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 cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, 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: Requests for verification is a page 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 three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification AKA attestation, place the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination 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 source.

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to 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.
  • 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.

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.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed".)

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:impromptu, Talk:baggs.

Oldest tagged RFVs


January 2014[edit]

shark fin[edit]

Rfv-sense "To remove the fin from a shark, usually for use in cooking." The more correct form is "to fin a/the shark(s)". The gerund "shark finning" and the agent noun "shark finner" definitely exist and are not being RFVed. --WikiTiki89 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very common pattern of noun-verb conversion. Nothing guarantees that the process will lead to shark fin#Verb. You would think that such a verb could not be used intransitively and that the object would always be a shark. Something like "The fishermen sharkfin makos when ever they find them in their nets" might exist in the wild, but "The fishermen fin makos when ever they find them in their nets" seems more likely. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there could be uses such as "He shark fins all day," but I haven't found any. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Found one:
    • 2008, Paul J. Mila, Fireworks, AuthorHouse, page 42:
      “Yes, perhaps long-liners or poachers illegally shark finning. []
Ungoliant (falai) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I had accepted that we need to attest to the present-tense or 'infinitive' forms, I don't think that is really true. If manner adverbs, like illegally in Ungoliant's example, modify a form of shark fin or there is a true past or passive, that would seem to be sufficient evidence that it is used as a true verb. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The poachers quotation above seems good; the poachers were illegally shark finning; "they were swimming" attests "swimming" as an inflected form of "to swim", unlike "swimming is my favorite sport", IMHO. DCDuring's adverb argument above seems convincing as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Here’s another:
    • 2009, Fredric Archer, The New Shark Troller’s Bible, page 188:
      Once again, at the end of the day, everywhere you looked you could see at least one shark finning on the surface.
This one is ambiguous; it could be a verb ( [] at least one [of them] shark finning on the surface.), referring to finners mentioned in a previous sentence, or it could be a noun ( [] at least one [instance of] shark finning on the surface.). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • 1919, William Merriam Rouse, Peter the Devil in The Green Book Magazine, volume 22, Story-Press Association, page 22:
      [] and the nondescript few who wandered more or less aimlessly about the fifty-mile white beach that was Manaia, shark-finning, boiling bêche-de-mer, hunting hawk's-bill turtle.
Uses a hyphen. There you go: three cites, but two with issues. I’ll leave it to whoever closes the RFV to decide whether this term is verified.
If it passes, it definitely needs to be labelled rare. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I would still feel more comfortable if we could attest the infinite, simple present, or past tense forms. --WikiTiki89 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Archer cite does not seem to be the same meaning, or even the same POS. It is a subject-verb use rather than an attributive noun-verb use. The shark is displaying his fin above the water, not chopping off his own fin with his pearly whites. SpinningSpark 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's talking about a shark that is "finning" (fin#Verb definition #2). --WikiTiki89 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Archer cite does not work as pointed out above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


Is this really an adjective? allotted at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that many dictionaries make allotted in effect redirect to allot. AFAICT only WordNet shows it as an adjective, "assigned as a task" her allotted chores, but this seems to transfer meaning from the word modified to the modifier. Consider his allotted share of the garden. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is well suited for RFV. I would like to see a precedent of deleting adjective sections from past participles via RFV or a Beer parlour discussion supporting such deletion via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly well suited for a fact-based discussion. Either the word is attestably used as an adjective or it is not. The question of whether a term is an adjective is fairly clear cut and reasonable quickly resolved by resort to the facts of usage. The role of lawyerly argumentation is useful in evaluating the attestation evidence or in challenging the authority behind the criteria used. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are no purely attestation-based criteria necessary for adjectivity. An adjective does not need to be comparable and does not need to be modifiable by "very" and the like. RFD is not forbidden from being "fact-based". All criteria listed at Wiktionary:English adjectives are merely hints; none of the criteria is alone necessary and the criteria are not jointly necessary. If Wiktionary:English adjectives were applied to "allotted", google books:"become allotted" would suggest this to be adjective; nonetheless, I do not take Wiktionary:English adjectives very seriously. In any case, this does not fit my idea of proper use of RFV, which should IMHO above all be used to find whether a term or a sense are actually used to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to ignore our non-legislated practice of requiring that an English adjective be comparable/gradable OR be used as a predicate OR have a sense distinct from the sense of the noun or verb form from which a separate identity is to be established. The predicate case is that hardest to apply for adjectives that are alleged to be conversions of past participles, because it often requires a high level of sensitivity to the language to reliably distinguish passive use of the past participle from predicate use of an adjective. This is the kind of thing that interpretation of actual evidence rather than armchair introspection and gum-flapping (let alone legislating) is well suited to resolving. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the putative practice you speak of is a non-legislated practice, meaning it is, if it exists, not a result of a vote or a Beer parlour discussion. Now, any evidence of this being a common practice? Do you know of past RFV outcomes that fit this putative practice? How many are they? For the record, I oppose the use of RFV for this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it can be an adjective, but I'm rather dubious about the comparative and superlative shown in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Why of course? It can be used attributively, but so can nouns and ing-forms and ed-forms of verbs.
    1. Can it be shown to be gradable or comparative?
    2. Can it be used after become or seem?
    3. Is it ever unambiguously used as a predicate, ie, following a form of be with semantics clearly distinguished from a past participle used to form a passive?
    4. Does it have a sense that is not present in the ed-form of the verb?
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    All those hurdles? I'm virtually gobsmacked. Donnanz (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective.
    I share your skepticism about comparability, but can it be used with very or too (gradability)? I don't think so. I've never run into usage that meets any of the other tests either, but there might be such usage. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. The allotted tasks are less challenging than the other job expectations; the latter have no specific time set aside for their accomplishment.
    2. My days seem allotted either as a series of disasters and bad news, or boring montages of the same-ol'.
    3. Each is allotted a colour according to its priority. - Amgine/ t·e 06:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Amgine The first is attributive use of a past participle. (Would attested usage of "the circumnavigated globe" make circumnavigated an adjective?) The third is clearly a use of the verb in the passive. (Consider Each is allotted a color by rule of priority., which makes the agent explicit.) The second is the sole telling example. It could be argued that it is an ellipsis of the passive, but I think not. Three citations of such usage for each of the two senses would settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is enough sourcing on "This film has been modified from its original version to run in the allotted time" alone to support this as an adjective. Something can be an adjective while not taking comparatives or superlatives Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your reason would imply that cicumnavigated should be considered an adjective, given usage such as:
  • 1965, G. B. Sansom, The Western World and Japan:
    Not many years after the discovery of the Americas and the opening of the Cape route to India, Christian missionaries were making their way to almost every part of the now circumnavigated globe
There is a clear path to justifying treating this as an adjective: that it attestably meet at least ONE of the tests of adjectivity, such as those listed above (There may be more.). There is no amount of attributive use alone that would compel treatment of this as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While I don't have an opinion on the rest, wouldn't the modifying element be now circumnavigated in that quote? - Amgine/ t·e 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Amgine Yes, but circumnavigated is the head of the modifying phrase. I searched for "now circumnavigated" to reduce the portion of the ocean that I had to boil to find relevant citations. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, as a sailor, I would certainly consider a circumnavigated globe as qualitatively different from an uncircumnavigated one, in a comparable way an explored region differs from an unexplored one, a painted versus an unpainted canvas. In a related manner, an allotted hour or day is different from one unallotted. And that's entirely apart from parliamentary usage (throughout the commonwealth), the standard euphemisms allotted span, allotted hours, or allotted days to indicate length of life (or 70 years, whichever comes first?), and of course Google Books—whether religious, poetic, or otherwise. On another hand, your position that allotted is not adjectival is disputed by OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge... just wondering which authority is the basis for your position? - Amgine/ t·e 20:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears there is enough sourcing to support allotted as an adjective. User:DCDuring, why do you fight words ending in -ed and -ing being defined as adjectives when they're clearly attestable as such? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89 To avoid the need to maintain English entries that convey no semantic information. All English nouns can be used attributively; all English past participles and -ing forms can be used in a variety of predictable ways. Perhaps you would enjoy adding complete adjective PoS sections to all (I do mean ALL) English noun entries, -ing-forms and past participles and complete noun sections to all -ing-form entries. In principle, each sense of the lemma form of a verb should have an appropriately reworded corresponding sense in the adjective section located on the same page as the section for the past participle and the -ing-form. Mutatis mutandis for nouns. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it has to be done only by me, or immediately. What we just do is end the ridiculous deletion of -ed and -ing adjectives, and create more as needed. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be ALL, because, in practice, not all are used frequently enough to be attributable. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed one sense as RFV-failed, and suppressed the comparative and superlative forms. The remaining sense has one good citation, and one iffy citation. It needs at least one more citation. Here's another iffy (rather verbal) citation: 1913, Engineering News, volume 69, page 344: As these lands became allotted, they were gradually cultivated through irrigation by a canal from the Yakima River, built in the earlier days by the Indians without outside assistance. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring what do you make of the two citations in the entry and the one citation I provide above? - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The 1969 citation and the one above, with usage after become, seem supportive of an adjective interpretation. The other citation in the entry looks verbal to me. DCDuring TALK 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we play this little game absent from CFI, legislated by DCDuring, opposed by me and supported by some others:

As for DCDuring's "Can it be used after become or seem?" (I don't know why it would matter, but anyway):

  • 1854, Mary Elizabeth Charles, ‎Mary, the handmaid of the Lord:
    Whilst to others, were there not the family of God in the world, and the grace of God in the heart, no necessary task might seem allotted.
  • 1901, Evelyn Abbott, A History of Greece - Volume 2:
    Other words which seem allotted to certain places in the line receive this position because they are part of an established phrase: ...
  • 1917, author?, Yale Sheffield Monthly - Volume 24:
    But such doubtful blessings as foresight are not vouchsafed to us and I started to fulfill my task as it seemed allotted, come what might.
  • 1967, author?, Advanced Report - Issues 8-9:
    During the first hundred years or so, as settlements gradually increased in size and the land available in the original grant became allotted and subdivided through inheritance, small groups split off from the parent villages
  • 1996, Dorothy Whitelock, English Historical Documents:
    ... but the process by which dues had become allotted to the individual churches or minsters and ceased to be administered for the diocese by the bishop is obscure, ...
  • 2002, F. B. Meyer, Jeremiah: Priest and Prophet:
    ... who would by that time have become allotted to their captors and would seek to win the smiles of their new lords by ...
  • More: google books:"seem allotted", google books:"seemed allotted", google books:"seems allotted", google books:"become allotted", google books:"becomes allotted", google books:"became allotted"

--Dan Polansky (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Verb forms are regularly used after "become" or "seem", so that test isn't helpful in this circumstance, where the alternative to "allotted" being an adjective is that it is a verb form. One can speak of "Other words which seem [assigned to / banned from / etc] certain places", "the process by which dues had become [assigned / bequeathed / etc] to [...] churches", etc, and the 1967 citation even directly parallels "allotted" to another verb, "subdivided". So we still only have two citations that are adjectival. I tried to search Issuu for citations citations of "very allotted" and other such collocations, but it's returning books that use "allotted" without very (must be an error on someone's end). - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The two citations which were in the entry were:
  • 1969, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, page 58,
    On the face of it, the President has only so much time—a very allotted time—to do the things he really believes in and thinks must be done.
  • 2012 January 1, Robert L. Dorit, “Rereading Darwin”, American Scientist, volume 100, number 1, page 23: 
    We live our lives in three dimensions for our threescore and ten allotted years. Yet every branch of contemporary science, from statistics to cosmology, alludes to processes that operate on scales outside of human experience: the millisecond and the nanometer, the eon and the light-year.
- -sche (discuss) 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed, with only two satisfactory citations. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Sense "(poetic) virginity, chastity." Sure. I'm putting it on my list of I wouldn't know where to start looking and I don't have a clue how it would be used if it is really used. Cites, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of all 6 pages of Google Books results for "her thyme" -herb -garlic -cottonwood, these are the only results that look plausible to me: [1] [2] [3]. More context for the third result can be seen here. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The cites might fit a definition like "fertility or sexuality". I don't see "chastity". DCDuring TALK 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it's hard to draw the line between symbolism and lexical meaning, and harder still to pin down the meaning of metaphorical speech- but a line has to be drawn. There are lots of poems that refer to beautiful women as roses, and also refer to the "thorns" encountered when they're "plucked" . That doesn't mean we should have senses at rose, thorn or pluck that capture this usage.
To put it another way: the plant known as thyme may symbolize virginity and chastity, but the term "thyme" doesn't necessarily mean "virginity and chastity" as a word. The former is the realm of an encyclopedia, the latter the realm of a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Poetry provides the poorest attestation for contemporary English, ambiguity, allusion, metaphor, and prosody often confusing matters enormously. Also IMO metaphors are often given too much weight in our RfVs. The distinction between "live" metaphors and "dead" ones is worth keeping in mind, even though it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "live" and "dead".
I'm not exactly sure how to handle the symbolic meanings of colors and natural things, as, for example, seems to have been common in the Middle Ages, possibly especially in Christendom. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I based this entry on the old Irish song "A Bunch of Thyme". There is a very detailed analysis of this song at http://www.irishmusicdaily.com/bunch-of-thyme which clearly states its use as a euphamism for virginity and/or purity.--Dmol (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dmol Interesting article, but some of the other actual usage doesn't seem to me to quite fit "virginity".
Also, the song is in English. Is it an adaptation of an older Irish song? Did "thyme" have some specific association with virginity in Irish culture? DCDuring TALK 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The article actually says: "Thyme represents the girl’s purity and consequently it represents her hopes and prospects for future happiness." This is metaphor, not a meaning of the word. Dbfirs 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it lexical information to include as a definition the symbolic meaning of the thing represented by a word (and its synonyms), ie, a synset? Would only an entry be merited only for the language(s) of the culture(s) in which the symbolic meaning existed, at least at one time.
I would think that only when the symbolic meaning has somehow transferred from the referent itself to one or more of the synset would a definition be warranted. So if blue were at one time a symbol of sadness, at some time the meaning transferred to the word, which now has the sense "sad". I certainly doubt that thyme ever remotely approached that kind of meaning transfer. Note also that near-synonyms for the color blue are not near synonyms for sad. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added two quotes from traditional songs, one from the 17th century and another later one from (i think) the 19th. I also added two references, one as discussed above and another I found. There is another website, http://www.irishpage.com/songs/thyme.htm , that makes the same connection and give the original Irish language lyrics. I also changed the definition to say that it is "an allegory..." which seems more accurate. --Dmol (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

plum blossom[edit]

Rfv-sense: "The blossom of the Prunus mume."

I suspect that this was created because it was a translation of a species-limited CJKV term, not based on actual usage in English. As it stands it is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia article on prunus mume has said for a long time that: "The flower is usually called plum blossom", and provides a citation for that proposition. bd2412 T 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412 That citation is a translation of an old Chinese work, which would probably support my suspicion as to the source of the term. I really don't think that hyponymic translations should be used to justify overly specific definitions, unless we are to completely write off our role as a monolingual dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Moreover, the book does not actually use plum blossom as a translation for the flower of Prunus mume, but rather mei-flower, as the translator explains in the introduction (page lv therof). DCDuring TALK 13:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the route we're going:
  • 1969, Ernest Henry Wilson, ‎Daniel J. Foley, The Flowering World of "Chinese" Wilson, p. 63:
    Japan holds flower festivals during many months of the year, beginning with that of the plum blossom (Prunus mume) in February and ending with that of the chrysanthemum in November, but the most popular is that of the cherry blossom which falls in early April.
  • 1974, Yoshiaki Mihara, Agricultural Meteorology of Japan, p. 25:
    The plum blossom is the earliest of all the flowers in Japan. The flowering date of the plum (Prunus Mume) has also been extensively studied.
  • 1983, Edwin T. Morris, The Gardens of China: History, Art, and Meanings, p. 173:
    Hsiang Sheng-mo (1 597-1 658), "Prunus mume" (mei hua) in "Landscapes, Flowers, and Birds." The plum blossom that bloomed against the naked wood was the sign of spring and renewal.
I can't say whether this is idiomatic, since the fruit of the plant is an apricot, which is technically just a pale plum. bd2412 T 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps context is an issue. Among native speakers, plum blossom would seem to be understood as "flower of the Prunus mume" only in the context of discussions about oriental flora, the Orient itself, and in reference to products or art associated with the Orient. I suppose it could all be done in a usage note. I can only hope that the translations respect the narrowness of the usage. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. In any case, this only differs from sense one in that it identifies a specific species of plum blossom. bd2412 T 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: in the OED. Ƿidsiþ 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That the fruit of Prunus mume is called a Japanese apricot and the tree goes by that name as well is sufficient, I suppose. I have added some material to the entry to clarify some of what is idiomatic about it. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Prunus mume is really neither an apricot nor a plum, but something without a clear one-to-one English translation, except the lesser-known loanwords ume and mei. Botanically, it's definitely much closer to the apricot, but judging from the Wikipedia article, most of the culinary products use plum in the English name. From this I would guess that "plum" is the older, more established usage, but "apricot" is the current prescriptivist favorite. I don't think that the "it's an apricot, not a plum" argument is sufficient in itself to prove that it's idiomatic, but I'd be curious how references to the blossoms of Prunus salicina are translated, since that's the Japanese fruit most solidly identified in English usage as a plum- in the US (at least in California, where I live), it's actually far better known than the original European plum, Prunus domestica. The blossoms have deeply iconic cultural significance with both the Chinese and Japanese, and so are more likely to be found in English translations, while those of Prunus salicina are no doubt of secondary importance to the fruit. By the way, I'll have to see if I can spend some time sorting through our East Asian fruit tree terms, since many of them seem to be either confused or vague. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Prunus mume more or less specifies the bearer of the blossom. Simple vernacular terms often refer to more than one species, sometimes to different genera, families, orders, even classes and phyla. Chinese plum is an example, by no means exceptional. The set of English vernacular names that have a one-to-one correspondence to species names not only doesn't cover many species, but also is often not used except in limited contexts, though many of the contexts are in print. The English vernacular names for species not native to English-speaking lands are a challenge as there may be one or more "official" names; names based on similarity of appearance to a species that is native to English-speaking lands, qualified by one or more adjectives associating it with a region (eg, Japanese, Chinese); and transliterations of non-English names.
Plum blossom is one of a narrower set of terms that have a connection to vernacular names, but also a cultural meaning in a culture that has a strong cultural influence on the English language. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Citations have been provided above; the question seems to be whether or not the term is SOP. Shall we move to RFD? - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Take it to RFD if you think it's SOP (it may well be). - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


This has the sole sense: "A very thin person." The quotations that I find seem to be adjectival. Worth attesting. google books:"skinnymalinky", google groups:"skinnymalinky", skinnymalinky at OneLook Dictionary Search. We have skinnymalinks, which I do not question, since that seems easy to attest using google books:"skinnymalinks". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to attest if you put a space in the middle "skinny malinky", and I can even get it with a hyphen:

    • 2012, James Kelman, The Good Times, ISBN 0857901451:
      He was no skinny-malinky, he couldnt afford to be, all his provisions and weaponry!
    • 2011, Alan Warner, The Stars in the Bright Sky, ISBN 009946182X, page 254:
      I'd hardly know you were in here with me...Ya skinny-malinky'
    • 2010, Geraldine O'Neill, The Grace Girls, ISBN 1409140377:
      Danny made some retort about Maurice being the biggest skinny-malinky in the office and then they waited for her to put in her tuppence-worth as she usually did.

but as just one word, I'm not finding it. Kiwima (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • My position is that "skinny-malinky" does not attest "skinnymalinky". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Back in December 2013 someone questioned the existence of ap as an English adjective meaning "In or relating to the apothecaries' system of measures", but nothing more was done about it, so now I'm bringing it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To start off, here are a few hits in reference works: here, here, and here, and one use: here. Maybe not complete by CFI standards, but at least enough to show it wasn't made completely up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]


It looks like the term is in use (e.g., Dioscliosta David Guetta), but I can't find anything permanent enough to count. Not in GBooks, GGroups, or Foinse.ie. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's focloir.ie, but it's more of a mention than a use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes... that's the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary, which is as near to the Official Modern Irish dictionary as is available. (Ó Donaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla is the other half, from almost twenty years later, and doesn't include this word, although diosc and liosta are both present.)
Which leads to an awkward situation: anyone looking up "discography" in the closest thing to an official dictionary of Irish will find dioscliosta. And just because it hasn't shown up in print yet, it's appearing in other places and a print appearance would seem to be a matter of time. If someone can find it in a citable medium, then no harm, no foul. If not... I dunno. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not listed in the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary; the link above points to Foras na Gaeilge's new English-Irish dictionary. Irish is an LDL, so a single mention is sufficient for it to pass RFV, but since Foras na Gaeilge coins its own Irish words in response to a perceived gap in the language (rather than waiting for speakers to develop terms naturally and then reporting them), I'm not inclined to take its word for the realness of this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh. That's not exactly clear from that page. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is once you get used to how that site is organized. The pages that say "New English-Irish Dictionary" beneath the focloir.ie logo belong to the new dictionary. The Ó Donaill and de Bhaldraithe databases are at breis.focloir.ie, e.g. http://breis.focloir.ie/en/eid/discography. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Mexican beer dermatitis[edit]

The phenomenon itself is thoroughly plausible, since many plants in the family that limes belong to contain photosensitizing substances- but I only found one usenet post, which linked to an online article, which referred to a journal article published in 2010. It looks like a one-off descriptive phrase that never caught on. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Journal of the American Medical Association - Dermatology: [4] 2010
  • New York Daily News [5] 2010
  • National Public Radio [6] 2010
  • "The Doctors" TV show [7] 2011
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [8] 2014

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

margarita dermatitis[edit]

By the same user. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't rfv this one because this quote seems to point to there being actual usage, though Google Books and Google Groups don't show it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
But even that quote is just a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BBC [9] 2006
  • ScienceDaily [10] 2007
  • KCRW radio [www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/good-food/modernist-drinks-geology-and-terroir-margarita-dermatitis] 2013
  • USA Today [11] 2013
  • About.com [12] 2013
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [13] 2014
  • New England Journal of Medicine [14] Margarita Photodermatitis - 1993 (yes this is a somewhat different term; seeing if it should be added or left alone, if these are being deleted; there's also the alternate meaning for "lime disease" being phytophotodermatitis from the fruit 'lime' (shown in some of the links above))

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of these count. The BBC do sometimes delete web pages so they're definitely not durably archived. The Canadian Dermatology Association citation seems more like a mention because it says "Phytophotodermatitis – also called Mexican beer (or margarita) dermatitis". So... do we have any citations at all that definitely count? I think not. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mexican beer dermatitis" is in the title of this scholarly paper without quotation marks, but I cannot access the full article to see how it is used in text. SpinningSpark 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the JAMA article counts as one. For a second, there's [They’re the compounds in lime that cause what some doctors call “Mexican beer dermatitis]

Company names[edit]

These need citations meeting WT:COMPANY rules -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



(company sense only) -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This already passes. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are the citations? - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
the use of the company name. The city sense is not the use of the company name. -- Liliana 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)





  • I oppose this RFV nomination. This is a very unwise nomination. These entries are single-word ones, capable of hosting lexicographical material such as etymology, pronunciation and translation into other languages; multiple of the nominated items already do. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. WT:COMPANY is not a plain RFV regulation; it is one that places additional hurdles on company names, for reasons that I still do not undertand and that are IMHO not explained at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. The opposers have not explained why company names must be excluded while place names can be included. The arguing in the vote is along the line "we need some rules or else will have too many company names", but the opposers have not proposed any rules, and have not explained what is wrong with having a large number attested single-word company names. As for plain RFV nomination, all terms are clearly in widespread use, and RFV does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We have a certain user here who often likes to say "no consensus -- status quo ante". Keφr 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • For one thing, the status quo ante before this RFV for the nominated terms in the namespace is that Wiktionary has them. But let us look broader, at the status of company names in the mainspace in general, not just the nominated ones. As for most of the nominated terms, they are quite recent, so they are a poor indication of "ante": Motorola (since August 2012), Samsung (since August 2012), Hyundai (since September 2012‎), Toshiba (since March 2013‎), and Mitsubishi (since April 2013‎). However, Wiktionary had company names as early as in 2004 - Sony; Apple, BMW, FedEx, Gibson, Google, IBM,Kawasaki, Mobil, Nokia, Peugeot, Pixar, Raleigh, Toyota and Volvo are all from 2005, all as company names. More company names are listed at User talk:Dan Polansky#Company names. There were some deletions, including Atari, Exxon, Microsoft and Verizon, and probably other. As for the current WT:COMPANY text in CFI, it was entered there without a vote and even without a discussion AFAICT, so it never was supported by consensus by any stretch; the diffs that I found are diff (22 May 2005) and diff (21 November 2007). So I am not sure what your point really is. In any case, I consider this use of RFV to be an abuse of it, by a person who could not get his or her way by a proper consensus-based channel, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames_with_linguistic_information_2 under former user name Prince Kassad, newly Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The fact that no one removed the offending part from the CFI after it was added is wholly immaterial. I for one never felt comfortable making changes to a policy page that said at the top of the page that changes should not be done without a vote. For some time, I naively thought that CFI was really based on consensus; I only discovered later that it was not so. As a result, I set up a multitude of votes to remove things from CFI that were not supported by consensus. Some were a pass, some were a fail. Some of the best examples of things that were in CFI for ages with most people not taking them seriously is the attributive-use rule, removed via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities. The trick of adding stuff to policy pages and hoping that people will not remove them for the fear of edit war was tried in Wiktionary multiple times by various editors, with a considerable success. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, which rule could be applicable here but I vote keep all and I think we should keep all notable one word company names for the same reason we keep countries and place names. People are likely to look them up, search translations or want to find etymology, pronunciation. The more linguistic info such entries contain, the more important and interesting they are. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A weak keep, if only to explain why at some international go tournaments one isn't allowed to bid "3 diamonds" in some of the bridge side tournaments. OTOH, I don't know whether I would write down my bid as "Mitsubishi" or "mitsubishi" (if I weren't allowed to write "3♦"). If proper nouns are used so often that puns with them are understood by relative outsiders, then we help our users by describing those secondary meanings. -- 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added four citations for Hyundai which I believe meet our strictures for brand names. bd2412 T 15:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

big balls[edit]

Alleggedly means "courage". I request attesting quotations per WT:ATTEST. This was already once in RFV, but the RFV closure was irregular and no attesting quotations were provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the previous discussion DP refers to is at Talk:big_balls. Equinox 20:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't just "balls" mean courage? Purplebackpack89 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regardless of what "balls" means, I request evidence in the form of attesting quotations that the phrase "big balls" is actually attested to mean courage, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Does that help? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 08:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Let us have a look. I'll take the 1st quotation and replace "big balls" with X, and let us see whether the quotation suggests X means courage. The result is this: "Biffy says, “You've got X for a girl Bubbles. I like your style. Give it to him. Juicy's rotten, but Bubbles. You've got the scevusa on your hands now.” Bubbles drops the hot dog, and calls Biffy and Juicy some un-young ladylike words.". Now, do you think it can be inferred from the sentence that X means courage? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I do, actually. Do you not? Certainly it is clear from two of those quotes that it's not a literal reference to body parts. The other quotes are similar: they are general approbations with a clear meaning. Unless you are demanding one of the quotes from a dictionary of slang, or a quote of something like "He showed that he had big balls by standing up by which I mean he was very brave" or something equally awful. (I'll grant that the quote you copied here could be reduced to the first two sentences, but I wanted to find a balance between excluding context, and including too much.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    I certainly do not require dictionary quotations, since that is not what WT:ATTEST allows. I cannot really infer the meaning of "courage" from the quotations, but then I am not a native speaker. Let other editors comment on the merits of the provided quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    In my experience, [big] balls (without the) doesn't simply mean courage: sometimes it means assertiveness, but usually means gall, nerve or chutzpah. A former employer of mine used to say things like "you've got balls the size of an elephant to complain about that" Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Lugaid mac Con Roí[edit]

Cú Roí[edit]

Does mythology count as a fictional universe? 'Cause I really don't think these guys' names are used out of context in an attributive sense, in either English or Irish. (So this RFV applies to both languages and if it fails, I'm requesting that the whole pages be deleted.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oy vey, there are 74 pages in Category:en:Irish mythology, many of which could probably be subsumed under this RFV, but I just don't have the time to go through them all now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't count mythology as a fictional universe. People misuse the word fictional to mean anything that (in their belief) is not factual, but really fiction implies a specific genre, in which the plot is intended to be understood as not being factual. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, old mythologies are different from fiction, and I dispute that WT:FICTION applies to old mythologies. Certainly, all of WT:FICTION's examples are works of (modern) fiction rather than mythologies. For new stories which are mythological/religious stories according to some and fictional stories according to others (e.g. the stories of Gerald Gardner or L Ron Hubbard), the situation is less clear.
We do have a separate policy that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." But there's disagreement on whether or not that policy should be enforced when the person in question was important to a mythology or religion — see WT:RFD#محمد بن عبد الله — so "Lugaid mac Con Roí" is potentially still in a grey area. (Bah.) - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with an interest in Irish Onomastics, I'd say that the name elements are dictionary-worthy, but to include a full person's name as a name seems encyclopaedic and out of scope. See, eg, Badb: As a word, it's the name of a goddess. For further details, history, great feats, symbology, etc, etc; the Wikipedia entry exists.

In this instance, Lugaid is a name. Cú Roí is a name. Lugaid mac Con Roí is a person. He serves as an attestation of the name elements, an example of them in use, but this place is a dictionary, not a who's-who.

Similarly, I'd say that Finn is a lemma, definition "an Old Irish name, Descendants Irish: Fionn", but Finn mac Cumail, or Fionn mac Cumhail, or Finn MacCool are not. He's an attestation of the name, and there might be an argument for a (not-exhaustive) list of noteworthy bearers of the name, but I submit that we distinguish between names as words, and names as people. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Per User:Catsidhe's comments and my own, I've deleted Lugaid mac Con Roí but kept Cú Roí. What should be done with e.g. Conall the Victorious and Conall Cernach? - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
See also WT:RFD#Ailill_mac_M.C3.A1ta. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Conall is a name, cernach is an adjectival byname (from cern (victory, noun)), both are in scope. Conall Cernach is a person, and is something for Wikipedia to deal with.
At some point I want to go through and add Irish names in some sort of almost systematic way. I can probably work on decomposing some of these mythical names first. Names like Conchobar, Fergus, Finn, Conall, and Cairbre are not uncommon in the Annals, so that should be easy enough. Manannán is only a god's name as far as I know, but it's attested well enough as well. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Meh. Cú Roí = kept; the rest = dealt with on RFD. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

make out[edit]

Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To succeed in seducing; to have sex. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think so. 'make out' = "succeed, turn out well/as expected"...I can certainly see this used in certain contexts. For instance: I took Jennifer out for the first time last night. As you know, I've been trying to get in her panties for a long time. (Friend): Yeah, so did you make out? --this could also be interpreted as "Did you kiss each other/have a make-out session. Leasnam (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But that's just because of the context. You can't say that the word "succeed" means to "to have sex", just because it can also be used in that context. --WikiTiki89 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • MWO has this as sense 2 a.[15]; vocabulary.com has a sense like this as well[16]. Some other dictionaries have senses involving necking. Making a deeper search for quotations could be worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang includes a definition of having sex, and cites "1939–. TIMES The detailed accounts of how he 'made out' sexually and emotionally with some sixteen different girls (1961)". I notice that our current definition talks of "kissing passionately", and I can easily find examples where it refers to heavy petting, which is more than just kissing, but for actual sex, this is what I found (in order of decreasing clarity that it is more than just petting that is being referred to):
    • 2002 Oct, Cynthia O'Neal, “Advice”, Out, volume 11, page 116:
      Even when I try just looking for friends, they all seem to want to have casual sex.Should I just have a quickie and hope these feelings of wanting more will go away? I don't seem to act like other virgins my age either. The virgins I know can't get sex or they are saving themselves for marriage. Neither applies to me. Is it normal to want to know the person before you make out?
    • 2010, Pearl Cleage, Till You Hear from Me: A Novel, ISBN 034551971X:
      “Well, where did you make out when you were a kid?” “I was in boarding school. Most of my making out was between me and my strong right hand.”
    • 2013, Emily Smith, The Taylor Cole Handbook - Everything you need to know about Taylor Cole, ISBN 1486481841, page 7:
      You unzip your pants and appear to make out with her. Next day Phil tells about his wet dream about Hot Neighbor (revealed to be named Martina), Which strangely sounds like the sex you had with her.

Kiwima (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

RFV passed. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Unstriking. Too little time for comments on interpretation of citations. FWIW, I don't think that any of these unambiguously differentiate a "heavy petting" and a "having sex (coitus, masturbation, oral sex, etc)" definition. The precise result of "heavy petting" could be similar to having sex, but it doesn't seem to be the same thing. I don't think that the sometime result changes the definition. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that all three citations appear to be using the term to mean "have sex", though they're not absolutely unambiguous. The lemmings mentioned above give me further confidence. I'm inclined to keep the sense, but I think it should be shortened to just "To have sex." —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps so. But please give it a little longer, for additional opinion, say at least to 21 May, for a total of seven days, the same as the minimum period of an RfD. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think that any of the above quotes could easily mean the kissing sense or the intercourse sense. I would suggest merging the 'kissing' and 'sex' senses to something along the lines of "to engage in kissing or sexual behavior" as it seems to be used for the whole gamut. - TheDaveRoss 11:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


I don't seem to be able to find attestation (WT:ATTEST) in durably archived attestation sources: google books:"paraskevodekatriaphobia", google groups:"paraskevodekatriaphobia", paraskevodekatriaphobia at OneLook Dictionary Search.

