that every once in a while they actually manage to get it right, but it's probably not worth the time and effort to check. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'll just remove that definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Rfv-sense: (computing) Of a computer system that has been in service for many years and that a business still relies upon, even though it is becoming expensive or difficult to maintain.
  • Rfv-sense: Left behind; old or no longer in active use.

Removed by an anon. Can we demonstrate these senses act as adjectives? While I opposed RFV for the purpose in the past, I don't see what better thing to do; RFD? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How about the following?
  • 2000, International Engineering Consortium, The Emerging Optical Network, ISBN 0933217978, page 75:
    They have no idea what occurs in the network or its topology, and all of the services remain dependent on it — a very legacy approach to creating services in the optical network.
  • 2003, Carlo Zaniolo, ‎Peter C. Lockemann, ‎& Marc H. Scholl, Advances in Database Technology - EDBT 2000, ISBN 3540464395:
    However, pre-relational DBMS are legacy.
  • 2008, CIO - 15 Feb 2008 Vol. 21, No. 9, page 49:
    There was talk in the past that ERP systems were legacy, lacked the agility and flexibility, and did not support interoperability.
  • 2009, Kerrie Meyler, ‎Byron Holt, & ‎Greg Ramsey, System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) 2007 Unleashed, ISBN 076868952X:
    Because most of these HALs are legacy and only used on aging or outdated hardware, chances are that you do not have any in your lab and must be creative in procuring one from an active user.
  • 2013, Management Association, Software Design and Development, ISBN 1466643021:
    In practice, there are legacy or mature, domain specific, off the shelf (i.e. software that other software projects can reuse and integrate into their own products) tools that are used regularly by modeleres (e.g., for testing purposes, for communication and collaboration).
Kiwima (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Using another approach, here, here and here are examples of the phrase "becoming legacy". Although the usage points to probable adjectivity, I think the current definitions aren't very good. It's not just computer systems that can be referred to as legacy: I can find usage for legacy beliefs, culture, institutions, practices, standards and regulations , too. I think it started out in computing and other technology, then spread to a variety of other discipline. I would suggest that we merge both definitions into something simple like "left over from the past". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

compulsive streak[edit]

Tagged but not listed. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, because most uses of the phrase refer to a personality quirk - a tendency to highly focussed or compulsive behaviour. However, I think I found three quotes that support the supplied definition:
  • 1985, Sharon McCaffree, Misplaced Destiny, ISBN 0373160879, page 220:
    They greeted him amiably, chatting with their usual excitement, but not in the compulsive streaks as before.
  • 2011, Andrew Hudgins, Diary of a Poem, ISBN 0472071548, page 95:
    If I miss the long compulsive streaks of writing, I do not miss the ensuing weeks of exhaustion and enervation, weeks and months when I could barely pull myself together to do my job, and at home stare at books halfheartedly and moan about my inability to focus on anything but my inability to focus.
  • 2014, Mary Anne Wilson, A Question Of Honour, ISBN 1488703558:
    He turned to head back to the truck, admitting that he was on some crazy compulsive streak.
Kiwima (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Though we have no such definition, this intuitive feels like compulsive + streak. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly an error for concatervate ? Leasnam (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. "concatervate" probably still wouldn't meet CFI. DTLHS (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure it isn't from concatenate? P Aculeius (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Take a close look at joyant. There can be found numerous citations for it, but the most part of them seem to mean "giant". At least, one person, in the early 20th century, appears to have used it to mean joyous, but did she? —This unsigned comment was added by Mountebank1 (talkcontribs).

Your existing citations seem to me to clearly mean "joyous". I've added a noun sense using {{eye dialect of|giant}} with the citation you linked. DTLHS (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it seemed to me that way, as well. That's why I added it. I just wanted to see if other people would see it that way, too, I know, I just wanted to be one hundred percent sure. There are also other citations for joyant in the sense joyous out there . The only thing I am still a bit bothered by is the following quotation from James Joyceː "Yet is it, this ale of man, for him, our hubuljoynted, just a tug and a fistful as for Culsen, the Patagoreyan, chieftain of chokanchuckers and his moyety joyant, under the foamer dispensation when he pullupped the turfeycork by the greats of gobble out of Lougk Neagk. When, pressures be to our hoary frother, the pop gave his sullen bulletaction and, bilge, sled a movement of catharic emulsipotion down the sloppery slide of a slaunty to tilted lift-ye-landsmen. Allamin. Which in the ambit of its orbit heaved a sink her sailer alongside of a drink her drainer from the basses brothers, those two theygottheres". What does he really mean by "moyety joyant"? Does he mean a "moiety joyant" or a "mighty giant"? Mountebank1 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's Joyce, so I assume he meant both. DTLHS (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mess with both etymology merged into one. I would assume the joyous sense comes from Old French joiant. I'll see if the SOED has it and what it says. Renard Migrant (talk)
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has joyant under joyance as an adjective with this meaning, glossed as rare. Gives etymology as joy +‎ -ance but it probably isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, the etymology needs cleaning up. There is no point in mentioning the use of the word in Finnegans Wake there if it is unclear what sense Joyce intended. Either relocate the quotation under one of the senses, or on to the citation page. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
All clean. Leasnam (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yay, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Pleasingly I've just looked at joyance and it lists Joycean as an anagram. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
*Thumbs up* — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as Old French joiant goes, I honestly do not think that it had much to do with Myra Kelly (the first mention I could find is hers) coining the word joyant. No really, methinks she just took the noun joy and added a still-productive affix -ant to it to form an adjective. I mean, there is just too much of a gap in continuity of use for me to suppose that it was directly derived from joiant. Mountebank1 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't really be citing Finnegans Wake, at least not without great care. All the words in there are deliberate blendings which have multiple meanings, often in more than one language. The book is a high-level vocabulary game and by some standards cannot really be considered to be written in English. Ƿidsiþ 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Just finished reading Finnegans Wake... and you know, ne'er ne was I the one to spunder to shed this and that into English and non-English, but hereon I mote agree... Finnegans Wake be something that wones in the realm of its own, a sort of limbo where it ne is fully Egnlish, and ne is it fully something else... —This unsigned comment was added by Mountebank1 (talkcontribs) at 15:04, 27 July 2016.


@Leasnam Was this ever used in modern English (after 1500)? DTLHS (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find any Modern uses, no. 1413 - 1430 looks to be the extent in the written record. Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely not something dialectal. The latest mention I have got is (the spelling is modernized)ː" And ye, that might have been my leech, have me fornom tongue and speech" [65]. It is from about 1430. So I would not call it Modern English. In the later version, from 1456[66], the verb formin is replaced by the verb reave which leads me to believe that it was "obsolete" even then.
Compare the two versionsː
  • And ye, that might have been my leech, have me fornom tongue and speech (1430)
  • And ye, that might have been my leech, have reft from me (the) tongue and speech (1456)
So, in my aught, no it does not really pass muster as Modern English by about 20 to 50 years. And by the bye, I consider most of the stuff that made it past 1450 Modern English. Mountebank1 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. Were it not obsolete it was certainly archaic (--some older folks may have likely still had some familiarity with the term). In any event, let's move the entry to Middle English Leasnam (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


This "spelling" may not be found anywhere except in 閩南方言大詞典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Same with 米汝. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Favourite. Seems plausible (fave, -o) but I've never seen it. Australian possibly? They like the -o. Equinox 10:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"My favo" has a few hits on Usenet (once you filter out the false positives of "my favo(u)rite"). Keith the Koala (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, a handful. (There's also the question of whether it's a noun, adjective, or both.) Equinox 00:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


This was transwikied from w:Uwole, but I suspect it may be a hoax. There are a few web hits connecting it with Kwanzaa, but many using the same wording, and suspiciously zero on Google Books. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much of anything in English. It's possible, though, that it might be an African word that hasn't made its way into English. There are a lot of African languages with noun-class prefixes, so there might be inflected forms that would be hard to look for without knowing which language we're looking for. According to our entry, Swahili and Zulu have u- as a noun-class prefix, and it seems like there should be many others. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Here it's defined as "bulrush millet" in Swahili. DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
1945, Tanzania Notes and Records, number 19-24, page 93:
A kinsman is then called, takes the blood and says : — Nikakuwozani nawoza mlyangu uwole zila mali ziliya akariwa nyungu mia mango. (I heal you and wish you all to be well.)
(is this also Swahili?) DTLHS (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Volapük words for scientists[edit]

nimavan, jinimavanik, jinimavan, hinimavanik, hinimavan, nimavanik, planavan, hiplanavan, jiplanavan, jinolavan, hinolavanMr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

forgraithing, forgraith[edit]

I see no usage. The OED has one quotation from around 1300. Maybe under a different spelling? DTLHS (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I also could find none, not for any conjugated forms (e.g. forgraithest, forgraithedst, forgraitheth, etc.), nor for possible alternative spellings (foregraith, forgreith, forgraithe, foregreith, etc.)...I can't even find where I would have gotten this word from (but I swear to G** I didn't make it up) :\ Leasnam (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's the quotation that the OED cites. DTLHS (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Suggest converting to Middle English. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
agreed Leasnam (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS, Leasnam: OK, I converted forgraithing to Middle English, and created forgreithen (as the MED has this as the lemma) and made forgraith an alternative form of it. Please check if I did this correctly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks good! Leasnam (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


This word does not appear in L&S, NLW, or Gaffiot, and I can find no examples which are not also examples are exardeo. Is it mediaeval or a manuscript variant? My list of non-overlapping forms is here: User:Isomorphyc/Sandbox/exardo conj ex. exardeo. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit : It also does not appear in Du Cange. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


This word not widely used in Belarusian. Лыжны спорт, катанне на лыжах or лыжы is used in the meaning "skiing", "ski sport". --Jarash (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


A work of art representing all stages of a person's life. Equinox 15:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I see one use on Usenet, but I'm not sure what it means. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


"Of a cat: to lie flat upon a glass surface." Seems to have some Internet usage (mainly Reddit photo-sharing communities?) but I don't think it will meet WT:CFI, though Usenet has another possible sense of a cat fluffing up its fur, e.g. as a threat (compare fluff and floofy). Equinox 23:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Common Internet form of fluff but I've not heard of this one. Never heard of it as a verb. I quite like fluffeh but I doubt it exists outside of memes. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't be bothered going through all the Google Groups citations (over 2000) but so far I'm seeing typos for floor and various other things that doesn't seem to mean 'fluff'. WT:LOP#F might be a good eventual home for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Attsted per WT:ATTEST and other parts of WT:CFI? The thing is, this seems to come from Joyce and the quotes need to be independent per WT:CFI#Independent. The 1990, D. Brown quotation currently in the entry is quoting Joyce. The 2008, Kristi Lea quotation is a blog one and not in "permanently recorded media". Pinging @User:LexiphanicLogophile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks ok to me now. Albeit not by much. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