As a simple solution, paraskevodekatriaphobia should be moved back to paraskavedekatriaphobia, from which it was moved on 29 May 2014‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The only spelling I see in Google Books is paraskevidekatriophobia, which is based on Modern Greek, rather than Ancient Greek. Even that may very well be only mentions. Maybe it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
For paraskavedekatriaphobia, there are Citations:paraskavedekatriaphobia from permanently recorded media, albeit somewhat mentiony to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It has no bearing on the rfv, but this term is an etymological train wreck. In Ancient Greek, παρασκευή (paraskeuḗ) simply meant preparation, and was probably closer in pronunciation to "paraskewe". In Judaic contexts such as biblical translations it could refer to the day before the Sabbath, when observant Jews would prepare everything so they wouldn't have to work on the Sabbath itself. Since the Sabbath is on Saturday, that makes the term a very restricted synonym for Friday, but probably not a common one outside those contexts. The widespread adoption of Christianity and thus the change to being the general Greek word for Friday approximately coincided with two sound changes: υ between vowels became v, and η became i.
That means that "paraskeve" meaning "Friday" would require combining elements from different time periods, while "paraskevi" would mean using Modern Greek in a context which is normally strictly Ancient Greek. User:Pyprilescu tried to avoid the issue by moving to a compromise spelling, not considering that we go by usage rather than by etymological correctness. I suspect that whoever coined the term looked up Friday in a Modern Greek dictionary, and the "paraskeve" was an attempt to normalize the Modern Greek romanization, "paraskevi" to the way Ancient Greek is romanized in scientific terms.
At any rate, I think the best course of action is to treat this as an rfv of all the spellings of the term. If any of them passes (paying careful attention to the use/mention distinction), it should be moved to the most common spelling that passes and any other spellings that pass should become alternative spellings. If none of them pass, it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there even a (gentile) Ancient Greek word for Friday? Some calque of dies Veneris, perhaps, e.g. ἡμέρα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I shouldn't have talked about commonness without knowing anything about how the ancient Greeks referred to the different days. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be some derivation from ἕκτος (héktos). I vaguely recall reading something about the custom of naming days after gods being a later borrowing from a foreign source. Chuck Entz (talk)
Pedantic point, but I think the days were named directly after the planets and thus only indirectly after the gods. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
True. After looking at the article on the w:Attic calendar and w:Roman calendar, it occurred to me that there may not have even been a widely-used system of 7-day weeks in Greece until the Romans instituted theirs in the early years of the Roman Empire. The earlier Roman nundinal week was based on an 8-day system, but I see nothing mentioned for Greece except the division of lunar months into thirds. I'm sure the Greeks were well aware of the 7-day systems of the Near East, but I wonder if anyone really used them. The lack of an accepted Ancient Greek name for Friday would certainly explain why a Modern Greek name was used. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hundreds from this year can be found like

[17] [18]. From 2012 we have this one. I haven't got the knowhow to put these quotes up --Type56op9 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

These aren’t durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


RFV of both senses in the English L2. I can't find any evidence of the cigarette sense, and nothing for the Haida sense that unambiguously uses it as a noun and not some sort of title. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Added three citations for the cigarette sense, but at least one has it in italics, suggesting code-switching. Equinox 16:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Haida sense RFV-failed. Cigarette sense RFV-passed? I can also find this citation but can't tell what sense it's using:
  • 2002, Graeme Feltham, One Hundred Naked Beers, page 50:
    She still wets her gwaais. She's removed her Fanucci fuck-me-shoes that her toes were peeping out from and her beautiful feet cross at the ankles. They are not consummately moulded. They are what she walks with.

- -sche (discuss) 06:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

nước mắm[edit]

Supposedly English. Needs cites in this orthography. DCDuring TALK 10:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's easy finding English sentences using this spelling, but much harder deciding whether the term is being used as English or as Vietnamese. I'll see if I can come up with some good examples. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I view this as a kind of test case. I won't challenge other terms with similar orthography if this turns out to be attestable. If it is attestable, we should create the category of which it is currently the sole member. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would Hà Nội or Việt Nam (with Vietnamese diacritics) be attestable as English terms? In any case, we have examples of Romanian, Turkish, etc., etc, spellings used in English, Japanese macrons, e.g. Tōkyō are also common. It's hard to verify, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Two tests I’ve seen people using to determine whether the author considers the term a loanword instead of a foreign word are:
  1. the term is unitalicised;
  2. the inflected forms of the term use English desinences.
Number 2 is inapplicable in this case, since nước mắm is uncountable. As for unitalicised uses, I’ve only found this one. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV of the noun sense synonymous with blasphemy. I'm having trouble finding a single lemming at OneLook that lists a noun blaspheme or a non-scanno/typo usage of blaspheme as a noun at b.g.c. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Such blaspheme" finds a handful, but they all look like errors to me. Equinox 20:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In Middle English blasfeme (blasphemy). See blaspheme in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 where it is a noun. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The Century Dictionary's noun (and adjective) entries list only Wyclif and Chaucer as authors, so maybe it should be moved to a Middle English section. If it can be found in Early Modern authors, then maybe it should be tagged "obsolete". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The OED marks this sense as obsolete, with the latest cite from 1583 (Poems of T Watson). It looks more like Middle English to me. Dbfirs 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
        • If it's from 1583, that's well into Early Modern English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, agreed. I wasn't convinced that Thomas Watson was using Chancery Standard because he also wrote in Latin and studied law, but he was educated at Oxford, so he would be using Early Modern. There's another cite from W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection in 1526, so I think you are correct that the word survived into Early Modern English. We should mark it as obsolete. Dbfirs 09:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
RFV-passed as an obsolete form of blasphemy, based on the above-mentioned citations. - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be attested to mean one who necks a drink. I doubt it, I'm just musing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


One of those dictionary-only words, I suspect. I found one very dubious running-text citation in a book attempting to use as many unusual words as possible, but otherwise I can't see any evidence. Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase[edit]

  • Rfv-sense: (pathology) a superbug strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria that produces carbapenemase
  • Rfv-sense: (biochemistry) a carbapenemase enzyme produced by Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria

The term exists; the question is which of the two senses is attested per WT:ATTEST. I propose you place the attesting quotations at Citations:Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, since if the 1st sense is not attested, the 2nd can be later deleted as sum of parts via RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the biochemistry sense is used in w:Carbapenemase. It seems to include at least four types, which types may be subject to further division. IOW, the term reflects our current state of knowledge, but may not refer to a specific chemical whose composition and structure is well-established. As such I don't know in what sense it will really seem to be a term as more is understood. Perhaps users view it as SoP now. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
From reading abstracts it appears that there is a gene which spreads among bacteria that enables them to create the K. pneumoniae carbapenase, so the notion that there is a strain the identity of which is stable enough to warrant treatment as a taxon seems unlikely. For example, {{w:NCBI}} does not have a taxon called Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase.
I feel that this is beyond my access to the scientific literature and probably my paygrade. If we do not have and cannot recruit a contributor with better access and knowledge, I would rather we deleted the pathology sense. The biochem sense would provide an interested user with a term to be used in further research. The pathology sense looks like it leads up a blind alley. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
OTOH, this may be an important gateway to the phenomenon or rapidly spreading drug-resistance among pathogens that we would be remiss to neglect. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That's all very nice (or not, depending on one's taste), but I really request attesting quotations; these absent, I request that this be ultimately deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I know you are only interested in formal procedure, so I apologize for boring you. I don't know how to cite this properly in this case. I'd appreciate someone else trying or offering constructive advice or support. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV is not "formal procedure" in any pejorative sense; it is a process used to discover whether, as far as we know, a term or sense is attested. The material requested via RFV are usually attesting quotations, or at least links to them. You know that by now, having spent multiple years around here, so I not sure what to make of your above responses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

salad tossing[edit]

Is this attested to mean anilingus? I find mentions in Google books, but don't know how to find uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uses of the phrase "tossed his salad" are easy enough to find on b.g.c; is that close enough? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be the verb toss salad or toss someone's salad, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are three uses of "salad tossing" as a noun: [19], [20], [21]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

chicken liver[edit]

Any quotations attesting this to mean coward? Was in Wikisaurus, present in at least one online thesaurus for "coward". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but offhand sounds quite dated. Evokes a sort of 'Classic Westerns' kinda feel, like something you'd hear in old movies made in the 1960's (but set in the 1860-1890's), or Gunsmoke. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Aside from hearing it said by other children in the US in the 60s, there's this, this, and this. There's also this and this, but they're hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like a childish blend of chicken and lily-livered, influenced by literal chicken liver. DCDuring TALK 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


A Luciferwildcat entry tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman as not existing in the Spanish language. I haven't had time this morning to check thoroughly, so I brought it here. Given LW's track record, I won't be surprised if this fails. Also included:

Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the gramatically correct form would be atravesamiento (first conjugation ending -ar + suffix -miento = -amiento). Although not noted in the RAE dictionary, there are some hits in CORPES and CREA and the term (spelled with an a) seems to be used in Latin America. Peter Bowman (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah they're spelling mistakes; move to 'a' forms (atravesamiento) and kill the redirects. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. I moved atravesimiento to atravesamiento (mentioned above and well attested). I deleted atravesimiento peatonal, because neither it nor atravesamiento peatonal is attested. - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]


Anarchist and socialist? Seems contradictory. WikiWinters (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would probably help to have two more clearly distinct senses of socialism. There is the Marxist sense, which is The Government Owns Everything For Your Own Good, Comrade, which is the source of the American political boo-word ("Obamacare is creeping socialism!!")
The other is the softer understanding of a general ethos of helping your neighbours and them helping you: working for a generally social benefit. So a capital-S Socialist Anarchist is a contradiction in terms: someone who wants to pull down government in order to ... build an overarching all-controlling government. The soft sense, on the other hand, is someone who wants to bring down government in the expectation that people will naturally work together for communal benefit without a government getting in the way. (This tends to go with a belief that government tends to be captured by oligarchy sooner or later, so that corporate-controlled government is actively working against the common good as seen from street-level). As opposed to the "every man for themselves" anarchist; such as the Randian, for whom everyone should be selfish and greedy and unrestrained by the needs of those around them, and that this is a good thing; or the caricature anarchist who just wants to watch stuff burn.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism. bd2412 T 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed: libertarian (= seeking individual liberty) does not necessarily mean Libertarian (= Ayn Rand was right about everything). --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Good Hell, I hope that you are trolling. If not, then I am sad to say that you people are bloody ignorant. Socialists, communists, and anarchists (which I consider synonymous) seek the elimination of the state, not the strengthening of it. Look it up. Most anarchists therefore consider ‘anarcho‐socialism’ a pleonasm, in contrast to anarcho-capitalism, which is definitely oxymoronic because capitalism requires the state so that capitalism can sustain itself. The concept of ‘state‐socialism’ was a nonsense concept fabricated by Vladimir Lenin to attract the workers to his movement, and Leninism and its successor ideologies have very little to do with Marxism. Most people have no clue what socialism, communism, or anarchism are. Influential people obfuscated the concept because it could be very dangerous to their power. --Romanophile (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you are so firmly convinced that Socialism as exemplified in the USSR doesn't mean what the Soviets thought it meant. (Or that it can't hold two, even potentially contradictory, meanings depending on context.) And that Socialism means exactly the same thing as Communism... in all possible contexts, I assume? Also that Anarchism means only what you think it means, and that there are not such things as anarchists who desire the loss of government so that they can as individuals do and take whatever they want, or people who may be unclear on the inherent contradictions between capitalism per se and anarchism per se, but still identify as "anarcho-capitalists". Are there any other political terms you think everyone except you gets wrong? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is, anarcho‐socialism is not oxymoronic, and your idea of ‘Marxist socialism’ is obviously tosh. Even if you think that it’s still a valid meaning, it can’t possibly be the only meaning. Also ‘…everyone except you…’, that’s wrong, too. [22] --Romanophile (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was the only meaning. It would seem to be you having the problem with the concept of polysemy. The World Socialist Movement doesn't get to define what the word is and isn't allowed to mean either. (I am sympathetic to socialism myself, but the "About Us" page of the World Socialism Movement has as much of a monopoly on the word "socialism" as does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is: none.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The sense of "libertarian" nominated for RFV is "An anarchist, typically with socialist implications." Please let us have attesting quotations, and, they absent, let us eventually fail this RFV. I am suspicious of the sense, since dictionaries don't have it. google books:"libertarian", google groups:"libertarian", libertarian at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've added a couple which clearly put libertarians, anarchists and socialists into the same semiotic pot, and a couple more which I'll add here rather than there, because they are not the noun, but used adjectivally:
    • 2011 Carissa Honeywell, A British Anarchist Tradition: Herbert Read, Alex Comfort and Colin Ward, p. 146
      He highlighted libertarian traditions of socialism and linked them to anarchism in the British context.
    • 2012 David Goodway, Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward p.15
      The Labour Emancipation League had been founded in the East End in 1882 and, while never calling itself anarchist, was always libertarian socialist and became anti-parliamentarian, as expressed in Joseph Lane's notable An Anti-Statist, Communist Manifesto of 1887.
    --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The three quotations present in the entry do not attested the sense, IMHO. I mean 1973 Eugene Lunn, 2009 Peter Marshall and 2012 Wilbur R. Miller. Consider the third one: "While anarchism and socialist libertarians have a rich history of revolutionary thinkers ...": how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously, I think they rather do. They are all used in the context of Anarchist/Socialist theory, and are contrasting specific subtypes of that ideology. The last reference, the one you quote, is also contrasting socialist libertarians against right-libertarians. The preceding sentence reads "Socialist libertarianism sounds like anarchy, and for good reason; in fact anarchists began using the term libertarian in the mid-1800s, far before the right-wing usage in the United States that began in the 1950s."[23] Maybe that would have been a better quote? But it explicitly draws out socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism as different strands of the same basic ideology. The 2009 quote also explicitly contrasts socialist libertarianism against authoritarian socialism, which contrast Seth seemed to have such difficulty with in the conversation above. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Also: "how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence?"
    Semantics. If they were different movements, it would say that "... anarchism and socialist libertarians have rich histories ...". As it gives the two terms a singular history of revolutionary thinkers, it follows that they are different aspects of the same thing, QED. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    What about this: "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan each have a rich history of design development extending back for thousands of years", boldface mine. Looks like a refutation of your argument to me. To find more sentences like that, check google books:"have a rich history". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    You yourself bolded the difference. Each: "The phrase beginning with each identifies a set of items wherein the words following each identify the individual elements by their shared characteristics. The phrase is grammatically singular in number, so if the phrase is the subject of a sentence, its verb is conjugated into a third-person singular form."
    With the "each" the singular subject "a rich history" applies to each individual civilisation of India, China, Korea and Japan. Without it, "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan have a rich history" implies a singular shared history between them as a group. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    You must be kidding me by now. There is "Shreveport and Bossier City have a rich history [...]"; find other quotations at google books:"have a rich history". Your argument, which by the way was syntactic rather than semantic, is flawed. In general, a phrase of the form "X and Y have a rich history" does not suggest X and Y to be synonyms. As for "have rich histories", few people write that even when the subject is plural: have a rich history, have rich histories at Google Ngram Viewer. When the subject is singular, it is google books:"has a rich history", with "has" rather than "have". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oh for Deity's sake: the references are giving the history of anarchists and socialists and calling them libertarians, and somehow you can't extract any meaning from that? Do you think that someone is talking about A and B having a history of C because there isn't a semantic connection between them? If that is the case, please describe the sort of source and/or wording which could possibly convince you.
    Moreover, that more people fail to observe the singular verb with multiple subjects and 'each' doesn't stop it working in that way. Arguably the bit about verb conjugation in the Usage Notes of "each" is not accurate, certainly not for "has". I still maintain that "A and B have a rich history" implies a shared history between them; where the technically correct "A and B each has a rich history" and the more common in use "A and B each have a rich history" both imply separate and distinct histories. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


The second etymology, "excrescence on the trunk of a tree usually covering a knot", has just been added by an anon. All I could find in a cursory search is bole (with an e) as another word for tree trunk. Since the IP also added a Maori translation, maybe this sense of bol is specific to New Zealand? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm think anon meant burl, which could easily be pronounced "bol", and may have such a pronunciation-derived spelling somewhere, though I haven't found it yet. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


There are purported cites in the entry, but each needs to be reviewed to determine whether it is "durably archived" and to be formatted to allow for broad participation in any decisions about whether this merits "hot word" status before it would otherwise be included (after a year has passed), assuming the validity of the cites. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I've formatted the citations from print journals. All are from articles reporting on the same piece of research. While I'd say we should keep this for now, the important part in a year will be seeing if other research groups use the word in scientific papers (or if the characters in CSI start profiling victim's thanatomicrobiomes...) Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Are you sure that they are in print editions? In the past, I've assumed that online content provided by a title that was also in print was in print/durably archived. I no longer think such an assumption is justified, but I don't know how to make a determination one way or the other. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    The journal citation: definitely. The New Scientist citation: definitely (it says "This article appeared in print" at the bottom. The Forensics Magazine citation: almost definitely (it's tagged with a reference to the issue it appeared in). In general though, I don't think having an even more restrictive criterion for web citations is really going to improve the quality or reliability of Wiktionary, since we're just going to lose whole swathes of high-quality sources of citations for relatively little gain. If nothing else, it's fair to assume that any reasonably well-trafficked website will be put in the Internet Archive and copied by a hundred spam mirrors. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's a matter for WT:BP and even a VOTE. It might be time to revisit the question. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on, we've never made any effort to define 'durably archived'. It wouldn't be revisiting the issue of what durably archived means, it would be a start on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant We have what is more useful than a verbal definition: an operational one: We accept as sources any print work that would be found in a library, any print journal or newspaper, any Usenet group. Folks have made arguments for other things but haven't convinced very many people. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello... does this work? . I am the author of the word "thanatomicrobiome". I created the original web page... however someone keeps changing it... Can we please leave the references as is...?

The other person keeps adding news paper articles... does the rag newspaper "Montgomery Advertiser" count as a real publication? I do not think so.. but I have NOT deleted it. Can we please discuss? panoble@washington.edu Thanks Peter

Here they are:


  • [24] Peter A. Noble, A NSF proposal I wrote: "Life after death: The role and composition of the thanatomicrobiome in the decomposition of mammalian organs", October, 2013.
  • [25] Can, I., G.T. Javan, A.E. Pozhitkov and P.A. Noble. Distinctive thanatomicrobiome signatures found in the blood and internal organs of humans. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2014 106: 1-7.
  • [26], Peter A. Noble, Introducing the Thanatomicrobiome, MicrobialWorld August 15, 2014
  • [27] Anna Williams, Death: the great bacterial takeover, Your death microbiome could catch your killer. New Scientist, August 28, 2014.
  • [28] Siouxsie Wiles, Monday Micro – the microbiome of death! SciBlog: Infectious Thoughts, September, 1, 2014.
  • [29], Jesse Jenkins, The Death Microbiome: Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Biotechniques - The International Journal for Life Science Method, September 11, 2014.
  • [30] Randall Mayes, The Death Microbiome Could Inform Forensic Science And Medicine. Design & Trend, September, 11, 2014.
  • [31] Gulnaz Javan, The Dirty World of Body Farm Microbes. Forensic Science Magazine, September 30, 2014.
  • [32] Brad Harper, ASU researchers hope to help solve homicides. Montgomery Advertiser, July 8, 2014
    The Montgomery Advertiser is the largest daily newspaper in Alabama and it's won three Pulitzer Prizes, so it definitely counts as a real publication, though here at Wiktionary all that matters to us is that it's durably archived (a term which we haven't formally defined but roughly means you could go to a library and find the publication in question—in other words, we prefer print publications like books, magazines, and newspapers to websites). As for other people changing the entry you started, one of the most basic rules for participating in a wiki like Wiktionary is accepting that other people will edit pages that you start. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The added citations do not include quoted text from the article (evidencing use of the word), so they need checking and filling out. The user adding them has just been putting summaries in his/her own words. Equinox 17:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the putative quotations from the entry in the mainspace; no more elegant solution comes to mind. It was only when I read your comment that I realized that these were not really quotations. The items are still in the page history, so the information is not lost, and he who wants to provide proper quotations should have a reasonable easy time doing so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The first two citations on the citations page ("Distinctive thanatomicrobiome", "their thanatomicrobiome") are durable uses, AFAICT, but both are from August 2014. I reckon the thing to do is let this sit in hot-word limbo until late 2015 and then look for current uses. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]


This looks like another dictionary-only phobia- everything in Google Books seems to be a mention. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I found: [33], [34], [35]. The first one is solid but the other two are on the fence between use and mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Only in the Smurfs universe? Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added some External links to meet the criteria of attestation. The smurfberry seen as a berry is, without any doubt, part of a fictional universe. The game curreny, however, isn't fiction at all. It was hard reality and quite a shock for a number of parents a couple of years ago.-- 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The links only provide support for the game currency. The fictional sense needs cites that do not explicitly refer to the fictional universe: that's what we mean when we say it has "entered the language". See, for example, kryptonite. Choor monster (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The usual interpretation is that the citations need to be on the page or the citations page, and they aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For 'fictional universe' refers to the content not the medium! A book made of paper, the paper isn't fictional but the information contained in the page may well be! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify. Citations don't actually have to be anywhere, unless challenged. There are only 2 kryptonite cites, for example, but since everybody knows it has entered the language, nobody is challenging it for the third to make it official. Referring to links is common during discussion, helping others judge the challenged term. At the moment, smurfberry the currency seems secure, but the fictional berry remains unsupported. Choor monster (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Failed RFV. Equinox 16:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


I can't find any reference to this as a separate noun. The usual term for a Sami person seems to be sápmelaš, while sámi is only the genitive form of Sápmi (Lapland). —CodeCat 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An additional note: Judging from w:se:Sámit, it seems that the plural sámit is used to refer to the Sami collectively, as a people. But I haven't seen it used in the singular with this meaning so far. —CodeCat 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sámi is unambiguously the accusative-genitive of Sápmi. This word in general is cited to have also the sense "a Sámi person" e.g. at the Neahttadigisánit dictionary, so I suspect citations for that can be found. I suspect someone has been confused with the attributive use of the noun though in adding a lemma for the inflected form. --Tropylium (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We are now talking of sámi with minuscule "s". According to Finnish wiktionary (Northern Sami Wiktionary is still in incubator stage) and our entry Sami, sámi is an adjective, which of course does not necessarily exclude other senses. I changed the entry accordingly. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not really any better, I'm afraid. The -m- in "sámi" is a weak-grade consonant, so it doesn't normally appear in the nominative form (gradation in Northern Sami is like Finnish, but all the consonants gradate), while it does appear in the genitive. So I think that Sápmi and Sámi relate to each other in the same way as Finnish Suomi and Suomen (and quite likely have the same origin too, but that's another matter). The difference is that in Northern Sami, the lowercase version also refers to the people, but only in plural. Maybe the genitive is an exception to that, and this is simply how Northern Sami handles plurale tantum nouns (i.e. no singular forms but there is still a genitive). —CodeCat 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's true that sámi is the genitive form of sápmi, but that does not automatically make sámi invalid as a word. Flipping through the scarce information available of Sami language in the internet I found several occasions in which sámi is defined as an adjective. I would assume that the genitive has acquired a new meaning at some point of the development of the language. I'm not a Sami expert but I'm quite certain that you aren't one either. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It does exist as a word, but I think people are misinterpreting it as a separate lemma. This is not surprising given that many people interested in Sami languages and culture would be speakers of other languages which don't have such things as case systems. If an English speaker saw "suomen kieli" and knew that it meant "Finnish language" then they might be tempted to think that "suomen" is an adjective meaning "Finnish". I suspect something like that may be going on here.
My own interpretation is that sámit is a plurale tantum referring to Sami people, but its singular genitive form is used attributively. I think User:Tropylium knows more about this than anyone else, so his views would be welcome. —CodeCat 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was saying: sámi is, in the cited sense, definitely not a lemma. Northern Sami has both attributive and predicative forms of adjectives, the latter are taken as the lemma, and this is an attributive.
It'd still take further verification to determine if the adjectival use actually checks out though. I hope our small number of Category:User se-2 people might have better knowledge of this yet. --Tropylium (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean with "In the cited sense not a lemma"? The article was originally written of sámi as if it were a noun. However, based on what I've read, it seemed that it would be an adjective and I have changed the entry accordingly. Are you saying it's not an adjective either? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be mixing together far too many different questions by now. Let's try to be explicit about what we are discussing.
  1. Semantics.
    • Sápmi, uppercase, exists in at least one sense: 1. "the land of the Sami people" (proper noun) (NB: not "Lapland", which covers also traditional Finnish and Swedish territories!)
    • The word IPA(key): /saːpmi/ is moreover used also in two other senses: 2. "Sami" (adjective); 3. "a Sami person" (common noun).
  2. Capitalization.
    • I am still not able to take a definite stance on if the two latter senses should be uppercase or lowercase. I have by now checked a couple other dictionaries, which all seem to only report the capitalized Sápmi (acc. Sámi); I have also checked some grammars, which seem to at least use the word in these senses as the lowercase sápmi (acc. sámi). Probably we should dig into some Sami media for citations.
    • Another question I do not know the answer to is if there is any semantic difference depending on the capitalization.
    • I do know that sámit, "Sami people", is always lowercase.
  3. Lemmatization.
    • If it turns out that lowercase sápmi "a Sami person" is valid, then probably sámit "Sami people" needs to be treated as simply its plural, and not a separate plurale tantum (cf. e.g. Brits, Finns).
    • The form ‹sámi› is definitely not a lemma, but merely an inflected form of ‹sápmi›.
Am I being clear enough yet?
(I think we went off the rails already at the beginning — I interpreted CodeCat as asking whether the accusative deserves an entry as a separate lemma, while I now think she was asking if the meaning "a Sami person" is correct; and then Hekaheka introduced the question of capitalization.) --Tropylium (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)



I added this sense, but I wonder if it's "dictionary only" because I can't find actual usages, so I'm inclined to delete it unless someone else can verify that the word is actually used with this meaning. Dbfirs 08:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One citation:
  • The circus band was elevated from strong-lipped windjamming to artistic renditions of classical overtures and standard selections
However, it looks like in the musical sense, it's usually written hyphenated. It also specifically seems to mean "playing a wind instrument badly" (possibly, it even refers to a specific fault that wind players make):
  • When he plays you hear no whistling and wind-jamming, none of the little mannerisms that ordinarily make flute-playing a trifle unpleasant.
  • Where Buescher True-Tone Instruments predominated there was a noticeable absence of that blatant wind-jamming that often makes the brasses sound a trifle unpleasant when amateurs play
  • This includes two French horns - played by troupers who are good - but the rest are all melophone or rain-catchers (bell ups) of the old style, and when they put on a wind-jamming contest you can bet the barking irons are there.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (I obviously wasn't using the best search request in Google.) I'll leave the sense in the entry and remove the rfv.
... waiting until Thursday 20th in case anyone else wishes to comment here ... Dbfirs 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Dutch for rigid. An anon removed it with the edit summary “That's wrong.” — Ungoliant (falai) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think difficult, tight, stiff, rough , but better to wait for a native speaker...those can be synonymous with "rigid" Leasnam (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The primary meaning is still "not smooth, not flowing/sliding freely" but this can be extended to meaning rigid in the sense of "difficult to move". It doesn't mean rigid in the meaning "not bendable". At least not literally; perhaps when referring to a person's willingness to cooperate, stroef and star may be close to synonyms (I'm not sure though). —CodeCat 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Tons of Google books hits, but when you click through, almost all of them are actually scannos of "post-disco" (and lots of them are actually from the same book of supposedly copyrighted Wikipedia-rips reuploaded hundreds of times to flood Amazon). I can only find one that's actually "postdisco": "Tina Turner, a veteran soul performer who had long fronted the band led by her one-time husband, the R & B and rock pioneer Ike Turner, refashioned herself into a postdisco diva" Are there any others? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are a fair few unhyphenated occurrences in Google Books. Added two to the adjective, but they might apply to the noun too/instead. May look harder later. Equinox 13:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If it fails RFV, please move citations to the Citations page. Equinox 01:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure about this spelling in Yiddish. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an error. Embryomystic (talkcontribs), what source did you use? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a source, and it may be an error on my part, though there are a number of examples of it that come up if you google the phrase (and I don't mean just Wiktionary and mirrors thereof). If I've erred, feel free to remove the entry of course. I won't argue with you. embryomystic (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you found examples, what is your question? I checked, and it showed up on The Forward, and it's an entry in [36]. The non-Hebrew spelling reflects the Yiddish pronunciation. I was privileged to hear a friend last month, a week before his hasanah, do the complete song quoted in fragments at The Forward. And yes, his fluent-from-birth Yiddish pronunciations were distinctly non-Hebrew. Here are links to another song, along with this Yiddish spelling: [37] and [38]. The latter is a blog, but you can see it's quoting from a recording. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I looked it up in about 6 or 7 dictionaries, including Yiddish-Hebrew, Yiddish-Russian, Yiddish-German. Also, I looked up Chaim Grade Di Agune, since it has a big Simchat Torah scene. All of them had the Hebrew spelling exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yiddish dictionaries all copy each other, so it could be a "dictionary-only" spelling. Where did you look up Di Agune? Also, what do you mean by the "Hebrew spelling"? Both spellings are used in Hebrew, but the one with the extra yud is by far less common. --WikiTiki89 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've only seen it without the yud, so I assume that is the Hebrew spelling, and the with-yud version, based on this discussion was, I presumed, a Yiddish-only spelling. As I said, the with-yud version was not in the dictionaries, and not in Grade's novel. I looked up Di Agune, like all the dictionaries (other than the linked-to online dictionary), in a library. Choor monster (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I misunderstood you. I have two Yiddish dictionaries, both of which are fairly prescriptive and spell it with the yud in the lemma, but give שׂמחה as an alternative form of שׂימחה. So I was referring to the with-yud spelling (the one nominated here) as the potentially dictionary-only spelling. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I will point out that the library had four editions of Harkavy; I only checked the most recent. I will probably look again later this week. Choor monster (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1910 version is available online: http://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/yiddish/harkavy/index.utf8.html .--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1910 one gives the spelling שמחת־תורה. --WikiTiki89 01:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

raon tionnsgalach[edit]

Scottish Gaelic. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Its meaning is clear -- "industrial area" -- but I can't find any attestations online of that phrase. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Came across it in Lochgilphead [39]. --Droigheann (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The given synonym, ionad-gnìomhachais, is clearly in use: a Google search turns up various Scottish tourist brochures, BBC news articles, etc. But, unhelpfully, there is nothing in Google Books or Usenet. I suppose if someone can find a physical book that contains a mention of either of these terms, that will be helpful (as Scottish Gaelic is LDL). This, that and the other (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First Amendment[edit]

RFV the adjectival senses: "Of or relating to the US Bill of Rights" and "Of or relating to free speech in general". The second one should be relatively easy to do, but I doubt the first one is attestable at all. Keφr 08:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Relating not just to the First Amendment? I'd like to see both attested and as true adjectives in both senses, or even "of or relating to the First Amendment" as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have seen "First Amendment" used in contexts where there is no government involved at all, which means it cannot refer to the literal sense ("Congress shall make no law…"). Not that I like this usage, but I think it plausible that it can be demonstrated.
Also, does "attestation as a true adjective" mean that you require citations of predicative uses? Obviously "First Amendment" cannot be graded. Keφr 12:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you some kind of Constitutional literalist? I suppose you don't believe in a Constitutional right to privacy either. But seriously, [] .
I think we can find use of the noun applied to free speech of all kinds, even in a non-governmental context (eg, school or university rules, non-governmental public meetings, child-parent relationships), ie, there is a missing sense of the noun. If there is such use, then that also covers attributive use in that sense. But I'm more skeptical about First Amendment referring to the entire Bill of Rights, either as a noun or an adjective.
Predicate use is usually the most abundant true-adjective use, though it can be a bit tedious to sift through the raw hits to find the good ones.
WordNet supports the more general 'free expression/free speech' sense of the term with this definition: "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech;" DCDuring TALK 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the de facto adjective test for English is gradable use, or non-gradable use where it cannot be a noun as no such noun exists. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Absence of gradability is not sufficient evidence that something is not an adjective. A sufficiently distinguished sense of the word when used attributively is sufficient to show something is an adjective. Use as predicate is less definitive because some uses as predicate of a word that is at least sometimes a noun don't feel (God help me!) like adjective use. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a predicative use of a word that doesn't feel like an adjective? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
In "The sidewalk is cement", cement doesn't 'feel' much like an adjective to me, but I'd be interested in how others 'feel' it. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That looks to me like a predicate non-count noun, same as that blue thing is water or this food is fish. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This adjective represent two of the six ever edits by (talk). Look at the other three in the main namespace. I'm sure we're wasting our time here and yet, due process. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, due process is the Fifth Amendment... ;) - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

set phrase[edit]

2nd sense: "A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning. " --- Isn't this the definition of "idiom" and actually a special case of the previous definition "A common expression whose wording is not subject to variation"? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries that define set phrase often have idiom as the definition or as a synonym. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If we accept that "set phrase" and "idiom" are synonyms, we still need to judge how many definitions we need. The Onelook dictionaries which list "set phrase" use the following wordings:
  • Oxford: "An unvarying phrase having a specific meaning, such as “raining cats and dogs,” or being the only context in which a word appears, e.g., “aback” in “take aback.”"
  • Vocabulary.com, Rhymezone, Free Dictionary and Look WAY up: "An expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up."
None of them has two definitions. I'm not convinced we should either. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If "idiom" is an exact definition of one way people use the term and others use it to mean a particular type of idiom, to wit, "an idiom which allows no substitution of synonyms or insertion of modifiers" and both are attestable, how can we exclude one? Very few people would accept the second as a definition of idiom.
The Gang of Four above are using the WordNet definition, which is exactly the same as one of the WordNet definitions for idiom and indeed for any in the synset consisting of idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase.
The Oxford definition is more like the narrower definition, but "unvarying phrase" abstracts from inflection and pluralization, one or both of which may be possible, eg, rain can inflect in rain cats and dogs but neither cat not dog can be in the singular. I didn't find WP much help. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be essentially the same as definition #1, which is undisputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of what adds to the confusion are the usage notes, which present in prose what should be in synonyms and hyponyms sections, once the distinct senses are recognized and straightforwardly defined. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
'Setness' is something that is not quite as absolute as a naive user of the entry might think. Word order, inflection, grammatical transformations (eg, passivization), substitution of synonyms, insertion of determiners, and insertion of adjectives or other modifiers are all departures from the strictest sense of 'setness'. The set of phrases what allow absolutely no variation is relatively small. ('Kick the bucket' allows some verb inflection. Some proverbs might be absolutely invariant, but are not typical set phrases.) Some of the use of the term set phrase seems to include semantically transparent expressions that are nonetheless "invariant" because of their role as speech acts, broadly defined, or simply by dint of repetition, eg, catchphrases. Moreover, some uses of 'set phrase' seem to refer to expressions that do allow substitution of synonyms though one form is often significantly more common, especially in a specific time period and usage context. Rather than incorporate specific criteria such as "substitution of synonyms" into the definitions, we could use multiple (at least two) definitions as stakes that are not too specific, but near the boundaries of the range of meaning.
How about replacement of the definitions as follows?
  1. An common expression whose wording is not subject to little variation.
  2. Any idiomatic expression A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning.
I know this is RfV, but I am not really happy trying to specifically cite the definitions as currently worded and I would like opinions before changing the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, your first definition corresponds to my understanding of the meaning. SpinningSpark 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I find DCDuring's suggestion good. Can we close this case? --Hekaheka (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv tagged but is not listed. -- 21:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]


RFV of the noun sense "A deliberately misleading explanation." and the verb sense "To give a deliberately false interpretation of." It's not in the OED, but it is in M-W. Anyway, it would be nice to have quotations. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The OED has "to veil in specious language". This is the same sense, isn't it? This sense seems to be derived via both etymological routes. Dbfirs 16:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a verb, so it's not exactly the same sense, no. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


One strong citation for this on Google Books:

The situation is about to get a googolfold worse.

The only other one I can find there is absolute word salad, which I don't think can be used to cite anything:

Mickey King Kong was a vampire, who was minutely one of the more than supermillionfold, millionesque, submillion, googolesque, googolfold, googolplexesque, and googolplexfold quasi-reincarnations of the great cone and Janie Seymour, being combinations of supervampirism, superlyncanthropy, super-O, superstigmata, piezoelectricity, superelectricity, tertiary abiogenesis, superabiogenesis, tertiary carmot, and supercarmot.

No sign of any adjectival use (e.g., no "googolfold increases"). Can anyone help? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Usenet yields a couple of results: [40], [41]. There’s also one for googlefold: [42]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added three citations for the adverb sense, including the first Google Books quote that you gave above. I note, though, that the Google Books quote uses a hyphen ("googol-fold"), but the hyphen occurs at a line break, so it's unclear whether the intended spelling is "googolfold" or "googol-fold". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Pursuant to the post in the TR, I couldn't find anything in BGC that was actually the exact word "allotroph" once I clicked on it that wasn't in fact a mention or the second sense, although I'm RFVing the whole thing since I'm not sure the second sense should be included either, as it is not exactly a misspelling but certainly not accurate, either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP treats allotroph as a redirect to w:Heterotroph.
Our definition seems silly: where else would energy come from, the nuclear reactor one was born with?
I see apparent uses of allotroph more often in German scholarly works, with a meaning something like heterotroph, I think. I must leave that to someone with better German and biology/biochemistry than mine.
I saw English use at Google Scholar of allotroph where allotrope seems to me to be what was meant. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The definition might be simultaneously silly and true. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you like to wager that the definition in German would not translate to ours? (Not to say that one would not be able to see the source of the error.) DCDuring TALK 00:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Ido, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Three quotations added. embryomystic (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
These are not from permanently recorded media. Furthermore, the second and the third are dependent (WT:CFI#Independent), since they are by the same author. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty on Dutch, but I think it's attestable. Unfortunately Dutch Wiktionary doesn't list the diminutive. Diminutives do not always follow the ending of the parent noun. This is something DrJos can answer, I imagine. Donnanz (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:DrJos: is this (rather than, say, bijwerkingje) the correct diminutive of bijwerking? I do see one citation on Google Books:
  • 2010, Mike Boddé, Pil: hoe een cabaretier zijn depressie overwon:
    Eerst geloofde ik het niet; het zal wel een bijwerkinkje zijn van de pillen of zo, dacht ik.
- -sche (discuss) 22:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The rule is that if there is a stressed syllable before the syllable with the "-ing" suffix, the last -g- turns into "-kje" to make it a diminutive. If the stress is earlier in the word -g- becomes -etje. So "bijwerking" becomes "bijwerkinkje" --DrJos (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is now whether one citation is sufficient to attest this (which those who view diminutives as inflected forms have argued), or whether the diminutive needs 3 citations. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Last time the arguments about whether or not to keep olinguito and the like came up, we agreed to keep it provisionally as a "hot word" to see whether usage satisfying CFI would appear once the term had existed for more than a year. This worked out for the English term, but I'm not sure there are any durably archived citations of this in Italian (I tried "gli olinguiti" and "l'olinguito" and did not find a single Italian use in a book), and more than a year has passed since Italians first used the word. This time, if we come up short we must delete the Italian entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Books are not the only source of citations. One definite print use from May 2014 here and one I'm uncertain about here (the website is "Partnered with la Repubblica", but I dont know whether that means la Repubblica reprints anything from it) which would push it over the one year mark. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it’s spelled wrong for Italian. The Italian should be olinghito, as mentioned here. —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


ènal lists ènaux as a plural. Neither seem to be attested. I can only find ènal in combination e.g. "pent-4-ènal" (Chimie Organique, 2002) and never on its own. Énal is what I'd expect it to be called if it ever was used on its own, but perhaps it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)



  1. Rather than.
    I would die affor giving up my virtue.

I can find no citation for this usage as a conjunction meaning "rather than". It's not in the OED, and the example sentence (also unsourced) is perfectly compatible with meaning given in the OED: a variant (Middle English) spelling of "afore" (= before). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Relatedly, some of the quotations for the verb sense of affor look to me like they are actually uses of the preposition meaning "before" (though I don't know enough Middle English to be sure about all of them). If someone familiar with Middle English and Early Modern English could sort those out, that would be wonderful. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and not just some - nearly all of the verb citations match afore (before) rather than "afford". A look at Google Books also finds no hits for "afforring" except an obvious OCR error for "affording"; nor for "afforred" (similar errors for "afforded"); nor for "affors", which appears as various misreadings such as "affors'd" (i.e. "aforesaid"), OCR error for "actors", and similar. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no such verb. Why has it been sitting there in our entry for seven years? We need to delete this part of speech, but we can keep the cites as prepositions. The OED has afore as a conjunction meaning "before", but marks it as "Now archaic and regional". In my native dialect, "afore" is used to mean rather than where others might use "before" with the same meaning (see our entry: "rather or sooner than") at our entry for before (conjunction). I've never seen it spelt affor, but the OED has one cite with this spelling (as a conjunction in 1470). Dbfirs 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


There is no that word at the Turkish! --123snake45 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the result of this, it would be nice for this, in Kazakh and Turkish (if that survives) to get an actual definition. program is decently polysemous, and thus a poor definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The people doesn't use/speak it word at Turkish. So it is invalid. --123snake45 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh is correct, if it's written in Latin. The Cyrillic spelling is бағдарлама (kk) (bağdarlama). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sending the Kazakh Roman spelling as well, бағдарлама is attestable, "bağdarlama" is not. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): (Non-standard, Fast Speech) but

Ungoliant (falai) 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/grupovolareijui/status/263297880809435138 (a reply)
hard to find it written. even harder recorded without a search tool. maybe that's indeed a wrong sense because I see myself using it instead of "mas" but not with a "but" sense.
—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

January 2015[edit]


Ladino. Attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One mention in snippet view here. It seems to be a word list with definitions and some etymological information. As far as I can tell, the Turkish seems to be a compound of baş (head) + üstüne (above or on top of), so the Spanish gloss of encima de la cabeza fits the literal meaning of the Turkish (I suspect the Turkish is equivalent as an expression to something like "yes sir!" or "you're the boss!", but I don't speak Turkish). This shows the word in use, but the semantics require some stretching to make it work- close enough to be plausible, though. Since Ladino is no doubt an LDL, the one mention should be sufficient if we accept it. As I said earlier, Ladino is tricky to attest, because the orthography is far from standardized, and because there's geographical variation, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Should it be a language with limited documentation? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It is, since it's not on this list. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Ladino. Attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One use here. I'll let others judge whether it fits the definition (this is the alt-form, so see bashustuné). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for the article's following definitions: apply, smear, plaster and to put on. I couldn't find any sources for these definitions but I thought maybe one of our native Chinese editors might have more insight into the situation than I do. Bumm13 (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably why you can't find sources is because in general I would say the word means sweep or brush (its pretty close to uses 3,4 and 5 of brush when used as a verb) and that it describes the movement of the hand, it needs a modifier to be used in the senses above e.g.上 to create 抺上 and only really when talking about powdery, liquid and semi-liquid things, for example paint, food, make up etc. So for example
  1. "apply an egg wash" - 抺上蛋漿
  2. "smear on some sunscreen"-抹上防曬油
  3. "plaster something" (as in a wall) -抹上灰泥
By coincidence, I think, to paint something black 抺黑 has the sense of smear as in smear campaign.
Its not in our entry but by pairing with 走 or 去, ie 抺走 or 抺去, we have wipe away,sweep away, e.g. wipe away tears-抺走眼淚.--KTo288 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Fear of flashes of light. Only in word lists. Equinox 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've found two meanings, which I suspect may be the case for a few -phobias: there's the "fear of..." sense, which is what you'll find in the word lists, and there's also a biological "intolerance of..." sense. So selaphobia might be the fear of flashes, or, in ophthalmology, an intolerance to them. chlorophobia might be a fear of Chlorine (or of Chloroform, or simply of the colour green), or a botanic intolerance to Chlorine compounds.
More to the point, there is an issue which came up on my talk page in conversation with Equinox on this matter, and that's what would count for an attestation. I submit that these phobias come as a packet of concepts: the condition, the condition as an adjective, and the thing suffering the condition (-phobia, -phobic, -phobe). (And adverb -phobically?) Many of these terms are very specialised, and may turn up in scientific papers relatively rarely, such that we might have an insufficient number of attestations for any given form, and thus be forced to delete all three forms and with them the entire concept.
It's not quite the same as using examples of the genitive or plural to attest the lemma, but I don't think it's that far off. So I submit that for this sort of "package" of forms, it should be possible to use, eg., "selaphobic" and "selaphobe" to attest "selaphobia", and vice-versa. That is, any of the forms of the package work as attestation of the package. This could be the basis of a "See also" template for such things listing the various forms (so: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, or schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically, although that would be for cross-reference more than the need to aggregate attestations to make critical mass.)
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This does seem close to what we do with verbs (where I've noted a strong consensus to create the -s, -ing, -ed forms even if not all of them are attestable). I don't like the idea, though, since I prefer to treat each word/spelling as a separate item. Equinox 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really consider inflections (plural forms and verb tenses) to be individual words, and thus I don't think they need to be independently cited, unless they're irregular in some way. But nouns, verbs, adjectives, or any other POS should be considered separate words, and thus I think they need to be independently cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My position is that "selaphobic" does not attest "selaphobia"; even if "selaphobic" is attested, "selaphobia" can fail RFV and be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • My fear is that neither form will make critical mass on its own (I've moved the cites you deleted to selaphobic, by the way), both will independently fail CFI, and thus the term in its entirety will be deleted. Even if they are aggregated it will be close, unless someone else has better luck finding another cite for each sense. But still, I see a situation where a word can clearly exist, if rarely, but be deleted through the technicality that one citation used person-first language or some such perfectly regular and predictable variation. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by "person-first language"; one of the forms is a noun, the other is an adjective. They are different words, not just different inflected forms. Three quotations is already a very low threshold; I find it unwise to lower it by pooling morphologically related forms (like "carry", "carrier", and "carriage" or those mentioned by you above: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically). In similar way, each -ness form should be attested on its own, rather than entered when the adjective from which the -ness form is formed is attested. Ditto for agent nouns: they should be attested on their own rather than created automatically when the verb is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        Person-first language is a fashion in disability circles to avoid using the word meaning "person-with-condition" ("autist", "paraplegic"), but instead explicitly saying "person with autism", "person with paraplegia", etc. (The idea is to explicitly state the person as most semantically important, not defining them by the condition.) Many autists, for example, find this ridiculous and faintly patronising, and see person-first language, for our condition at least, akin to saying "person with maleness". In this case you might find that a rare but real condition, with a real, if rare, word would fail attestation because the votes were split between the condition and the person-with-condition, even though they're all referring to the same thing. Which is why I split off the cites for selaphobic, rather than let them vanish completely. Surely someone has better access to ophthalmology papers? Or Epilepsy studies? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Google Books doesn't seem to have enough citations for any single sense. There is the biological "barophobic" (not adapted to high pressures). Equinox 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a third cite for the fear sense. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
What about fear of bars? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you hear the one about a man who didn't walk into a bar? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Another word-list phobia. Equinox 22:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it might be worthwhile to enact something to the effect that /phobia$/ entries may be deleted on sight unless properly cited? And an edit filter to explain it. Keφr 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. Also /philia$/ though that is a lesser problem AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/41. Please check it for errors and run it through any bureaucracy you feel is appropriate: BP, vote, whatever. Keφr 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Made of or with wood

Just attributive use of the noun? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to tell the difference between an uncountable noun and an incomparable adjective. None of the tests at Wiktionary:English adjectives seem to be capable of distinguishing between these two. So what kind of citation would (hypothetically) be able to demonstrate that "wood" is indeed an incomparable adjective as well as a noun? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Predicative use, i.e. you can say “this toy is wooden”, but can you say “this toy is wood”? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd still say that's use of the uncountable noun. Talk:woodland might provide a way forward; very wood and quite wood can't be interpreted as nominal uses, unless I'm missing something. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but I wouldn't expect to find uses of an incomparable adjective with "quite" and "very". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you can. [43] [44] [45] [46] But it's not completely obvious to me whether these are predicative uses of an adjective or an uncountable noun. But if you think they're good enough, I'll add them to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Dubious IMO. It feels like "this music is (genre)": more of a noun usage. Equinox 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I'd apply Occam's razor. If we have a noun entry for a word then there should be some unambiguous evidence for its adjectivity to support an Adjective PoS section. I can find three cites (1, 3 & 4) ["be|am|is|are|be|being|was|were more wood than" -"there is|was more wood than" here] at Google Books for the following collocation: "[be] more wood (than)". If upheld, that would let us keep the Adjective section. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Saying "it's more wood than metal" doesn't make it an adjective, though. —CodeCat 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to see "this table is wood" as an adjectival usage. Dictionaries having this adjectival sense at "wood" include AHD[47] and Merriam-Webster (entry 3)[48]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, now as before, I consider this use of RFV less than fortunate, since for English there are no conclusive purely evidence-based criteria for adjectivity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The OED has only the obsolete adjective (our etymology 2) meaning mad. Are we being wooden about this? We do have steel as an adjective, and the OED doesn't, but why don't we have soap and cardboard as adjectives? (Later note: we do now for cardboard, with good cites. Thanks, Mr. Granger.) Dbfirs 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: In most cases the evidence is extremely clear. Evidence is to be preferred to gum-flapping wherever possible. We can reduce the gum-flapping to evaluation and weighing of evidence, in this case, that of the judgment of lexicographers and the corpus data. It is very hard for me to take as meaningful an individual vote which often represents nothing more than an idiolect or a completely uninformed opinion. And articulate arguments based on agreed-to principles have become scarcer over time. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather go by Merriam-Webster than OED. Merriam-Webster does have an adjective sense for "steel"[49]. We could have an adjective sense in cardboard, just like Merriam-Webster[50]; however, they may have the adjective sense to accompany the figurative adjective sense that they have. Again, since adjectivity is hard to detect based only on evidence, I discourage and oppose this use of RFV. Yes, there are cases where the evidence clearly supports adjectivity, but absence of such evidence requires judgment and discussion to determine the adjectivity, as per the existence of incomparable adjectives. Under the assumption that we take this RFV seriously, occurrences of "this table is wood" should count toward attestation as adjective, IMHO. This RFV should be closed as out-of-scope (my preferable closure), or as passed. We have no evidence to tell us whether "this table is wood" is an adjectival use, so we do have to use judgment or linguistic sense; hence the propriety of RFD for these kind of cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
RFV can be useful and appropriate in such cases, since the POS is part of the sense, and it seems perfectly acceptable to challenge whether there's usage for the sense as an adjective. The problem comes when the evidence is inconclusive: the presumption with rfd is for keeping unless the case is made for deletion, while with rfv it's for deletion unless the case (in the form of citations) is made for keeping. I have no problem with using rfv- unless someone tries to close it as failed when citations have been provided, but they're ambiguous.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You ignored the incomparable adjectives objection, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the English section. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the only use I could find: [51]. It’s present in some medical dictionaries, so it can be moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms if it fails. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Really attested? google books:"selaphobic", google groups:"selaphobic", selaphobic at OneLook Dictionary Search. I'd even consider speedy RFV fail. Each sense needs three attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for both senses: (1) an introvert who likes outdoorsy activities, and (2) a synonym for extrovert. The entry was created with sense (1) by an anon who later registered as User:‎Logophilic K; that sense was replaced by sense (2) by User:SemperBlotto. Logophilic K objected to that in the Tea room, so I've restored both senses and am RFVing both of them here, so we can find out how this word is actually used in durably archived sources. Incidentally, all I can find on b.g.c is this, which is short on context but appears to be sense (2). But I can't find 2 more attestations of it in that sense. As far as I can tell, all other b.g.c hits of "outrovert", "outroverts", and "outroverted" are scannos for the corresponding forms of controvert. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added two citations for the "extrovert" sense. Both appear to be written by non-native English speakers. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a joke, but it might coincidentally turn out to be attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

God's House[edit]

'God's house' is obviously very prevalent in a Christian sense, and its Arabic form meaning Kaaba as well, but I am unsure about this capitalised form having an idiomatic meaning of 'the Kaaba' in English. I looked and couldn't see it using Google Books. Kaixinguo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an entry for God's house. Kaixinguo (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Ido for moraine. I can't find anything, but there's a lot of interference from other languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

here and there[edit]

Rfv-sense: "From time to time"

MWOnline has it. I've never heard it. Is it archaic, obsolete? Does the OED have it? DCDuring TALK 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the OED has only the sense of scattered through space, not time. The equivalent expressions for time are now and then and now and again. I suppose the expression is sometimes used of time, by analogy, but I don't really think it means scattered through time. How do we distinguish between a meaning and a metaphor? Dbfirs 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: Thanks. I didn't think so, but I suspect you are right about metaphorical use. We don't have too much trouble with many mature metaphor-derived senses of nouns like head, but "live"-but-dying metaphors (or protologistic metaphor-based senses) are harder. It would be nice to have some actual instances of the purported temporal use that we could assess. OED was my best hope, but I'll try some other dictionaries that sometimes have citations. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
e.g. 2009, John Bogard, The Message from the Cosmos (page 63): "Before we study his ideas, it is useful to note here again that extraterrestrial powers intervened here and there in his life, as early as his birth, then his baptism [] ". Equinox 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, after trawling through more than 200 Google Books, I found another example from 2011, R. E. Donald, Slow Curve on the Coquihalla (chapter 23): "Yep. Since nineteen sixty, or thereabouts. Missed a few years, here and there."
I suppose "at this and that point in space" can be used by analogy to mean "at this and that point in time", just as "now and again" is sometimes used for points in space. We are travellers through the four-dimensional manifold.
I wonder if "intermittently, occasionally" would be a better definition than "from time to time"? Dbfirs 16:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Weird. I'd consider it pretty common, as common as the spatial sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you move at a different speed and so live on a different world line? :) Dbfirs 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's often ambiguous. I find the 2009 cite ambiguous, though not the 2011 cite. In any event, the citations will be proof against a COPYVIO of MW Online, especially if we use them to support wording such as Dbfirs'. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It certainly can mean now and again in my idiolect. I would argue that in most cases, the meaning of spatially scattered and temporally scattered are so inextricably linked for that it must necessarily mean both. For instance in the sentence "The man showed up here and there," the appearances of the man must necessarily be spatially and temporally separated, which might have given rise to the figurative meaning of now and then. I also agree that it is very hard to construct sentences that are explicitly of one meaning or the other. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But you can't say "The man showed up here and there at his kitchen window overlooking the road."
You would have to say "now and again" where the spatial context is restricted. Dbfirs 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "The man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" but instead "Now and again, the man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" or "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road now and again." For some reason, that placement after the verb does not work for me. But in the other two locations, I could definitely say "Here and there, the man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road" and "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road here and there." This, however, may just be the topicalization or backing obscuring the apparent spatial contradiction. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder how widely this is shared. Thank goodness we don't have to depend on individual reporting of their idiolect. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ive found one more cite, not sure about the year because the book seems to have been privately published by the author: Andre Maxwell Jacob, And Then There Was Life! (page 218): "She told Justina and Miles everything, pausing here and there trying to remember every little detail of her day."
If my sample of books is representative of the corpus, then usage for a timelike interval is less than 1% of usage for a spacelike interval. Dbfirs 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised by the rarity of unambiguously temporal cites for this particular term, where both main terms are principally spatial and alternatives like now and then are available. In my idiolect, I try to use the words that are more specific to the temporal realm. At least I think I do. It is fascinating how many basic time words, like prepositions (after, before) have a spatial etymology. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Any attestations meeting WT:ATTEST, including "use in permanently recorded media"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It's used in published articles from paper science journals, so yes. -- 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The end result of this effect is the perception of a symmetrically receding pair of sound sources, which, in the luminal world, is a good description of symmetric radio sources (Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus)
      DOI 10.1142/S0218271807010559 Are Radio Sources and Gamma Ray Bursts Luminal Booms? Manoj Thulasidas (2007) International Journal of Modern Physics D
    • Since nobody has yet proposed a name for this phenomenon, I shall do so now: we should call them DRAGNs, which is an acronym for 'Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus'.
      DOI 10.1007/3-540-57164-7_74 ; BIBCODE 1993LNP...421....1L ; DRAGNs J.P.Leahy (1993) Jets in Extragalactic Radio Sources, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Ringberg Castle, Tegernsee, FRG, September 22-28, 1991.
      This is the coining event (in 1991), that coins the term ; the Proceedings are a published (on paper) compendium of the conference.
    • double radio source associated with a galactic nucleus
      pagee 282 (2007) C. R. Kitchin Galaxies in Turmoil Springer ISBN 9781846286711
    • 1 - Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus; see Leahy (1993)
      DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07685.x ; BIBCODE 2004MNRAS.350..865G ; A multiband study of Hercules A - I. ROSAT observations of the intracluster medium Gizani, Nectaria A. B.; Leahy, J. P. (2004) Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 350, Issue 3, pp. 865-878
It would be helpful if Wiktionary had the external reference templates that Wikipedia has for linking to DOIs, PMIDs, PMCIDs, BIBCODEs, since they link to information to find the published science papers and their journals. -- 15:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


The stress is completely wrong. Kaká, not káka - as a person who lived in Greece for years here and never heard anyone say this.

@Saltmarsh, Flyax, Xoristzatziki Any thoughts? Can this be attested anywhere that you know to look? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Cannot find it anywhere. Except in web and printed materials, where is possibly wrong accentuation or (in some cases) a pun for "Κάκα" (a football player). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure that I've heard it, used by children or by elderly people speaking to or about children. --flyax (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither of my Greek dictionaries lists the paroxytone form. My Collins English-Greek gives both forms - and Google counts over 3k. Should it be entered as a misspelling ?   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


I have looked at the Wikipedia article, but I'm a bit dubious. is Thoroughbred really a breed? I would only use the uncapitalised form. Donnanz (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Sport of Kings takes itself rather seriously, and the capitalised version is the normal one, as a quick visit to the UK Jockey Club website and the US Jockey Club website will attest.--KTo288 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

zamrzlý puberťák[edit]

Czech: adultescent.

I cannot attest this; google books:"zamrzlý puberťák". I can attest google books:"zastydlý puberťák", but I doubt it means "adultescent". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Never came across "zastydlý puberťák", but per Google it's more common than "zamrzlý". As for "adultescent", I went by the Oxford Dictionaries definition "A middle-aged person whose clothes, interests, and activities are typically associated with youth culture." and example sentence "A new name has even been coined for people who don't act their age: adultescents.", but on second thoughts it's true that the Czech term is always pejorative and can be used for anybody no longer in their teens, so probably the translation I used is inappropriate without a usage note or something. --Droigheann (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that, most importantly, this collocation isn't idiomatic. Or is it? --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: conjuction. Can't think of any sentence where it would be used as one. --Droigheann (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it is instrumental case of co, it may have this sense - "whereby", "what with", dependent on the context. I would convert to instrumental singular of co. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
An example sentence would be something along the lines "Neuvěříte, čím si udělal radost!" or "S čím jsi to udělal?" (What did you do that with?). but I can't express myself well in Czech, sorry. Calling @Dan Polansky, a native Czech speaker. BTW, @Droigheann, you need a user page with a Babel table. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it a bad form not to have one? Ну что, готово ;-). --Droigheann (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
On a second thought, the Pronoun section already covers this. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

maximum security[edit]

Perhaps he means maximum security prison? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A single cite that I'm not very sure about:
2003, Ann Rule, Last Dance, Last Chance, Simon and Schuster (ISBN 9780743424066), page 462
Mr. Savage tells us he'll appeal, and appeal, and appeal. But you can be sure of one thing. A man in the maximum security on death row will never 'walk away' to prowl the countryside again.” The jury retired on Saturday evening to deliberate.
If not cited, I think this should become "Alternative form of maximum-security/minimum-security." Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(By the way, there are few hits for "sent to maximum security", but these seem to refer to maximum security areas within a prison with several areas.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think if the definition was right the hits would look more like "sent to a maximum security", of course not followed by "prison", "facility" etc. Siuenti (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the many widespread defects of our English definitions are, 1., incorrect, incomplete, or missing indication of countability and uncountability on the inflection line, 2., missing or incorrect marking of countability and uncountability at the sense level for polysemic terms, and, 3., wording of definitions inconsistent with the indicated countability or uncountability. The definition in question at least has the third defect: the indefinite article is not consistent with uncountable on the inflection line. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: I found ten hits for "in|into|to maximum security [punctuation mark]" at COCA:
1 2011 SPOK NBC_Dateline After six years in maximum security , Glen Ake was nearly unrecognizable.
2 2002 NEWS USAToday brick prison walls passing by him are like scenes from his daydreams back in maximum security .
3 2002 NEWS Denver said he is ready to move from maximum to medium security. # While in maximum security , Glennie has been assaulted four times.
4 2002 NEWS Denver Glennie remains in maximum security ,
5 2000 FIC ScienceNews and I were unceremoniously shoved into soda cups and trundled back across the street into maximum security .
6 1996 NEWS WashPost receiving end, or made to spend a night at Lorton... in Maximum Security ... chained to a cell door... stark naked,
7 1994 SPOK CBS_Sixty So Joe Yandle was locked away in maximum security .
8 1991 NEWS AssocPress 66064 and his crew are ready with " the real deal " on life in maximum security .
9 1990 FIC Bk:Harvest Three years behind bars in maximum security !
10 1990 MAG WashMonth Younis is now serving 30 years in maximum security .
(I'm showing off COCA search capability.)
This indicates it is used without an article, possibly uncountable. Quote 3 suggests that it is not a set phrase. Quote 6 shows it being used as a proper noun in reference to a particular department or unit. Clearly maximum security is not a type of security in the usage here. In contrast under maximum security would indicate a type of security. I don't think it can be used after the same set of prepositions that security, in any sense, can. And etymologically it is clearly an ellipsis of phrases headed by prison, unit, detention, etc. Though I find it hard to believe that "it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", the meaning being always transparent in context, I know of no instance where an item failed to be included for failing to meet that criterion. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added and cited a noun section. I look forward to someone trying to cite this as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I notice Random House has "maximum security" defined as an adjective, perhaps we can go with that as opposed to a noun! WritersCramp (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "The paddlefish." I cannot find uses, but filtering out the other senses may be the only obstacle. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of mentions: it seems to be US dialect, and is usually given as "duckbill cat" or "duckbill catfish". Equinox 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I will add an attested entry at duckbill cat. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Has this ever been productive in English with the supposed definition "grain-like"? I can only find one word where it has anything to do with grain - mitochondrion - and that seems to be simply an invented Greek word ("thread granule") rather than an example of suffixing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


RFV of several senses which seem to have been copied or paraphrased from another dictionary, complete with that dictionary's "citations", which are just mentions in other dictionaries and wordlists and not, in most cases, actual uses.

  • (UK) The ruffe, a small Eurasian freshwater fish (Gymnocephalus cernua); others of its genus. (P)
  • (UK regional, obsolete) The grain weevil (Sitophilus granarius). (F)
  • (UK regional) The Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica).
  • (US regional) The painted bunting (Passerina ciris). (P)
  • (UK regional) The bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula). (F)
  • (UK regional, obsolete) The red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio). (F)

The English Dialect Dictionary, which sometimes has pointers to actual uses of words like this, specifies that the "weevil" sense was unknown to its correspondents, and although it has the "bullfinch", "shrike" and "puffin" senses, it offers no leads to actual uses. I tried various searches, like "catch popes" (compare "catch fish"), "red popes" ("red-back shrikes"), popes + weevils, popes + puffins, etc, and didn't see anything relevant. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit sceptical that the "Guy Fawkes day" sense is really, as currently labelled, US. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm RFVing a lot of things, but I've cited even more senses over the past few days than I've RFVed. (Vide gam, gom, gaum/gorm/goam/gawm, gaumy/gormy, gauming/gorming/gawming, gaumless/gormless/gawmless, gaumlessness/gormlessness, etc. and undermeal, flockmeal and mommick.) - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Right! Let's see what we can do.
1792, William Augustus Osbaldiston, The British Sportsman, Or, Nobleman, Gentleman and Farmer's Dictionary of Recreation and Amusement, page 176:
Byfleet-river, wherein are very large pikes, jack, and tench ; perch, of eighteen inches long ; good carp, large flounders, bream, roach, dace, gudgeons, popes, large chub, and eels.
1862, Francis T. Buckland, Curiosities of Natural History, page 230:
It resembles the perch (unfortunately for itself) in having a very long and prickly fin on its back, advantage of which is taken by the boys about Windsor, who are very fond of 'plugging a pope.' This operation consists in fixing a bung in the sharp spines on the poor pope's back fin, and then throwing him into the water.
1865 January 14, Astley H. Baldwin, "Small Fry" in Once a Week, page 105:
Popes are caught whilst gudgeon-fishing with the red worm, but they are sometimes a great nuisance to the perch-fisher, as they take the minnow.
puffin (no direct citations, but three indirect ones - 1822 shows that it was a common enough word to be crystalized in a toponym, and a check of the OS map shows that the name "Pope's Hole" is official and still current, so it must have had some serious use):
1822, George Woodley, A view of the present state of the Scilly Islands, page 264-5:
"About a hundred yards further North" says Troutbeck, "is a 'subterraneous' cavern called the Pope's Hole, about fifty fathoms under the ground, into which the sea flows, so called from a sort of bird which roosts in it by night, about ninety feet high above the level of the water."!! [...] It derives its name from its being a place of shelter to some puffins, vulgo "popes".
1864, Charles Issac Elton, Norway: The Road and the Fell, page 94:
The Norsemen catch great numbers of these popes, parrots, or lunder, as they are variously named, and train dogs to go into the holes where the puffin has its nest, lying in it with feet in the air.
1874, J. Van Voorst, Zoologist: A Monthly Journal of Natural History, page 3904:
I was informed by a fisherman that there were now hundreds of gannets in the channel off Plymouth, and that he had also met with some puffins (which he called "popes") [Technically, a mention, but it's quoting speech]
Also lots of mentions such as this and this.
painted bunting (probably mistranslations of the French name, pape):
1771, M. Bossu, Travels Through that Part of North America Formerly Called Louisiana, Volume 1, page 371:
The Pope is of a bright blue round the head ; on the throat it is of a fine red, and on the back of a gold green colour, it sings very finely and is the size of a canary bird.
1806, Berquin-Duvallon, Travels in Louisiana and the Floridas, in the Year, 1802: Giving a Correct Picture of Those Countries, page 122:
The birds [of Louisiana] are the partridge, cardinal and pope, and a species of mocking bird, called the nightingale.
1821 Édouard de Montulé, A Voyage to North America, and the West Indies in 1817, page 54:
[...] some others, such as the crow, the heron, and the wild goose, which are found in Europe, I also observed ; but the most beautiful are the pope bird, whose head seems bound with the most bright azure blue, and the cardinal, being entirely of dazzling scarlet [...]
Dominican cardinal (aka crestless cardinal or red-cowled cardinal):
1864 August 6, The Journal of Horticulture, Cottage Gardener, and Country Gentleman, page 100:
From the sketch of the bird which you have sent us, there is no doubt about its being the Pope Grosbeak, which is a species of the Cardinal, but not the crested one.
1883, William Thomas Greene, The amateur's aviary of foreign birds: or, How to keep and breed foreign birds, page 96:
The Pope is a native of Brazil, and the female (it is altogether incongrouous to think of a lady pontiff) exactly resembles her mate
1895, A. A. Thom, "Dominican cardinals" in The Avicultural Magazine, page 128:
SIR,—I should be glad to learn how to treat Pope birds (Crestless Cardinals) when nesting.
1898, The Avicultural Magazine, Volume 4, page 87:
Besides the Bicheno's Finches in this Class, the judge disqualified, in other Classes, a pair of Magpie Mannikins and a pair of Popes. These entries were presumably all disqualified on the ground that they were not true pairs: they are all birds in which the outward differences between the sexes (if there be any outward difference at all) are of an extremely slight and uncertain nature
1956, Foreign birds for cage and aviary, Volume 4, page 20:
The wisest plan is always to keep the Pope Cardinal in an aviary, and to have only one pair to each aviary.
No luck yet on bullfinches, shrikes or weevils. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Citing obsolete dialect is rather hard, but one cite for bullfinch can be found in a Dorset parish church's records, which records:
payment of one shilling per dozen for "popes, pops, or poops' heads."
which as Notes & Queries writers point out was almost certainly referring to bullfinches. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The "ruffe" and "bunting" citations are great! The "puffin" citations are iffy. The "weevil" and "bullfinch" citations in the entry continue to be mentions, but your Dorset church record looks like a good citation of it — though it's amusing they bothered to write out all three spellings. Great job finding that "cardinal" sense! Ha, it's as if the bird got a promotion: it was a cardinal, now it's a pope. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Two more citations for pope as puffin, slightly better than the ones we have above. I personally think the sense is cited now (these two, plus the "Pope's Hole" quote and possibly the quote of fisherman show actual use).
1759, "Linnæus's Systema Naturæ", The Gentleman's Magazine, page 456:
Alca genus; 6 species, including the razorbill, the penguin, the pope, and others.
1773, John Hill, "Alca", A General Natural History, volume 3, page 442:
The Pope: This is a very singular bird; it is about the size of our widgeon, or somewhat larger, but is not quite so large as the duck: the head is large and rounded; the eyes are small, and stand forward on the head, and lower down than in the generality of birds [...]
No luck on the other senses - having checked the OED, they cite the same dictionaries we do. Incidentally, it looks like the "Pope's Day" sense is indeed American - the OED gives two citations, one from the diary of John Adams and one from the Boston Chronicle. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Weevil, bullfinch and shrike senses: RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Various dictionaries mention that the "puffin" sense was used in Cumberland, Cornwall, Devon, and Scotland / the Frith of Forth. One says "the name, which is still in use as pope or popey duck from St. Ives to Land's End (Glossary of Cornish Sea-Words), undoubtedly belonged to the Cornish language." - -sche (discuss) 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word for pearl. Tagged but never listed. Has some things which are claimed to be Turkish citations using this word in this sense, but in the past it's been noticed that (most but not all!) of the time, such citations are actually Azeri or Turkmen. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