--- LexiphanicLogophile <3:26 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

backwards long jump[edit]

English by User:Philmonte101. Does it meet WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you guys figure this one out. Sorry, but all I've got to say is that it's mentioned in newspapers. I feel that I'd just be a conflict of interest to it all. This is one of those rare topics where it is true, since I'm in the speedrunning community and not many people here on Wiktionary also are. The fact is, there was a Wikipedia discussion about its article's deletion, and it was suggested that this be moved to Wiktionary because it is mentioned throughout several gaming journals, etc. I'd really be interested to find out the outcome of this discussion. *gets out chips and popcorn* Philmonte101 (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101: Newspapers are considered durably archived, at least in their print form, so it would be sufficient for you to add three quotes from newspapers that have used the term. We don't usually worry about a "conflict of interest" here at Wiktionary, because we aren't concerned with notability, merely with attestation. We do, however, also care about idiomaticity, so the other question is whether the meaning of backwards long jump can be deduced from backwards + long jump. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Small comment: long jump is not attestable in the sense of long + jump, but the entry just refers to the sport. As we do this, that's just a note for us to not get us confused. Moving along now... Philmonte101 (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure it's attestable: just search for "very long jump". But we don't include it because it's SOP in that sense. Equinox 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Since this only relates to one specific video game, and not games in general, I don't think it belongs. Equinox 14:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


English by User:Philmonte101, entered as "Alternative form of nerd". Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes! It certainly does have attestation as being a folk etymology of the word. See books, and look through it some more. Philmonte101 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Please read WT:ATTEST: the word need to be in use, not just mentioned in an etymology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. "The other origin tale is that “nerd” beganasajoke: the original spelling was “knurd,” or “drunk” spelled backward." [67]
  2. "Others believe nerd comes from 'nurd,' which began as 'knurd'." [68]
  3. "Some at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute claim that they coined the word knurd in the '50s to describe kids who studied all the time (knurd being drunk spelled backward)." [69]
As for this definition, I rest my case with that.
I also overlooked this as it seems, but the term "knurd" seems to actually be used quite a bit as a way to signify that someone is drunk, or as a derogatory nickname/term of abuse, as follows:
  1. "He is, as we are told, someone who had the misfortune of being born knurd. “Knurd" is drunk spelled backward, and it's the opposite of drunk. Sobriety is merely the absence of drunkenness; knurd is its opposite." [70]
  2. "Me, I like the term "knurd," which, you will deduce, is "drunk" spelled backwards. Shades of Serutan! "Knurd" has a nice sound, something like the dull thunk of a partly deflated basketball bounced against a wall. So now I'm a recovering knurd, [...]" [71]
  3. "“How much do I want to bet the young man will be a straightlaced knurd?” Isabel chimed as she thought about the prospective house guest she'll be waiting on this summer. She used the derogatory term “knurd” she'd learned back in England from Lady Chatterly's friends who attended the school of Eton. It was "drunk" spelled backward to refer to someone who was more interested in his studies and grades than partying and enjoying alcohol after classes." [72]
See, Dan, just because a term is almost always used to refer to its (folk) definition or to a folk etymology doesn't mean it isn't attestable. WT:BRAND, for example, only talks about brands. Just because the sources altogether are talking about one general concept, it is still a thing, and keep in mind that the word is not just coming from one source or sources that were made by the same person/group. See the titles: Senator Joseph McCarthy and Lady Chatterley, Computer Factoids: Tales from the High-tech Underbelly, If Only My Wife Could Drink Like a Lady, etc. These books were not even all published by the same company, or written by the same authors. So yes, it meets WT:ATTEST. Also, the term was used throughout over 10 years. Where did this argument of non-attestation even come from? Philmonte101 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
So yes, it is in use, since it's been used in various years. Philmonte101 (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
'the original spelling was “knurd,”' is an exemplary mention rather than use. From quick skimming the other examples, they are mentions as well. But enough from me; let other editors comment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It is true that some of the nerd ones are being just mentioned. However, the ones referring to drunkenness itself usually have the formula of "Bla bla bla bla is a knurd. "Knurd" is drunk spelled backwards. Bla bla bla bla bla knurd bla bla bla bla bla.". So those are like the combination of a mention and a usage. Anyway, agreed, let's let some others comment as well. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, the quotation "How much do I want to bet the young man will be a straightlaced knurd?" is a solid use of this sense. "So now I'm a recovering knurd" is also a solid use, but I'm not sure whether it's of this sense or another sense. "Knurd is its opposite" seems like a mention to me, and the other three quotations above are clearly mentions. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added some citations that are definitely uses, not mentions. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. "Alternative form of nerd" is cited. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • rfv-sense: adjective: Sober, especially to a perceived extremity: I am expanding the nomination based on a new sense added during the duration of the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Look in Citations:knurd. I've added them there, since I don't know how to cite newspapers and Usenets. It is attested. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, though the difference between mention and use make almost no difference to me in words like these, look further in Usenet for "knurd", and you'll find a few more citations for this sense. That is, if those 3 citations I listed can't back this up. Trust me on this, it is real and attested, but just barely. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Of the three quotes for the adjective sense currently on the citations page, the first is a use, but the second and third are mentions. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


English by Philmonte101. Attested with this exact spelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


English by Philmonte101. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be attested thanks to Usenet hits. --Einstein2 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


English by Philmonte101. Attested so spelled, without hyphen? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"(The plant manager) after listening to the discussion for a while, noted, using a semiangry tone, that "problems start in the assembly area with an improper mixture or temperature. You [looking at Dale] should be the most concerned that ..." [73] "she asked in the semiangry voice every husband in the world knows. “Well, I have some paperwork from yesterday—” “And you want to check the baseball scores,” she huffed. “Ed, why can't we get satellite TV in our apartment block?” “They're ..." [74] "I knew it as a big, semiangry group of people griping at and with each other continually, though in a way that could seem life affirming. In my experience, you would no more expect to find peace within a family than you would expect to find it in ..." [75].
YES, it's attested. I love this gamePhilmonte101 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


English by Philmonte101. Attested so spelled, without hyphen? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

K joke's over, let's move them all to the hyphenated forms, and leave the originals as alternative forms if attested. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]


DTLHS (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

--- Quotations & Mentions

--- LexiphanicLogophile <3:11 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

Looks like youfound two uses, to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I agree. @LexiphanicLogophile, in the future, please try to only post citations that you think are valid in these discussions—it doesn't help anyone to have to wade through a long list of mentions to find a few uses. I've gone through the citations you added to the entry and removed the unambiguous mentions, leaving three citations. The 2006 quote is a solid use and the 1981 quote uses the term in italics, but I'm not sure about the 2013 quote, which uses it in a way that gives no apparent indication of what it's supposed to mean. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


We have wistiti, which is a rare word for a small New World monkey. This variation, however, seems to be that rarest and most curious of creatures, the dictionary-only entry- a specialty of this contributor. It's hard to search for in Books, due to scannos for wist it and wish. Groups isn't any better, because it's someone's user name. Still, I'm pretty sure there's only one rather mentiony use in Books, and nothing in Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


To add lemon. (Not the sense in which I RFVed the same term several years ago; that sense failed.) Equinox 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cited. Added two cites to the citation page that don't seem to fit with the existing sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The 1992 cite is an adjective, not the verb being rfv'd Leasnam (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox, out of curiosity, what was the other sense ? To turn or make (something) into a "lemon" ("a bad deal") ? Leasnam (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's archived at Talk:lemon: "To damage something and then deny or be aloof from the damage." I'm aware of "lemon" as slang for a defective motor-car, so I suppose that might be related. Equinox 03:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I saw it. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly an English noun. But the definition says it is Sanskrit (obvious nonsense - wrong script). Needs an actual definition, not an essay, if OK, and then needs to be moved to uncapitalised form. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Seems OK. A tantric path to bliss through sex, drugs, eating meat and other immoral things. Perhaps what Sting had in mind... — Pingkudimmi 13:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cited in capitalised and uncapitalised forms, subject to challenge as normal. The wordy gloss was apparently pasted from Wikipedia. POV seems inherent in the term, through connotations associated with "left-hand". I've accepted the recommendation that the uncapitalised version be the main lemma. Capitalisation seems common but that may simply be "respect" for its status as a religious philosophy (or something like that). The capitalised version (only) seems to be used for the "follower" sense. The pronunciation in WP was set up for "Sanskrit" IPA, with "c" pronounced as "ch". This presumably is the reason for the alternative spelling "vamacara". — Pingkudimmi 09:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


(and inflections) To behave in a subservient manner. Really? DonnanZ (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Stranger things really exist, though I haven't checked it yet. I should mention that I just blocked the IP that added this as yet another Pass a Method sock. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Now the present tense docksides has been added to dickride, what's going on? DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added four quotations that seem to support this or a related sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of those quotes seem to be related to bands, but they're far too vague to form a conclusion from. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The usages are all consistent with the definition, though it might have been hard to infer the meaning from the bare citations given. More context helps, which is why a link to the source is often useful. (Thanks, Mr. Granger.) An "AAVE" label looks appropriate. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If Granger's aren't enough, I could definitely look up some more. This is a pretty common expression in internet communities (especially hiphop forums) to refer to obnoxious fanboying/fangirling and should definitely be kept. Current definition is close enough but a bit off. — Kleio (t · c) 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


I'm RFVing the RFV entry (haha, see what I did there?). It just seems like something that's only talked about here on Wiktionary, but I might be wrong. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a month. Can we get rid of this now please? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense, both noun and verb. Already in Wiktionary:Glossary, where it belongs, whether or not its use has leaked into the real world. I don't think use in a book or article about Wikipedia or its sisters should count. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. As much of a fan as I am of Wiktionary, I don't think this belongs as one of the definitions. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


Tagged, not listed. Equinox 15:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Tagged, not listed. Equinox 15:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Polish. Requesting verification of the lower case form- Polony has been cited. DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