RFV of adjective sense 3. (Other senses may be RFVed later.) As far as I can tell, it would be a departure from previous practice to have sense-lines (especially ones consisting of more than {{only in}}) for parts of the proper names of works, even if we weren't talking about transliterations. For example, we don't and shouldn't have an English entry for Mein (or mein), or Soyuz or soyuz, based on instances of people mentioning Mein Kampf and Soyuz nerushimy in English; we don't even have an English (or German/Russian) entry for either full title. Hence, the one citation currently under the RFVed sense, if it is using any English term at all, seems to be using Mahā Bhārata, not mahā. But it is italicized as if it were not English at all, but only a transliteration of the Sanskrit title — compare google books:Zhonghua renmin gongheguo xianfa — so seems useful it see if it can be cited in English at all before beginning an RFD. (Otherwise, someone at RFD would say "shouldn't this be at RFV first to see if it's attested?") - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Our current entry for Mahā Bhārata defines the term as "Alternative spelling of Mahabharata", and our entry for Mahabharata defines the term as "A Sanskrit epic concerning some text of Bhagavad Gita plus elaborations on theology and morality". None of that provides the reader with any guidance when they come across "mahā" and decide to look it up here. bd2412 T 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • [52] - There are 3 cites for the specified definition, take it to RFD if you dispute inclusion in the first place. It's pointless to discuss the far-fetched and disanalogous parallels with mein and soyuz here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    On the contrary, Soyuz in particularly is directly analogous. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    soyuz is a standalone word so it can't be analogous. soyuz also doesn't appear in hundreds of compounds (or phrases), and it's not a result of people mistakenly spelling it on its own just because it's phonetically a single word, as is the case with maha. Fundamentally there is no difference between it and ordinary English affixes, and the opposition seems to stem from the fact that the former only admits Sanskrit basewords. Since we have entries on English affixes with as little as 2-3 derivations, with maha having hundreds it surely deserves its entry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ivan, the two citations you recently added were both illustrations of the term [[maha]], not [[mahā]], and I have therefore removed them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Ivan, I see that you've just reverted my removal. Rather than edit warring, I rebut below:
  1. I understand that [[maha]] and [[mahā]] are related. However, citations showing use of [[maha]] do not suffice as evidence for [[mahā]] as an English term.
  2. Both of your added citations also don't show use of [[mahā]] as an individual term, but only as part of larger compounds. We already have an entry for maharaja, and I would argue that maha raja (regardless of capitalization) is an alternate form of maharaja and not an example of [[mahā]] as an independent English term.
  3. Your usage note still makes no real sense, and is incorrect in characterizing Sanskrit [[mahā]] as having no independent meaning.
Please remove the incorrect citations and incorrect usage note. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. It's an alternative form, and citations are valid for the normalized spelling as well. It's the same word.
  2. It's an independent term by the virtue of being demarcated with whitespace. It how the notion of "word" is defined.
  3. mahā is not a lexical word in Sanskrit and has no meaning. The usage note is correct, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it makes no sense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On the first point, I was under the impression that separate spellings are treated here on the EN WT as separate entries. As such, [[maha]] and [[mahā]] are separate. Could any third party chime in with clarification?
  • On the second point, I'm not arguing that [[maha]] is not a word. I'm arguing that [[maha]] as illustrated by the compound term [[maha raja]], as an alternate form of [[maharaja]], is not an independent usage of [[maha]] as an English word.
  • Per your last point, care to explain the महा (mahā) entry, then? inter- is not a lexical word in English either, but it definitely has a meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
A 1779 citation for maha encompasses both modern maha and mahā, since at that time there was no way to make a typographic distinction between the the two. Today when you write mahā it's a choice. So a 1779 citation for maha is a proper citation for mahā as well.
What is an "independent word" ? The definition line for the third sense states that it carries no inherent meaning. It can't be classified as an affix either, so it's best left as an adjective.
I suggest that you read the entry on महा (mahā). It says that it doesn't mean anything. That word never occurs in that form on its own so that entry can be safely deleted. Sanskrit has formalized rules of compounding so any word can have a bunch of such "combining forms". inter- doesn't have a meaning either. It modified the meaning of the baseword, but it has no meaning of its own. That's why all of the affixes have non-gloss definitions. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If महा (mahā) doesn't mean anything, then perhaps mahā as used in at least some English texts appears to have been given a meaning by those writers beyond its Sanskrit origins. bd2412 T 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As it is explained in the usage notes, it's usage as a separate word in English in the third sense is due to the fact that it's phonetically a separate word. In Sanskrit compounds as a rule have a single accent. Modern usage dictates a single-word spelling for all Sanskrit compounds. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I already read the महा (mahā) entry. The महा (mahā) entry does not say that it has no meaning. The lack of a gloss on the definition line is not a positive statement that the term has no definition. Clicking through to महत् (mahat) further explains that महा (mahā) is the combining form of महत् (mahat), i.e. it has the same definition(s) as महत् (mahat), albeit a different lexical role.
If inter- has no meaning, why does it have a definition line?
Ivan, I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me, or if you're bending the logic of your argument, or if you and I just have profoundly different understandings of Wiktionary. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
... or perhaps I'm just really not understanding you? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The entry says that it's a combining form of another word, it doesn't provide any definition. On Wiktionary only words without meanings lack definitions, excepting alt-form redirects and non-lemma entries. महा never occurs on its own (in terms of "separated with whitespace in writing", or "pronounced separately when speaking") in that form. It's not a word in Sanskrit. Sanskrit compounding forms are not like inter- and other affixes in English and other languages - basically every single word can have a bunch of these forms depending on word sandhi.
The definition line of inter- is now encapsulated with {{n-g}}. Even in this form it's deficient because inter- does not mean among, between, amid, during, since these all are not lexical words either. It should be something along "Prefix used to form nouns and adjectives indicating this-and-that type of relationship, corresponding to the usage of prepositions among, between, amid etc.".
Now suppose that all of those derivations with inter- where overwhelmingly written separately, as inter governmental or inter state, until relatively recently (C20), and admitted only stems of Latin origin. Would it be justifiable to have a separate entry on inter? This is such a case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Eirikr, you are correct that different spellings are treated as different entries, and citations of maha do not verify mahā. Iff they are not invalidated by other factors such as italics, or being mentions rather than uses, etc, citations of maha verify maha. Macrons have been in use for hundreds of years, so Ivan, your assertion that there was historically no way to make a typographic distinction between maha and mahā is simply mistaken. I agree with Eirikr's comments of 00:51, 7 February 2015, including that maha raja is an alternative form of maharaja, not a use of *maha#English + *raja#English. (Does anyone other than Ivan feel otherwise?) - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
A reader coming across the phrase maha raja is likely to see these as two separate words, and will (correctly) conclude that "maha" and "raja" each contribute some different meaning to the whole phrase. This is particularly so if the same reader also sees phrases like maha bharata or maha yogi. Of course, the same applies for examples of each of these phrases using mahā. bd2412 T 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, a reader will likely conclude that each discrete space-delimited string of characters conveys some discrete unit of meaning. However, does the maha in [[maha raja]] parse as English? Would the reader infer that they can then refer to a maha deal, a maha examination, a maha big mess, and expect other English readers to understand? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    How is maha in maha raja any less English than inter in international ? Answer: none of these are English. But it's a separate word, spelled separately for a reason that it is pronounced separately, reflecting what is now an obsolete orthographical practice. People will look up raja, see that it means something, and they will look up maha, and won't find anything (relevant). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It is my position that a citation of "maha" does not attest "mahā"; the two are different spellings, to be attested separately. In this I support -sche and Eirikr. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A third quote for the mahā spelling has been added. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither of the additional citations adequately show use of [[mahā]] as English. One of the additions is [[mahā]] not as a term, but as part of a title: Mahā Purusha is apparently the title of a 1985 film. The other addition is as part of the compound term mahā mudrā, which is apparently a yoga position. These do not illustrate use of [[mahā]] as an independent English term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    Maha Purusha is not the name of a movie in that particular citation (note the date), but an anglicized spelling for the Sanskrit term mahā-puruṣa. mahā is a word by the virtue of being separated with whitespace. I'm still waiting for your definition of independent term. It's not a lexical word, but the definition line for mahā doesn't even claim that it is. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You have not demonstrated that [[mahā]] ever appears in an English text in a way that is 1) not an untranslated term used as code-switching in a text targeted at readers likely familiar with Sanskrit, Pali, etc.; 2) not part of a compound term that has been used as an integral whole in a way where [[mahā]] has no clearly independent meaning in English; 3) actually used as English, such as with English modifiers like more or less, and where [[mahā]] is used to modify a common English term. None of your examples serve as adequate evidence that [[mahā]] is being used as English.
I am perfectly happy for EN WT to have an entry at [[mahā]]. Given the evidence to date, I am strongly opposed to any [[mahā]] entry that lists [[mahā]] as an English term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not supposed to demonstrate anything of that because the definition line for the third meaning doesn't require it. Whether it should be kept or not is a different matter (for RFD). Note also that there are sufficiently large number of attestations for English of both X and maha X forms (e.g. maha raja and maha purusha mentioned in this very discussion), which is arguably in favor of the claim that maha is in fact a native English adjective used within these constructs meaning "great", but that is already covered by the preceding definitions, and precluded by our knowledge of the origin of such constructs (direct borrowings from sa). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Limiting discussion just to the third sense (which I admit I was not doing -- I was still writing in reference to the entire English entry for [[mahā]]), there are currently five citations listed. These five are, in order:
  1. Invalid: wrong spelling ([[maha]]).
  2. Invalid: part of the untranslated title of a literary work (the w:Mahabharata).
  3. Invalid: apparently part of a proper noun (Mahā Purusha), and also clearly delineated in a way to indicate use of an untranslated non-English term (italicized). This is also the only appearance of this term in the entire cited book.
  4. Invalid: code switching in a text targeted at an audience already familiar with various Sanskrit and/or Pali terminology, and also clearly delineated in a way to indicate use of an untranslated non-English term (underlined). If Google Books is to be believed, the word [[mahā]] appears six times in this book, and only as part of the compound term mahā mudrā.
  5. Invalid: wrong spelling ([[maha]]).
Analysis indicates that none of the provided citations are valid or sufficient to illustrate use of this term, with this particular sense, as English. Delete.
Once we are done beating this dead horse, I would like to nominate the entire English entry for RFV / RFD. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
mahā and maha are the same words in English. The difference is in a macron which is not a part of the English alphabet.
Sanskrit words used in English are not "untranslated" Sanskrit words. They are English words.
The frequency by which a term appears in a work is irrelevant for the purposes of a single attestation. Yes it's a part of the noun (there is no concept of a proper noun in Sanskrit) - but it's spelled and pronounced as a separate word in English, which is not the case in the Sanskrit original. That is both explained in the definition line and the usage note. I'm glad that you've reached that conclusion on your own.
This is not code switching. These are not snippets of Sanskrit used in English. Those are ordinary English words fitting into English syntactical structure. They are used as objects, qualified with articles, pluralized and so on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Could anyone else chime in? I feel like Ivan and I are going in circles. More discussion also at [[Talk:mahā]].

Specific issues that I'm hoping others can help address:

  • Can examples of Spelling A be used as attestations of Spelling B? In this case, are quotes containing maha sufficient to attest the term mahā?
From my reading of past discussions about citations, I arrived at the understanding that citations must demonstrate use of the relevant word with exactly the same spelling. As such, attestations of ate cannot be used to verify the existence of et. Users -sche and Dan Polansky seem to agree with my position, that any citations used to verify the existence of mahā must use the same spelling, diacritics and all.
  • Are terms that are clearly set off in a text (using italics, reverse italics, bold, quotes, etc.) sufficient to demonstrate the non-foreign-ness of that term?
Other discussions suggest that italics and the like are used by authors to indicate the non-nativeness of a term. Ivan above clearly disagrees.
  • Are uses in transliterated titles and names sufficient for attestation?
Two of the citations at [[mahā]] appear to be titles, one the title of a literary work, the other a personal epithet.

There are other issues at hand as well, but for starters, I would appreciate input on the above two points.

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The form mahā now has has three attestations on its own.
"foreign-ness" and "non-nativeness" (whatever that means) is not a criteria to exclude words. The criteria is usage in English. The problem is that you don't define usage on semantic grounds (i.e. words being used in their meaning alongside other English words to contruct a complete English sentence), but on how they are formatted and where do they originate form. All of these are irrelevant points. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: There is no entry at maha reflecting the senses reported at mahā. It is quite likely that citations supporting additions of those senses to maha could be found, given the usage of the less convenient diacritic form. bd2412 T 04:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The spelling with the diacritic is the more proper one, and that's where the senses and citations should be located. The only exceptions should be relatively common terms (e.g. Shiva not Śiva). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As for transliterated titles (of literary works and such), my position is that "... are the two great epics, the "Rāmāyana" and the Mahā Bhārata" is not an attestation of "mahā" as an English word conveying meaning, and should be removed from mahā page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    But it's not even defined as a lexical word with a meaning. It's definition is surrounded with the {{n-g}} template. Having a meaning is not a criteria for inclusion, otherwise we wouldn't have entries on affixes, prepositions and so on. Furthermore, it's a part of the title only in that specific citation by sheer coincidence - in others it is not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    It's not void of linguistic effect, though. A sentence with "mahā" at a certain place means something different than a sentence with nothing (or four letters of random gibberish) at the same place. bd2412 T 21:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    Consider the following Czech sentence: Přiletěla do New Yorku se zpožděním. Does it attest "New York" as a Czech term? I'd say yes. Does it attest "New" as a Czech term? I'd say no. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have opened WT:RFD#mahā to help resolve this issue. If anyone feels comfortable closing this RFV in any manner, they can still do so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

hammer fist[edit]

SOP? If not, the def needs reworking and the entry could use with some usexes and citations. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


The definition seems wrong. The word gets exactly three English-language hits in BGC, but to me they seem to mean "bilingual speaker of English and French". Even that usage is questionable as the word is either followed by a question mark or is between brackets or quotation marks. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to find three uses of any single English sense. If any French-speaking editors have the inclination, though, I think there are enough Google Books, Google Groups, and Google Scholar hits to support at least one French sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No defenders in two months - delete? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


I just changed this to alternative form of 襤褸, but the only dictionary that lists this 藍褸 form is JMdict, and other Japanese dictionaries only give 襤褸 (which is the standard form used in Japanese). (additional note: the same thing happened with JMdict on the entry for 鼾睡, which was previously 鼾酔, a form again only listed in JMdict, until Eirikr moved it to the correct form) Nibiko (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I've noticed in the past that JMdict and KANJIDIC (possibly the same datasets?) have occasionally included mistakes, so I always take their information with a grain of salt. When a purported kanji spelling and the meaning diverge substantially, as was the case with 鼾酔, my eyebrows rise. (FWIW, the JA term kansui spelled with the first character as (kan, snoring) is listed as meaning "to sleep while snoring". The spelling 鼾睡 expresses that meaning. The JMdict spelling 鼾酔, meanwhile, is listed as meaning just "snoring", but the meaning inherent in the spelling is more like "drunken snorning; to be drunk while snoring".)
The Kokugo Dai Jiten (KDJ) from Shogakukan is pretty good about listing even rare and obsolete terms and alternative spellings, so if a spelling is missing from the KDJ, I become suspicious. When a given spelling doesn't even appear in use in a Google search (zero hits for "鼾酔は", which seems highly suspect; moreover, all given hits for just "鼾酔" seem to be JMdict echoes), I start to think that JMdict made another mistake.
Looking at 藍褸, this appears to be yet another JMdict mistake. This compound's spelling inherently means "indigo + tattered". Japanese ぼろ (boro) means "rag; ragged, threadbare, raggedy", so the (indigo) spelling seems very odd. The normal kanji spelling for boro is 襤褸, and this spelling is literally "threadbare + tattered", which makes much more sense for the meaning of the term boro.
A quick Google search for google:"藍褸"+"は" seems to find 4110 hits, collapsing to just 132 if you try to page through, and all of these appear to be JMdict echoes. Searching for google books:"藍褸"+"は" seems to generate 117 hits, collapsing to 47, but all of the hits I've looked at are presented at best in "Snippet View" based on OCR. I strongly suspect that these are scannos, especially given the jumbled nature of many of the excerpts shown by Google.
@Tsukuyone, TAKASUGI Shinji, Whym, エリック・キィ you're all listed as native JA speakers, and I think you're all active. Can any of you confirm the status of the 藍褸 spelling? Is this an alternative form for 襤褸? Is it a common misspelling for 襤褸? Or, is it a mistake? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
藍褸 seems a rare alternate spelling of 襤褸, though I have never seen it: [53], [54]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I too have never seen this. The links you include, however, also suggest the possibility of simple scannos -- where OCR has misinterpreted the text and used the wrong character.
Can anyone confirm whether this spelling actually happens in the real world? Or is this purely an artifact of inadequate technology? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is an alternative spelling mostly for Chinese. “漢字典”(Kanjiten, 2002, Akira Owada [et al.], Tōkyō: Ōbunsha. ISBN 4-01-072118-9), a paper dictionary dedicated to reading Old Chinese, contains this entry as a synonym of 襤褸 although their are all represented in on'yomi, ランル. It has even another alternative spelling, 藍蔞. Judging from the element, I personally hesitate to put 藍褸 as Japanese lemma. Furthermore, I usually write this word mostly in hiragana (ぼろ) or katakana (ボロ). --エリック・キィ (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest to include it as an obsolete alternative spelling in Japanese, perhaps adding that it was primarily used in the context of sinology. Daijiten (1934-1936) and Jigen (1923) list it explicitly as an alternate spelling. Jigen further explains in the entry for 藍 that "襤は古、藍に通ず" ("襤 traditionally leads to 藍"). It should be noted that in this context Jigen probably means ancient Chinese by "traditionally", though. There is what looks like a non-scanno use in Japanese in 狩野直喜『支那學文藪』(1927), p.295 (at the fifth line from the right): "一方より見れば彼が斯學に於ける篳路藍褸の功はその人格によってこれを沒することは出來ぬ。" The work itself seems to be about sinology, in line with エリック・キィ's comment above. Another is in 青柳綱太郎『鮮人の記せる豊太閤征韓戦記』(1912) (...): "藍褸の狀は、反つて平凉子を戴くが如くならず". That said, I'm with others about the (lack of) current usage. I had never seen the spelling before and for me 襤 and 藍 are totally different except for the shared on'yomi pronunciation (ran). By the way, we should probably remove boro and add ranru as for the pronunciation of 藍褸 unless the former reading is attested. So far all we have found about the spelling is read ranru not boro, unlike 襤褸 which should have both. Whym (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the 縷説, everyone ;D I'll make the changes, Whym. Nibiko (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

St. Elmo's fires, Saint Elmo's fires[edit]

A mass noun, so are these two attestable? Donnanz (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added three quotations of each, and more are available on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
In any case, I will change the main entries to countable/uncountable, pending the outcome here. Donnanz (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-senses (3)

  1. (intransitive) To cut off, detach or separate something
  2. (intransitive) To think about multiple things individually
  3. (intransitive) To stop thinking about something

I have added two senses that I could understand that seem to fit both other dictionaries' definitions and the usage I found. But there is some, sparse usage that I can't make much sense of. Perhaps these senses fit that usage. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Supposed to explain constructions like beersicle and cumsicle, but in that case where does the s come from? Surely these are blends with popsicle, and this is not a true suffix. Equinox 00:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what comes of not discouraging ahistorical morphological pseudo-etymologies when there is a historical record.
The problem starts with the entry for popsicle. There was no pre-existing -icle suffix. The term was coined as a trademark, a development of the original "Epsicle" (a blend of inventor Epperson's last name and icicle [spelling following the sound, not the orthography]). w:Popsicle (brand) has the story, which looks reasonably well researched. Popsicle would seem to be a blend of (soda) pop and Epsicle.
I think the blend view for beersicle is good, but would-be contributors like to have entries like -icle to fit their concept of how terms develop. The situation is somewhat analogous to the persistent pressure to include collocations as if they were idioms, no matter how transparent. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
An arguably transparent collocation is much less damaging to the dictionary than an incorrect interpretation of a suffix. It is abundantly clear that "-sicle", not "-icle", is used to create words (in addition to the foregoing, dogsicle and dicksicle appear attestable). I have yet to find a word formed by adding just "-icle". Of course, not all suffixes are handed down from antiquity (see -zilla, -a-palooza, -punk). bd2412 T 04:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
And nonetheless, no one has acted to reverse the numerous erroneous "equivalent to" morphologies and hard-coded "suffixed by" categorizations. DCDuring TALK 06:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412 The word snoticle is clearly not from the popsicle root (see here if you don't know what it is) and must be formed from comparison with icicle. I'm pretty sure the word is current, I've heard it on at least two documentaries now, but off-hand couldn't find acceptable cites to create an entry. SpinningSpark 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
For all I know, "snoticle" may be formed from comparison with testicle. bd2412 T 20:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The first thing to do would be to create an entry for snoticle with attestation, especially early use. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course it isn't formed from testicle, that's obviously a load of balls. You criticise me for saying this is obvious, yet you are quite happy to say it is "abundandly clear" on the "-sicle" ending with equally little evidence. SpinningSpark 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
At some point it might be that there are a sufficient number of instances of productive use of -icle that cannot be readily explained by any of the -(i}culus ("diminutive"), the icicle, or the popsicle theories. IMO that would not require full attestation of each instance, rather three or more instance of such productive use, possibly each with a single citation (from a durably archived source. Maybe none of the theories advanced fit snoticle, ie, if it isn't sucked on, it isn't cold, and it isn't "small". DCDuring TALK 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear -- I was suggesting that -icle might ultimately derive from -(i)culus, not that it *is* -(i)culus.
On a separate note, this blog post does state that snoticle is from snot + icicle, suggesting that the spelunking term might be appropriation by analogy (i.e. the cave snoticles look like the frozen snot snoticles). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I was about to suggest that brinicle, rusticle, and snoticle together may provide evidence that should leads us to believe that -icle is becoming productive in a community of natural scientists. Brinicles are frozen, but the others are not. DCDuring TALK 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There's also something similar referred to as w:snottites Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A couple of other examples of the rusticle-type sense (neither sufficiently attested for a full entry): There seems to be rare use of "limicle" to mean a concretion of limestone (in other words, a stalactite), and Alan Turing coined (as a nonce word) "greasicle" for the wax that hangs from a candle. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether any of these derive from barnacle, merely by pronunciation. bd2412 T 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this shows sufficient evidence to demonstrate productivity as a distinct suffix. The attestable term rusticle and the other terms snoticle and limicle cannot be explained as blends of popsicle or icicle as they lack both the semantics and the phonetics. Greasicle is also likely due to the meaning though phonetics seem ambiguous. Brinicle is possible phonetically, but is at least ambiguous semantically. None of these can be plausibly explained semantically as derived from -culus as the semantics are wrong. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
To further demonstrate productivity one could add the numerous instances at Urban Dictionary of terms ending in -icle, most of which have lost the "s" sound and some of which are semantically remote from icicle and popsicle, though many are not. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the answer is that it started out as a blend, but was reanalyzed as stem + suffix when people started trying to coin similar words. It looks to me like most of the stem + suffix coinages used -sicle, but occasionally someone would reanalyze things again as stem + -icle. The reanalyses obliterate the true etymological origins of the class as a whole, but in my opinion they're valid for the new coinages. In the cases at hand, though, the stem + -icle ones are simply wrong- they don't account for the extra "s". I think what we need is the correct etymology at popsicle, as DC During laid it out for us, stem + -sicle for everything that has an "s" sound in the appropriate place, and stem + -icle for the one or two exceptions that don't have the "s" sound there and can't be explained as blends. That means we don't delete anything, but we redo most of the etymologies so that Category:English words suffixed with -icle loses most of its members to Category:English words suffixed with -sicle and Category:English blends (or maybe all, until someone verifies whatever rare exceptions there are out there). At any rate, this probably should have been at rfd or maybe rfc, since we all agree that the compounds exist, but most of us disagree with the way they're analyzed in the etymologies. After all, it's kind of hard to verify which suffix is used by looking at running English text. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that "popsicle" is "sodapop" + -sicle. I would reckon that it is unfortunately "lollipop" + -sicle. Tharthan (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly possible and might be the better choice. I read that the inventor came up with the idea from observing frozen soda pop with a stirrer or something left in the glass, but the role of the inventor's children leaves other possibilities. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In agreement that we're dealing with two separate suffixes with two separate (but connected) etymologies: -icle, from icicle, and -sicle, from Popsicle. The former seems to be used mainly to construct words for things which dangle like an icicle, the latter mainly to construct words for things which in some way resemble a popsicle, i.e. being frozen or lickable. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good. So "limicle" does exist? I'll have to mark that down in my list of native words and remember to use that instead of stalactite in the future. Thanks Smurrayinchester. Tharthan (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudcuckoolander: If a term ending in icle has no immediately preceding "s" sound, is not plausibly a diminutive semantically, and is neither frozen nor to be sucked, and doesn't hang straight down like an icicle, then the evidence says it may well be considered to terminate in a suffix -icle. If it retains the connections phonetically ("s") or semantically with either with icicle ("frozen") or popsicle ("to be sucked") then the arguments are not so strong. -icle seems to have an etymology that includes (perhaps "influenced by") -culus("diminutive").
It seems likely that -icle will come to seem like a true suffix rather than the result of a blend in more cases as popsicle diminishes in import for a larger share of English speakers (India ?), but I don't think it is there yet. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at the etymology for ickle, the source of the -icle in icicle, I'm amused to see that this derives “from Proto-Germanic *jikilaz, *jekulaz (piece of ice), diminutive of Proto-Germanic *jekô (lump of ice)” -- suggesting a clear parallel between Latin diminutive -(cu)lus and Proto-Germanic *-(ku|ki)laz. (I see that the Latin term has no etymology, so I've just added an RFE to the underlying Latin lemma at -lus.) Does anyone know if these are cognates from a common root, or was one borrowed from the other? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, here is a list of all English entries ending in -icle, excluding derived terms, e.g. "bioparticle" derived from "particle"; as that example indicates, some entries in the list are not relevant to the discussion at hand. - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
DCDuring the Proto-Germanic diminutive attached to icicle's etymon is not based upon or influenced by Latin's diminutive suffix, but is rather cognate to it. Not the same thing. Tharthan (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I was limiting myself to what I view as a possibly valid suffix used in the the very few terms ending in -icle that actually seem not to be derived by blending or from the Latin diminutive. That suffix, mostly used by natural scientists, might be influenced by the medical, scientific, and technical terms ending in -icle that are from Latin terms ending in -(c(u))lus. DCDuring TALK 03:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But who is to say that "-icle" hasn't been (in the minds of many) a hypothetical suffix meaning "(frozen) thing that hangs like an icicle", i.e. aforementioned limicle, rusticle, brinicle etc.? It may well be, yes. Tharthan (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A rusticle, limicle, or snoticle is not frozen. (A brinicle, OTOH, is.) I was looking for a subset of use that did not have the "s" sound and was somewhat remote semantically from icicle and popsicle. There are at least these three. Just about everything else is arguably still a blend of something with icicle, popsicle, or particle, if not a derivative of a Latin term ending is (c(u))lus. DCDuring TALK 04:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hence why I put frozen in rounded brackets. It seems much more likely that limicle is a blend of lime(stone) and icicle. Same for brinicle and rusticle. Tharthan (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


I can't find any citations of the verb, and the only hits I can find of the noun are of a medicine (apparently unrelated to the entry we have). - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I found this: http://www.slideshare.net/accipio/william-langlandsvisionofpiersplowmaneditedbybenbyramwigfield

Search for the word on the page. Tharthan (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


This text has it in reference to an Old English quote, but the Old English quote in question uses "forbisne". It is possible that the author of the text was taking a jab at the Modern English term, which had become quite dated (or perhaps already archaic by this time). Tharthan (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Found it in this text which details dialectal English vocabulary. Tharthan (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As best I can tell, your first link is a 1906 updated addition (=translation into modern English) of William Langland's Piers Plowman; it attests the spellings "forbisne" and "forbisen":
  • "How seven sithes the sad man sinneth on the day. times By a forbisne," quoth the friar, "I shall thee fair shew."
    [The] Holy Church is honoured highly through his dying; He is a forbisen to all bishops and a bright mirror []
The second link only contains Old English uses and mentions in my opinion, but perhaps someone else interprets it differently.
The third link only mentions but does not use the word.
- -sche (discuss) 22:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


google books:"a bytale" turns up nothing, and bare "bytale" turns up nothing obvious, although there were so many scannos of "by tale" that I may have missed something. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those "scanned from image to text" texts, but this contains a possible instance of the term: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AJF7956.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

(NOTE: This takes umpteen years to load on my computer, but it does eventually load.) Tharthan (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


I can't find modern English uses to support any of the senses; only mentions in other dictionaries and wordlists of the phrase "a shame and a bysen", which could potentially support one sense. I have not yet checked any of the many alt spellings we and other dictionaries list (bizon, bisen, byzen, byson, bysson, barzon, bazon, bizzen).
Some hits are scannos of "by sense" and eye dialect of "business", others are mentions of Old English words.
- -sche (discuss) 23:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The English Dialect Dictionary has (pointers to) citations of
  1. bizon (Midford's Sngs., 1818)
  2. bison (Robson's Bards of Tyne, 1895)
  3. byzin (Keelmin's Ann., 1869)
  4. byzen (Anderson's Ballads, 1808)
  5. bizen (Stuart's Joco-Ser. Disc., 1686; Linton's Lizzie Lorton, 1867; Waugh's Jannock, 1872)
Some of these may be Scots. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This word most certainly still exists. It is, however, quite rare. Finding attestations to it is even harder, as the Web is cluttered with unrelated material that has to be bumped into before one can find the attestations. Tharthan (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, Eliza Lynn Linton's Lizzie Lorton of Greyrigg (1866)[55] is English and on page 97 does use the word: " [] and a bizen like this." That's one English citation of that spelling. - -sche (discuss) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The OED gives some modern attestations for noun sense 2 and the adjective sense, mostly matching the English Dialect Dictionary citations above but also providing page numbers (could we track those down and verify?):
  • a1600. A. Montgomerie Sonnets xxxiv, Fy, lothsome lyfe! Fy, death, that dou not [serve me] Bot quik and dedd a bysin thow must [preserve me].
  • 1803. R. Anderson et al. Ballads in Cumberland Dial. 63 She's a shem and a byzen to aw the heale town.
  • 1874. E. Waugh Jannock ii. 13 in J. H. Nodal & G. Milnar Gloss. Lancashire Dial. (1875) It'll be a sham an' a bizen, if we cannot find him a menseful of a dinner.
  • 1863. J. P. Robson Songs Bards of Tyne 504 A bison sight.. The warst that e'er you saw.
Vorziblix (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

amercement royal[edit]

Any non-mentions out there? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


A dictionary-only word. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

mooch ass grassy ass[edit]

Citations, pour fab or? Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's one for "Mooch-ass grassy-ass" on grassy ass. Siuenti (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's the same one we currently have at mooch ass grassy ass, and I'd argue that it's not a valid citation for either. It's not being used for its meaning, but solely as the punchline to a knock-knock joke:
"Knock knock!" Eh? Who dere? "Grassy!" Grassy? Grassy quién? "Grassy-ass, amigo! Mooch-ass grassy-ass!" Ha ha, de nada, jefe!
The citation that Mr. Granger added seems valid though (even though it occurs in the context of another phonetic spelling). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


-- Liliana 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A very weird one. Certainly widely used on Usenet (more in Danish/Norwegian than English though), although it looks like it simply means "Æ, Ø, and Å" (rather than meaning "special characters" more generally). The hashtag thing also seems to be accurate (these are the tweets tagged #ÆØÅ), but a) I don't know how we could cite that, and b) a hashtag isn't really dictionary material and I can't find any evidence of it being used as an adjective outside tags. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If you search on the letters in other orders, you get the same kinds of hits on Usenet (though far fewer- maybe it's the standard order). It doesn't look like what's defined. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The last three letters in both Danish and Norwegian (that is the correct order), and they all come after Z. I don't know whether this entry is useful or not though. Donnanz (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
None of the usexes suggest that this has any idiomatic meaning. - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There are some plural forms.
  • You need a Danish keyboard for those ÆØÅs! [56]
  • I've tryed different encodings in the XML file, but none is accepted, but still the æøås are shown as ?. [57]
TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


As a Libertarian (registered in the US political party), I've never seen this form of the acronym before. I've only seen it without the periods. We don't have G.O.P. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an acronym, since I doubt anyone would pronounce it as a word rather than as the names of the letters. The person who created the entry lives in England and is notorious for creating entries without any evidence that the terms actually exist, so you're probably right to question it- but searching for the combination of two common individual letters is going to be a nightmare. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz So where do we go from here? --WikiWinters (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Normal procedure: no quotes, no defenders, dubious origin, two months gone since nomination > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


"An androsexual male or SGA male." Really? I've only seen this as recent Internet slang for aromantic, which means something rather different. Equinox 21:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


I searched for this plus army in Google Books and found only one relevant result: Embedded: A Marine Corps Adviser Inside the Iraqi Army by Wesley Gray, which has more of a mention than a use. Equinox 00:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • A few cites (hyphen use is inconsistent):
  • 1996, Chris E. Stout, The Integration of Psychological Principles in Policy Development, Greenwood Publishing Group (ISBN 9780275950118), page 191
    Compassion, self-esteem (based on achievement rather than mere repetition of Barney-style mantras), self-discipline, work ethic, and patience are among the other values taught in this program.
  • 2001 June 7, Ryan, “IIS 4 SMTP Relay and OWA on DMZ connecting to Ex 5.5”, microsoft.public.exchange.admin, Usenet:
    Could someone please break it down Barney style for me on what needs to go in what fields for both IIS and Ex.
  • 2010, Paul J. Roarke, Corps Strength: A Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant's Program for Elite Fitness, Ulysses Press (ISBN 9781569757741), page 16
    I'll break it down for you, as we say in the Marines, “Barney style.” The foundation for health and fitness can only be built on three solid blocks: Half a brain, The RIGHT exercise, and good food.
  • 2010 March 7, Baron, “Can not save or save as in word 2007 HELP!”, microsoft.public.word.docmanagement, Usenet:
    Can someone help me and break it down Barney style....
  • 2011, Daniel Powers, The Perfect Devotional for People Who Aren't, Xlibris Corporation (ISBN 9781456890926), page 653
    I will break it down Barney style for you real quick. Say you have a child, and that child is reaching into the cookie jar.
  • 2013, Jess Bravin, The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay, Yale University Press (ISBN 9780300189209), page 146
    “He can really take a complex, complicated subject and break it down, Barney-style,” Couch said, like the purple dinosaur popular with preschoolers.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realise it was named after the children's educational dinosaur character. (Ety now added.) If he is used in other phrases ("tell it to me like Barney would"?) then perhaps the entry should be Barney, making this SoP; though this is just an observation. Equinox 16:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)



Equinox 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't really cite demiromantic to my satisfaction either. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk)



Equinox 16:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Same goes for sapioromantic. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added it to the RFV. - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Both RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)



The single Google Books match is an obvious nonce (in quotation marks) and is not even the given sense! Equinox 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, User:kc_kennylau has been re-adding rubbish like "heteroromanticness" and "sapioromanticness" in blatant contradiction of WT:CFI. I blocked him for a day so he can actually read the rules. Equinox 02:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't cite. Also couldn't cite polyromantic. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


French - Supposed to be the plural of 5à7. Searching for this term is inherently difficult, due to the punctuation marks. Also 5-à-7s, 5@7s, 5 à 7s. Also, I'd guess that 5 à 7 are invariable nouns in French, but I never learned the plural spelling rules for entries composed mostly of numbers and punctuation. I was a letters man myself... --Type56op9 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Plural same as singular: Les entrées se feront le parfait compagnon de vos 5 à 7. —Stephen (Talk) 10:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep delete per SGB. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Saran Wrap[edit]

Is this a trademark? If so, can the entry be marked suitably? Donnanz (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's in the category of stuff like Kleenex and Jell-O that start out as brand names but are now used generically. Also, it's a verb too, the most verifiable form of which is saran-wrap. Purplebackpack89 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that could be determined by rfv is whether it meets WT:BRAND. If it does, then the matter of whether it is/was a trademark should go in the etymology section (etymonline has an entry for Saran, which it says is trademarked). As PBP says, this is probably a w:Generic trademark, which means it's valid dictionary material for us and an unending source of annoyance for Dow Chemical Co.'s intellectual-property people ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is tangential, but I suspect that either Saran wrap or saran wrap is the more common capitalization. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
...although ngrams suggest otherwise. Huh. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So it's possibly 50% trademark? I haven't got a clue, I don't think it's sold here, and I think it's what we call "cling film". Donnanz (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's listed in the Oxford Dictionary of English (both hard copy and online) as a trademark. Origin: 1940s, of unknown origin. Donnanz (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that ngrams might merely reflect the fact that this product is commonly referred to as a specific trademark, and not in the generic sense required by WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As Chuck Entz says, it's valid dictionary material; if Oxford can list it without any repercussions, so can Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is ample evidence that it has been genericized, such as saranwrap, use of verbal inflected forms of variant spellings, and attributive use, but not all of the evidence is of the form being RfVed. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest making Saran wrap the lemma, with a redirect from saran wrap (and also Saran Wrap if that form meets BRAND). Put a note in the etymology section that it originated as a brand name, if this is the case. (Avoid any other indication of trademark status, since it opens up a can of legal worms; see WT:TRADEMARK.) - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oxford uses the same format (Saran Wrap) so it must be widespread. I think this entry should keep the format it has at present. Donnanz (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The trademark can be mentioned in the etymology. Not mentioning it at all is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A few forms are in use, Saran wrap and saranwrap not being common. Saran Wrap, the trademarked product, was formerly, but is no longer made from PVDC. Saran is apparently still a trade name for PVDC. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My position is that Saran Wrap should be the lemma, and that there is no genuine doubt about this being attested per WT:ATTEST. See also Saran Wrap at OneLook Dictionary Search, which finds "Saran Wrap" and "Saran wrap" in oxforddictionaries.com[58] ("Saran Wrap", not OED), Collins[59] ("Saran wrap"), and Macmillan[60] ("Saran Wrap"). Ngram for "Saran wrap", case-insensitive does not provided any conclusive evidence that the occurrences of "Saran Wrap" are not in the genericized use. Looking for attesting quotations supporting WT:BRAND specifically (a policy that I never supported, and for which a rationale has never been presented) is something I feel disinclined to do right now. Also for comparison: (saranwrap*50),Saran Wrap,saran wrap at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)



Does anyone really refer to the Kangxi Dictionary as "Kangxi", or 釒 as a "Kangxi"?