Sense: "Simple, easy, or quick, convenient" (particularly the "easy" and "quick" part). Speaking of which, does anyone know what the difference is supposed to be between that def and "Quick; rapid; expeditious," which is marked as obsolete? There are two quotations given for the RFV'd sense, but neither seem to relate very well to the definition, unless I'm missing something. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Quick, expeditious" is a definition marked as obsolete in Webster 1913.
I usually look at Webster and Century for questioned or questionable definitions that are labelled obsolete or archaic or have curious, dated wording. Also, a definition in the form of several synonyms, especially separated by semicolons, leads me to Webster. DCDuring TALK 10:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Can it be safely assumed that the RVD'd sense is not distinct from Webster's? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
AHD: "3. (Obsolete) Speedy; expeditious."
Webster 1828: "3. Quick; expeditious. [Not used.]"
I suppose it's a blend of various dictionaries' definitions of the same obsolete sense, apparently already archaic or obsolete in 1828. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Expedient seems to be often synonymous with short-sighted and opposed to of true/long-term benefit. It is sometimes synonymous with selfish and opposed to for the greater good. I can't find anything that makes it synonymous with "simple, easy, or quick", except in ways better covered by other definitions. I'm not sure that the citations match the definitions very well. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems that someone had tried to tease apart the first Webster definition into separate definitions, without the benefit of citations. I don't think anything is lost from the challenged sense failing, though the remaining definitions could be improved. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring I'm not overly concerned about it failing; I just wanted to be reasonably sure the sense didn't exist. I think it's fairly safe to assume it doesn't, so can the RFV be closed by someone, or must it be left until it ends up near the top of the page? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it is a formal requirement, but we keep items on this page open for 30 days or more, ie, until September 3. I'd like to give it a week more (ie, October 1, two months) since I just added some cites, expanded others to provide more context, moved them around among sense and added a new sense. I'm sure that the challenged sense is not a common, current one, but it could be obsolete or uncommon. An OED check would be prudent. DCDuring TALK 01:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Good to know, and thanks for the additions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Fucked up but all right". Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I looked, and all I found was this book, and a few Usenet group discussions. Okay, so let's analyze both of these.
So the first search result that comes up from a Google search of "fucked up but all right" is this Urban Dictionary entry (and unfortunately the second one is the Wiktionary entry we're talking about right now), and UD prioritized the unattested (and even if attested, much more rare) sense of "fucked up but all right". I don't expect much more of UD to be honest, and I'm glad that we never use them as a reliable source. I'm guessing that the user here added that definition because they found it at Urban Dictionary defined as that, in fact I'm almost certain that that's the case. But the motive doesn't matter, just throwing out there that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for Wiktionary entries, and I want to really emphasize that.
I looked in Google Books first, which is what I always tend to do. The only thing I found there, as I mentioned above, was this book, and if you're having trouble seeing the mention in this book, look at the search engine instead. As you'll notice, the most common definition (i.e. our first definition) is mentioned first in the book. Then, the characters/figures in the book seem to jokingly come up with a few more possible abbreviations of "FUBAR" (the two that I can see are "fucked up beyond all reality" and then, on the next page, "fucked up, but all right"). So, in the book, the people are basically just, in context of course, listing off a few other possible abbreviations for FUBAR. So that citation is extremely weak, though I suppose it could be used, but only as a last resort.
I did a search on Google News, which is usually my second stop, and found literally no references to FUBAR in comparison to "fucked up but all right" or "fucked up but alright".
The last place I stopped by was Google Groups, which is usually my last place, and I should say, especially for 1980-2005-used words, Groups does the trick very often. But not this time... I found two threads at Usenet mentioning "fucked up but all right" as "FUBAR". Both of them seem to be, once again, listing off possible or alleged definitions to this abbreviation. For one of them, they list eleven alleged definitions, with this one at the bottom, ten of which begin with "fucked up beyond [...]". They are as follows (quoted exactly as they're written):
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Repair
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Reality
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Reason
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Recall
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Recovery
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Relief
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Restitution
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Renaissance
  • Fucked Up Beyond Any Resolvability
  • Fucked Up But All Right
Also, as I also mentioned above, the fact that the posts are written in a language other than English (in this case, Dutch), I don't think these would count anyway, even though they're talking about the English language and mentioning English words in parts of it. But, even if they actually were written in English, I still wouldn't count these as reliable, because the posts don't mention the definition of that abbreviation alone; they mention it with other possible or alleged definitions.
In conclusion, and based on my verification analysis, I'm gonna say we'd better delete this one. Unless someone can find durably archived sources that are better than this in places I haven't looked, or if there's a user who is capable (I mean that figuratively) of looking for hours on end through all the Books, News, and Groups references to the word "FUBAR" alone, in hopes of finding two (or preferably three) more references to the term that, by context, seem to mean "fucked up but all right", then it is not attested and should be deleted. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Any time there's a censorable word, it's hard to find on Usenet using a straight text search, but searching for "FUBAR" in combination with "all right", I found some indication that at least a few people believe the "all right" part: "Fouled Up But All Right" and "F__ked Up But All Right", but not enough for CFI for this form. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This completely disregards the RFV of this particular definition. But I wonder if we could possibly add a definition similar to "Used to indicate many other alleged definitions beginning in "fucked up beyond all [...]".? Would that be allowed here? Since it does seem quite a few people try to play the guessing game with this abbreviation in sources. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's only "alleged" to stand for something then it doesn't actually stand for that, so it would still fail WT:CFI. Equinox 01:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Equinox. Forgive me for not clarifying. I meant that if we can actually find 3 citations for more than one of these other abbreviations that people are using FUBAR for, then could we possibly use a single definition to collect together all of the rarer definitions (those which probably only barely meet CFI)? Or would that still violate CFI or ELE somehow? Philmonte101 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me. How would you define it on the sense-line? "Any of various things that FUBAR may stand for"? That's circular. If it does stand for a thing, attestably, then that gets a sense-line of its own. If it doesn't, then we don't include it, by existing policy. Equinox 02:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


Could someone provide sources/citations etc of bests as a plural of best? I have only ever heard it in the context of a sporting event or some such where one team 'bests' another. I have found nothing to support bests in the context more than one best. 2A02:C7D:2BEA:7D00:355E:CB99:4419:A836 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added four citations of the plural to best#Noun. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Even in sports it can be a noun: "my personal bests in swimming and rowing both need improvement". Equinox 16:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It is used outside of personal bests also, I've added a 2010 citation. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The creator has commented at Talk:Marschitect. This is either a protologism or a "hot word". Equinox 21:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't just made up by the person, unless that person just happens to be the newspaper reporter that created the only news source I found using the word. Several google hits for Marschitect, but none that I found durably archived. I found nothing in books. I found 1 news article mentioning the term in quotations. I found nothing in Groups. But this seems to be a hot word.
I say delete...for now. Honestly, this seems like a term that could be used more often later than it is now, since it's apparently a hot word. It's likely that in a few years, the term will be attested, but it is apparent that it is not attested now. Unless someone can find more durably archived sources with this term outside of the places I've already looked, I say we'd better trash this one, for now at least. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


This was written like a joke entry, but there might be something to it in spite of that, so I didn't delete it on sight. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any modern usage with the supplied meaning, but there is a much older meaning Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't see that citation I'm afraid, anything to do with poustie? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


Zero Google hits. Equinox 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Thoreau-esquely. DTLHS (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


Zero Google hits. Equinox 22:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Thoreau-esqueness. DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Some examples hereallixpeeke (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Creator has added some citations at Talk:Burtonesquely but I don't think they meet WT:CFI requirements of being durably archived. Equinox 00:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The 2004 (Marquis-Homeyer), 2005 (Pobjie) and 2012 (Collin) cites seem to be durably archived. Einstein2 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


Requesting modern English usage. DTLHS (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Was SI-units-only stub page. Now created with one citation. Equinox 16:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for Pastafarianism. I see only one use on Google Groups [76] and nothing on Google Books or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: the polonaise. DTLHS (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Abbreviation of backwards long jump, which has also been RFVed. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Currently has 2 senses (the second one with 1 quotation). Please check if they are able to be attested or if there are any other senses for this symbol.

  1. sexual intercourse (between man and woman)
  2. Collectively, gays and lesbians, or LGBT people.

Also, the Unicode PDF for range 2600-26FF says this character means "bisexuality". I tried to find this sense too in Google Books, but I wasn't able to.

I'm just guessing, but it could also mean heterosexuality. An anon originally created the entry with poor formatting and defining it as "heterosexuality". Maybe I was too quick to delete that sense, it actually looks plausible. (but I didn't find uses for it either)

I tried searching for: heterosexuality symbol, bisexuality symbol, interlocked male female, interlocked venus mars, bisexuaity unicode, female male gender symbols, female male sexuality symbols, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