It is common to refer to radicals in the Kangxi Dictionary by “Kangxi radicals”. The noun sense should be deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books or Google Groups. Hundreds of instances of "eye. Feel", and also lots of "how does your eye feel?" and "make your eye feel". A handful of eye-dialect/sillyness cases along the lines of "eye feel reel-E bad". Two or three uses referring to feeling in the eye itself. Absolutely nothing that matches the definitions given. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Really. DanKanes (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC) This is a term that was coined to help people rate their experience with new Near-Eye Display Technologies (ex. Oculus and other VR Head sets, Virtual Retinal Displays like Avegant Glyph, Microsoft Hololens, MagicLeap)

Used in a sentence:

"While the Oculus Rift DK2 headset is capable of providing a somewhat immersive experience, the eye-feel is just not compelling."

in another sentence

"The eye-feel of the Avegant "Jellyfish" prototype I tested in the lab the other day was OFF THE SCALE."

Coined by whom? We're a descriptive dictionary, so we only include terms that are already in use- and not just by the people who thought them up. Unless someone comes up with at least three independent examples of use in durably-archived sources, the entry will be deleted. I just tried the two most obvious ways to find such examples, and found nothing. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]


rfv-sense: One who is killed or suffers greatly because of an identity or position, e.g., a young prince killed when his father, the king, is deposed for the purpose of preventing the restoration of the monarchy later. We already seem to include this sense at sense #2: One who sacrifices his or her life, station, or something of great personal value, for the sake of principle or to sustain a cause. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You sure you want to RfV this? Not RfD it? Purplebackpack89 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I interpret "sacrifice" in sense 2 as conveying that the martyr had some degree of control over what happened to them, e.g. they refused to renounce their views on some matter even though they knew it meant they would be killed. Sense 4 then seems to be distinct (since the son has no control over who his father is). The questions are then (a) is sense 4 attested?, and (b) is it better to have separate senses 2 (and 3) and 4, or to combine some of them? - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Attested per WT:ATTEST? google books:"racefellow", google groups:"racefellow", racefellow at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

google books:"racefellows" actually finds what would be race-fellows, it seems; race-fellows seems attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


The given citation is the only Google Books result for "to foresave". Equinox 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

cited and labelled rare, as it is extremely rare yet exists Leasnam (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It still seems that some forms (foresaving) are not attestable: is this a rare error by e.g. learners? Equinox 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


As-yet-impossible-to-attest Tumblrism. Bringing it here for the benefit of the doubt. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks like tosh. Also, adjective sense is defined as if it were a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Please speedily delete. We are ultimately harming kids by supporting this Tumblr rubbish. Equinox 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any harm to including Tumblr neologisms. So long as they're attestable, of course. In fact I think we ought to make more of an effort to include emerging slang and neologisms. Keeping up with linguistic developments increases the utility of the wiki. That said, this doesn't seem citable, and likely never will be. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. To an extent I agree, and I don't want to sound as though I'm saying "exclude it because it's new": I add plenty of "new" words. However, there is some kind of fad epidemic on Tumblr of creating "-romantic" and "-sexual" orientations that have little meaning and zero usage, and I think we need to take care to distinguish such things from legitimate neologisms that people are using in real life (like "selfie" and "tweetstorm"). Equinox 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


See above. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(pejorative) Discrimination against evaluative diversity through segregation, prejudice, or disregard of people with differing values. "

Both of the citations verify sense 2 (the philosophical position that the difference between worldviews is too fundamental to be resolved by rational argument). This sense suggests some sort of hypernym of sexism, racism etc, which I can't find any citations of. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your paraphrase of sense 2 is not specifically epistemic. Field clarifies that he uses the word with two senses here (you seem to be rolling them into one):
    • 2000, Hartry Field, “A Priority as an Evaluative Notion”, in Paul Boghossian and Christopher Peacocke editors, New essays on the a priori, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199241279, page 142:
      One way to press the complaint is to make an unfavourable contrast between evaluativism in epistemology and evaluativism in moral theory.

In the realm of epistemology, evaluativism merely amounts to skepticism of others' beliefs (which is no more harmful than general skepticism), but evaluativism about morals amounts to rejecting others as members of the community of moral agents (and that creates social conflict). To call someone an evaluativist about morals is pejorative, like calling someone sexist or racist; it comes off as an accusation aimed to diminish trust in the accused.

On page 143, Field refers to a certain treatment directed at all Moonies as evaluativist. That's more than just taking a philosophical position--here the epistemic position has bled into a social behavior like religionism. Silversalt (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That citation doesn't provide evidence for two meanings of evaluativism. The rest of the cite makes clear it's about the use of the same philosophical tools, but in different fields of philosophy. The full quote regarding Moonies is:
in dealing with a follower of the the Reverend Moon, we may find that too little is shared for a neutral evaluation of anything to be possible, and we may have no interest in the evaluations that the Moonie gives. The fact that he gives them then provides no impetus whatever to revise our own evaluations, so the sceptical argument has no force from an evaluativist perspective.
Nothing in there suggests that evaluativist means "Person who discriminates on the basis of worldviews". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it is strongly implied that Field does not have a particular Moonie in mind, but is referring to the (then) common practice of shunning all Moonies because of the Moonie worldview. Others might refer to that practice as religionism. Silversalt (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The other two citations that I thought intended to refer to evaluativism as a form of bigotry (specifically of bigotry against those who do not share our own values) were these:

    • 2007, Stathis Psillos, “Putting a Bridle on Irrationality: An Appraisal of van Fraassen's New Epistemology”, in Bradley Monton editor, Images of empiricism: essays on science and stances, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-921884-4, page 154:
      [E]valutivism makes plain that any attempt to justify a rule (ultimately by a rule-circular argument) will be an attempt for rules we value and will depend on rules we value (our basic inferential rules).
    • 2008, Carrie S Jenkins, Grounding Concepts: An Empirical Basis for Arithmetical Knowledge: An Empirical Basis for Arithmetical Knowledge, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-923157-7, page 68:
      There is prima facie something deeply unappealing about evaluativism: our intuitions rebel at the suggestion that reasonableness is 'not a factual property' and that '[i]n calling a rule reasonable we are evaluating it, and all that makes sense to ask about is what we value'.

This is a relatively new technical philosophical term with few examples. We can wait to see whether additional authors use the term to refer to a form of bigotry (it is possible that some other term will be invented and used in its place). However, omitting the second sense (as though all philosophers are using only one sense) may misrepresent the term. For his part, Field seems to refer both to an objective hypothesis about the nature of disagreement, and to a moral stance on how one ought to treat various groups of people (e.g., Moonies). It is logically possible to accept the epistemic hypothesis without endorsing the moral stance. Other authors elaborate on evaluativism less, so it isn't as easy to prove that they conflate the senses, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the citations on the citation page actually refer to evaluativism in both senses at once. Silversalt (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - father. Afrokaans Wiktionary and another online dictionary only have the "baby" sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What is Afrokaans? ;)

Is that what Afrikaans was called in the '70s? Tharthan (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


According to abax#Usage notes, “The plural form abaxes is currently unattested.”; if that is the case, shouldn't abaxes be deleted?
FWIW, etymology would suggest the plural forms abaces and, perhaps, abakes. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Looks like a dictionary-only word. DCDuring TALK 10:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I can find lots of mentions, but only one use. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Although I didn't find any more exuperables, I found enough inexuperables to start a page. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think many English dictionaries went to their Latin, French, or Italian dictionaries, found words that could plausibly be turned into English words, and dispensed with finding any actual usage. I'm doing the same thing with Latin words ending in "bilis", except I'm checking for actual usage, using {{trans-see}} to send would-be translators (and others) to less rare synonyms where they exist, and extirpating the word from any definitions in favor of any less rare synonym. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


RFV of etymology 2, the "aboma" (snake) sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Etymology 5 (which was Etymology 1 until recently!), which is supposedly modern English, only has two citations - one from 1240 and one from 1340. Did this word (an early form of steal/stealth) survive into modern English, or was it already dead by 1500? Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Attributive form? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Msh210 apparently created hundreds of these back in 2007 by more or less systematically hyphenating terms listed as noun phrases and re-entering them as adjectives. Should they be taken to RFV one-by-one? --Hekaheka (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If necessary. They're all nouns, in any case (that's the point of "attributive"!) and need to have their POS headers fixed. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
One of these was deleted, though it took two tries, and it was only because it was unattested: see Talk:alpine-chough Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they all need RFV but they all need fixing because they're nouns, as the definitions say. 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The hyphenated attributive form is an adjective, by my lights. But I do not know how to search for it to attest it: google books:"frictional-unemployment" returns occurrences with space instead of hyphen. Anyone has an idea of a search strategy for these hyphenated forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in BGC and the Google hits for search "frictional-unemployment" are chiefly for the unhyphenated form. Among 100 first hits there's only one hyphenated form and it is from a web dictionary which copies its content from Wiktionary. Why couldn't mass-created dubious forms be mass-deleted as easily and without consideration as they were born? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This one doesn't seem attested afaIct, and I apologize for creating these en masse without checking for cites first. They are of course plausible terms and I see no cause for deleting them en masse, but this one probably can be deleted. But maybe cites will turn up….​—msh210 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
How about making them hard redirects en masse? DCDuring TALK 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Or let the search engine do it. Equinox 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I would speedy delete all of these mass created hyphenated forms that have zero hits on Google Ngram Viewer (GNV), which is easy to decide. frictional-unemployment has zero hits there, just like grey-heron, green-woodpecker, tectonic-uplift, abominable-snowman, abundant-number, accident-blackspot; non-zero GNV hits are found for griffon-vulture, great-tit, sandhill-crane, trumpeter-swan. Thus, I would let non-zero GNV hitters go to normal RFV, and mass delete those that have zero GNV hits. The justification for this extra-RFV measure is that they were created en masse without checking for attestation in the first place (creation visible here), that the tool used for the first filtering is reasonably lenient, and that if we RFV them one at the time, that will be really onerous because of how many they are (see the link just provided). For the speedy deleted items, editors can still place putative attesting quotations into Citations namespace, and start restoring the attested ones, if any. Note that GNV does distinguish terms with hyphens vs. those with space, unlike Google web and Google books search. See frictional-unemployment, grey-heron, green-woodpecker, tectonic-uplift, abominable-snowman, abundant-number, accident-blackspot at Google Ngram Viewer, and griffon-vulture, great-tit, sandhill-crane, trumpeter-swan at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Donnanz (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Attributive form? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


All three English senses seem unlikely; Lojban borrowings are pretty rare, I should think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for us, Lojbaners are pretty much the only people still using usenet besides pirates:
I don't think we are in disagreement about anything important here, but there was no malglico involved or suggested.
Lojban is NOT encoded English, and if one gets lazy, one will not be understood (or will be intentionally misunderstood by some people who are literal-minded and don't like malglico).
If you suppose non-English speakers to be readers of the phrasebook, these malglico may be great defects.
Talk of our discussion transpired into #lojban. The consensus is that using tadji is wrong or malglico:
And you still haven't told me what in the statement {.i.u'icai do ze'ipu tavla fo le glibau .i di'u pe do te bangu le glibau} you consider malglico.
"ka'e" was obviously taken from "kakne", yes, but the connection is kind of malglico. Similarly "pe'i" comes from "pensi", "ti'e" from "tirna", and thare are other mnemonics that go through malglico glosses.
Given that it will only ever be used by Lojbaners, it's hard to say whether it's really English, but it's used in English grammar in English ways. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Those are from Google Groups, not Usenet. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
RFV failed. Equinox 19:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)



--kc_kennylau (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The terms do exists, but they might be "regionalism", words limited to a region, namely (east) North Rhine-Westphalia (Verne, Salzkotten, Lippstadt &c.). Also they might be related to Low German, as they exists in a region where Low German is resp. once was spoken (some older ones can still speak Low German, younger ones often can't). -16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)



Adjective. Looks unlikely in both cases. Current citation are clearly nominal. 12:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Both are being used as noun modifiers. The adjective entries (as modifiers) should be transferred to the noun entries. Donnanz (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

composite particle [edit]

Rfv-sense: any particle that is not an elementary particle, namely hadrons, atomic nuclei, atoms and molecules. This definition is consistent with en-Wikipedia article List_of_particles#Composite_particles but not with the rest of dictionaries, which are of the opinion that this term refers to subatomic particles [61]][[62]]. The only exceptions that I could find are the dictionaries which cite Wiktionary as source, e.g. [63]. Thus, it appears to me, we should drop anything bigger than atomic nuclei from the list after the word "namely". We might also want to add an entry for composite particle board, because it is not board made of composite particles, but this is another business. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No comments within several weeks: I guess I'm right and will go ahead with editing the definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with your thought about composite particle board (= composite + particle board). As with any MWE using polysemous components, there are multiple construals possible, eg, in displaying or tallying results of research on composite particles, one might use a composite particle + board. For that matter, combining several display boards of research on particles, the result might be a composite + particle + board. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

kiandarua cha mbu[edit]

An old Tbot entry. The term is comprehensible, I just don't think anyone actually uses it much. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Only in dictionaries? Any attestation in use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One citation here, but the text looks a bit scrambled, as if it's been automatically translated from Chinese. Nothing on Pubmed. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Neither of the two homonymic prefixes has a single example of its use, even in the ahistorical way that we tolerate. I would like to see some evidence that this has been used productively in English. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/ple- gets none. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

chave alien[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


English entry. Looks like tosh to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • p.s. The current "definition" is a word-for-word copyvio of the entry at [64]. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

People have been googling the definition: http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=sonder#q=%22sonder+definition%22&cmpt=q

It was listed in this buzzfeed article and other places - it does not have a form10:31, 2015 March 12‎ Heypanoal dictionary entry though http://www.buzzfeed.com/danieldalton/bob-ombinate#.adkGedG2EV —This unsigned comment was added by Heypano (talkcontribs) at 10:31, 2015 March 12‎.

Cited. Also rewrote the definition to be more concise and less copyright-infringing. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any more etymological details available than "coined by some guy"? What was the coinage based on, if anything? Is this in any way related to German sonder? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it perhaps a blend of sorrow and wonder? Leasnam (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


This is listed as an English verb, but so far I can only find it in cases where the author is clearly using it as a foreign term (it's in italics with a gloss or explanation immediately provided). I also cannot find any instances of this conjugated along English lines, such as google:"tokimekued" (zero hits) or google:"tokimekus" (two hits on Twitter, dupes, and apparently intended to be tokimeku's as the possessive of the noun, used as the name of a word).

Citations? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Please verify n#German. That looks wrong and retarded. Maybe cf. [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/_n], [www.duden.de/sprachwissen/rechtschreibregeln/apostroph#K14]. - 03:06, 13 March 2015

I'm to lazy to attest this entry, but it's attestable: It does occur in books from the 21th century, i.e. after the German spelling reform of 1996 (2004, 2006, 2011). Example:
  • 2014, Manuel Mayer, Schwule Akten: Fußballstar und Tennisprofi geoutet, Himmelstürmer Verlag, p.58: [from an e-book version preview at google books]
    Und da Sex Sponsoren anzieht, würde so n Kerl ein so großes Medienecho hervorrufen, sodass wir noch Jahrhunderte davon hören würden ... ["..." are present in the text]
  • While searching at zeno.org (which includes many older books, and also dialectical ones, though it sometimes has OCR errors) for "n", I've not encountered it without apostrophe (though I haven't looked at all results and zeno only showed some results anyway).
  • Maybe the form without apostrophe can be considered a misspelling, but I'm don't know how that's handled here anyway.
- = 10:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


One citation, which I suspect might be the result of a bad translation. I've never heard Franco-Provençal called this. All the citations I can find use the term as an adjective meaning ‘from Provence in France’, and the hyphenated form as far as I can tell only occurs in the context of (bilingual) ‘French-Provençal’ dictionaries. Anyone familiar with it? Ƿidsiþ 11:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

French-Provençal is a morpheme-by-morpheme loan-translation of a foreign word (Franco-Provençal) in correctly English. I think we shouldn't consider it as a "bad translation", but as a rare form well conforming with accepted standards of the English language. The hyphen excludes the adjective meaning (‘from Provence in France’), to give the word his own sense. Meanwhile, the alternative form Franco-Provençal (foreign word) is a loanword, directly taken into the English language from French with no translation. Auvé73 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC).
We can find here on this page a serious article saying: "(...) a linguistic challenge and a cultural operation, as an attempt to test and show all the expressive potential of his French-Provençal". On the more popular platforms, I found this page, where a traveler talks about "(..) an old French Provencal language known as Arpitan.", and this student explains that "(...) Standard French and Arpitan (French-Provencal) are spoken (...)", while a member of this forum tells us that "The French Provencal language (francoprovencal, arpitan, patois) is thought to have originated there and the area contains the largest numbers of speakers of this language". However, the words French-Provençal and Franco-Provençal seems very artificial and misleading, that why the synonym Arpitan seems to be more used nowadays on the internet... Auvé73 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh. ‘Franco-Provençal’ is not taken from French, the language name was coined by GI Ascoli (francoprovenzale) and English borrowed it from there. Franco- is a perfectly normal English prefix. Your citations are a bit tepid – the first two are clearly translated, apparently by non-native speakers, the third is from someone completely unfamiliar with the language, the fourth…I guess it's OK…but one cite from an online forum…it's all a bit weak. No published citations? Nothing on Google Books? Ƿidsiþ 16:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

half sibling-in-law[edit]

From Pass a Method. I see nothing usable for singular or plural in Google Books or Groups. Equinox 13:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears in the US census data (185 people were recorded as "step/half sibling-in-law" in 1880, for instance). It also appears in the fine print of a few brochures for health insurance plans (eg "For purposes of this provision, “immediate family” means parents, spouse, children, siblings, half-siblings, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, half-sibling-in-law, or any relative by blood or marriage who shares a residence with you."), but I don't know how durably archived they are. Neither makes clear which of the definitions is meant, of course. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


I doubt that this is a true adjective, but could be convinced by evidence to the contrary. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of these: [65], [66], [67]? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, the specific adjectival meaning is not obviously the same as any of the clearly appropriate noun senses. Credit is due to Purp for noticing. Obviously the adjective use is derived from one of the noun senses. It seems a bit a stretch in real life to interpret diet in diet soda as soda for "a controlled dietary regimen".
Some, at least, of the predicate uses confirm this or provide additional support, though capitalized "Diet" in quotes doesn't. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's a noun, what's its meaning? There's no noun sense for 'low in sugar or fat'. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly my second thought. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So this is being withdrawn, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I left it here to see if anyone agreed with my first thought. Evidently not. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that three quotations are now in the entry diet, for phrases "diet hamburger" and "diet drink". Among OneLook dictionaries (diet at OneLook Dictionary Search), adjective for "diet" is in Merriam-Webster[68], which has actually two adjectival senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I did point out to PBP (in the Diet Coke RFD) that it's really a noun modifier. The adjective could quite easily be transferred to the noun as a separate sense and marked as such. Donnanz (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: AFAICT, this is a rare (in print anyway) slur on the bunya/banyan caste of traders. As such it seems SoP in the single independent use I found at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, you're referring to the term bunya spider used as the entre definition for the sense in question, not the term bunya itself. Google Books has only a single usage for that phrase in different editions and as quoted directly in another work. It looks to me like a one-off metaphorical turn of phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing for the phrase in Google Groups, at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


Dutch would-be diminutive. Since diminutives are not inflected forms, they need attestation as words in their own right, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Diminutives are inflected forms in Dutch. Every word can have one, it's fully productive and fully predictable what the diminutive of a given word is. —CodeCat 14:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Every English adjective can in principle have a -ness form, but some -ness forms are unattested and we don't include them. The fact that a morphological derivation process is very regular and predictable does not make it an inflection process. Diminutives are not inflected forms even in Dutch; rather, diminutives themselves are inflected in Dutch. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Dutch Wiktionary includes diminutives in noun inflection tables. —CodeCat 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is a rather dubious practice. Is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it a rather dubious practice? —CodeCat 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a dubious practice because they are not inflected forms. They are not inflected forms because they are themselves inflected. Is it a tradition of Dutch dictionaries to present diminutives as inflected forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
You haven't yet established that diminutives are not inflected forms in Dutch. In fact I'm not sure you really know enough about Dutch to judge it. Being inflected themselves is not an argument, compare participles. —CodeCat 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's possible for inflected forms to be inflected themselves. Latin superlatives (e.g., pravissimus) and Esperanto participles (e.g., manĝanta), for example, are inflected forms that can themselves be inflected. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The term that has been used for these on Wiktionary is "sublemma". They are lemmas in some ways, like having inflections, but are themselves inflections of another lemma. —CodeCat 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (after edit conflict) It is true that some forms considered by some to be inflected forms can be further inflected. Nonetheless, I would argue that if a form is further inflected, one must present a strong argument for it being an inflected form. Your argument was regularity and productiveness, but these two characteristics cannot serve to distinguish derivational process from inflection; derivational processes are often regular and productive as well. Then I would ask for the third time, is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? Can you point me to at least one online Dutch dictionary containing Dutch definitions, so I can check what their practice is?
One more thing. Comparatives and superlatives are forms that can be inflected, and that some might consider to be inflected forms nonetheless. But for these, our practice is to require attestation. I submit that even if diminutives can be seen as some sort of quasi-inflected forms, they should be subject to attestation requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't help noticing that CodeCat is a native speaker of Dutch, whereas Dan Polansky isn't. Are these diminutives confined to the Netherlands, or they used in Flemish as well? I may be able to find out if I manage to get to Belgium this summer. Donnanz (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker and we've deleted English inflected forms before because they don't exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of this page and thousands of other diminutive Dutch nouns I can mention that most of these words are not in any dictionary for the simple reason that it would make the dictionaries very large. For the same reason many compound words are not in Dutch dictionaries but they are used. Diminutives in Dutch are "made", inflected if you like by the Dutch speakers themselves. Probably nobody ever used the word "aalmoezenierskamertje" but it can be "made": my idea of these words is that if someone would make a small scale model of a military base, the room the chaplain would be in would be called "aalmoezenierskamertje" because it is a small version of "aalmoezenierskamer". The WNT has a section about "the making"of Dutch diminutives, therefore they can exist. I am, as CodeCat is, a native speaker of Dutch. --DrJos (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an excellent explanation as to why this should be nominated for RFV. I'm not sure you intended to do that, but thank you anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Flemish use the same diminutives although sometimes they end with "-ke" of "-ken", like the word "manneken", little man, the origin of the word "mannequin". --DrJos (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer about Flemish usage. Dictionaries, as I'm well aware with Norwegian, don't contain every word that's in use, and I sometimes wonder whether some words are used more in the oral form than in the written form, especially regarding inflections. Donnanz (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrJos: Is there any monolingual Dutch dictionary online where I can see Dutch definitions for Dutch words? Or is there at least one in Google books that you can recommend? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is Van Dale’s Great Dictionary of the Dutch Language. —Stephen (Talk) 07:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The most obvious is of course is the Dutch wiktionary, or you could use the limited Van Dale's dictionary online [[69]]. It doesn't contain all the words though. --DrJos (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Dutch diminutive. Appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


English? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell. It seems to be partially composed of Chloroethane (mentioned in 5th paragraph) among other ingredients and production methods. This article uses the word right along. Beyond that, perhaps it is English? I also bet the Portuguese word is a shortening of lança(-perfume). —JohnC5 08:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


The only examples I can find of this term as a verb are in Italian. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs).

I am unable to find unambiguous citations of the challenged (intransitive) sense, but there are numerous transitive citations on Google Books, so I have added a transitive sense with three citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is e.g. "the central causating power" transitive? Equinox 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems ambiguous to me—as far as I know, both transitive and intransitive verbs can be used that way. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

chink in the armor[edit]

I'm sure it's OK, but the contributor forgot about, or ignored, the British spelling armour. Is there another way of expressing it, e.g. chink in one's armour? Donnanz (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, if we are diligent, we add one redirect for each common variant. In this case it would be the possessive pronouns in place of the. In this case it is not just possessive pronouns that could fit in that slot but the possessives of many nouns, proper and common, but we think users can manage that. Whether the lemma form has one's or the doesn't matter that much — if we are diligent. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's getting Google Book hits. What's being disputed here? Nominator says "I'm sure it's OK". Renard Migrant (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
With mods to the entry I'm now satisfied. I will leave it a week to see if any further comments are forthcoming before withdrawing the RFV. Donnanz (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
chink(s) in ... armor gets 92 hits at COCA. 37 use the. The rest use a possessive of a nominal, ie, more than half. At the very least we should have redirects from forms using all the possessive personal pronouns and a usage note. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The contributor is now permanently banned for persistently making dodgy entries, so this must have been one of the better entries made. By the way, Oxford has "a chink in someone's armour". Donnanz (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a Google Books Ngrams template yet? Ngrams has plenty of hits for it, and less for "chink in one's armo(u)r" (but still some). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Renard Migrant: {{R:GNV}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


English entry added by an anon, possibly our old friend who's been obsessed with Japanese entries.

I can't find any evidence of this in English. I find surnames, and Portuguese. I wouldn't be surprised if this is used in subcultures, but is it used anywhere that meets CFI? I can't tell. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: adds an asteroid-name sense to an entry for a supernatural being, adds genealogical cruft to another one, and has trouble keeping straight whether a sense belongs in the Japanese or the English section (I would be astounded if the "(childish) honorific suffix" sense is actually English)... who needs to look at the geolocation data? This is our wiki-problem child, in spades (and the IP does geolocate to Easynet in the UK, anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


RFV noun sense: the reference given is to a book that doesn't give any citation, and may well be calquing the term from Latin. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a 1770 German book on Latin by a Jesuit named Manuel Alvarez (title page here), in an Appendix whose first page says it's mostly compiled from a 1606 work by another Jesuit named w:Jacob Gretser (title page here). Comparing the page referenced with the corresponding page in Gretser's book, it becomes apparent that Gretser doesn't give a term for the ablative case (not surprising, since Greek doesn't have an ablative case), so Alvarez probably made it up to avoid a gap in his table. Also, both Ancient and Modern Greek were written with the same script in those days, so we can't even be sure which of those two we're dealing with. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, LSJ doesn't have this term, but it does have ἀποκομιστικός with the definition of "ablativus". Chuck Entz (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
πύλη gives — Entry #1 seems to say that "αφαιρετική" comes from the Hellenistic "ἀφαιρετική" which is a substantivisation of the Hellenistic adjective "ἀφαιρετικός" a calque (?loan) from the Latin ablativus. — Entry #2 seems to say something similar.
My two Greek dictionaries give no etymology. I'm a long way from being an etymologist and my translations of etyms in Greek always worry me - Do I understand what they've written!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 09:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That helps. It would seem that ObsequiousNewt was correct about it being a calque, but 4th century is definitely well within what we consider to be Ancient Greek. Since Ancient Greek isn't a WDL, that would be enough to verify the term for Ancient Greek, if we accept the source(s). Are they from durably archived works, or are they onine databases only? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"I think" the entries are based on the Dictionary of Common Modern Greek Λεξικό της κοινής νεοελληνικής (viewable in English)   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Two (2) sources were given, not just the older German book. The terms in the book could be made up (as mentioned above), even though most grammar terms in it can be found in other sources as well (like dictionaries, (non-Greek) grammar books, translations of Greek books, Greek books like Dionysius Thrax' Tekhne Grammatike). The other source is "DGE (Span., included in logeion.uchicago.edu)", that is Diccionario Griego-Español (Greek–Spanish Dictionary; wp: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diccionario_Griego-Espa%C3%B1ol]). In DGE it is: "2 gram. ablativo πτῶσις Dosith.392, cf. Gloss.2.252.". gram. stands for (or should stand for) gramática, grammar; ablativo is Spanish for [casus] ablativus, ablative [case]; πτῶσις is Greek for casus, (grammatical) case. -- 02:23-02:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
DGE cites Dositheus, page 392, who names all six cases (and the two given names for the ablative.) LSJ has entries for the other five, but doesn't cite Dositheus for any of them—the citations seem to be limited to a baker's dozen translations of Latin words. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

golden spike[edit]

Rfv-sense for the metaphorical usage "finishing touch; the final effort leading to a completed project, such as putting in the last nail". It seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how to search for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia-logo.png Golden spike on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Golden spike This is the one I know about. Donnanz (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The only figurative use in this century AFAICT from Google Books is in stratigraphy, where it refers to a designation of a given stratigraphic layer in a formation as the marker for the start of a geological time period [as the unchallenged definition says. d'oh]. Last spike is apparently used more commonly in railroad construction. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Google News brings up a handful of results (1, 2, 3, 4), but it's not tremendously common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


(Portuguese) Only occurs as part of Addis Ababa, Adis-Ababa, Addis-Ababa. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks unlikely since Addis Ababa is Adis Abeba in Portuguese. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Portuguese. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


This word is not a single word unlike spierversterking which is. Where is the source? --DrJos (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

google books:"spierversterken". Yup. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Move to rfv though as both the noun and the verb need attesting. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved to RFV, per the suggestion above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • While this seems attested, it has the properties of a defective verb. Some verbs in Dutch only appear as non-finite forms, perhaps even just the infinitive. Are there any cases of this being used as a "real" verb, or is it only the gerund? —CodeCat 22:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


This is not in the WNT nor in Van Dale's dictionary. Does it exist? --DrJos (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In dictionaries it definitely does [70]. Not sure about usage as in use-mention distinction as I don't understand enough Dutch. Oh and should be at WT:RFV#schrinken. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This might be Middle Dutch... Leasnam (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This verb is in the WNT though: [71]. I have also added a few attested examples. Let me know if they suffice so I can remove the tag. Morgengave (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:ES#elative.


A kind of sci-fi device. I think this only appears in the Empire of Man series by David Weber and John Ringo, thus might fail WT:FICTION. Equinox 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Here’s one use independent from Empire of Man: [72]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It definitely does not only appear in Empire of Man
  • [73] Dawn of the Molycirc - 2007 forum post - The molycirc, or molecular circut would allow an electronic device the size of a modern desktop computer to be reproduced on somethign smaller than a postage stamp. This is potentially huge
  • [74] Tattered Skies - Part one : "No we don't, Hamilton." I said, sighing and pushing a hand back through my hair. "We've been over this. I deal with your shit because you don't fuck with mine, and this has always gone smoothly, but your little playboy bunny here has lost half her secondary logic array, how I don't feel like asking because I happen to believe it has something to do with one of your odd fetishes, and that's molycirc, Hamilton, even I don't have that much blank molycirc template laying around." Kenny Casperson (2008) creative writing forum post
  • [75] MT-J1-E3500 Molycirc Computer Core (2013) Role-Playing Game - community developed RPG
  • [76] While approaching the solar system Captain Madlax is from, my navigation molycirc fried. "Sholan Alliance - AU" -- Wattpad creative writing site
  • [77] Many molycirc blocks were actually taken from the PlayStation IX VR system, with coding available on VirtuaNet, and gave the analyst teams no clue as to the helmet's origins. (2007) community-based RPG
  • [78] “They ripped out the molycircs along with the initiator plugs this time.” Cor reported. Santee glared into the opened panel before him. (2006) Star Wars fanfic forum posting
  • [79] and now we have the molycirc s that so much 80's scifi promised as the future of computing. awesome. (2012) -- Gizmag comments section posting
  • Something deep within his molycirc heart seemed to be beating against the confining cage of his chest's synthetic composites p105 "A Might Fortress" David Weber (2010) ISBN 9781429961356 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Safefold"-series
  • Another three keystrokes and that portion of the Department of State's molycirc memory core where those notes had been stored was reformatted ch54 "War of Honor" David Weber (2002) ISBN 9780743435451 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Honorverse"-series
  • The molycirc shouldn't be possible in this universe. p176 "Claws that Catch" (2008) John Ringo & Travis Taylor ISBN 9781416555872 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Looking Glass"-series
-- 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - noun sense. Lewis and Charles only gives the adverb. Needs formatting as a noun if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/legitime only has 'in a way that conforms to the law(s)'. No noun sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Before I decided to put the "law" definition of the word, I'm really not sure what part of speech it is... I just thought it is likely a noun coz it is a specific thing... This word just got stuck in my head as I'm a former law student studying civil law and I'm actually surprised that there is no definition about it here on wikt... But if you guys think the definition does not make sense, feel free to remove it... CHEERS! =) Alcohkid (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This term is English, I encounter it while studying a profession in English language... cheers! =) Alcohkid (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I see some Google Books hits for "the legitimes" (i.e. a plural). Equinox 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Needs to meet the fictional-universe part of CFI, but it looks like a clearcut case of a strictly in-universe term. This is modern Latin, so there should be three independent cites. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In terms of rules, Latin isn't listed on Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
In the past, we have (at least sometimes) required three quotations for modern Latin. See Talk:birotula for one such discussion. Maybe we should modify WT:WDL to reflect this. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No objections from me! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


This might not be the right place for this request.