About 1st meaning, it is well-known in my country. Instead, I am not sure with the 2nd. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen it used on forums to tell users that you identify with both genders for any reasons, sometimes being that you're gender fluid or bigender or whatever else. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how you would really search for usage of this, but my sense is that while the "bisexuality" or "LGBT" meanings may possibly be known within certain groups, the general public (in the United States at least) is much more likely to associate it with heterosexuality. (For one random example which I happened to note down, it was used in an NBC Saturday Night Live Weekend Update segment in 2007 to illustrate coverage of a study which claimed that women prefer men with prominent chins for short-term relationships, but men with rounder chins for long-term relationships.) You can also see commons:Category:Heterosexuality... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It was used on the Weekend Update segment of the Saturday Night Live episode that's being broadcast right now (rebroadcast of December? episode) to illustrate a story that brain scans didn't turn up significant differences between male and female brains. When Saturday Night Live uses the symbol, it seems to refer to comparisons or interactions between males and females... AnonMoos (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to search this symbol by reading some magazines and books about sex on Google Books, but it seems too hard to find. It seems that this RFV is probably going to fail. The entry has only one citation, which can be moved to Citations:⚤.
There is an SMBC comic in which the symbol appears, but I forgot to save the link. Either way, it would only count if that comic was published. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The citation already included also suggests the meaning "a heterosexual awareness of the differences and diversity between men and women", which seems to be similar to the way SNL Weekend Update uses the symbol, but which isn't listed as a definition on the entry. By the way, the meaning "heterosexual sex" might be better suggested by the symbol on the left below than by the symbol on the right (in the eyes of some, at least): AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I found the SMBC comic that uses the to mean "heterosexual sex" but does not count for attestation purposes because the internet is not "durably archived media". Here it is: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-04-27 --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to know what armadillo means in that context... SFriendly.gif You would think that being broadcast on national network television would count for something, but I have no idea how to cite SNL, or whether that's possible. (I'm not really a Youtube person, so it would be better for someone else to do it, if it can be done.) AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I don't think that appearing on TV counts as "durably archived media". If you find something on a book, hopefully it'll still be available if someone decides to check it in 200 years. How do you find the TV report of that specific SNL Weekend Update? Even if it's on Youtube somewhere despite all odds, Youtube videos get deleted all the time. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm not any kind of expert on sourcing or sourcing policies, but it seems to me that if you're going to include wordless symbols (without any particular associated pronunciation), then you need to allow yourself to look for cites in places where wordless symbols are found, or else you're pretty much pointlessly defeating yourself in advance. Not including the most commonly-understood meaning of the symbol (in the U.S. at least) makes the entry as a whole fairly useless... AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations in durably archived media (basically, books or Usenet) are important. IMO, if we can't prove that the symbol is used, then it's not actually used that much to merit an entry. In Category:Translingual citations, you can see some citation pages for emoticons. Those pages for emoticons with fewer than 3 citations usually don't have actual entries, (eg.: Citations:⊂(◉‿◉)つ), but if we find 3 citations for them, they can have entries.
Same with the word cissplain. According to the talk page, it may have to be deleted soon, because it does not have 3 citations from books or Usenet. (but it may be recreated later if properly cited) It has some citations at Citations:cissplain that are from the random internet websites and thus are not durably archived, and don't count. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
They probably wouldn't meet your high standards, but I just recently noticed that someone had added footnotes to the heterosexuality meaning on w:Gender symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
About the high standards you mentioned, WT:CFI says: "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense.", but it does not define clearly what other things besides words are accepted. It is, however, clear enough about which citations we accept: if you want to prove that a normal word like ocean exists, you must provide citations from durably archived media. (ocean won't get deleted any time soon, because it's obvious that we could get 3 citations if we wanted) For symbols, we don't have any other standards -- 3 citations are needed for those, too. I think it's reasonable, because web pages are really ephemeral and random. If we allowed citations from the internet, we would probably get flooded with redlinks and protologisms everywhere. If you disagree with me, feel free to use WT:BP to try to make a policy proposal about citing stuff from TV or from the internet, but you are going to need to address problems like the ones I mentioned if you want to convince other people.
It's true that these footnotes don't meet my (or, CFI's) high standards. I checked the 4 links that were added in the Wikipedia article, serving as footnotes to the specific symbol. They are all from non-durably archived sites and so don't meet CFI. Three of those[77][78][79] are mentions (explanations of the meanings) instead of actual uses; it's like saying "Wiktionaryphobia means fear of Wiktionary" instead of saying "I get panicked around here because of my Wiktionaryphobia" and it's the reason why we don't have a ton of words for phobias that are listed everywhere. The 4th link[80] is just an image board. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the intended meaning of "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense." was that a term can actually be a phrase consisting of multiple words. --WikiTiki89 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
By that logic, does * meet CFI? I know it's not the same; the asterisk is a normal symbol that exists on keyboards. But maybe all symbols actually don't meet CFI, including the asterisk and the planet/gender symbols. In any event, logically "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense." is not restricted only to single words and multiple-word terms: in the list below that sentence, one of the items is: "Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing such as or ʃ.", so the examples indicate that at least kanji and IPA are accepted. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I know we include things like that, and we should, but that sentence is not the justification for it. --WikiTiki89 18:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any other place on the CFI that justifies including the asterisk and/or the gender symbols, is there? The way I see it, that sentence ("A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense."), and the whole of WT:CFI#Terms, are the correct place to explain what types of entries we should have in the main namespace. If the section is unclear about the possibility to include certain symbols, it should be edited to reflect the actual rules, provided we reach any consensus from discussions and votes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's never been a consensus on how to define exactly what should be included, that's why it's not in CFI. We can't make a policy of something we don't agree on. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relatively pointless yet relevant digression: XKCD:1726. - Amgine/ t·e 16:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


I can see various companies called webprom or WebProm etc, but nothing that would pass WT:CFI. Keith the Koala (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


Can't find any more citations. DTLHS (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. This will probably be RFV failed. However, in Books, the word does seem to be mentioned in word lists in a few books. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


AFAIK, it should only be 彷彿 or 仿佛, not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, zhwiktionary has it, but it was added by a bot in 2010. If this is incorrect, I'm tempted to let them know as well. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101 The Chinese Wiktionary cannot be trusted since there aren't enough people there looking after the pages. There are way too many pages generated by bots. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (tc) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
Pleco dictionary lists it as a variant. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c I guess we could resort to that. @Atitarev Which dictionary in Pleco is it from? Is it computer-generated? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. It's not Pleco's dictionary but CC, which is included in Pleco.
The entry looks like this:
PY fǎngfú
ZY ㄈㄤˇㄈㄨˊ
JP fing2 fat1JP fong2 fat1 --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

JP fong2 fat1

I'm not sure how we should interpret "彷⧸仿彿⧸佛". I'm not sure this is strong enough evidence for 彷佛. Also, MDBG clearly has 彷彿 and 仿佛, but not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
"彷⧸仿彿⧸佛" means each character can be replaced in the traditional form. Wenlin only gives 仿佛//彷彿 fǎngfú. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev I'm not sure if that's what CC meant to say, since MDBG, which, if I'm not mistaken, is based on CC, only has 彷彿 and 仿佛.
(Continuing the discussion from RFD) @Tooironic I think there are all errors in digitizing the original text. Looking at the book scans of the four texts given here (封神演義, 太平御覽1, 太平御覽2, 太平廣記, 儒林外史), I think this would only legitimize keeping it as a misspelling. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


Are there any actual prefixations of this? —CodeCat 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How would you analyze the entries in Category:English words prefixed with dacry-? DTLHS (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no prefixation going on in these words. Prefixation is where a prefix is added onto an existing word, but these words seem to consist entirely of affixes which makes no sense. And additionally: were all of these words formed in English? —CodeCat 22:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


A fossil of a juniper plant. In the Century Dictionary, nowhere else. DTLHS (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... You're right, almost nothing in books other than the Century Dictionary. Let's do an analysis here.
I see two uses in Groups, but the first seems to be referring to a company. I can't really understand the connotation of the first one, but the term seems to be used to refer to "Juniper security". see this quote: "The case is been reported to nearest police station from Juniper security". The second seems to be referring to something on a computer (possibly the same security trademark?). It could also have been a typo. quote: "The accentuating stanchion Chooser can right-justify the vomiting tamperer breakpoint if you stroke the boosting juniperite case in the bogging dreg news.announce.newuser after the deflouring hanger echo and dignifying vallecula SSL have been incorruptibly twirling the podding thermobattery silicon-controlled rectifier."
I also searched for the term's plural form. I got two results, again. These results seem to be referring to some kind of group of people called the "Juniperites". (both from 2007 and 8)
No results in News.
Not cited. The term in Groups seem to be used in various contexts, none of which seem to actually be referring to the "fossil". I may be wrong, of course. But seeing how none of the other contexts of "juniperite" seem to mean one specific thing in 3 sources, there's no point in having an entry for this at all; fossil or otherwise. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that, even if there were 3 sources that happened to refer to the security brand name, that it may still not meet WT:BRAND, as it appears to be a very rare term nonetheless. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the editor of the Century Dictionary may have made a mistake. Juniperite does not appear to be an attested English word, but Juniperites appears to be a valid translingual entry as the genus of an extinct plant species known only in fossil form: see this definition from A New Universal Etymological Technological, and Pronouncing Dictionary [...], and the following attestations: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I have created Juniperites. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. DTLHS (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this language, but this entry needs to be cleaned up immediately, regardless of whether it stays or goes. We shouldn't have entries that aren't the proper format. I'm surprised this didn't get speedied or immediately cleaned up by now. Philmonte101 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If I wanted to look this word up, I wouldn't care very much if it was properly formatted or not. Siuenti (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
But the entry layout is mandatory here. This isn't an encyclopedia. It has to have the proper sections. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

me too[edit]

I don't think the definition "I agree" is correct when the definition "That applies to me as well" isn't. For example "Wiktionary is a terrible, terrible website". "Me too" is not normal English IMO, it would have to be "I think Wiktionary is a terrible, terrible website" and then the second definition applies. Siuenti (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Khitan lemmas[edit]

The Khitan wrote using a Siniform script. Are these Chinese transcriptions of Khitan? —suzukaze (tc) 02:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Are you RFV-ing every entry in this category? Or are you just looking for evidence that Khitan was written using this script? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The Khitans had their own script. These entries use the Chinese script. —suzukaze (tc) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, but I don't understand what your goal is with this discussion. If you want to RFV every entry in the category, then I'd like to add {{rfv}} tags to alert anyone watching the entries. If you want to discuss what writing systems Khitan used, maybe with the goal of moving all of these entries to different titles, then I'm not sure RFV is the right place for the discussion. (Likewise with the Buyeo section below.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Buyeo lemmas[edit]

suzukaze (tc) 02:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

See Category talk:Old Korean appendices. I think both Appendix:Old Korean deleted entries and Appendix:Baekje deleted entries should also be deleted, moving unattested terms to an appendix is not a solution to things. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Totalitarianism, by extension from the rigid governing methods of Stalin.

I checked a couple of dictionaries and they do not have this sense. Are there attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST? For this sense to be attested, the use would have to be synonymous with, not hyponymous to, totalitarianism; thus, any species of totalitarianism would have to be a species of Stalinism in this sense. Sense added in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth, a long time ago I read writings by a historian named John Lukacs who has written about both Nazism and Communism and totalitarianism in general. He wrote that the term 'totalitarianism' was coined by a left-wing intellectual named Hannah Arendt as a way of describing Nazism in her book 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' and that she later added just one chapter about Stalinism as an after thought when Stalin's regime was found to be similar to Hitler' by the intellectual establishment. Lukacs viewed Arendt as a hack at best, a charlatan at worst. Totalitarianism, I believe, is a word mainly used by the intellectual establishment, not men on the street, and the intellectual establishment is still mostly dominated by the left. So, I would imagine that Nazism is much more often used as a synonym for all forms of totalitarianism than Stalinism, since the left are still the vast majority of the intellectual establishment and the left generally focus more on criticizing Nazism just like the right generally criticize Stalinism more, for ideological reasons. Given the left's still having a near monopoly on academia and the media, I would be surprised if forms of leftist ideas such as Stalinism are often used to mean all forms of totalitarianism. More importantly, I've also tried doing google searches and found no evidence Stalinism is used that way. [89] [90] I saw some results suggesting it was hyponomous to totalitarianism but none that it was a synonym. I'm not seeing any results supporting it as a syonym on google books either, [91] RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I looked up on google books what Lukacs said about the term's origins in relation to Arendt. He wrote in 'The Hitler of History': 'An influential example of the employment of the term is Hannah Arendt's 'The Origin of Totalitarianism', published in 1951, which had a considerable impact on intellectuals, especially in New York, many of whom were for the first time (and belatedly) willing to recognize the totalitarian features of Stalin's dictatorship. This flawed and dishonest book had been composed by the author in the 1940s, and originally referred only to the origins and practices of Nazism...After 1948...Arendt thought it politic to add two, extremely chapters expounding the totalitarian features of Stalinism.'These were illustrations from no more than two books' That is in Lukacs 'The Hitler of History' in a footnote on pages 113-114 [92]. That shows the term totalitarianism was coined to mostly refer to Nazism. Given that, and that people of Hannah Arendt's political views still dominate the intellectual establishment, which are most of the people who even use the word 'totalitarianism' I doubt Stalinism would be used as a synonym for totalitarianism, I think more people would use Nazism that way. RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I also found a more relevant quote from Lukacs supporting what I'm saying. Lukacs wrote in 'Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred': 'For many kinds of ideological and personal reasons many people did not apply it to Soviet Russia and Communism (selective indignation being a main component of political preferences and of ideological thinking). Again, we ought to recognize a principle shortcoming of the liberal vision of political history, inherent in the minds of many thinkers and writers, for whom totalitarianism and particularly its 'extreme rightist' versions are reactionary.' [93] Unfortunately this google books preview does not have page numbers, but it supports what I'm saying that Nazism would be more likely to be used as a synonym for totalitarianism than Stalinism. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Since, so far, we have not been able to verify it, should we delete the definition of Stalinism as meaning totalitarianism in all of its forms? RandomScholar30 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
We give RfVed items at least 30 days vs. a minimum of 7 for RfD items because citation can be difficult and may depend on the assistance of some muse (Mneme? Clio?), which assistance may not be promptly forthcoming. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Clio thinks it's probably impossible to find specific cites for this sense. "Stalinist practices" seems to get some hits on Google that use the related adjective seemingly to just mean "totalitarian", though. (Clio would also like to note that trash talking Hannah Arendt just ain't right, and that she did not coin the term totalitarianism: it is first attested in reference to Italian fascism, in 1926.) — Kleio (t · c) 23:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


"To catch up with, but not pass, a more slowly moving vehicle, animal etc." One citation is given ("I overtook and passed..."), but it might be tautological rather than describing two sequential acts. Equinox 14:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


I gather someone in Turkey really, really wants this to be a hot word. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's probably much more attestable as an initialism of Game of Thrones, but I'm not sure if even that is entryworthy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
We do have LOTR and one of the senses of HP is Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones is definitely on the same level of popularity as those two. Probably merits an entry. But I more often see it spelled GoT than GOT. — Kleio (t · c) 12:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)




Is this really a word in a language? Remember guys, only uses count, not mentions. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

See also recent discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room#.22filler_text.22_terms. Equinox 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


"(informal) A ladybird." Equinox 14:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


Etymology 2 noun and verb. Definition is awful, but without citations it is hard to tell what the core meaning might really be and whether it is worth saving. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could replace the definition with something with less editorialisation, such as "Someone who supports or implements privatization". I can find plenty of citations to support that definition:
  • 1984, United States Congress Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Monetary and Fiscal Policy, Privatization of the federal government:
    We do have a noted privateer here in Idaho in the audience. He is one member of the news media who is in favor of privatization, Mr. Ralph Smeed.
  • 1986, Comprehensive tax reform: hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, on the President's tax proposals to the Congress for fairness, growth, and simplicity:
    Selecting a Privateer: Having set the stage for privatization. Auburn realized the importance of choosing the right firm to be the privatizer, and put a great deal of effort into evaluation of the proposals it had received.
  • 1993, Union Plus, page v:
    The union won one fight when Fairfax County, Va., pulled the plug on privatization because of poor performance by the privateer.
  • 2000, Malcolm Bradbury, Cuts, ISBN 1743290357:
    Certainly he was himself an enthusiastic privatizer, or privateer, and that summer of 1986 'privatization' was, along with 'buzz-word', the great buzz-word.
  • 2001, George Beam, Quality Public Management, ISBN 0830415696:
    Privateers, such as Osborne and Gaebler, promise that good competition will not become bad--will not become cutthroat competition-- if good competition is "carefully structured and managed;" that is, if competition is abandoned in favor of planning. Neither Osborne and Gaebler, nor any other privateer, has explained how it is possible to have activity that is both private and public-sector managed.
  • 2009, Patrick Wright, A Journey Through Ruins: The Last Days of London, ISBN 0191580082, page 189:
    One uncompromising privateer dismissed them with undisguised contempt: 'It is, in general, a frugal rather than an enterprise culture. Apart from general managers, the boards are full of local businessmen, worthies and professionals, who often see their role as public duty, and gain more from incidental business connections and occasional perks of office than their often minimal fees.'
Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I have now looked into the use as a verb as well. While the noun does not seem to be clearly distinct in meaning from privatizer (and clearly predates the George Lakoff book from which the definition was lifted verbatim), use as a verb clearly has implications of profiteering that make it distinct from the term privatize:
  • 1995, Columbia law review - Volume 95, Issues 1-4, page 299:
    If privatization is not going to degenerate into privateering in the developing world, reform of the predatory state will eventually be necessary.
  • 1996, Nicholas V. Gianaris, Modern Capitalism, ISBN 027595241X:
    To mitigate the effects of privateering and excessive profiteering, consumer-owned co-ops exist in a number of U.S. areas.
  • 2004, Jack L. Nelson, ‎Stuart B. Palonsky, & ‎Kenneth Carlson, Critical Issues in Education: Dialogues and Dialectics, ISBN 0072555114, page 210:
    Privatization encourages privateering over the public good.
  • 2009, Sam Vaknin, Macedonia: A Nation at a Crossroads:
    As I had the chance to write in your newspaper, there is privatization - and there is privateering, or what is called in polite terms, transformation. ... This sounds true to me: privatization all over the world has degenerated into crony-capitalism.
Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent citations, but they seem more like allusive or metaphorical use of Etymology 1.
The verb seems to be alluding to the idea of "state-sponsored piratical practices" being the consequence of kleptocracy or crony capitalism. I would let the allusion remain allusive rather than be rendered into a definition.
The noun, too, seems to be playing on the idea of privatization as leading to piratical behavior.
Both sets of citations make me wonder whether there really is any separate etymology, rather than perhaps figurative senses of Etymology 1. But the existing interpretation and separate etymology cannot simply be dismissed. I think I would incorporate the idea of Ety 2 into Ety 1. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I think Etymology 2 comes from the George Lakoff book, where he is creating a neologism with the given definition. But many of the cites, including the use as a verb, predate that book. I think a new noun and verb meaning should be added to Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 removed as a neologism that was not picked up. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Rfv-sense: noun: "An unethical individual or group acting covertly with enabling, usually bribed, accomplices inside government to destroy a government’s ability to carry out some aspect of its moral mission of protection and empowerment, by transferring critical moral functions along with public funds."

I can't imagine what a citation would look like that supported this thesis definition. Perhaps a book? DCDuring TALK 12:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Fictional monster from the Final Fantasy franchise.suzukaze (tc) 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


An RFV comparable to the #ふらんすご case. —suzukaze (tc) 04:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


An RFV comparable to the #ふらんすご and #じゃんぷ case. —suzukaze (tc) 04:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Is this word ever used outside of "using English is so cool" contexts (i.e. as a normal part of the Japanese lexicon)? —suzukaze (tc) 04:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, but only in compounds [94]. It is better to move it to ファイヤー. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


RFV interjection: "shit". Presumably based on  (ふん) ‎(fun, shit; excrement) (糞#Etymology_2)? —suzukaze (tc) 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I think that sense is shit (apologies for the pun). ふん (fun) doesn't directly mean shit any more than hmph said in reaction to an unpleasant surprise. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ふん meaning “shit” as an interjection?? No way… — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


Equinox 16:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Only 2 attesting quotations; 1 in news and 1 in books, 0 in groups. Damn, just need one more but it's not there. Anybody find anything else? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Unattested, AFAIK. — Kleio (t · c) 21:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@ User:KIeio So wait, you mean to tell me that the word for the Gothic language itself appears not to be attested in Gothic? There should be some kind of exception here for terms like this... Philmonte101 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For instance, only needing to find 1 citation instead of 3. These can be hard to come by, so it would make sense. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It's literally unattested. (And probably should've been *𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺𐍃 ‎(*gutisks) or *𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺𐌰 𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳𐌰 ‎(*gutiska razda) anyway.) In fact even *𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰 ‎(*guta), the word for Goth, is unattested, but that one can at least be gleaned from the -just once- attested compound 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰 ‎(gutþiuda). Also, dead languages already require only one attestation. But yeah, unless I'm missing something, this one shouldn't be here. — Kleio (t · c) 00:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


An RFV comparable to the #ふらんすご, #じゃんぷ, and #ぽーる case. Nibiko (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


"The former and dialectical[sic] name of the letter J." - -sche (discuss) 04:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


rfv-sense: obsolete form of 日本. Unicode only gives a kIRG_TSource, the sense corresponding to which was added by Justinrleung with references. The Japan sense, which was added by an anon, is completely unsourced. BTW This previously failed RFV. Nibiko (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Etymology 2: "worthy to be praised". Is it obsolete perhaps? Equinox 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