At huus#Dutch_Low_Saxon someone claims that "huus" and "hoes" would be alternative spellings. That's untrue, the pronunciations differ. Most people speaking (or at least understanding) Plat would know that. Anyone studying the language(s) would know Heeroma's "Hollandic expansion" theory which is based on that (online I found the link http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_voo004199501_01/_voo004199501_01_0005.php, not Heeroma himself, but a stable link with an English summary). -- 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The header over the link to hoes is "Alternative forms" (not e.g. "Alternative spellings", which isn't a standard header anywhere, anyway, even when the only difference is spelling/orthography). Alternative forms may or may not have the same pronunciation; see e.g. epizootic and grievous. Where is it being claimed that huus and hoes have the same pronunciation? (The usage note? I assume it's contrasting other orthographies/variants like hus / hūs / etc. But it could be changed to form for clarity.) - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
(Yes, the usage note). I don't think anyone would write hus (the vowel is long). I don't know an orthography which uses hūs (but I don't even know one orthography well enough to write Low Saxon). As I understand it, Veluws huus and Sallaands huus might look and sound the same, but they have different etymologies. Veluws regularly has the umlaut oeuu, but Sallaands hasn't (well, it has umlaut for diminutives and plurals), so huus can only be a loanword from Dutch.
If someone from Twente (outside Vriezenveen) would write huus, they probably also write muus (or one of their parents is from a region saying huus). The "German" use of "uu"/"üü" is better suited for Sallaands and Twents than "Dutch" "oe"/"uu", but almost everyone speaker of Dutch Low German has already learned Dutch spelling conventions. -- 07:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, this isn't the right place to raise this. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Portuguese. I also recommend that Italian and Dutch editors investigate the existence of the word in Italian and Dutch. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole page is entirely the work of the contributor who created the Old English lemma for Picelemu- I wouldn't trust anything on it. The Mapudungan entry at lolol looks pretty questionable, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If Dutch and Italian people don't call it Lolol, then what do they call it? —CodeCat 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they don’t call it anything. It is a tiny faraway city. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is disgusting, [[Mr. First World. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I’m from the third world, Mr Completely Obsessed With His Own City. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It does have an entry in the Italian Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This might be my new favourite word. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bharat Army[edit]

Needs attestation —umbreon126 02:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the following as quotations.
The Bharat Army believe there is nothing to apologise for. What they represent is a confluence of cultures.
...his first taste of the verbal brickbats wielded by India's "Bharat Army" of supporters.
Australia may be the host team in Sydney but it won't surprise any if the local fans are outnumbered by the Bharat Army
--KTo288 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@KTo288 Are those all durably archived? That is, for something like the third citation, was that ever on a printed page or only online? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, sorry, I don't know.-- KTo288 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Some suspect Esperanto. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I can find exactly two citations: Iuj stranguloj en mia cirklo simple ne ricevos lokon - se ne temas hazarde pri iu ekzotika dekora danctrupo dum ies feriaj vojaĝoj dum safario. Kvarmil kvincent kilometrojn norden de Durbano mi devis veturi por fari mian safarion en Tanzanio. There's also one use of "Safario" to refer to the web browser. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "foreigner serving another country". The real test is whether cites can be found that do not fall under sense 1, which is the only one that I see attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Practical spirit, sense of reality, concreteness." What does this even mean? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Realism/pragmatism? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's the opposite of the equally psychobabbly sense of negativism. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the last two senses. Each has one citation discussing how a term* is used in Arabic. *(Presumably the term they discuss is the Arabic etymon of zenana, but neither citation actually uses zenana or its Arabic etymon at all.) - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be of much help the two uses were dictionary definitions I transwikied from w:Zenana if its the actual quotation that is giving you problems, sorry for the badly formed quotation,I don't edit here enough to know how to do it properly do it, an URL is embedded in the quote, but here it is in full
"Then, pointing to the sky, one muttered, “Zenana, zenana.” The word is the Arabic term that Gazans have given to Israel’s drone aircraft, a ubiquitous and frightening feature of daily life in this crowded strip of land along the sea. Roughly translated, zenana means buzz. But in neighboring Egypt, a source of Gaza custom and culture, the term is slang used to describe a relentlessly nagging wife."
I've had a look for the use of this word in this context using google and the results are thin, either this Aljazeera one which is by the same author as the Washington Post piece, or ones like this
"Nicknameed [sic] ‘zenana’by Palestinians because of their noisy buzzing, the drones (remote control aircraft) are omnipresent."
which appear to be paraphrasing Cook, the author of the Washington Post and Aljazeera pieces.--KTo288 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Had a go at improving the quotations used in the entry, hope this has helped.--KTo288 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been lurking on this page waiting for responses to this one, and I think I understand the process here a bit better now. From what I've found via search engines, zenana isn't attested as being in use for the two senses I've added, in that no where could I find the use of zenana being used in place of the words drone or nag; all of it is much of the same as the article, telling us that's how it is used by Palestinians. Looking for it in Arabic is outside of my competence. Time for me to stop lurking and leave this to someone else now.--KTo288 (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Hmm? Equinox 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This was taken from Century Dictionary, following their entry for foresketch. As I am rather wont to do, I go through the dictionaries word by word in order, so it got added. Yet, I too cannot seem to find anywhere (at least on Google Books) where this is actually used...double Hmm. Leasnam (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Not much on Google Books. If it's cited it should almost certainly be tagged "rare" or "obsolete". This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Someone added two cites: the first, I am certain, is not actually from 1975; the phrase is present in a critical analysis of some kind of play, the exact nature of which I can't determine. The second may be accurate, although it could just as well be a typo for "unshaded". This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The first cite is in the OED and listed as circa 1500. The OED also lists 3 other cites, all of which are circa 1300. I do no believe this exists in modern English. —JohnC5 06:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The second cite is indeed a typo of "unshaded." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Seems spurious. What is a "land of crabs and holes" anyway? See also #Lolol above. This, that and the other (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably a mudbank at low tide. Donnanz (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Nothing obvious on a quick Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Protologism? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Accepting the definition as given, is the usage example even a true proposition? DCDuring TALK 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Totally false. (Note: This will probably be a self-defining word if it passes.) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This gets only three hits on Google: one for this page, two for the same blog. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Is this attested? We currently have it as an English entry with the definition "An item of possession that embarrasses the owner and cannot be easily discarded. Schrankschanden are often of inferior quality"; is this attested in use per WT:ATTEST in any language at all? See also lowercase schrankschande and the RFV of it at Talk:schrankschande. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Luo orutu[edit]

Nah. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The string "Luo orutu" occurs several times in the Google Books corpus, but I think it is a sum-of-parts combination of "Luo" and "orutu". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Just realised I posted this in RFV instead of RFD. I don't reckon it's worth the trouble of starting the process again, though (translation: can we please just delete the damn thing already). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

google books:"Luo orutu" find me this:

  • 2005, Anri Herbst, Emerging Solutions for Musical Arts Education in Africa[80]:
    The outstanding Luo orutu composers were acclaimed for their works and performances.
    DP Note: orutu is in italics in the original.
  •  ? [81]
    The outstanding Luo orutu composers were recognized through their works and performances.
    DP Note: I don't know the author; maybe it is just a quoted English passage. The work title does not seem English. And the quote may be not independent of the first one.

Furthermore, the term indeed seems to be a sum of parts, as pointed out by Mr. Granger. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense- Supposedly English. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

More than three citations of this word can be found on Google Books. [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] It usually seems to come in quotation marks or otherwise set off from the rest of the text, though, so I'm not sure whether it is really an English sense distinct from the Latin sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Latin sense is a verb, and the English sense is a noun. This should be sufficient. See What talent! This pinxit is remarkable! and Glance your eye down to the pinxit in the corner. Also, it is used as a countable noun: Made herself acquainted with all the Stephanoff pinxits. In all these senses, none of them approach the Latin words for "painted by" or "painter". Instead, they clearly specifically to the PINXIT mark on the painting, OR to paintings which have this mark. --Pnelsonmusic (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We haven't defined it as a noun yet. As a multilingual dictionary we can include such words under the appropriate language header of the original language, so we don;t lose the content, though some ordinary users (especially of tabbed languages) and repackagers of our English content may miss this kind of thing.
Even if we decide that the use in inscriptions and in italics in running English text does not make it English, we can both preserve the integrity of our principles of inclusion and make sure that users don't miss this by attesting the noun sense (provided it can be attested, of course) and including the Latin etymology in the English section. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand. You're saying that it could be identified as a Noun (with the noun senses) under the Latin language. But then this would be missed by people reading English. And so, I guess, your solution to this is to include it in the "English" section with the etymology of Latin (which is what I did originally, although the Etymology is copied from the GCIDE, and probably not up to Wiktionary standards). Only now User:CodeCat has changed the language to "Translingual"? —This comment was unsigned.
I was saying that it could probably be attested as an English noun, but would need a definition that fitted its use as an English noun. I have provided a new English noun definition and found three citations that, I think, count as attestation. Please review.
For it to be Translingual I think we would have to attest it, not typographically distinguished, in more than one language or have some translingual authority recognize its use (as for taxonomic names). This is a particularly complicated little bit of 'legalism', not likely to be the norm for contributions from the Webster 1913 supplement. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this help! I have found a bunch of GCIDE definitions not in Wiktionary and I thought I'd put a toe in the water and try to enter one. It is true that I have not found a non-typographically-distinguished version of "Pinxit" referring to the mark which occurs after the signature OR the work as a whole, although that's how it's defined by Wikipedia (grin). Anyway, my JSTOR 'free' bookshelf is used up, so in 14 days I may continue looking. --Pnelsonmusic (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't the quotations now in the entry show this use? DCDuring TALK 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess so! Sorry, I mis-read your definition to identify the signature as a whole, and not the word after the signature. Thanks again.

With DCD's excellent second definition, I would delete the first. It basically says that the word "pinxit" is called "pinxit", which isn't 100% exact. Of DCD's quotes, two first ones seem to be cases where "pinxit" refers to the whole of the signature, whether it contains the actual word "pinxit" or not. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But the first one was actually written by a dictionary author in 1913. I keep thinking that there must be old books which illustrate these definitions, though I haven't found them yet. --Pnelsonmusic (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A monolingual English dictionary could be expected to include Latin terms that a user might encounter. A multilingual dictionary like Wiktionary can include Latin terms as Latin. The use of pinxit on a painting is arguably Latin. The use of pinxit as a noun in running English text without italics is English.
Latin (or pseudo-Latin) inscriptions on building, medical Latin, legal Latin, pharmacological Latin (ie noun phrase referring to herbal preparations, scientific Latin, and taxonomic Latin (species descriptions) all have required some careful thought to determine how we should treat them. Medical and legal Latin have been determined to be English by default, the others Latin by default. Whether these are correct defaults is hard to say. We also have exceptions based on attestation evidence. Eliminating the default for a usage type means that someone entering a term of these types needs to make a decision about what language heading etc is appropriate. This usually just means reinventing the wheel or making a mistake. If we want to revisit this kind of thing in general, it should be in the Beer Parlor.
In this particular case, we have the Latin and we have the English etymology section to tell users what pinxit means. That seems sufficient to me, being more than what we do for Latin in, say, building inscriptions. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If the first sense were regarded as English, it would be a verb form, not noun, wouldn't it? —This comment was unsigned.--Hekaheka (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (added afterwards)
Yes. We could define it under a Verb heading with a context/usage label and gloss "{on a painting, after a name or mark of an artist) Painted." or with a non-gloss definition.
That would mean that we view it as English. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


The term shouldn't exists, and it should be "Achlaut" (or "Ach-Laut") instead. -12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've always heard this called Achlaut, never "Auchlaut". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oddly enough, there are plenty of Google Books hits- until you look at them. The dictionary ones are due to either Google's OCR not recognizing that the Fraktur uppercase H is a letter, or to the scan missing the left-hand side of the page. The other hits seem to be mostly "... auch laut". It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that has trouble reading Fraktur... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: somebody needs to add an entry for Hauchlaut. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a minor chance this is supposed to be separate from the Ach-Laut as some regions have a three-way distinction of [ç] - [x] - [χ]. The word "auch" would have that velar [x] which is distinct from the uvular Ach-Laut. Though, I couldn't find any cites for this term. And the usage of "uch-Laut" is scarce. Korn (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


"To dumb down severely or to the point of uselessness or near-uselessness." Equinox 14:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense the pterosaur. Sure, there's the genus Sordes, but as an English lowercase noun? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]


Needs citations that are not clearly quoting Vonnegut. I've only been able to find one, and that's not really using the word in the spiritual sense Vonnegut meant (although it's probably close enough - it refers to a sports team who works so well together that it could be considered a "cognitive unit") Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Same as #karass - needs citations that aren't just direct references to Vonnegut. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I kind of feel that this is a different kind of word. It originates in a work of fiction, but is not a fictional object (like a lightsaber or tricorder), but a word used to describe a real-world phenomenon. I grant that I have yet to find a use that does not mention Vonnegut in connection with the word, but I think that this is similar to the difficulty in finding references to the sociological concept of anomie that don't mention Durkheim, or the theory of relativity that don't mention Einstein. bd2412 T 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Will these 3 do? --Droigheann (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite the use of the search term "-Vonnegut", an individual search for "Vonnegut" in each of those works shows that it does appear in proximity to an explanation of the meaning of "granfalloon". bd2412 T 02:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I know. And? So the authors explain the word for the uninitiated, then use it for their own purposes, not like a nonce word. (Incidentally, the second example uses the word on p 18 and only mentions Vonnegut and his definition on p 37, having in the meantime on p 27 felt the necessity of explaining what "innuendo" means.) So what? I can understand there are some rules to enable editors fight hoaxes, but if the advert on the Main Page about "all words of all languages" allows keeping eg brekekekex, Jabberwocky or... this thing, why not granfalloon? --Droigheann (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
2005 June 1, Grant J. Devilly, “Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, volume 39, number 6, DOI:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x, PMID 15943644, retrieved on 28 May 2013, pages 437–445: 
someone might like to check the citation.--KTo288 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for deleting it; I think that it should be kept despite the tendency to include it with reference to Vonnegut because it is not a "fictional" thing, but a name given to a real thing, albeit in a work of fiction. bd2412 T 13:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of authors do that, though. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights trilogy is set in a sort of alternate universe where things have different (etymologically plausible) names, e.g. "anbaric (electric) light", "gyptians" for gypsies. They're still not words used outside of the work itself and direct references to it. Equinox 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a little different to use a variant name in fiction for something that already has a name in the real world. I don't think there is another word that means quite the same thing as "granfalloon", which is why nonfiction writers discussing nonfiction topics use the term. I think that such use it is more in line with the way writers use terms invented by sociologists or physicists, with reference to the person who coined the term. bd2412 T 15:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Etymology_1 only. I cannot find any attestations of the word in English meaning "disease", only of a genus name. Leasnam (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky: it's used in English to refer to the concept covered by the word in classical languages (here, here and here, for instance). It's a little more clear in passages such as this and this that it's considered to be Latin, not English. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Each of those five passages use the term in italics. That would suggest that it is a foreign word being mentioned in an English sentence. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There were some epilepsy related sources that did not italicize (here) when I added this but they did not have a clear meaning about whether those were Latin transliterations of Greek or were English. I added a non-attestable cite of a English medical dictionary and believed that finding it in multiple dictionaries (e.g. here) would make it easy to attest, but it was difficult and I abandoned my effort. I still feel three attestations can be found but I don't have a clue about better key word combinations that remove the microsporidium and expose pathologies. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

migrenă abdominală[edit]

I'm seeing some hits in wordlists, just not sure it's used. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

à chacun son goût[edit]

Created by User:, the entry originally comprised "Each to their own taste. But not proper French"; I reformatted the entry, defining it as "{{lb|fr|nonstandard}} to each his own". Is this real and idiomatic? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that à chacun son goût, chacun son goût, à chacun ses goûts, and chacun ses goûts are all valid French expressions. We have chacun à son goût as an English expression. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Thanks for chiming in. So, is the entry OK as it currently stands? Or should the non-standard tag be removed? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that non-standard can be removed, but I would like that confirmed by someone who didn't fail his O-level French. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's standard and attested, google books:"à chacun son goût (also see gout, the 1990 reformed spelling). I think the user has confused this with chacun à son goût which is not standard French because of the inversion of the first two words. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Renard Migrant: Since you removed the {{rfv}} tag, could you add the requisite three citations, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


I understand this to be a box for holding wood, e.g. kept beside a hearth for replenishing the fire. I am disputing the sense "a box made of wood". Equinox 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I agree. A box made of wood is a wooden box, although a woodbox for firewood could be made of wood also. Donnanz (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • As much as I agree with you, I hear a lot fewer people using the "-en" adjectival suffix today, so it may well be an actually fairly-attested phrase, unfortunately. Tharthan (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is whether it's written as one word, "wood box". The way people speak isn't the issue (compare "gold standard", which isn't "golden" but has a space in writing). Equinox 01:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Does it pass WT:BRAND? I doubt it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds

  • Here's one for BRAND:
    • 2014, Robert Kirkman, Invincible #108, page 19:
      • Is Eve going to start doing crossfit and lose weight when the baby is born?
  • Cheers! bd2412 T 22:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Neologism or protologism? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Widely mentioned (but not widely used?) on the Web. A candidate for the "hot word" tag and later revisiting, perhaps? Equinox 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hot words need citations, right? Just ones that span less than a year going back from now. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


One use on BGC in single quotes, which I guess is fine but not great support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Abundantly attestable at Google News going back at least to December 2013, though it is unclear which of the sources are durably archived. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hotword? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Not if the December 2013 cite is durably archived. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
As you know, there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't. So... I guess we vote on it? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dhl-parcelcopter-paketkopter-amazon-prime-air-drone-528873. I guess it depends on whether ibtimes.co.uk deletes its pages or not. I have no idea whatsoever. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: "there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't": As per common practice, Google books and Usenet generally count as "permanently recorded media", a term used in WT:ATTEST. So "no criteria whatsoever" is rather inaccurate. I don't remember anyone challenging these two items as core of "permanently recording media"; archived RFV discussions should confirm that this has been mentioned multiple times as tentative criteria. The remaining confusion is about what lies in the outer layers of "permanently recorded media": maybe even protuberances? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
No formal or written criteria then; WT:CFI doesn't mention it at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, WT:CFI#Attestation does cover what I said, in this (boldface mine): "As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online." I admit that CFI could better connect these sentences with the term "permanently recorded media". And I find the phrasing unfortunate; our argument for Usenet was not archiving by Google but rather the massive independent replication of Usenet. Certainly could be improved. I could try to do some drafting and propose a fix but when I create vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia to remove what blatantly contradicts our practice, almost no one attends, and one person opposes on petty grounds, that is kind of demotivating. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


"A file for a simulator, specifically a rhythm game simulator such as Stepmania." Even from Usenet newsgroups I see we will have trouble attesting this, though it sometimes occurs as part of a path/folder name in game installations! Equinox 22:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


Uncitable. Cite or delete. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 02:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the person who created that page assumed it was the correct English plural form, by using regular English pluralization (e.g. ax/axe -> axes). Hillcrest98 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha! I actually like that, although I have never heard of it. If it doesn't exist, I wish it did. Tharthan (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Two dubious senses. Half-womanish? Google Books only has a handful of matches about insects, and the term is being proposed (and rejected) rather than seriously used. (Creator is Pass a Method, by the way, with his usual weird agenda.) Equinox 03:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


As with hemigynous above. Wish we could stop PaM resetting his IP address all the time. Equinox 03:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Add pseudogyny, pseudogynous, pseudandry, pseudandrous. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


This word passed RFV back in 2008, when CFI had the "use in a well-known work" option. That option is gone, and this is an English word, so it needs three independent citations to stay. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say even that RFV was erroneous. The well-known work in question was written in Ancient Greek, and this is an English word. In fact the English source refers to the Ancient Greek source. They're not the same work! Renard Migrant (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

pictura motionis[edit]

Although this word would otherwise be utile, I can’t find instances of it on either Google Groups or Google Books. --Romanophile (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "the god Tiw". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's rare and apparently mostly used self-consciously and in connection with the name of the weekday. I found three citations, though the first admits to having no idea who "Tue" is, and the third is "If he can't mention Tue, Woden, Thor and Frig..." - -sche (discuss) 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Are the citations adequate? - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

well ain't that the catfish in the trap[edit]

All Google search results are copies of our entry. Equinox 02:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Anglicised form of "fungus"; plural "fungs". I can't seem to find it in dictionaries or in Google Books. Equinox 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This book explains that the term was coined by Ferdinand von Mueller but never became widespread. It has the usable quote "The Baron stuck to his fungs, but the term failed to catch on".
  • The same book also discusses an 1892 monograph by Mordecai Cubitt Cooke, "An enumeration of all fungs" which presumably uses the word in running text as well.
  • I'm also seeing citations on Scholar to R Tate "A list of the charas, mosses, liverworts, lichens, fungs, and algals of extratropical South Australia" which also presumably uses the word in running text. If so, that is three cites. SpinningSpark 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. {{context|extremely rare|lang=en}} might be in order. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. (Based on the etymology, perhaps "materialize"?) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Has one attesting quotation at Citations:whatchamahoosey, one which is possibly not durably archived. Needs three quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. ("Football container"?) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Any attestation? There is one quotation at Citations:whatchamahoozy. My position is that quotations of similar spellings such as whatchamahoosie do not count to attest "whatchamahoozy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I can find plenty of citations, but all on blogs, and as I understand it, they don't meet our attestation criteria. Kiwima (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Chinese for Pichilemu, a town in Chile. I'm also challenging the simplified form 皮奇莱穆, which is a soft redirect. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Alternative form. I'm also challenging the simplified form 披市勒亩, which is a soft redirect. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The pinyin entries for both will have to be deleted as well if these fail. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pichilemu City[edit]

And apparently we missed a whole bunch more of the uncitable names in various languages for a certain town in Chile. I'll just post them below this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the Catalan, Dutch, Mapudungun, and Welsh sections. I found one cite for the Dutch and I suppose the Mapudungun has promise (it only needs a single mention), but who knows. NB: I'm speedying translations in Pichilemu in scripts that allow me to quickly ascertain that they have no citations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ciudad de Pichilemu[edit]

All I can find on Google Books and Google Groups is this citation [87], which uses the wrong capitalization. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Quechua for Pichileminian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Asturian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This is in Asturian Wikipedia. Arkhangelsk is one of the major ports in Russia, and it's vey likely that there would be an Asturian name for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Arkhanguelsk" is also an alternative French name for it, which renders the Russian pronunciation closer than Arkhangelsk ("g", not "ž"). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Found one cite on BGC. If deleted, don't forget to do away with the plural, too. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for the beach parties at Pichilemu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Such an event exists, sure. The etymology is slightly different, coming from La Puntilla, Pichilemu, which is a big deal for surfers in Chile. Some news websites mention it here from last year, and this one from this year. According to the articles, this event has been going on for a few years now. I couldn't find any decent cites using the term without quote marks, however. I'd delete it, personally. BTW, in Spain it is called a botellón. --Recónditos (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a word massively used, specially in social networks, to refer to such beach parties. There are some national newspapers who have used the word too to refer to those parties, including El Dínamo. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the Finnish. Tagging User:Hekaheka. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I added the Finnish section on Apr. 8 2014 when I was working on the letter "C" of the Finnish index. This word was and still is on the list as a Finnish word and I assumed it had been checked by the normally very reliable User:Jyril who had added it to the index on 12:49, 14 February 2007. However, when I now check Google, I find only scant usage on the discussion pages of reptile enthusiasts which probably cannot be regarded as durably archived. The scantness of usage comes as no surprise as such, as the chuckwallas are quite exotic critters from our perspective. All in all, one might come to the conclusion that this word is poorly attested as a Finnish word. On the other hand, I encountered no other word that would have been used of the Sauromalus lizards in Finnish. I leave it for the community to decide the future of this entry. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
European Union legislation mentions Sauromalius varius on the list of species to which special trade restrictions are applied. The English version of the text uses the common name "San Esteban Island chuckwalla" of this species whereas the Finnish version uses "Sauromalus varius -lisko". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Russian. One hit on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This one seems good. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Same as above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Yet another. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


And in Quechua. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Google maps and en-Wikipedia recognize this spelling as a name of a lake in central Peru and its not unlikely that there would be a town of the same name. Quechua is the original language of the region and "Marcapomacocha" which you don't challenge is hispanicized spelling of "Markapumaqucha". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not present in the AMLQ dictionary (which includes placenames). — Ungoliant (falai) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So? --Hekaheka (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So people looking for citations need to look elsewhere. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the Dutch and Italian sections (the latter has one cite). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)



Spanish: to rickroll. I'll take a break from spamming RFV for now, but my, there are certainly a lot of entries to go through. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And there are plenty more... --Diego Grez (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Diego Grez Are any of those durably archived per WT:CFI (i.e., were they ever in print)? If not, I doubt they'll count as citations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
El Mundo, most likely was printed. Cooperativa radio's archives are kept at the National library of Chile, so I think it counts too as "durably archived". As for the others, I'm not sure. Would it count if I go ahead and use the Wayback Machine to archive them? --Diego Grez (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't allow that, no. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Three citations needed for each. Good luck! Renard Migrant (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Someone's conlang. And don't forget to remove the links from entries that are anagrams of this one if it fails. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Another conlang. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure all the uses on Usenet can be traced back to Rex May, who invented Ceqli. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thor's hammer[edit]

RFV-sense "swastika".
There are two citations on the citations page, but the first actually uses "Thorshamarr", and I interpret the second not as a use of the phrase "Thor's hammer" as a name for the swastika symbol, but as a suggestion that the swastika symbol was one of several stylized representations of Thor's hammer. The citations I see on Google Books are all very mentiony, e.g.: "Some foreign authors have called it Thor's hammer, or Thor's hammer-mark, but the correctness of this has been disputed..."
Robert Philips Greg's On the Meaning and Origin of the Fylfot and Swastika does have "In Iceland another form of Thor's hammer is found in the shape of 卍", but this suggests that "Thor's hammer" is a generic name for several different shapes, not specifically the swastika. Compare: in the sentence "in blackletter, another form of double U is found, namely w", "double U" does not mean "w" (w is merely one form of double U). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"H.R. Ellis Davidson puts up an acceptable case for identifying the swastika with Thor's hammer, while admitting the swastika to be the older of the two signs." That seems to say unambiguously that they are not the same symbol. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

buy and pay for[edit]

Is this really a verb? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, what else would it be? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is arguably an adjective (something I don't recall saying before), as the forms other than the putative past participle are very rarely used with the meaning "bribed" and can be readily interpreted from their components even when possible used in that sense.
To buy and pay for is a formulaic phrase in some contexts, in which the pay for component seems almost to be used as an intensifier, though that sense is clearly directly derived from the idea that once the payment has been accepted, the evidence that a sale was intended by both parties is complete. In the case of bribery, a quid pro quo is essential for a crime to be charged.
Usage such as "bought-and-paid-for testimony" is supportive of an adjective PoS as well. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bought and paid" can be used of sex, friendship, a public official or body of public officials, a public action (as a law), an election, testimony, a witness, biased news coverage, etc. This goes beyond bribery. It is sometimes used in the context of discussions of commoditization, in which it is also pejorative.
I'm not convinced that any of this makes a winning argument for inclusion. We have the appropriate sense at buy ("bribe"). DCDuring TALK 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who put it in, and I admit a degree of ambivalence myself. I had entered "bought and paid for", which, in it's adjectival use as corrupted by money, seems a clear candidate for inclusion. When looking up supporting quotes, I found a number of them (such as the quote I put on the "buy and pay for" entry) were using it as a verb not as an adjective. All in the past tense, however. I was not sure what was the right way to go about entering this -- if someone has a better suggestion, I would welcome it. Kiwima (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

life support[edit]

Rfv-sense: "A machine that keeps the body of an ill or injured person alive." --Does such machine really exist or is this some sort of sci-fi concept? I have understood that it still takes a combination of gadgetry plus a well-trained medical team to keep a severely ill or injured person alive. The combination used depends on the condition of the patient. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This is in widespread use. Many citations can be found by searching for "she was on life support" or "he was on life support" (in quotation marks) on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but is our definition correct? Is "life support" really a machine? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Further: what, if anything, is the difference between "life support" and "intensive care"? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
intensive care refers to the special medical treatment of a critically ill patient, including constant monitoring and testing. It also refers to the department or area of a hospital where such treatment is carried out. The main ingredient in intensive care is the constant close monitoring by specially trained nurses. life support refers to the maintenance of vital functions of a critically ill or comatose person or a person undergoing surgery, and it refers mainly to the equipment and special procedures, such as a ventilator (respirator), an infusion pump, a crash cart (resuscitation cart, code cart), and intraaortic balloon pump. While life support formally refers to the type of care by specially trained doctors and nurses, as well as to the specialized equipment that they use, in informal speech life support can mean the equipment itself. So a person may be in intensive care, but not require the use of any life support equipment. If a patient needs life support, he will usually be placed in the intensive care ward, and will usually remain there for a while after the life support equipment is removed. When life support means it equipment itself, the phrasing is often "to be on life support." —Stephen (Talk) 05:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
It could be a single device, but is better defined using (uncountable) "equipment" or "equipment and techniques". ::::intensive care is almost always in a specialized unit of a hospital. It can include medication intended to improve a patient's long-term condition I think. Basic life support can be provided almost anywhere and is intended to keep the patient alive until remedial treatment can be provided or on a maintenance basis to avoid death. Many forms do not have to be provided in an ICU, as IVs, breathing assistance, etc. I think all of this is very dependent on the nature of the medical service system in a circumstance, so it should vary by patient condition and geography and change over time. DCDuring TALK 05:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a 'machine' and even if citable that way, the more general sense of 'a system of medical treatments' would cover the machine sense. In other words, it could be a machine or several machines or a machine and other things like saline bags which are not machines or machine administered. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I would sidestep the rfv by changing the definition to include non-machine things. Does any disagree that things like a human (a non-machine, for these purposes) administering medication or fluids is part of life support? If not, just change it and close the rfv as moot. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A tender subject for me, as it's near the 3rd anniversary of my wife's death in hospital. But Oxford does say: "(informal) equipment in a hospital used for life support: a patient on life support." Donnanz (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be metonymy at work. The term seems to include the phenomenon, state, or activity; the equipment; the equipment and techniques; and the patient. We could either have a few definitions or just one or two, artfully worded. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think sense 1 needs to be broadened to cover the use of life support in hospitals, which is closely allied to intensive care; either that or expand sense 2. The piece I quoted from my hard copy doesn't appear in the online version, so the definition must have been revised at some stage. Life support (equipment) includes anything used to monitor a patient or keep them alive, especially if they are in a coma. Donnanz (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Borrowing from Stephen and Renard above I wrote two new definitions:

  1. (medicine) Maintenance of vital functions of a critically ill or comatose person or a person undergoing surgery.
  2. (medicine) The equipment and special procedures used for life support,

If these were found acceptable then the current #2 could be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, looks OK. Not a machine as such, which is a life support machine. The translations entered for the machine sense will have to be checked. Donnanz (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Bulgarian: Paulette. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's correct. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev I wasn't asking whether it is correct, but whether it can be cited. I have almost no knowledge of Bulgarian, so I request your help in finding three cites for this entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you would drop the RFV, if someone confirms it's a correct term. I'm not that keen to keep translations of foreign names into other languages to start looking for citations. On the term itself, in Russian, at least, the name could be Russified a bit and turn into "Полетта" in literature (not necessarily) but if it's an official person, the transliteration would be normally closer to the original. If you know a famous person named Paulette or person from a famous book, you could search for a translation into languages, you added RFV for. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev It shouldn't be too hard to find the cites on Google Books and link them here if this really is correct. The issue is that we have users that claim something is "correct" even when it cannot be cited literally anywhere, and that's poor lexicography. The only way to deal with that is to go through the RFV process to demonstrate that a word actually passes CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I see your point but it IS hard to find citations for this particular term. Bulgarian Полет is mixed with the Russian полёт (poljót), normally spelled "полет" in a running Russian text and as I said, I am not that keen to keep this entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Belarusian: Paulette. I see hits, but I think they're all Russian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They are both Belarusian and Russian, plus Ukrainian. Oops, it's Russian and Ukrainian, Belarusian is Палетт or Палет. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


I see hits, but I need an Arabic speaker to assess that they actually mean Paulette. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that several of them are in Urdu- not Arabic (neither of which I can read). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the correct transliteration into Arabic. No, it's only Arabic, which lacks letter for "p", which is normally subsituted with ب "b" (can be pronounced as "b" or "p", depending on the speaker), and ي (yāʾ) is also only Arabic. Urdu and Persian spelling would be something like "پولیت" or "پلیت" (without "o"), with پ and Persian/Urdu ی. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the term, but to the Google Books hits, some of which are, indeed in Urdu, and are no doubt unrelated to this entry. While it's good to know that the entry is correct, this is rfv, so, until such time as Metaknowledge withdraws the rfv, the question remains as to whether it's attested in Arabic, and the language of the Google Books hits is relevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t know why there would be instances of its use in Urdu books, unless it was quoting something from Arabic. That isn’t how Urdu would spell it. As far as I know, only Arabic uses that spelling. —Stephen (Talk) 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is, but there are, nonetheless, Urdu books in the Google Books search results (unless Google has the language of "بوليت" this book misidentified, for instance). I know very little Arabic, and next to nothing of Urdu, while you and Anatoli know a lot. Both of you, however, seem to be flunking out on interpretation of plain English: read Metaknowledge's sentence above, and show me where he asked you to confirm that the entry means Paulette. It looks to me like "they" in that sentence refers back to "hits" in the first clause. Likewise, Anatoli seemed to think I was saying that "بوليت" is Urdu for Paulette. My point had nothing to do with any detail of the Urdu language whatsoever: we know that there are hits on Google Books, but the presence of Urdu books in that list shows that there's some random noise in the sample, so we can't take the presence of a book in the results as evidence of attestation without further examination- something neither Metaknowledge nor I is qualified to do. This isn't the Information desk, where questions get answered, this is rfv, where entries get deleted if there are no cites. As it stands now, the only things that are going to keep this entry from being deleted are either Metaknowledge withdrawing the rfv- which I think would be a good idea- or someone demonstrating that the entry meets the verification provisions of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that’s Urdu, all right. However, Google uses OCR to try to get hits, and OCR works poorly for printed Arabic, and is just useless for printed Urdu. The word in that book that Google claims is بوليت, is actually روایت (rawayat, “tradition”). —Stephen (Talk) 07:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


"Melodious". Not sure what that has to do with numbers. Equinox 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

One can find it all over the place in older dictionaries and encyclopedias, but they all cite just one source: w:Josuah Sylvester, either as author, or translator. Here's possibly the most-cited passage: [88]. He also seems to be the source cited for most or all of the references in the same sources for another sense, meaning numerous. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it has to do with number in the sense of a musical tune/musical number/song Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that, but how far back does that sense of number go? Joshua Sylvester died in 1618. Besides, he was well known for adding tons of ornate, meaningless embellishments to the simplest of sentences- this looks like a nonce term to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