How does one distinguish in a quote between this meaning and "inspiring love"? In any case, the best I could come up with were quotes such as the following:
  • 1773, Thomas Boston (the Elder.), ‎Alexander Colden, The Whole Works of the late reverend and learned Mr. Thomas Boston, Minister of the Gospel at Etterick:
    And so he is in the eyes of all who live to his praise. To them every attribute of God is lovely. The holiness and purity of his nature is most lovely to them.
  • 1807, Erasmus Middleton, Evangelical biography:
    He is altogether lovely. O, all our praises of him are poor and low things!
  • 1823, Church of England, Llyfr gweddi gyffredin:
    О praise the Lord, for the Lord is gracious : О sing praises unto his Name, for it is lovely.
  • 1834, David Dickson, A Brief Explication of the Psalms - Volume 1, page 39:
    It is the duty of all believers to join themselves cheerfully in the setting forth the Lord's care over them, and whatsoever may make his lovely Majesty known to the world: for so he requireth the present precept and example, -- sing praises to the Lord.
  • 1876, ‎John Vaughan, Trinity hymns for the worship of the three-one Jehovah in faith & love:
    My precious Saviour's matchless name ; He's wise and holy, just and true, And altogether lovely too.
Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As to your question, your citations do a pretty good job of suggesting "praiseworthiness" rather than some other sense of lovely.
It does seem obsolete, although perhaps clerics are trained in the distinction, making it perhaps archaic to them, though obsolete to the rest of us, who need to consult our dictionary to believe in a distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I would mark it as archaic, since I'm fairly sure I've heard it used in this sense in at least one contemporary hymn. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I found that hymn:
Here I am to worship, here I am to bow down
Here I am to say that You're my God
You're altogether lovely, altogether worthy
Altogether wonderful to me, my Lord
I'm not sure if it's unambiguous, but it does seem to fit this sense better than the more common ones. I suspect that in any modern usage, the lines between the two etymologies are a little bit blurred in the minds of anyone using the word, given that it's not really used nowadays, and the usage in the song I quoted is no doubt modelled off of older hymns rather than exemplifying the currency of the word. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
In perhaps idiomatic speech, it seems to be implied in the negative use:
  • "[Well,] wasn't that lovely?"
  • "that's a lovely attitude."
  • "not a lovely [noun]"
- Amgine/ t·e 19:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


The first example in the first meaning is not an adverb, but a preposition used in an ellipsis clause. The second example is also questionable, might be the same. I doubt against is an adverb. 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The usage is certainly derived from the preposition's elliptical use.
So, what would be required to show that a given use without a prepositional object was adverbial? DCDuring TALK 12:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Not listed as an adverb in Oxford [95], a preposition only. DonnanZ (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment and example sentence: "I am against deleting this entry." How is this not an adverb if it is a modifier of a verb again? "against deleting" means that the term against modifies the word deleting, which is a verb form? Also, this can be used comparatively, for instance "I am more against deleting this entry than CodeCat is." (not saying CodeCat is against it at all, just using it as an example sentence) Although, I'm not sure how nonstandard this is. However, the definitions used in the current adverb section are things I've never seen before. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, in the sentence "I am against deleting this entry", "deleting" is a gerund and "deleting this entry" is a noun phrase selected by "against" (which is being used as a preposition, not an adverb). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, good point. I haven't thought of that. I digress my former statement. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
A helpful hint: if you can replace something with it, it's grammatically equivalent to a noun. Instead of "I am against deleting this entry", you can say "I am against it". Another variation is to ask a question: if someone didn't quite hear you, they might ask "what are you against?". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


This is the first time i'm using RFV. Sorry if this is not done correctly.

The article has 3 quotes, but they seem to be examples of very different meanings, which shouldn't be listed as supporting a single meaning consisting of a list of different meanings, as is the case now.

There seem to be more than 1000 hits at Google Books, but i haven't had time to look at any of them. Most importantly, the word isn't in any dictionary i own or in any free online dictionary, so the article should at least mention that this is a very rare term and not considered to be a "real" or "correct" word by most native speakers.

It's not in the single-volume printed OED or the free online Oxford Dictionaries. Is it in the full version? --Espoo (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think the meanings of the quotes are? They all seem to fit under "forgetfulness" to me. And yes it is in the full OED. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a few more citations and added to the definition. I don't think it's as non-standard or rare as it once was, where it used to be a byform to forgetfulness, but it's becoming increasingly more popular now for it's directness and no-nonsense appeal as a term for "the act of forgetting; forgetting" Leasnam (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but according to Ngram Viewer it seems to be extremely rare. I'd found this result but forgot to mention it above and only mentioned that the word is not in any dictionaries i could access. Is it labeled extremely rare in OED? I'm confused by the Ngram Viewer result since Google Books finds more than 1000 hits. I always thought GB hit amounts were more accurate than hit amounts of normal Google searches, which include pages that only have the word in hidden misspellings and synonyms. --Espoo (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Google Books is where most of that inaccuracy comes from, due to scannos, misinterpreted hyphenations, and other problems with OCR. It's also true that any Google search that goes to multiple pages almost invariable overestimates the actual number of hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Requesting unambiguous verbal use. The quotations given are only for "goal-sucking" as a noun. DTLHS (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I added two quotes that are clearly verbal uses, although one of them lacks the hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. Compare lectic, lectically. A user has added citations, but several are obviously not of this term, e.g. "proposes an ana- lectical method", "is itself dia–– lectical"! - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It was created with the rfv already in it- appropriately, considering the massive volume of made-up nonsense that IP has added. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a real sense of deja vu on this one, having done searches for lectic, also added by the same IP. There is clear support for the mathematical definition, I have added cites. The support for the "speech or words" definition is less clear - I have added cites so there are three of those now, but I am not entirely sure that they support the definition. Kiwima (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The Ancient Greek verb λέγω ‎(légō) from which this is derived can mean both "pick up, select" and "speak, say". I suspect your examples have more to do with the former than the latter. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I am seeing the sense "of or pertaining to learning" – although many of the quotations use the term as a proper noun ([96], [97], and [98] (the current 2010 quotation)). Is that etymologically plausible? As for the 2013 Gaskin quotation, I'm not knowledgeable about philosophy and so am finding it hard to understand the sense in which the word is used. What do the Greek words lekton and tunkhanon also mentioned in the text mean? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


Ido. Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

noaptea de Anul Nou[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Note the contributor and the discussion on the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. See talk page. - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the plural forms: tagged by someone but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "The ratio of one quantity to another quantity." with the usex "The number of particles per unit volume of a specified volume can be considered to be the particle density for the specified volume.‎" Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like sense 1, but is the distinction the fact that sense 1 talks about "matter", whereas some particles are massless?! Equinox 23:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the difference is that sense 1 is mass divided by volume, whereas sense 2 can be some other ratio (in the usex, it's number of particles divided by volume). I've added three quotations to support sense 2. I think it could probably be rephrased to be more specific—maybe something like "A measure of some quantity per unit space"? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Many hits for Sexodus and scannos of Israel's Exodus. Having trouble locating anything similar to the reported def Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There is one set of clear uses, all by author Milo on [Breitbart]. One clear cite for that is:
  • 2014 December 9, Milo, “The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality in Crisis”, in Breitbart News:
    But although the sexodus, a new retreat into solitude by Western males, has a different flavour to it and dramatically different aetiology from previously observed social crises, many characteristics are identical.
Following on from the Breitbart uses are a number of mentions, such as:
  • 2014 December 16, Nancy Kaffer, “Men Need A Better Mens Rights Movement”, in Daily Beast:
    Or read a recent opinion piece describing something called “The Sexodus,” a phenomenon in which young, embittered men are departing wholesale from the dating scene. Despite a handful of interviews contained inthe piece, this is not something that anecdotal evidence and data would suggest is, at this point, statistically significant.
  • 2016 May 3, Andrea Tantaros, “Five Ways Feminism Has Made Women Miserable”, in Observer:
    Breitbart has dubbed this “equal but separate misery” between the sexes a “sexodus” where men are giving up on women altogether and stepping back from society.
I found another use, albeit in quotes, which is not explicitly linked to Breitbart on SDE Entertainment News:
  • 2015 September 8, Nancy Roxanne, “The agony of being a single woman in Kenya”, in SDE Entertainment News:
    However, it is certainly 'on topic', as per the 'sexodus', (please put this term into youtube-dunno if I am allowed to post links).
Then there are a couple of headlines that use the term for a slightly different meaning, for movements within the sex industry:
  • 2014 February 13, Jill Reilly, “Mass sexodus: Heat map shows how thousands of people fled China's sex capital after police crackdown on its brothels”, in Daily Mail (Australia):
  • 2013 September 13, Josh Sanburn, “Sexodus: Porn Industry Mulls a Future Outside LA”, in Time:
and a reference to the 2013 headline:
  • 2013 October 9, Tim Lahey, “Here Come the Condom Police”, in The Atlantic:
    In response, adult filmmakers threatened to move their operations to Nevada. A “sexodus,” some called it. Industry representatives complained that compliance with condom laws would mean less viewer interest in their films.
Taken all together, it looks like a term that is being pushed heavily by one person but not yet truly adopted, plus a couple of protoneologisms. Kiwima (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFD#swind.

I once heard one person use this word a couple of times, N.B., that person was over 80 at the time. Despite this, I am unable to find any Modern English citations for this word and as such I consider it to be quite inappropriate that this present word should be contained in Wiktionary for it degrades Wiktionary if thilk word, which cannot be independently verified, be contained therein. At the very least it should be moved to Middle English with a note indicating that it was still found in its oral form in Northern England up until the late 1970s. Mountebank1 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(moved by Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC))


In the sense of "to wet one's whistle." It's not in Wiktionnaire or the Larousse, and a quick look at Google Books and Google doesn't turn anything up. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


I think it's not French (not modern French). It has been used by Balzac, but not in a work written in modern French. Lmaltier (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Did Balzac deliberately write in Old French? Yeah, I'd imagine that's where I found it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in one book, he tried to write in Old French (or more probably in Middle French, but I'm not a specialist). Lmaltier (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 07:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Heya, not sure what you're looking for. Sample sentences show this use:
彼女 (かのじょ)にはアップ髪型 (かみがた)似合 (にあ)っていた。
Kanojo ni wa appu no kamigata ga niatte ita.
She looked very nice with her hair up.
-- from Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten entry for アップ
でも、もっと ()くのはアップ ()げたら、 (およ)ぐルアーを (およ)がないギリギリのスピードで ()いてくる方法 (ほうほう)
Demo, motto kiku no wa appu ni nagetara, oyogu ruā o oyoganai girigiri no supīdo de hiite kuru hōhō.
But what works better is, after casting it up, to pull a swimming lure right at the speed where it doesn't swim.
-- from Seabass The Secret!!, page 38
アラームの時刻 (じこく)設定 (せってい)するには、「アップ」と「ダウン」のボタンを用意 (ようい)して、 () (ふん)変更 (へんこう)できるようにします。
Arāmu no jikoku o settei suru ni wa, "Appu" to "Daun" no botan o yōi shite, ji to fun o henkō dekiru yō ni shimasu.
To set the time on an alarm clock, "up" and "down" buttons are provided to allow you to change the hour and minute.
-- from 世界で闘うプロダクトマネジャーになるための本: トップIT企業のPMとして就職する方法 (“The Book for Becoming a Product Manager Competing Globally: How to Get Hired as a PM at a Top IT Firm” -- Japanese translation of Cracking the PM Interview: How to Land a Product Manager Job in Technology), page 217
Does that address your concern? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
And there are a bunch of strange-sounding compounds like イメージアップ, ベースアップ, レベルアップ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