It's vandalizm! --123snake45 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any Azerbaijani dictionary on One Look? If you even search the word çörək (bread) on Groups, there are only 12 results and on books there are only 38 results so how could you wait you would find this kind of word there? Avibase (the world bird database) and Observado contains the word buzlaqquşu. 123snake45 even doesn't know what Vandalism is, if you add a new word that he doesn't want to see it here, he may call it as Vandalism. He wants to spread the word 'buzulkuşu' by the meaning of 'penguin', this is why he tries to make it delete. -- 04:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's odd how a rare South American bird that merits two sentences in its Wikipedia article suddenly turns out to have common names in a variety of European and Central Asian languages, which a Turkish IP seems curiously intent on creating entries for, in spite of the fact that they have no support in CFI-compliant sources whatsoever (unless you count one Books on Demand self-published book that doesn't even give the name of the author). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Do Avibase and Observado include actual usage of the word buzlaqquşu, or just list it? It's very easy to make up a word and put it in an on-line dictionary when it's not actually a used word, you know. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It is very easy? To you, you are smart, their owners are stupid? -- 12:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "sophisticated" - in what sense? OED doesn't include this. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Added in diff. I can't work it out either, does @Speednat still contribute here? We could ask him/her. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A few books with what may be cites: 1, 2, 3, 4. This may correspond to the "skillfully done" sense in Macmillan. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The first definitions go back to this edit in 2003, and they seem to be verbatim from another dictionary. Perhaps one that is not currently subject to copyright. However they're really poorly worded, by 1913 definitions or 19th century. I would reword them. Oh, and the citations look good. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

смерть как[edit]

@KoreanQuoter, Vahagn Petrosyan, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Stephen G. Brown. In my opinion, it's not a language unit. Russian Wiktionary has it too. The word "смерть" (death) is used as an adverb but is usually followed by "как". Example: "ему смерть как хочется курить" — "he’s dying for a smoke". A Russian German dictionary has a following example: "мне смерть как хочется" - "ich möchte für mein Leben gern" [89]. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It was also entered in [90]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also calling @Useigor. Any input is appreciated. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"[N]ot a language unit", did you mean to rfd? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No. It doesn't seem like a word to me, "смерть" ("death") is used sort of adverbially in expressions - of type "смерть как (не) хочет(ся)" - expressing strong desire/reluctance. Everything that follows "смерть как ..." is not part of the expression but with "как" (like, as) it seems incomplete. I need the collocation verified as a "word", otherwise "смерть" needs enhancements. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Anatoli, you probably mean it is a sum-of-parts (SOP) and cannot be included according to WT:CFI. I agree. --Vahag (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s SoP. If I think of it as separate words, it makes no sense: death as it-wants. It’s very easy for a native Russian speaker, but for foreign learners of Russian, the meaning is not clear. —Stephen (Talk) 13:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a common use of как (kak) to indicate the extent of something: "Ты сейчас умрешь, как удачно все получилось.", which probably evolved from something more logical like "Ты не поверишь, как удачно все получилось." (I hope I'm using commas correctly...). The only additional part of "Ему смерть как хочется курить." is the interesting use of the word смерть (smertʹ) as an adverb (is it really an adverb here? I'm not sure). We need to make sure we have these senses at both как (kak) and смерть (smertʹ), but there is nothing interesting in their being together. --WikiTiki89 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, (мне, тебе, ему) хо́чется (xóčetsja) is an impersonal equivalent of "я хочу, ты хочешь, он хочет", etc. So, the interesting part is "смерть как ...", "ужас как ..." only. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like смерть is used as an adverb "figuratively" in this sense. Anyways, the figurative ways of using words seem to be the hardest part of Russian language learners like myself. Are there any more examples like these: nouns being used as adverbs? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not just nouns, Wikitiki gave examples of whole clauses used with "как". Ужас как он поёт! - It's terrible how she sings! Пиздец как он быстро бегает! - It's fucking awesome how fast he's running! (vulgar). Infinitives: Обалдеть как она сегодня выглядит! - She looks so-o cool today! (colloquial). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That's quite unexpected, but interesting. I think как has more functions than I expected. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My theory on etymology: something is to be described in an exaggerated way (it's preceded is by "как"), the first part describes the way, the intensity, etc. in an exaggerated way. Literally,the first sentence can be translated (so that it makes a bit of sense) "(It's) death how/the way I want to smoke" - so badly. "Death" can be substituted with other intensifiers, as above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Now this makes things much clearer. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Does seem like an odd request from an experienced editor. RFV determines existence; determining whether something functions as a single unit is an RFD matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't in a hurry to delete it. I needed to verify idiomaticity of the collocation, which wasn't quite straightforward - it has been added to some online dictionaries and the Russian Wiktionary also has it. If other editors proved (with citations) that it's used idiomatically, there wouldn't be any need for an RFD. Attestations would be required for not a free collocation but the idiomatic usage, if it makes sense. Now, I will just delete it but the additional usage should be covered by examples in [[смерть]]. It's still not clear what part of speech it is and what this grammatical feature/phenomenon is called. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, most hits in google books:"смерть как" have nothing to do with the usage in question. They are equivalent to the English "death as ...". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You should send it to RFD, not "just delete it", especially since Stephen above opined it is not sum of parts. No, we do not seek attestation to show a phrase is idiomatic; please check again our practice, by consulting to top sections of RFD and RFV pages, and by checking the long history of RFV and RFD nominations and their resolutions. If you don't believe me, check the comments of multiple other editors above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(re: most hits in google books:"смерть как" have nothing to do with the usage in question)... that’s a good test for SOP, Anatoli. If it were SOP, then it would just be like most hits in google books:"смерть как" and would be equivalent to the English "death as ...". —Stephen (Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


This gets quite a few hits on Google Books, but the current definition, frankly, looks like one of those grammatically correct but semantically meaningless sentences (think "colourless green ideas sleep furiously") that spambots spit out to get past spam filters. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the hallmark of social science, isn't it? (The most baffling and gratuitous word-coinages I've ever seen, personally, are those of Bracha L. Ettinger.) "Ethnoscape" seems to have been introduced by Arjun Appadurai (1996?) as part of a set of five -scapes: Arjun Appadurai#Theory. "Ethnic landscape" probably captures it really. Equinox 02:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I've brought back the four "related terms" terms you deleted, but as "coordinate terms", because they are the other four in the Appaduraian (lol) set. If you think that's a particularly bad move then feel free to delete them again. Equinox 02:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Cited, I think. Equinox 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Aymara. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Марчиуэ and Марчихуе[edit]

Russian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Uyghur. Hopefully citable, but I don't know where to look. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Yoruba. As above, only needs one cite, if someone can find a dictionary that includes it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Kóstá Rikà[edit]

Yoruba again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Quechua. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, is it in any dictionary you have access to? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, and I couldn’t find anything anywhere else either. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

antanka pampa[edit]

Quechua, as above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Both Bulgarian and Ukrainian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Uyghur. I reckon I'll take a break from RFVing for now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

big picture[edit]

Rfv-sense: (slang) The movies or movie theaters.

I'm not familiar with this sense. It is not in OneLook. If it is real we need citations. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is, it's got to be dated for sure, like short for big picture movie theatre/big picture show or to that effect Leasnam (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick look on Google books yields 8 books with Big Picture in the title that are about movies. I have also found a number of quotes, which I will put on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the cites are 0/4 as citations of the sense:
  1. 2010 (title) Uses the idiomatic sense that we have as "totality"
  2. 2010 Drew "big" + "picture palace", picture palace being a kind of promotional name for a motion picture theater.
  3. 2008 Workshop "big" + "picture"
  4. 2003 Kern "big"+ "picture"
I think we would be looking for something like the baseball sense of the big show ("major leagues"). DCDuring TALK 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created big show. bd2412 T 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not capitalized? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sûreté du Québec[edit]

I think that government entities ought to fall under WT:COMPANY so I'm requesting three cites for this as a common word. —Internoob 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they ought to but I think it's clear enough from the wording at the moment that they don't. But CFI's been voted non-binding so whatever. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? I guess I've been away for too long. I didn't know that CFI was not binding any more. My thinking is that government entities are companies in sense 2 of the word. —Internoob 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
CFI has not been voted nonbinding. There was a vote on whether certain people's interpretation of CFI should take precedence over consensus in deletion discussions, and the vote didn't pass. That's a very far cry from CFI having been nonbinding. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The vote was to make CFI binding and it failed. The fact that it therefore isn't binding is not only a reasonable interpretation, it fits the facts. If we refuse to delete an entry that doesn't meet CFI, what happens? Who comes in and punishes us? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Phrasing makes a difference, does not it? You say the they ought to, not that they do, right? You're not even basing the nomination strictly within CFI, as far as I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that in my mind, government entities are companies and as such fall under WT:COMPANY. But since CFI doesn't define what it means by "company" it's possible that people will disagree with me. We might have to move to RFD to discuss this, if no one cites it as a common noun. —Internoob 17:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, that heaven finds means to kill your joys! And I, for winking at your discords too, have lost a brace. All are punishèd. —Stephen (Talk) 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per all, including nominator. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

taja piedboksado[edit]

Esperanto for Muay Thai. No results on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for Muay Thai. No results on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, an entry with no definition and no citations should be deleted, and perhaps added to the Requested Entries page. Equinox 12:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't object. If there's consensus for that, most of the pages in Category:Ido entries needing definition could be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

arnés pene[edit]

Is this putative Spanish term defined to mean "strap-on" attested as per WT:ATTEST? google books:"arnés pene" does not look promising. Previously in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


"Jewelry: pendant. From the homophone for Coulomb in Russian, кулон." Can't seem to find anything on this. Equinox 12:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read кулон (kulon) you at least know what it's on about. Looks extremely spurious that a Russian homonym where both are derived from French, that that would create an extra English word. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Eaglais Chaitliceach Rómhánach[edit]

Irish Wikipedia and two Google Books hits with no preview. Nothing on Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I asked an editor of Irish wikipedia, SeoMac, if he could anything, maybe he'll be able to. Please note that although I edited that article, I did not create it.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC) http://tearma.ie/Search.aspx?term=Eaglais+Chaitliceach+R%C3%B3mh%C3%A1nach&lang=3116659 Here's one source that uses the term. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[91] and [92] are from a print newspaper. Irish is an LDL so this ought to be enough. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
What is an LDL?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
A limited documentation language—per WT:CFI, limited documentation languages have weaker attestation requirements than well documented languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Is this what the "dark chocolate" sense was referring to?

Other dictionaries, including 1913 Webster's, seem to be quite unanimous about the meaning of this word. They say:

  1. flavored sugar preparation, used for icing cakes or as a filling for chocolates.
  2. candy made with this preparation

We have the first of these. Instead of the second, we have these:

  1. Dark chocolate.
  2. A croquette.
fondant potatoes are the cupcake-shaped item to the left of the meat

Are these real? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added the countable candy sense, a sense related to enamel flux, and a heraldry sense (separate etymology).
One or two dictionaries have an adjective sense.
I don't see any dictionary evidence for the two senses you have challenged, but w:fondant refers to w:Molten chocolate cake, aka chocolate fondant, and to fondant potatoes (no article). These might be the basis for the challenged senses. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added some images to the entry and found some others that bear on the challenged senses. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


@Adjutor101: nominated this page for speedy deletion, but I hesitated to do so because I think the issue should be brought to RFV. The reason that was given was "This is a Dari word and not present in Pashto [used in creole speech] but not recognised as Pashto see Pashto Academy Research Paper 2005. Also check word لامبو". —Internoob 22:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A self-designated Pashtun created it, so I suspect it is legitimate, just not prescriptively legitimate. Unfortunately, Pashto has a really low literacy rate and it will be hard to find sources. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the most authentic Pashto dictionaries: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=raverty&query=%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A&matchtype=exact&display=utf8. As you can see it is not mentioned here. The word is 100% Dari and not Pashto. I can add لامبو instead, if permission is granted Adjutor101 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
But you said it's not 100% Dari and not Pashto by saying it's used in creole speech. It certainly strikes me as one of those cases that would give us arguments and headaches in English, and will probably be resolved in Pashto by a simple lack of evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Just remember that we're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not a prescriptive dictionary based on authoritative sources. If Pashto speakers use a term as a Pashto term, we consider it a Pashto term. If authoritative sources consider it wrong, we label it as "proscribed", and we might provide more information in a usage note- but we have to maintain a neutral point of view in our explanations. Most languages that are under pressure from other languages go through a period of trying to banish foreignisms in order to "purify" the language- understandable, but not something we can subscribe to. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, from the wording above, it sounds like the w:No true Scotsman fallacy may be at play here: "that word isn't used in Pashto, because no one using it is speaking true Pashto". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(Reverted my own previous comment about the wrong letter, this letter IS used in Pashto but not Dari). According to this link it's a Pashto word. Besides, letter ي is apparently used in Arabic and Pashto but not in any variety of Persian, including Dari. Pashto has a less developed written tradition and low literacy, so it may be a "recommended" word, which is hard to attest. I wouldn't delete, since it was added by a native Pashto speaker. Even if we can't find attestations, it may be used in speech and this is just a written form of what is used by Pashto speakers? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
To respected @Atitarev:, respected @Chuck Entz: and to respected @Prosfilaes: I think the user that added it was probably not a Pashtun [judging from the use of Avestan, was likely a Parsi and motivated by the belief that Pashto is descended from Avestan]. Most Pashtuns come from rural areas apart from Kandahar and Jalalabad. People in Kabul and Peshawar are not ethnic Pashtuns most of the time and when they speak Pashto they use the vocab and grammar of their native languages such as Urdu, Dari/Farsi, Hindko, Pahari, Gujri etc We can include words from all different languages in Pashto over here but ultimately it harms the credibility of Wiktionary as an authoritative source on Pashto which have been hoping to achieve. Adjutor101 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Adjutor101 Thanks for the reply. What do you say about this link? My question is also - is this word used by Pashtuns, in any regions? As User:Dijan said on your talk page, we should include all loanwords as well, if they are used by native speakers, e.g. Arab purists may dislike words borrowed from English like تِلِفُون (tilifūn) ("telephone") and بَنْك (bank) ("bank") and prefer native words with the same meanings - هَاتِف (hātif) and مَصْرِف (maṣrif) but we allow loanwords if they are used in that language.
BTW, I encourage you to add more Pashto words, especially common, frequently used ones. Happy editing. Cheers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not against borrowing. My aim is just to make this page reliable in the eyes of native speakers. I have pointed out that افغان is also a borrowing, most Pashtuns would die before dong so Adjutor101 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
اوبازي seems to be a legitimate word that is also listed in the Glossary of Herbert Penzl's A grammar of Pashto: A descriptive study of the dialect of Kandahar, Afghanistan (Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies, 1955), pp. 154-165. It is a borrowing from Persian, as is the actual Persian form itself آببازي. Both are listed in Qamosona. --Dijan (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Please note the four senses were removed prior to my request for verification. The senses which I refer to in this request are found in this revision dated 01:10, 5 May 2015.

They are:

  • sense 4— (countable, crime) A sex offense committed against a child.
  • sense 5— A sexual orientation.
  • sense 6— (epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference.
  • sense 7— (psychiatry, outmoded) An American Psychiatric Association clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia.

Each usage is attested on Citations:pedophilia, Citations:paedophilia, or Citations:paidophilia.

The term has multiple overlapping senses: pedophilia is the label of a crime, which is also the label of a sexual orientation (a biological sense), which is also the label of a psychiatric condition, which is also the label of a desire, which is also the label of behavior, which is also the label of a cultural custom.

  • sense 4 was removed by Equinox with edit summary  and the fact that it's an offence (like burglary) isn't a separate sense of the WORD. burglary as an offence is not a separate MEANING of burglary. 
The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures.
  • sense 5 was removed by Equinox with edit summary  "orientation" not distinct from "feelings". it's absurd to give this word 5 senses 
The attested usages show that this sense is a distinct from a feeling or a desire, and "many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality." It is in that sense biological and not behavioral.
  • sense 6 was removed by PaulBustion88 with edit summary  "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." Again, redundant to definition, diagnosis of a "sexual attraction primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children" 
As I commented on the talk page

sense 2— (medicine, more strictly) Mental disorder in which an adult or adolescent aged 16 years or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. That is distinguished from sense 6. The quote attesting usage of sense 6: Paedophilia is defined as a mental disorder within the International Classification of Diseases ICD-10 […] Contrary to any medical model of a diagnosis, however, such classification offers no understanding of aetiology and no indication of prognosis or grounds for treatment., is clear that sense 6, about a typological category, is not equivalent but Contrary to any medical model of a diagnosis.

  • sense 7 was removed by PaulBustion88 with edit summary  Sense 7 is definitely redundant to sense 2. The American Psychiatric Association's definition of pedophilia has always been more or less the same as sense 2 
I included a usage note that In 2013, the term pedophilia was outmoded and replaced with the term pedophilic disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, edition 5 (DSM-5). As I commented on the talk page, That change in language is clearly an important aspect about this term.

I also commented on my understanding of sense 2, sense 5, sense 6, sense 7 on entry talk page (diff). Please take the time to read through the attestations. I spend a lot of time to gather them, and believe they show a fair and balanced range of 21st c. usage of this term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures." This is no rebuttal. Homosexuality is a crime in some cultures and not others: that doesn't mean we have two separate senses for it. It still just means gay sex. Equinox 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures." A ridiculous statement. Look at wikipedia's articles about the legal ages for sex in different geographical regions. They are well sourced and are accurate, although they use the vague term age of consent, which I dislike because it is not used in government documents and does not specify sex, I would rather just call it either "age of sexual consent" or "legal age for sexual activity", you claim, Bobomisiu, that pedophilic behavior is criminal in some places but not others. That is not true, I cannot think of any state where the minimum legal age for a young person to become old enough to legally have sex with an older adult without the older party being guilty of rape is lower than 13 years old, and if you look at wikipedia it will support what I say. Pedophiles are not interested in people that old, someone that age would be to old for a pedophile, because they already are starting to develop adult bodies and partially adult, although still somewhat immature, minds. Give one example of a country where an adult having sex with a 5 year old or even an 11 year old is legal. I'll bet there is not even one. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what Equinox said. Abortion is still ending the life of a baby before it is born, whether it is a crime, as it is in the Republic of Ireland, or it is legal, as it is in the United States of America. We do not give a separate definition for abortion, "the crime of ending a pre born baby's life". --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"The term has multiple overlapping senses: pedophilia is the label of a crime, which is also the label of a sexual orientation (a biological sense), which is also the label of a psychiatric condition, which is also the label of a desire, which is also the label of behavior, which is also the label of a cultural custom.""sense 5 was removed by Equinox with edit summary  "orientation" not distinct from "feelings". it's absurd to give this word 5 senses  The attested usages show that this sense is a distinct from a feeling or a desire, and "many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality." It is in that sense biological and not behavioral." Wrong again, Bobomisiu, pedophilia is not considered a sexual orientation by medical doctors/reliable sources,wikipedia In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because it renamed the disorder pedophilic disorder in its DSM-5 manual, the association stated: "'[S]exual orientation' is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read 'sexual interest.'"[1] --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems straightforward and not an RFV issue but an RFD issue (just to make it a bit messier than it already is). Sense #4 is redundant to "Sexual activity between adults and (prepubescent) children." and crime is not a context. The sexual orientation is not a separate sense from "Sexual feelings or desires by adults towards minors." The last two are frankly ridiculous senses based on specific standards, and are overtly redundant to sense #2. A rare instance of intentional redundancy by the author. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If something's redundant to a real sense, of course it's going to be attested, because any cite for the first real sense will also back up the senses with the same meaning. Can we hurry up and delete this section please, since no rfv material has been presented. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: What do mean that delete this section please, since no rfv material has been presented. What are your questions about this? Why not let others see what I am requesting? It is awfully prescriptive to say something is not a crime when it is attested to be. It awfully prescriptive to say something is a sexual orientation when there is reliable attestation of such usage. It is awfully prescriptive to say that when a term is replaced with another that is insignificant. A google search shows everything I added is district and in current usage. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you considered reading my comments? If not, please do so. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I did. Your reference is something that I had attested to days ago. Did you read my attestations? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In light of my comments, which you claim to have read, why would I do that? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I will wait for input from others here. The biology and genetics of pedophilia is studied and the term is associated with sexual orientation. The referenced article is an example.[2]BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC) modified 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So are we going to have separate definitions for homosexual behavior, zoophilic behavior, rape, abortion, pornography, harassment, etc. based on there being crimes in addition to the actions. The fact that something is a crime does not make it have a different definition, aborting a baby is the same act regardless of whether it is a crime or not a crime."It is awfully prescriptive to say something is not a crime when it is attested to be." "The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures." You said that Bobomisiu, so the only person who said it was legal in some places was you, not Renard Migrant, Equinox, or myself. I also detect from your editing pattern that you have an agenda, because you insisted on the quote that insinuated Mohammad was a pedophile,diff and you suggested pedophilia was a custom in some tribal cultures,diff with no evidence for either claim. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The American Psychiatric Association, which defines the scientific use of the term pedophilia, does not consider it a sexual orientation, BobMishiu.
"The APA said in its statement that “‘sexual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”
“In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman. [1] --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This may seem off-topic, but let me remind those who are posting mountains of text here and elsewhere that, in order to change someone's mind, they have to read what you wrote, and very few are masochistic enough to read all of this. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I totally support Equinox's edits (and personally I'd merge the remaining senses together too). Ƿidsiþ 09:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Widsith: Yes, you would because that is what you did 2011 (diff) when you also removed other senses to make it seem that pedophilia is just used as a feeling. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC) modified 13:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Did I? Well, that doesn't surprise me. I still feel that the profusion of senses is less, not more, helpful to our users and introduces social/legal distinctions that are not inherent to the word itself. Ƿidsiþ 14:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(On this subject, by the way, I note that no other dictionary that I can find gives more than one sense of the word, so I consider my view to be quite standard.) Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pidsip, you cannot merge those senses together. The first definition and the second definition have different meanings. The first definition means any adult being sexually attracted to any minor, the second means an adult specifically having a sexual fixation on prepubescent children. The first one is obviously much broader than the second, so one of those two meanings would have to go if we're limiting ourselves to one definition, they cannot really be merged. Also, the third definition is about behavior, while the first two are about sexual attraction, so that one could not be merged with either of the other two. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The first definition, "sexual feelings or desires directed by adults towards minors" does not really make sense. Because there's no difference between a 17 year old minor and an 18 year old adult in appearance, or at least there's not a significant one, so I really do not see why an adult would prefer one over the other, unless it had to do with a "forbidden fruit" thing. So I see "adult sexual attraction to minors" to be to broad to be a real category. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't like that definition either, also because who is a minor depends on what jurisdiction you're in. A 19-year-old who's attracted to a 17-year-old is exhibiting pedophilia in California but not in Texas? I doubt it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The legal age for sex varies widely. Its 14 in Germany and Austria, while its 18 in some USA member states. To say a man is a pedophile when he has sex with a 17 year old in Wisconsin because its a crime there but is not a pedophile when he does it in Indiana because its legal there does not make sense. So there is no single, international definition of who is an adult and who is not. So maybe that definition should go also for that reason, because it could cause wiktionary to have to get into specific judgements about that. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't make sense in a logical way, but as long as people use it that way, it's real! Falling head over heels doesn't make any logical sense because your head is already over your heels. But we don't keep or delete things based on whether they make logical sense, just if they exist or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@PaulBustion88: your argument today, as before, is based on the APA definition even though the APA outmoded and replaced the term pedophilia with the term pedophilic disorder in 2013 in its DSM-5. You are arguing against a straw man that you are creating not against what I have attributed.

@Renard Migrant: sorry for saying you referenced the when it was clearly PaulBustion88, there is, as Chuck Entz says, too much text.

@Widsith, Equinox: others do gives more than one sense of the word, online, for example "The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness", according to dictionary.law.com.

@Angr, PaulBustion88: age is an attribute of a child not an attribute of pedophilia. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: It is an attribute of pedophilia in the sense that two consenting adults 21 and older having sex or being sexually attracted to other 21 year olds and older is never considered pedophilia. I do not agree with the definition of pedophilia you seem to be using, of a person 18 years old or older having sex with or being sexually attracted to a person 17 years old or younger, but even your definition is using age as an attribute, you're just using a different age range than my attribution does. I view pedophilia as a sexual attraction towards or sexual activity with prepubescent or early pubescent children, which would generally be victims or objects 12 or younger, (by "objects" I mean "objects of sexual desire" not "inanimate objects") but we're both doing the same thing, just with different age ranges. Your claim is disingenuous. Also wikipedia's entry about pedophilia still defines it using the APA's definition, so I think you are wrong. Pedophilic disorder is a synonym for pedophilia, not a term that replaced it. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
[that is a publication of the APA, so they are synonyms, according to wikipedia], and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.
In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction (pedophilia) with the act of abuse (child molestation), and does not distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. [that's why the age of the victim or object of sexual attraction matters] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and not all pedophiles molest children. ―Pedophilia on wikipedia references removed from this blockquote; for content before refactor, see: this revision

And yes, pedophilia and pedophilic disorder are listed as synonyms in other sources,

2015 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 302.2

Disease Synonyms
  • Paedophilia
Clinical Information
  • A disorder characterized by recurrent sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
  • A sexual disorder occurring in a person 16 years or older and that is recurrent with intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 or younger). (from apa, dsm-iv, 1994)icd9data.com
--PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@PaulBustion88: really — since you defer to wikipedia therefore you think I am wrong‽ I wrote that there are two systems of typology used in English that categorizepedophilia these were sense 6 and sense 7 which you deleted from the entry. But, now you copy blocks of text from wikipedia and elsewhere into the this discussion to show that sense 6 ICD-10 and sense 7 DSM-5 are used in wikipedia? Your argument about the synonymous term pedophilic disorder in the 2013 DSM-5 is a red herring; I added pedophilic disorder as a synonym. In 2013, the term pedophilia in DSM-4TR was replaced by the term pedophilic disorder in DSM-5. The distinction between those senses was found in this revision of the entry before you deleted. Berryessa categorized
  • pedophile as "an individual who meets the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia"
  • pedophilic offender as "an individual who meets the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia and sexually offends against children"
  • child sex offender as "an individual who does not meet the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia and sexually offends against children"
She uses pedophilia and notes "or pedophilic disorder" only once.[2]
The other argument, that the APA does not consider pedophilic disorder a sexual orientation, is an appeal to authority: the usage is well attributed for more than a decade and shows the APA's 2013 recommended usage was and is disregarded by many. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fine BoboMisiu, as long as you leave the medical definition in, I'm not opposed to readding the other definitions you want to add. I would rather they not be added, but I do not want controversy here. Is that a reasonable compromise?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@PaulBustion88: this is not about compromise but about verifying the attested usage of the term.
I have reviewed the attested usages (here, here, and here) and this discussion (especially my request) again and found a few unanswered questions.
@Widsith:'s concern that multiple senses introduce distinctions not inherent to the word itself is contrasted by: PaulBustion88's voluminous quotes about two distinct systems of typology and contradicted by many attestations of usage included here, here, and here that show these distinctions for over a 110 years. These senses are not novelties and are different:
  • An internal desire is not an external behavior (sense 1 and sense 3).
  • A disordered internal desire is a medical condition, i.e. a medical disorder (sense 2).
  • A crime is an act against society (sense 4).
  • A biological difference is neither an internal desire nor an external behavior (sense 5).
  • A regional difference, based on two predominant authorities, is an attested outmoding and replacement of the term in 2013 by one of those authorities (sense 6 and sense 7). This implicitly means that part of the world uses the term different than the rest.
@PaulBustion88:'s concern, that I provide no evidence of an additional sense that pedophilia is a cultural custom, should be part of a future vetting after I attribute that usage and add that sense to the term. In this discussion that as a straw man about a sense that I have not yet added.
@Equinox:'s edit summary for the removal of sense 4, states that if pedophilia is an offence (like burglary) then that isn't a separate sense of the WORD, e.g. burglary as an offence is not a separate MEANING of burglary.
  • The attested usage shows pedophilia is not an offence (like burglary). While burglary has only a criminal sense, pedophilia has other well attested senses beyond its well attested criminal sense.
The first part of Equinox's edit summary for the removal of sense 5, that  'orientation' not distinct from 'feelings' , fails to distinguish that a biological difference is not an internal desire or feeling.
The second part of Equinox's edit summary for the removal of sense 5, that it's absurd to give this word 5 senses, is a subjective preference for less clarity – which reminds me of the quote from Amadeus by the emperor to Mozart: "It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all." Which, of course but unfortunately, has nothing to do with Equinox challenging any of the attested usages included here, here, and here. These should be senses of this term as are necessary.
I see no one challenging the attested usage described in WT:CFI. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu Huh? This whole thread and the RFD thread are about whether are not the above-mentioned senses are attested as distinct, CFI-meeting senses. The consensus is that they are not. Compare: goose can be attested in the sense "an animal with webbed feet capable of swimming", and also in the sense "a bird capable of flight". Does [[goose]] need two senses to cover this attested usage? No, one sense "a waterfowl with webbed feet, capable of both flight and swimming" would suffice. (Our current definition is a bit less informative — I may expand it shortly — but it still gets the point across.) - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked about relevance, and you said you'd wait for someone else to comment. Oh well, I suppose I'd better keep waiting then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In the time since this discussion was started, all of the aforementioned senses have been deleted (not by me); I agree that this was the correct course of action, because the senses all failed to be verified as independent senses. Compare the RFD discussion. I have restored the distinction which existed in revision 31351647 (before all the changes by Paul et al started) between action and attraction; many other entries (correctly, IMO) make this distinction, e.g. heterosexuality and homosexuality, and those two senses passed a previous RFV (which, disclaimer, was judged by me). - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw from my comments in beer parlour about explicit images that I am not writing clearly. So here is another attempt at clarity. Some think that wiktionary should not:
  • list and explain all the different variations on the definition of a term as used in different cultures, legal jurisdictions and professional organizations (diff)
I think it is wiktionary's purpose to include the many different senses of pedophilia that are attested to have determinable meanings which are stable over time. Including attested usage is just an open-world assumption since there will always be some other excluded knowledge. Nevertheless, it is better to include more than to include less. And when a term is outmoded by one of the groups that prescribes usage that should also be included. The senses don't even have to occur together, e.g. a person arrested for pedophilia might not be categorized epidemiologically and likewise a person with the psychiatric disorder might not exhibit the behavior. The senses have a degree of independence.
  • discuss whether it's a sexual orientation, or a clinical disorder, etc. (diff)
I think it is wiktionary's purpose to describe that some people use the term to signify a biological sexual orientation and that others use it to signify a psychiatric disorder. The consumer benefits by knowing that there is a variety of senses. Those senses just show the usage and not a judgement of the veracity the usage. Wiktionary should describe the range of 21st century usage and not prescribe it through omission. The standard should not be how comfortable the community feels about the actual usage (or a perceived misusage) of a term.
Reading phrases from Citations:pedophilia such as: "pedophilia is a sex offense in all States", "seeks the legalization of pedophilia", "Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity", "arrested for pedophilia", "arrest inside the city state on charges of pedophilia", and "suspects arrested for pedophilia" clearly demonstrate a sense of criminal behavior (sense 4) which is broader than the sense of some individual behavior since the attestations show it also has the quality of group behavior, i.e. organized collective behavior, which is in some way behavior against society. The sense does not seem to be colloquial. That sense is not about the particular age of a child within a particular society, it emphasizes the child victim and not the pedophile malefactor.
A goose is a poor comparison. Nevertheless, like the quote I added to the mysoped entry informs: "This type of pedophile has no real sexual interest in children in the traditional sense, although he may sexually abuse them." —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The June 2015 closing of the RFD, before verifying, is the procedural way I expected this censorship to happen. I also expect that this RFV will be closed with the reasoning that the RFD is closed so there is no need to verify the senses. Nevertheless, I just noticed that, while the reasoning by @BD2412 was that there are a number of crimes likely committed in an act of pedophilia, that reasoning was in a juxtaposition near a strawman conclusion that "pedophilia" itself is not a legal term and that there is no "crime" called pedophilia @Renard Migrant added about current UK legislation that it isn't in there.
Neither addressed that a criminal sense is not the same as a legal term.
The criminal sense of pedophilia is a different facet than a psychiatric facet, for example one of the quotes deleted in 2015, which was added in 2011, verified, and improved in 2015, was:

pedophilia was cited as both an aggravating and a mitigating circumstance by trial judges, as was the absence of pedophilia. This signals some confusion among judges about what a diagnosis of pedophilia means.