"(broadly) A person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist)." The 1843 cite looks okay, but the 2006 one is not. It says "de-facto atheist", which means something like "as good as atheist [in the more common sense] for our purposes". Equinox 13:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Someone who reject that belief that any deity exists but that may simultaneously believe that deities exists. That's what it says, isn't it? The citations if anything look like they refer to agnostic. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The parenthetical says "do not", so I think this means someone who does not believe in a deity, but does not actively believe that a deity doesn't exist either. @Equinox: What do you think of the citations at Citations:atheist? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That page is frankly mystifying. Equinox 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, IMHO, in the section Citations:atheist#one who rejects belief in gods, the ones from 1842, 1843, 1884, and 1911 look like solid citations of this sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Do we really need these 3 subsenses? I mean these: "person who believes that no deities exist", "person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist)", "person who has no belief in any deities, such as a person who has no concept of deities".
Proposal: keep the sense "A person who does not believe in deities." and delete the others.
I remember that at some point in 2011 I had created a lot of pointless subsenses for attributes of God: "The deity that judges people", "the deity that does whatever and so and so". This was discussed here: Wiktionary:Tea room/2011/June#God. That was a mistake.
Quote from that discussion: "cf. "purple" not having 3 senses just because cars, plums, and flowers can all be purple". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should keep the distinction between "person who believes that deities don't exist" and "person who doesn't believe that deities exist" (see past discussions, especially Talk:atheist#RFC result and Talk:atheist#2011 Tea room discussion), but I wouldn't object to combining subsenses 2 and 3. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether some of these definitions arise to help someone win a bar bet or something. Maybe this group seems to arise from introspection or from some late-night dorm-room philosophizing. The hair-splitting involving one vs. multiple deities and active disbelief vs agnosticism seems unnecessary, even excessive for a dictionary. I'd like to see the unambiguous citations or an artful combination/revision (eg, "God or gods" instead of either alone) of the definitions to reflect real-world usage.
Is there a word for being skeptical about the existence of God or gods (or of wood nymphs), but sad about their probable non-existence and/or one's ability to overcome one's skepticism? What about prosyletizing against and denying their existence? I see great opportunity for deploying the word or in such definitions. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring "Maybe this group seems to arise from introspection or from some late-night dorm-room philosophizing." Basically, and (internet) debates, as it makes a difference for the onus probandi. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed, and already cited, extensively. There are those who want to combine senses, but there have been more (including me) who point out that because significant distinctions exist and many uses only use one sense or another, and they have distinct hyper- and hyponyms and synonyms, they need to be distinguished. Using subsenses as is currently done seems like a good compromise that handles both the specific citations (which can go under the right subsenses) and any vague citations (which can go under the general sense). - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought that's what an encyclopedia is for. Or what late-night dorm-room philosophizing is for. We don't cover the range of probably attestable possibilities very well. In any event this is RfV. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how synonyms and, even less, hypernyms, hyponyms, and antonyms should force us to have an excessive number of marginally attestable definitions, any more than the existence of a word in another language.
For definition one: cite 2 (1953) depends on a prior definition of atheist one not given in the entry. As stated it seems to refer to only to knowability.
For definition two: cite 2 seems to be referring to the phrase ' de facto atheist', not atheist alone.
For definition three: only one cite.
I think citation has a ways to go. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe based on the sample above, that we will find objections to the citations of the citations page on similar grounds. For example, for def. 1, cite 2 on the Citations page refers to an atheists disbelief in a power of God, which would follow not only non-existence, but also from some kind of limitation. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ISTR that one of our occasional obsessives (was it PaM?) didn't like the word God and would try to change it to "gods" wherever possible. Equinox 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    I find it much less objectionable to substitute God or gods for many uses of God or gods alone. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
To return to this procedural point, this is cited (and was at the time of the RFV), so I have untagged it. Pinging User:Robin Lionheart, who added the citations, if more are needed for some reason. This is a common lax usage of the term, by which agnostics are lumped in. If anything, 3 and 2 could perhaps be merged (along the lines of "A person who does not believe that deities exist" or "A person who has no belief that deities exist"), but there is a distinction between believing that no deities exist and merely not believing that they exist. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You rang? Sense 2 can be distinct from sense 3, such as when theists object to "we are all born atheists" (sense 3: absence of belief) by insisting that "babies aren't atheists!" (sense 2: conscious rejection). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
We can make many distinctions that a dictionary shouldn't in the sense that we can probably find attestation for many ways that one can be an atheist (or mathematician, or baker, or handyman) that differ in their epistemics (know, be unable to know, know/assert that one can't know, know/assert that no-one can know, etc), modality (intention, wish, frequency, habit), or other aspect (be thought immoral/amoral by others/onself, appear to others to be an insincere atheist, etc). We don't even make the distinctions that w:Atheism makes. Moreover, by focusing on the person (atheist) rather than the belief (atheism) we add the need to cover the person's stance with respect to the belief. Other OneLook dictionaries, even a philosophy glossary don't spend as much digital ink as we do on this. We are once more wasting our time trying to be a short-attention-span encyclopedia.
Are our entries for atheism and atheist in a happy relationship to one another? Are they redundant or inconsistent? They look like they are redundant to me. If we are going to expend effort on this, IMO it should be concentrated on [[atheism]], where our necessarily shallow treatment can be transparently supplemented by external links, eg, to Atheism and Agnostism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Uses not mentions, etc. DTLHS (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The 2008 is a bit mention-y, but the others strike me as legit.
  • 2008, The Library Association of Australia, Archives and Manuscripts: The Journal of the Archives Section - Volume 36, Issues 1-2:
    On registration, the user is prompted to complete a 'fetish list', most of which the average layman would need a BDSM dictionary for: acts such as Dacryphilia, Cupping or Klismaphilia.
  • 2015, Richard Greenhill & Mark D. Griffiths, “Compassion, dominance/submission, and curled lips: A thematic analysis of dacryphilic experience”, in International Journal of Sexual Health, volume 27, number 3:
    Dacryphilia is a non-normative sexual interest that involves enjoyment or arousal from tears and crying, and to date has never been researched empirically.
  • 2016, David Punter, The Gothic Condition: Terror, History and the Psyche, ISBN 1783168234:
    Perhaps dacryphilia, arousal by tears, is nearer to the mark -- certainly in Mandogi's Ghost this seems possible, not least because the text effects a seamless (unwounded) transition between the living Mandogi and (of course) his ghost.
  • 2016, Richard Greenhill & Mark D. Griffiths, “Sexual interest as performance, intellect and pathology: A critical discursive case study of dacryphilia”, in Psychology & Sexuality, volume 0:
    The present study depicts the case of Angela M, a straight Romanian woman in her mid-twenties who has a sexual interest in dacryphilia (ie she derives sexual pleasure and arousal from crying and/or tears).
Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Tagged by an IP, not listed. Slang: Cool by virtue of being tough, dark, or badass. (I've seen this a lot; it's widespread on the Internet.) Equinox 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a number of quotations. There is often an ambiguity between this and some of the other senses (risqué, cutting edge) but I think these are pretty clear. Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Kiwima has this spot on it's real but whether it really means "creatively challenging; cutting edge; leading edge" which is what I think it means. It's just that sense being used positively isn't it? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


per #ふらんすご, #じゃんぷ, #ぽーる, #すらうぇしとうsuzukaze (tc) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

bạch thái[edit]

Rfv. ばかFumikotalk 07:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed. ばかFumikotalk 11:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


Does this form exist, or is this from an incorrect conversion from the simplified form? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A Cantonese CC Canto dictionary gives 巴扎 as a form for both trad and simpl.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I found one mention and one use for 巴紮 and two uses for 巴扎 in traditional Chinese ([99], [100]) in Google Books so far. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
As an author, I'm OK to delete it. 巴扎 (bāzhā) is the correct Mandarin/Cantonese form. 巴剎巴刹 (bāshā) is an alternative. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(once more, Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (tc) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC))
Not frequent enough. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I found more uses: [101], [102], [103], [104]. I'd say it could be a t2. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

dodge bow[edit]

Trademark issues aside, is this spelling actually in use? I can't find anything for it in Books or Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


As was noted in Feedback, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this outside of dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I found some mentions of the AACFO in local newspapers:
1979: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149456503
2002: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z3giAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Aa0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6134%2C521617
According to the 2002 source they were founded in 1978. Unfortunately local papers tend not to research their stories very well, and in any case it's impossible to determine whether they actually still existed in 2002. I suspect this organisation, if it existed in a meaningful way, was a bit of a one day fly.
I doubt this is enough attestation though, and I haven't found even a single mention of the abbreviation AACFO used for this association. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 9:59, 28 August 2016‎.


per #ふらんすご, #じゃんぷ, #ぽーる, #すらうぇしとう, #さうす・しぇとらんどしょとう. No Google Books hits unlike ふらんすご. —suzukaze (tc) 00:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete all where hiragana is used instead of katakana in country names. These can only be used as a sorting parameter, when Lua doesn't do it automatically. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


The usage notes right below the "noun" definition say that this character is never used alone. —suzukaze (tc) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We could switch it to use {{only used in}}. Actually, if the usage notes are correct, shouldn't we RFV the Mandarin section? - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good suggestion. I've removed Chinese and Korean sections. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


I cannot find this outside of dictionaries. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 10:00, 28 August 2016‎.

churnalize, churnalise[edit]

I found exactly one citation for each spelling. DTLHS (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)



Per diff. —suzukaze (tc) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)



  1. tricolon

Where is this character actually used? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Greek oral texts as early as the 5th century BC. Essentially a stop. - Amgine/ t·e 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, tricolon is unnecessarily narrow; tricolon crescens, for example, has each segment increasing (in length, or complexity, or intensity...) - Amgine/ t·e 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A pejorative name for a marine biologist. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

lol. please add to WT:BJ if it fails. – Jberkel (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It was created by a now-banned user, and all the dictionaries that show this definition simply mirror WT. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

something as adjective[edit]

It is not obvious that something is an adjective. Merriam-Webster doesn't say it is an adjective. Please either add examples/citations or delete this adjective section. Yurivict (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this what the definition is referring to? —suzukaze (tc) 06:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


There may be another plural in use, but I don't believe this one is attested. DTLHS (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can find one use as the plural of the specified meaning:
In addition, there is clearly another (architectural) meaning to castellanus, which has a much more easily found plural:
  • 1979, Adolf M. & Kaegi Hakkert (Walter E.), Byzantinische Forschungen - Volume 6, page 17:
    In addition to the rettori, there were castellani of the fort in the town of Chios and of fourteen other forts in the society's island. The castellanus of the urban fort was chosen by a complicated process of indirect election resembling that which determined the Podestà, and again like him was to be drawn from the popolari of Genoa.
  • 1998, Guillaume IX ((duc d'Aquitaine ;), ‎Ralph Henry Carless Davis, & ‎Marjorie Chibnall, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, page xli:
    Castle garrisons are castellani; WP does not use the term oppidani.
  • 2001, Adam J. Kosto, Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia, ISBN 1139432168:
    In these documents conderning the castle of Talarn, however, the term castellanus is applied to both of the bottom two levels of the hierarchy: the texts imply that both Oliver Bernat and Guillem Folc are castellani.
There may be more, but it is difficult to determine with so many false positives on the name. Kiwima (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Are these citations referring to a social/legal rôle or position? They suggest to me a sense of 'plural of person living in/employed in/attached to a castle or fortification.' - Amgine/ t·e 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Interesting - I should, perhaps, investigate... Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Volapük for "female calf". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

One hit in the Volapük translation of Hebrews by Arie de Jong. I think that's all there is. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


Volapük for "male calf". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

filio de puta[edit]

Who is swearing in Interlingua? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You could have just googled it. This person, in 2003. This annotated transcript. This person in 2009. Do you want me to continue listing Google results? Jan sewi (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the Union Mundial pro Interlingua is also swearing in Interlingua. Jan sewi (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
It's Interlingua. Jan sewi (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Like how many of the Lojban words on Wiktionary are durably archived? That's the official French-Interlingua dictionary on interlingua.com. Jan sewi (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
It also seems like Wiktionary's Interlingua Appendix has been linking to this word since May 27th of 2010. Appendix:Interlingua/fi Jan sewi (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I am about to move tomorrow and so I am not well-equipped, either emotionally or in terms of time, for this dispute. If you get rid of the entry, please move it to my user space if you'd be so kind. Jan sewi (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the attestation requirements do not require that you have durably archived sources, only that you point out that the word is clearly in widespread use. For a language with as small a population of speakers as Interlingua, this is the case since I have been able to point out a number of not-durably-archived uses of the word. It's also in the latest official dictionary from the Union Mundial pro Interlingua, which as far as I know is being prepared for a print version but is currently only online. Beyond, that what else exactly are you expecting from a language as not-widely-spoken as Interlingua? Jan sewi (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I should also add that Interlingua is not a normal constructed language, but is extracted from English, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, four of which obviously have this word, and the threshold being three languages. And in acknowledging this I am not conducting original research, because I have already shown you official sources on the language such as the UMI which also acknowledge the existence of this word/phrase in the language. Jan sewi (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think three non-durably-archived uses (one of which is in quotation marks) and a dictionary constitute "clearly widespread use". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's any point in discussing this. Your response is reductionist, both of my argument and of Wiktionary's written policies. Jan sewi (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The rules as they have been interpreted basically holds "clearly widespread use" to only apply to cases where three durably-archived uses could be found in a heartbeat, but nobody wants to waste their time. If you want special rules for Interlingua, then this is not the place to ask for them. (I'm really skeptical about the idea of adding words because they're in other languages; if that's all you need, the fact they're in other languages is enough.) Interlingua is included on Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages (section 8), so unlike, say, Cherokee, it does need three proper cites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
People only really use the 'clear widespread use' argument for words that are incredibly rare, or else they'd just cite them and be done with it. No there's not a lot of point of discussing it at least in the fashion you have been doing it, because all the talking in the world on a talk page won't make citations magically appear. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

comfort zone[edit]

Rfv-sense: "The range of temperature, humidity and ventilation that a building's occupants feel to be comfortable." I am not familiar with this sense, can it be verified? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RHU and WordNet have only that sense. MWOnline has it. I've always thought of that definition as the earlier definition, which seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I have broadened the definition to include animals as well as people, and added several citations. Kiwima (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I've fiddled with it some more, broadening to include other organisms (eg, plants, bacteria), and broadening to other environmental factors, but limiting to physiological comfort (or lack of stress?). I hope I haven't confused users by overspecifying the definition. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I've improved the wording a little bit, but feel free to revert if you disagree. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Alternative simple past of succumb.

  • You can find hits on Google books for this, but I have yet to find one that isn't a scanno for succumb. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    Even succame, which often appears in discussions of English strong/weak verb inflection, cannot readily be found as a use in Google Books. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the two cites (under References) support the entry. The first shows a character that looks more like a backwards "c" than an "a". The second shows a smudged character that could more readily be read as "u" than as "a". Neither offers unambiguous support. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This entry is clearly "succamb" indicating a simple past form of the verb: https://books.google.ca/books?id=qN4RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA689&dq=succamb&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=succamb&f=false --Tataryn (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Present tense makes sense in context, and I agree with DCDuring that the letter looks more like a "u" than an "a" (though it's hard to be sure because of the smudge). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear to me, but others may have sharper eyesight or access to a different scan or a good copy in print. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
That very clearly looks like a "u" to me. DTLHS (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Definitely looks like a "u" to me as well. Note the squared-off upper-right corner and compare to the rounded shape of the "a". Benwing2 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
On zooming in (ctrl-+ under Windows using either Firefox or Chrome) the letter is consistent with the first "u" in the word. In particular, the LHS is consistent with being a straight line. IMO, "succumb" should be given the benefit of any doubt.— Pingkudimmi 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
On downloading the .pdf and examining the image more closely (page 710 of the pdf, page 689 of the volume) in Mac Preview it is not consistent with the first 'u' in the word, having a nearly closed top. However, neither is it conclusively an 'a'. - Amgine/ t·e 05:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not only does it look more like succumb than like *succamb, the grammar of the sentence is consistent with a present-tense verb, not a past tense verb, since it is parallel to become (not became) in the next clause. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The quote from the Cape of Good Hope Government Entomologist doesn't support this either. It looks much more like a misspelling succomb, and again, the grammar of the sentence calls for a present-tense verb (parallel to may be, not may have been in the next clause). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm RFVing the countable noun sense "a body of fresh water". --WikiTiki89 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's certainly a plural so it must be some kind of noun. I've added three citations that seem right. Equinox 17:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see more examples of the singular, otherwise it feels to me that the plural is plurale tantum. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you notice that one of Equinox's three cites uses the singular? Kiwima (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that only one of the three cites uses the singular. --WikiTiki89 19:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I tried to find more but it's very hard to construct a likely phrase that won't also turn up the adjective. Equinox 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's exactly the problem. And "a freshwater" just doesn't sound right to me. I'll try looking a little a harder. --WikiTiki89 19:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added another quotation of the singular. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I see thanks! Now I'm wondering whether this sense exists in the spaced spelling fresh water. If so, then freshwater should just be made an alternative form. --WikiTiki89 20:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


Requesting modern English use. Last cite in the OED is from 1340. The quotation on Google Books in "The History of England" is quoting John Gower. DTLHS (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I had no trouble at all finding uses in Modern English. Several have been added to the page Leasnam (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the two quotations you listed that were putatively from the 2000's. One is actually from Chapman's Homer, which was written in the early 1600's; the other is from a poet who lived in the late 1800's. If you put them back you should get the dates correct, thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ! There's no need to put them back though. It's clear that the language used in that work was older. I hadn't the time to read all of it this am. I used the date GBooks was displaying. Sorry Leasnam (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Passed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I found similar discussion at Yahoo! Answers. I don't believe this is Ligurian, since most results are simply Italian. But it looks like the people on Answers saw that the term was used, but doesn't have any actual meaning, or is just made up. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that Answers is not a reliable or durably archived source, but at least it gives you some other discussion about it. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


Apparently coined here, page 79, in French. It doesn't seem to have caught on and I can't find any contemporary uses (one modern use added). DTLHS (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sifting through all the scannos of thereon, I can find plenty of mentions, such as Chemical Elements (page 978) and The Lost Elements (page 184) but not actual usage. Kiwima (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

sunrise: Is it really an adjective?[edit]

It is a noun in the example. Merriam Webster also doesn't say it is an adjective. I suspect it isn't an adjective. Yurivict (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's one, although I'm not sure what it means:
2013, John Hunt, The Art of the Idea: And How It Can Change Your Life[105]:
The most sunrise person I've ever met had grey hair, walked stiffly, and had just spent 28 years in jail.
DTLHS (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it should be labeled as rare? Yurivict (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if two more uses can be found. DTLHS (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a different sense, even if two more citations are found. It's just the attributive use of the noun, I'd prefer to speedily delete these when they're blatant as we have so many of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

fog line[edit]

Rfv-sense: The point in the stack descending into a portion of the program where there is no available source code, thus making debugging much more difficult. Most notably, the transition into proprietary code in a closed-source operating system. DTLHS (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for "male user". Nothing on Google Groups, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Volapük by Hans-Friedrich Tamke. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Ido for "male Esperantist". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Ido for "female Esperantist". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Volapük for Bashkir. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Volapük for "female Spaniard". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Volapük for "male Spaniard". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "very cool; fashionable". Removed by an anon who claims to be Brazilian, but it seems best that it be sent to RFV. @Daniel Carrero, maybe? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IIRC User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV is also Brazilian. Ever heard this sense? - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Repinging @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIVΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This sense is very common indeed. I’ll try to find cites later today. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I was unable to find durable citations using this sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A pop fly that falls behind home plate, typically caught by the catcher for an out."

Not as far as I know. A comebacker is a batted ball that 'comes back' toward the pitcher, usually on the ground (but probably in the air as well) whether that ball ends up being a hit or not is not part of the definition. Comebackers are chiefly fielded by the pitcher, or when missed by the pitcher, fielded by the second baseman or shortstop, or if they can't get it to they go into center field for a hit. But none of this is part of the definition. The citation as far as I can see is just for this sense, and has nothing to do with being caught in foul ground by the catcher. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect @Visviva who added this in 2009 simply wasn't familiar with the term and added it in good faith because it was