I believe, as I wrote above, that Wiktionary should describe the range of 21st century usage and not prescribe it through omission. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This still misconstrues what a crime is. Consider - if a person punches, kicks, or stabs another person, this may constitute a criminal act. However, there is no sense of punch, kick, or stab defining it as the crime of doing so, because the crime in those cases would be battery or the like. Similarly, kleptomania is a disorder which compels people to steal, but is not a crime; the crime is theft. bd2412 T 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412 No, what am writing does not misconstrue what a crime is. Using your example, a stabbing generally has a criminal sense if there is a victim. Deciding which legal set term also describes that instance of stabbing, in a particular jurisdiction, is a separate concept. People regularly use stabbing and understand it has a criminal sense.
From google web:"criminal sense" crime; google books:"criminal sense" crime; and, google scholar:"criminal sense" crime I see the concept criminal sense is not the concept crime. It is common knowledge – I am confident that if:
  1. someone is stabbing me
  2. I call the police and say "he is stabbing me"
  3. the police will understand that my use of stabbing has a criminal sense
  4. they will send help to me because the criminal sense of stabbing conveys I am a victim
  5. other people will, only later, decide which legal set terms also describes the instance of stabbing that I experience
  6. years later as I recall the incident to others, people understand that my use of stabbing has a criminal sense, and will never interrupt me to ask if I mean battery
BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there is no separate dictionary definition of "stabbing" as a crime. bd2412 T 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. "Stab" doesn't have one sense "to pierce or to wound (somebody) with a pointed tool or weapon, especially a knife or dagger" and then a second sense "to commit a crime by piercing or to wounding (somebody) with a pointed tool or weapon, especially a knife or dagger"; that would be redundant. "Stab" has just one sense, "to pierce [...etc...]". The action which that sense describes happens to be considered a crime in most (all?) jurisdictions, and if you mention to the police that you are being stabbed they will understand from context that the fact that piercing someone with a knife is illegal (and they are charged with fighting illegal activity) means they should take action, but that doesn't change the (or add a new) definition of the word. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with bd2412 and -sche. Not everything predicated of a thing is part of the definition of the thing: having sentences of the form "A is B" does not automatically lead to B becoming part of the definition of A or B becoming a separate sense of A. The fact that something is a crime in some jurisdiction does not mean that there should be a separate definition having "crime" in its genus. The RFD on the four senses nominated in this RFV has already settled the matter. Since lexicographical sense and judgment of editors was needed, RFD was a good process for this, IHMO. Dictionaries online seem to agree with the judgment made in the RFD. I propose to close this RFV as follows: "RFV closed: case already handled in RFD." --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I like the way DanP has summed it up and agree in principle and generally. But in some cases a predicate is so important in a context that it indicates a need for an additional definition. But I think the existence of English-speaking jurisdictions which defined pedophilia as a crime would warrant a definition, specifying the context, however vague it would have to be to avoid having one definition for each jurisdiction. It might be possible, even advisable to use a non-gloss definition or a usage note (without any definition) to reflect this. We often find that legal definitions are quite specific in a way that ordinary usage is not in much the same way as iron has both a common meaning and various technical meanings. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. 1.0 1.1 Wetzstein, Cheryl, "APA to correct manual: Pedophilia is not a ‘sexual orientation’", The Washington Times, October 31, 2013. Retrieved on February 14, 2014.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Colleen M. Berryessa, “Potential implications of research on genetic or heritable contributions to pedophilia for the objectives of criminal law”, Recent advances in DNA & gene sequences, 2014, volume 8, number 2, pages 65–77: " [] Recent research has also explored pedophilia’s association to specific genes. [] "


"An affinity or fondness for animals", distinct from the standard sexual sense. Is this a PaulBustion invention? Equinox 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not put it there, I was recommending that it be taken out. Didn't you see that?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the history, its definitely not my invention, it was SemperBlotto's. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=zoophilia&type=revision&diff=203159&oldid=203158--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Before you assumed I wrote it, you should have looked at the edit history, you would then have seen that it was added when SemperBlotto created the entry. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Equinox that "an affinity or fondness for animals should be deleted from the article. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not a vote; we're looking for evidence of the existence of this sense, which is at least plausible (but plausible doesn't necessarily mean real), Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some evidence for this sense, although all of it is perjorative. this, this, this, and this all seem to use the term for a hypersensitivity to animal welfare - everything from cat ladies to anti-vivisectionists. Possibly also this which talks about it as a "Christian love of life", whatever that means. 06:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also RFVing a third sense added by PaulBustion. Equinox 20:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Kraft-Ebbing defined zoophilia as exclusive attraction to animals in Psycopathia Sexualis, "The term zoophilia was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) by Krafft-Ebing, who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)",[7] as well as "zoophilia erotica",[8] which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur. The term zoophilia derives from the combination of two nouns in Greek: ζῷον (zṓion, meaning "animal") and φιλία (philia, meaning "(fraternal) love"). In general contemporary usage, the term zoophilia may refer to sexual activity between human and non-human animals, the desire to engage in such, or to the specific paraphilia (i.e., the atypical arousal) which indicates a definite preference for non-human animals over humans as sexual partners. Although Krafft-Ebing also coined the term zooerasty for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals,[9] that term has fallen out of general use." It can still mean the preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#General --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
But I disagree with him about "primary or exclusive human sexual attraction to animals" being deleted. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this just redundancy? It's the same sense with a 'medical' tag in front of it. The thing is, it's not exclusively medical in the same way 'heart' isn't exclusively used in physiology. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact I've removed it as an obvious joke. If we can have two senses with the same wording, why not have three, four, five, six or seven? Usually people change the wording just a little bit. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Kiwima has typed up the citations which the IP above provided (thank you!). See Citations:zoophilia. They all do seem to refer to a non-sexual "excessive love of animals". I've tweaked the definition a bit; I'd say it passes. - -sche (discuss) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 02:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Any proof of the first sense, at least in Modern English? Tharthan (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds very unlikely. Any parliament... so the French parliament could be called a witenagemot? Yeah... right. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Hence why I brought it up here. I have never heard "witenagemot" used in any other way outside of its historical meaning. Tharthan (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right. From the OED:

1614 J. Selden Titles of Honor 226 Their Wittenagemots or Mikel Synods.
1656 J. Harrington Common-wealth of Oceana 35 (margin) Weidenagamoots.
1660 E. Waterhouse Disc. Arms & Armory 181 The Wittena~gemote and great Councel of our wisdom, in the preamble to the Statute of 43 Eliz. c. 12. acknowledgeth it to have been the policy of this Realm.
1769 W. Blackstone Comm. Laws Eng. IV. xxxiii. 405 The wittena-gemote, or commune concilium of the antient Germans.
1785 W. Cowper Let. 22 Jan. (1981) II. 322 Shall I derive no other advantage from the great Wittena Gemot of the nation, than merely to read their debates..?
1827 R. Southey Select. Lett. (1856) IV. 348 Having occasion to write to Sir T. Acland while he is attending the Witena~gemot at Cambridge, I sent him a fact for the geologists.
1855 R. Browning Old Pictures in Florence xxxiii, A kind of sober Witana-gemot [rhyme bag 'em hot].
1899 M. Foster Presid. Addr. Brit. Assoc. 22 The first select Witena~gemote of the science of the world.
Ƿidsiþ 07:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are atypical uses of the term. I've looked on google and I cannot find any use of witenagemot other than the ancient English legislature.The dictionaries I've looked at only use the ancient English legislature sense, [.... redacted direct word-for-word quotations of definitions from 5 dictionaries --Dan Polansky (talk)] So all the definitions I've seen so far are restricted to the witengamot being the ancient Anglo-Saxon council, not allowing broad uses such as describing other parliaments. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a request for verification, and the definition in question has been verified. What dictionaries say is somewhat beside the point (although in fact the OED says ‘transf[eratively]. of modern parliaments or other deliberative assemblies’). Ƿidsiþ 09:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
We need to change the meaning though. "[a]ny assembly, parliament or discursive gathering" makes it sounds like it means, well, just that. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it can mean just that, except that the usage should probably be marked as usually jocular (and probably now rare as well – but I haven't done enough research outside the OED to be very sure). Ƿidsiþ 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the Harry Potter series Dumbledore was a member of a council called the Wizengamot, maybe it comes from the second use of this term, that might tend to support widsith's argument that its jocular, if its true. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The quotations posted above (paragraph starting with "Yeah, right. From the OED") are of different spellings, e.g. "Wittenagemots" with double t, which does not count by my lights to attest "witenagemot" with single t. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll tweak per Widsith and the OED but leave it tagged. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Then you have a lot of tweaking to do, including to "Weidenagamoot", which differs from "witenagemot" rather significantly. What is the basis for the claim that "Weidenagamoot" and "witenagemot" should be considered same for the purpose of attestation; is the pronunciation assumed to be the same? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hence "leave it tagged". Renard Migrant (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We obviously differ on how to treat alternative forms. For me (and all other dictionaries…) all uses of alternative forms or spellings count as evidence for the headword. Ƿidsiþ 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd accept them. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As would I. Leasnam (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. Tharthan (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I would say that it is an overapplication of the rules to exclude a word solely because the citations have variant spellings. That might be a reason to not give every variant its own entry, but to have no entry at all is unhelpful to our readers. SpinningSpark 14:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. And we allow plural citations for singulars. WT:CFI#Attestation doesn't mention variant spellings so I think we're safe de jure as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It's true I don't think we've ever really written it into the guidelines. The position agreed on aaages ago (with User:Eclecticology, if I remember rightly) was that a given citation can be used to support either the specific form used, or the original uninflected, lemmatised headword, or both. Ƿidsiþ 09:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If quotations of "Witana-gemot" are supposed to support "witenagemot", then I figure that quotations of "coal-mine" can be used to support "coalmine". By that logic, an attestation of <noun>-<noun> hyphenated compound would automatically attest non-hyphenated <noun><noun> compound. Is this what you intend? On this very RFV page, there is a nomination of "skinnymalinky" for which only quotations of "skinny-malinky" with dash have been found; should these quotations be used to claim attestation of non-hyphenated "skinnymalinky"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, basically. You collect a series of citations that are all obviously of the same ‘word’, and then at the end you make a decision on what the best lemma form is, either based on frequency or on some kind of etymological rationale. I don't care what the lemma should be in this case, but it's very clear that all these citations are using the same basic lexical unit with the same basic meaning, which is the whole point of what the entry is trying to show. Ƿidsiþ 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
We're different from paper dictionaries in that we have separate entries for cleanup and clean-up. For me, the only time cites for one wouldn't count for the other is if specifically a hyphenated or hyphenless form were being challenged, while the other form was unchallenged. In reply, if only citations for skinny-malinky have been found, have the entry at skinny-malinky and delete skinnymalinky as unattested. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What I find most curious is that a set of quotations is presented to support a sense of "witenagemot", yet "witenagemot", in this precise spelling, does not occur even once in the set. My preferred attestation approach is per particular spelling, but even if we relax that to pool variant spellings, the spelling for which an entry is being made should have at least one attesting quotation; if the particular spelling has zero of attesting quotations, then I really do not see what makes it attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


I see a bit in italics, although I don't think we usually count that as English. Otherwise, not much comes up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Hawaiian English for 'enlightenment'. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite plausible, since Hawaiian mālamalama refers to light, including the metaphorical light of understanding, as well as the spiritual sense used in biblical translations. It's part of the motto of the University of Hawaii, and is the name of a periodical they publish. Given the abundance of New-Age-y folks in the area, it's entirely possible it has some limited usage in a few contexts.
That said, the only quotes I could find in Google Books, here and here, seem to be referring to the word as Hawaiian. There were hundreds of hits, but most were sentences in Hawaiian and Samoan (which also has the same word with the same meaning), references to a fish of the same name, to a place name, and to a given name. There were also quite a few New Age-themed books which had no previews. Google BooksGroups had 42 hits, but they were all Hawaiian- or Samoan-language, placenames, or University of Hawaii-related. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if manamana is Hawaiian for ‘Muppet’. Ƿidsiþ 06:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It actually means "finger or toe", though it's accented on the wrong syllables for the song- Hawaiian doesn't do syncopation. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


There are hits in BGC, but I can't really read Thai, and I can't figure out whether any of them are good. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't RFV such entries, then, if I were you. The entry will be deleted because there won't be anyone trying to find citations, which is a pity. Using Thai2English transliteration, it's "saylaynaa" ("ay" stands for a long [e:]), เซเลนา seems a correct transliteration of the name. Wikipedia uses this name to transliterate the name "Selena" and as you said, there are hits in b.g.c. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge I have provided two examples (not citations, sorry) for the Thai usage. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev Well, both of your usage examples have zero hits on BGC. The reason that I RFV these entries is that they were made by an editor with no knowledge of the language in question at all, and therefore there are bound to be some errors (some of which you yourself have identified above). I'm not seeing actual evidence of use that passes the CFI, as before. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
They were just examples, not citations. I don't know enough Thai to make citations. Judging by google books:"เซเลนา", I can see three to five good hits, which match the sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Persian. As above, I can't tell whether there are any good hits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ, Dick Laurent do you see anything? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is enough for me lol... — [Ric Laurent] — 21:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedias make up spellings all the time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


As above. Supposedly Newari. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


So Latvian Wikipedia seems to think that this is used, at least for a certain singer, but BGC is not bearing that out. LV.WIKI also uses "Selena" (as in "Selena Gomesa"), which also seems to be uncitable, but I didn't try inflected forms. @Čumbavamba Any ideas about whether this can be cited? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge There are only three women registred in Latvia, which name are Selēna (reference in Latvian). Name day (or naming day) in September 7, but that isn't include officially in calendar of name days. --Čumbavamba (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This name is very rare in Latvia. --Čumbavamba (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Zero Google hits. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nor do any of the collated dictionaries at wehewehe.org have it. @DerekWinters where did you find this word? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


The original creator of this page challenged it on my talk page. A quick look at google books:memrize isn't particularly promising. What I'm actually seeing is hits for mem'rize and totally unrelated hits. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a few hits on Google Books (though some of them might be typos): [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]. Einstein2 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The second and third look okay; the fourth and fifth are the same one and looks like a typo, not an eye-dialect. I can't see the first as there's no preview. So that's two. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This is what I can see at the first one: "can find to do is memrize the printin' on all the cans and". In addition to this, I found another use: [98]. Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

fat hen[edit]


This is the result of a boneheaded mistake by the creator of the Wikipedia article, and apparently copied from there to Wiktionary. There are two smearworts: a species of Aristolochia (apparently Aristolochia rotunda, but some sources say Aristolochia clematitis), and Good King Henry, Blitum bonus-henricus (aka Chenopodium bonus-henricus). The Aristolochia has only one other common name that I know of: "round-leaved birthwort".

So where did all the other names at w:Aristolochia rotunda come from? From the other smearwort, as can be seen from A Modern Herbal, which is also the source of the reference cited in the second edit for the article. Notice that the original version of the page was a condensed, but otherwise almost verbatim copy from the Good King Henry article in A Modern Herbal (or the html copy of it at www.botanical.com) , but with the name "Aristolochia rotunda", instead of "Chenopodium bonus-henricus". Over the years, content specific to the real Aristolochia rotunda was added to or used to replace parts of the article, but there's still some of the original content left- including those common names.

So much for factual accuracy, but what about usage? After all, if the incorrect common names caught on, we still need to document it. I found at least one source in Google Books that used them, but I'm hoping there aren't three- otherwise the usage notes needed to clear this up are going to be a bit involved... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

on fleek[edit]

This is an RFV for the second sense, viz. "(slang) on point". Its inclusion is supported by no more reliable a source than the Urban Dictionary. Do there exist three or more independent citations, conveying this sense, in durably archived media, spanning at least a year, per the criteria for inclusion? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd RFV the first sense and fleek as well. Since the Vine that brought this to the public's attention is less than a year old, I'm guessing the answer to your question is no. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd imagine this pretty clearly qualifies as a hot word, unless I've misunderstood that term. —JohnC5 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, hot words are supposed to be words that have citations that satisfy all of the requirements except spanning a year (see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/March#Hot words). So far, this entry doesn't have any citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the two definitions refer to the same meaning, but I found only one use of the term in Google Books which I added to the entry. Einstein2 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cited. This is unquestionably a hot word. There are plenty of citations out there, and the media is writing articles on it. I suppose the entry could be condensed into a single definition, but if if you look at the cites, you'll see that the eyebrow/hair-specific and clothing-specific usages predate the general "perfect" usages, albeit by only a few months. Thus, I thought it necessary to split the entry into three definitions. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

parablepsia as plural of parablepsy?[edit]

I see it listed in medical dictionaries as an apparent synonym of parablepsy, not the plural. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


RFV-sense. It seems I forgot to list this when I tagged it a while ago. - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I only found one quote that supports that sense:
    • 1843, John S. Robb & Felix Octavius Carr Darley, Streaks of Squatter of Life, and Far-west Scenes, page 70:
      Hoss Allen is all powerful popular, and the "bar" hunters of the southern section equally admire his free and easy manners -- they consider him one of the people -- none of your stuck-up imported chaps from the dandy states, but a real genuine westerner -- in short, a hoss!

but I was supprised to find any! Kiwima (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few more:
    • 2007, Jim Burnett, Hey Ranger 2: More True Tales of Humor & Misadventure from the Great Outdoors., ISBN 1461635454:
      Put an average guy under the age of about sixty with at least one other person in a situation requiring even a hint of daring, and he will usually experience at least a fleeting desire to prove that he's a “real hoss,” and therefore up to facing whatever challenge lies ahead.
    • 2006, Tom Taylor, Our American cousin. A drama, in 3 acts:
      Asa: Wal, what do you think of him, on an average? Dun: Think of a man on an average? Asa: Wal, I think he's a real hoss, and he wants a ship. Dun: Well, if he's a real hoss, he must want a carriage.
    • 2008, Jerry J. Maxwell, White Squirrels and Gold, ISBN 1462802311, page 57:
      Orvil here is a real hoss and as smart as a whip, an' Elza is tha best tracker I ever seen.
Kiwima (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure those aren't equally valid citations for the 'dependable', but I suspect every citation will be that way since the nuance is all packed within the word and not within the context. The first two quotes especially seem more like cites for the 'dependable' meaning, the second two are less clear but only the fourth seems to lean more toward 'respectable'. - TheDaveRoss 11:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing — some of these citations seem to use the "dependable" sense more than the "respectable" sense, the others are ambiguous. Should the two senses be combined? - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


The only form that obviously comes up on BGC is the capitalised Liassic with the given meaning; if this can even be cited as a lowercase word, does it really refer to lias in general or to just the Lias, as Liassic does? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I added this one, which means I read it somewhere – probably, judging by the date, it was Richard Fortey's The Earth: An Intimate History. It's also in the OED though, so I'm pretty certain it exists. They have the following cites:
1833 C. Lyell Princ. Geol. III. 378 Metamorphic rocks of the Eocene or Liassic eras.
1854 A. Adams et al. Man. Nat. Hist. 561 In the Liasic period of the secondary formations.
1854 H. Miller My Schools & Schoolmasters ii. 37 The first ammonite I ever saw was a specimen..from one of the liasic deposits of England.
1854 H. Miller My Schools & Schoolmasters xxi. 451 Both shale and nodules bore, instead of the deep liasic gray, an olivaceous tint.
Ƿidsiþ 05:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Widsith The OED doesn't trouble itself with attestation the same way we do. They want to illustrate use, but we want to prove it (hence their acceptance of terms that don't pass our CFI). Not one of those cites serves to save this entry, but instead are support for Liassic, Liasic, and liasic respectively. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, whatever. Move to Liassic then. Ƿidsiþ 07:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the entry to an alternative-form-of Liassic, and added a couple of cites. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Some citations that appear to be an alternative case form of Liassic:
  • [...] jurassic or liassic strata have been conformably folded around this point, the whole having been since altered and denuded.
  • The Wall, therefore, passes over rocks of the liassic era for some distance westward of Carlisle; but these rocks are there concealed by the thick deposit of drift.
  • It cannot tell, for example, why trilobites should have flourished so profusely during the silurian epoch, and have died out before the deposition of the oolite ; why chambered cephalopods should have culminated, as it were, during the Liassic era, reptilian life during the oolite and chalk, or why mammalisan development have been reserved to the tertiary and current epochs.
and some that appear to cite a general "pertaining to lias" sense.
  • A totally different liassic stone is Blue Lias, a whitish-grey stone obtainable only in relatively small pieces and difficult to dress.
  • STOKE-SUB-HAMDON (Sm), called Stoke-under-Ham locally, is on the Yeovil-Ilminster road right under Ham Hill, from which it quarried the beautiful Liassic stone for its charming cottages.
  • The top of a liassic stone wall/foundation, probed to a depth of 1.5 m, was recorded from 50 cm deep. A secondary footing of 5-6-cm handmade bricks, bedded on a course of liassic stone, overlay from a depth of 20 cm the above foundation.
  • The concrete jointing or matrix is probably a mixture of local Liassic lime and river or glacial gravel.
Of course, these are mostly from Victorian-era journals before palaeontology came into its own, which means that differentiating the two senses isn't always easy (just as it's hard to tell whether cretaceous is being used to mean "roughly 100 million old" or "pertaining to chalk" in many of these journals). Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


"Female copulatory vocalizations". I see that someone removed the initialism from the Wikipedia article recently, and there's little or no evidence on Google Books. Equinox 22:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked a bit at Google Books and Scholar, without luck, added three definitions that I expect would survive RfV, and converted {{rfv}} to {{rfv-sense}}. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


There it is "Wirren n., pl. Wirren".
In contemporary German that word should be a plurale tantum (e.g. at duden.de and DWDS) and traditionally it should be "die Wirre, pl. die Wirren" (e.g. in DWB, and in [books.google.de/books?id=N99nAAAAMAAJ&q="die+Wirre"&dq="die+Wirre"] it is: "Daß ein so unrihiger Kopf, der von allen Nöten und Doktrinen der Zeit in die Wirre getrieben wird, der das Bedrüfnis fühlt, sich um alle Bedürfnisse der Menschheit zu bekümmern, und gern die Nase in alle Töpfe steckt, worin der liebe Gott die Zukunft kocht:").
PS: Duden is kind of contradicting (once again): [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wirre] & [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wirren]
- 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC), PS: 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The current entry is valid as a nominalisation of the verb, which is how I would use it myself as well. It's also reasonable to assume that Wirren (pl.) would come from die Wirre (attestable, but not abundantly used). We mustn't treat it as a plurale tantum since both singulars will be attestable and the plural does come from either of them. Since German plurals don't have a gender, it might be a bit more difficult to prove that it's from one or the other, although the female noun probably makes more sense. So if you feel so inclined, make an entry for Wirre and leave this one untouched. _Korn (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Substantivisations like "das Gehen", "das Wirren" don't have plurals, so "die Wirren" can't be a plural of "das Wirren".
Or is it just "Substantivisations [...] usually don't have plurals"? But then please give an undoubtful example or a reference for that, as it's usually "don't have" without exceptions (e.g. at [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularetantum#Beispiele], see "substantivierte Verbinfinitive", and [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantivierung#Substantivierung_von_Verben]). - 00:56-01:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Grammatically, nominalisations are simply weak nouns and can form a plural like any other. They're really more restricted by their lexical nature which renders their plurals nonsensical and hence unused. But exceptions happen, like Essen and Trinken. x-tantums aren't cast in stone. The singular Leut is anything but unheard of, after all. _Korn (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... duden.de has Essen with a plural, but Trinken only in singular, but well, duden is kind of unreliable anyway.
  • I'd guess, "something else" does happen with those substantivated infinitives, like: At first Essen denotes an activity which doesn't have a plural (~ eating, without plural), and then it's also used to refer to the meal itself which can have a plural (~ meal, with plural). So, there should have been such a transformation of "Wirren" too...
  • Other question: What's with the etymology? Here we were saying it's a substantivisation/nominalisation of the verb wirren, while the entry says it's coming from the adjective wirr. Well, wirr ~> das/die Wirre, pl. die Wirren should also be possible.
- 15:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The nominalisations have to develop a countable sense to develop plurals, yes. I think the original author had some kind of mix-up of words, although the verb might come from the adjective, but I don't know about this case. I'm also rather convinced that the term Wirren for turmoils comes from 'die Wirre', we just can't prove it. _Korn (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Ring finger. Occurs in one particular Scots rhyme, where the fingers are given names (along the lines of "this little piggy went to market"). Can't find generic use. Equinox 14:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Like berrybarn above, seems to occur (as a capitalised invented name) only in the one children's rhyme. (Also I'd imagine the plural, if any, must be "langmen".) Equinox 14:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


I doubt that this was used in early modern English. It’s probably just excluded to reprints. --Romanophile (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I see an oystré on line 1406, but w:Blind Harry was writing in early Scots, not early modern English. I see something in English Renaissance Texts, that might be from Thomas Swynnerton (circa 1540), but can't get a full view on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Even google books:oystre -øystre -Chaucer gets an estimated 10,200 hits. So far they're all either Oystre, which is I think a surname in Danish or something, or Middle English. To me it looks a bit too plausible to not be valid, but I also can't support that with evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I get more like 1,740. And they're place names or Norwegian or (still) Chaucer or Blind Harry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Added two more cites (for oystres). Vanishingly rare by 1600 though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
And the Punch one was written in mockery of Chaucer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Supposedly a general-purpose UK interjection. Never heard of it. Google Books has very little, but it seems to be an adjective, and probably of American use (since it's in a conversation about the Ku Klux Klan). Equinox 19:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it, although the other edits by this user seem genuine so I doubt it's a joke. More likely a mistake or so regional none of us have ever heard of it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Added the American adjective use. I think this might be an extremely idiosyncratic minced oath - like sugar or fiddlesticks, but much rarer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


RFV of all senses in both etymology sections. I searched for "(to|and| ) (lere|lering|lered) (me|him|her|them)" and found only scannos, Middle English, Scots, and one citation that was translating a Middle English work into modern English, which I added (it counts, IMO; see my reasoning at Talk:undeadliness). "(Was|were) lere" turned up scannos of "here" and "there". - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not standard English. If it's not marked archaic or even obsolete, or provincial then it should be. Leasnam (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, they already appear tagged Leasnam (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oma fiel ins Klo[edit]

-- Liliana 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Wonderfool's Spanish; looks like bullshit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

çhirmeyder cassee[edit]

Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. Nothing at all at google:"çhyrmaghey". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Manx, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


One that seemingly never made it out of the depths of 4chan and into wider use. I've managed to find a single cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Haven't been able to find any citations that meet our standards. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


This entry currently has the sole (nominal) sense:

  1. (linguistics) Any form of a term that is not a lemma

I added every English citation I could find from the results yielded by google books:"non-lemma" (except this one, which has erroneous bibliographical information) to Citations:non-lemma. All but one of those citations are quasi-adjectival, because they are the hyphenated phrase used attributively; only the second use in the 1995 citation is interpretable (albeit not uncontroversially) as a true noun.
Since there are twelve citations at Citations:non-lemma, I suppose that there should be some kind of entry for this term; however, I am unsure how it should be defined.
Pinging SemperBlotto, as the entry's creator.
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the hyphen renders the citations useless for attestation. The hyphen is not a word-linking hyphen, but is rather part of non-. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: OK, but nevertheless, all but one use is in attributive use. How would you define the senses in which those authors use this term? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple of citations for the plural non-lemmas at Google Scholar:
  • 2000, AD de Barraza, A Mayor, K Sarasola, “Building a Lexicon tor an English-Basque Machine Translation System from heterogeneous wide coverage dictionaries”: 
    There are some exceptions that must be considered.
    Non-lemmas: The word supplied by the lexical transfer module is an inflected word and not a lemma; for that reason, it is not possible to use it in generation
  • 2002, C Lehmann, “Structure of a comprehensive presentation of a language”, Basic materials in minority languages, 2002: 
    If the database is to be printed out in the form of a dictionary, non-lemmas can be generated from the items contained in these fields.
  • 2012, M Piasecki, R Ramocki, M Maziarz, “Recognition of Polish Derivational Relations Based on Supervised Learning Scheme.”, LREC: 
    In step 3, non-words or non-lemmas, that are often generated by the guesser modules, are filtered out from the result. ... Very often non-words or non-lemmas are generated as potential derivative bases, especially for input lemmas that are not derivatives
I'm not sure where these stand as far as being considered durably archived. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of journals are durably archived (something about being a "journal of record"). In the case of taxonomic ones, the nomenclatural codes have always required it- though online journals have tended to satisfy the requirement by donating a few copies to certain libraries. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Thanks for the citations and for pointing me to Google Scholar Search. This sense now has at least four independent citations, so it's verified. It is, however, rare, and I have marked it as such. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That it seems not so strange to us, despite its rarity, even in scholarly literature, is evidence of how far from 'normal' we are in our vocabulary. We are a poor model of 'normal' users. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That lexicographers will know lexicography terms seems inevitable, even helpful. And non-lemma is not strange if you know lemma.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, but we are still a poor model of 'normal' users - and should not forget it. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring, Prosfilaes: Its rarity (besides its clunkiness) is what prompted me to ask in the Tea Room whether there was another (better, more established) term that carried this sense. Still, at least "non- + lemma" is pretty transparent as "not [a] lemma" (to most people, not just us). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RFV passed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Does not seem to exist as an English word. Possibly Spanish. Uppercase may possibly mean Canadian American. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I came across the word in the Looking Glass Library edition of Twilight Land by Howard Pyle. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be speedied, since it has no definition, no etymology, no pronunciation, no nothing. We already have WT:REE for requests. Equinox 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a variation of canakin. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Cowardly. Equinox 19:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Added a couple of cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Protologism? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on Scholar, which is unpromising. All web hits seem to be referring to a single TED talk. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Wild animals, excluding fish. Wild animals. These look dodgy to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Exceedingly common usage. Check out google books:"fish and wildlife" to see the two treated separately in discourse. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. But what about the last sense, wild animals? Does this mean that wildlife can mean animals to the exclusion of plants? Wouldn't that be confusing, and contradict the first sense? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it's confusing and contradictory, but we're a descriptive dictionary, and as I said before, it's exceedingly common. Look at google books:"endangered plants and wildlife" and you'll that the last sense is used as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As Meta said, such contradictions are common. Raw counts (salt required): google books:"plants and other wildlife" (32.2K); google books:"plants and wildlife" (22.4K). DCDuring TALK 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well there you go, you learn something new everyday. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether the word is used to include living things that are not visible to the unaided eye or that are deep-sea dwellers. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to separate the senses here. For some people it includes fish, so what? You might say the same about animal. Ƿidsiþ 09:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Our entry for animal seems to separate the senses that way: sense 1 includes fish and humans, sense 2 excludes humans, and sense 3 excludes fish. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Some other dictionaries just use an "especially" clause, but they do support distinctions. Also, the definitions differ among dictionaries. There are probably even other distinctions to make, such as whether insects and other invertebrates and animals too small to see are included in the term as it used. Perhaps a "variously including" clause in a sense line and two or three subsenses for the most common concepts. Humans and domestic animals (but not corresponding necessarily to species, eg, Canis lupus) are often explicitly excluded, probably because those are the most demonstrable hard boundaries of usage, whatever else might be included. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've revised sense 1 to at least partially reflect the complexity in a single definition. Please feel free to revert or revise. There is some additional variety at one of the "demonstrable hard boundaries" concerning whether a tamed animal of a type not normally domesticated is included. Also, the definition of fish varies and even plant (fungi?, algae?) and animal (Archaea? etc) are not as simple as one would hope. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    I think that's already somewhat better. The OED just says ‘flora and fauna’ of a region. There may be a dozen different gradations of what exactly the word implies to different people, but I'm not convinced such things primary to the word's meaning – nor is it clear, if we split the senses, to which of them most citations of the word in use should be assigned. Ƿidsiþ 06:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    This is supposed to be an RfV discussion, not an RfD.
    It IS clear that OED misses even the easy-to-attest distinction between the definitions "flora and fauna" and "fauna", so the usual respect we give them as definitive authority does not seem warranted in this case. The wildlife lexicographer seems to have simply punted the ball to the lexicographers defining flora and fauna or, worse, to the poor fellow defining flora and fauna, a set phrase in the ears and eyes of many. I suppose that some of the awkward text now in definition 1 more properly belongs under a new Usage notes header, probably better suited to the actual context-dependence of the varying placement of the boundaries of the term and the varying degrees of precision with which such boundaries are felt.
    The issue at hand is to see whether the less common definition under challenge explicitly excluding fish is attestable. I'd be willing to stipulate that we need not go beyond that except in Usage notes. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: ‘A low-ranking soldier who merely carries a pike.’ Ƿidsiþ 16:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly meant to be a diminutive of pikeman, and in that sense I found this this cite. It is, however, in the context of a coal mine pikeman rather than the type of soldier. SpinningSpark 22:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the definition could be reworded to be more general. SpinningSpark 23:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


This came straight from http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/ and doesn't exist anywhere else. The correct spelling is בשׂמימדיק (besomemdik). --WikiTiki89 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a fossil radiolarian shell". Never heard this; if true, it must be obsolete or something. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be used by non-native speakers of English, but they write a large portion of scientific literature. It seems hard to call this a mistake on their part. Take a look at the cites. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Two of your cites are very clearly for the other sense; I've moved them. The 1999 cite could go either way, because in context it's hard to tell. The 2000 cite seems pretty clear. I labelled the sense "uncommon", but maybe "rare" is more like it — I can't find a single quote in the singular that supports it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't at all sure about the ones you moved. I found a glossary that has a comparable definition, which would arguably afford it some protection, but that isn't the same as 3 cites. (I liked the challenge of finding more and liked using the "and other" trick [more generally, the coordination tool], but couldn't find more hits.) I wouldn't take the lack of singular attestation too seriously. The damned things are vary small and the fossilized ones not well studied AFAICT, so one would expect little use in the singular of this hyponym, for which radiolarian, in context, would be a good synonym. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Your point about the singular is good, although we do sometimes look at them individually to find something diagnostic (if you need them for indexing, say). In any case, I mentioned this to a very experienced geoscientist who thought of it as just plain wrong; that was my gut feeling as well, but I can't actually find any source to support labelling it "proscribed". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd be OK with deleting the sense and moving the apparently good cites to the citations page. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


The sense A person that accepts responsibility for the educating process and educates by supporting and assisting an educand. What is this, and how is it different from the three other senses we currently list? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tooironic: it's the jargon of pedagogy theory (not something I'm at all fond of). That said, I could cite it easily, but I think it's redundant to senses 2 and 3; maybe we should move this to RFD? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It also has the common failing of describing in vague terms rather than defining. Since the educand as well as the educator needs to "accept responsibility for the educating process" in order to learn, and since "supporting and assisting" could mean almost anything, the only real content is in the word educates- which makes it a much less useful paraphrase of sense 2. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Kurdish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Two hits at google books:"쎌레나", but I can't tell whether they're any good (and then a third would need to be found). It's baffling to me why a spelling with ㅆ would be used rather than one with just ㅅ. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Kannada. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Hindi. Lots of hits but I can't read them and it seems a mite suspect. @Dijan? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved to appropriate entry सेलेना. Please delete. --Dijan (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Gujarati. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Cherokee. @Stephen G. Brown, do you know any places to cite this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, transliterations are different from the regular lexicon of a language. If a name (for example) exists in a language that does not use the Roman alphabet, such as Russian Акакий (Akakij), and if it is the sort of word that we normally would transliterate rather than translate (Акакий being a man’s given name), and if Акакий is citable in Russian literature but not yet in English (being a rather uncommon name), then the usual and reasonable transliteration(s) of Акакий should be considered to exist (in theory) in English, German, Spanish, etc. That is, a transliteration should only need to be cited in the source language (Russian in this case), and the transliteration should only need to be shown to be reasonable for the target language.
Although Cherokee has its own alphabet, there is very little literature printed in the language, and since Cherokee is a polysynthetic language, the words change in dramatic ways, so that almost no Cherokee words from a given text can be cited unless the editor knows the Cherokee language well enough to reduce the words to Cherokee lemmas. As far as I am concerned ᏎᎴᏀ is the proper Cherokee transliteration, and is correctly treated in Cherokee, of the name Selena which can be cited in English or Spanish. —Stephen (Talk) 22:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that is that you're essentially telling the Wiktionary community to take it on faith that you're right about this term. But Wiktionary doesn't work that way; we have to prove that something is real rather than take it on faith, otherwise we could just as easily trust somebody who (unlike you) doesn't know what they're doing and is awful at Cherokee. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Right about what term? (There are two terms.) Right about what specifically? —Stephen (Talk) 10:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Bihari. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Bengali. I'm sorely tempted just to speedy all these. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


There are cites at google books:"Сэлена" but I can't tell if they're in Belarusian. @Atitarev? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

All seven hits are Russian (you might find it useful to know that Belorussian does not have the letter "и"). Four of them are scanos and only two of the others use it as a name. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Belarusian, Serbo-Croatian, and Ukrainian sections. The Russian word seems to be attested at google books:"Селена", but I can't tell for the rest. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and for the Serbo-Croatian I'm also RFVing the Latin script spelling Selena. I guess three cites using either script will suffice to keep both. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Many of the hits are the genitive of селе́н (selén, selenium). --WikiTiki89 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; I'm rather ignorant about Slavic languages, I'm afraid. In any case I'm RFVing the Russian section as well now. Are there any supporting cites? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
There’s plenty of available attestations for Serbo-Croatian; run a Google books search for Selena + boginja: [99] I’ve added them to the Citations page at the Latin script spelling. Vorziblix (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Arabic and Egyptian Arabic. There are hits but I don't think they fit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Amharic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Quechua. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIVΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not present in my resources. Not even Quechua WP has it as an article, just a red link. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Quechua and Aymara. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Aymara cited. The translation I added is translated from the Spanish in the link (in the page following the one linked to), but it’s a bit clunky so if anyone thinks they can improve it, please do. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Russian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Japanese. It seems that the spelling that is actually used is セレーナ instead. Using Selena Gomez as an example, compare google books:"セレーナ・ゴメス" with google books:"セレナ・ゴメス". But maybe this is citable as an alternative spelling? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Ukrainian. Something's turning up at google books:"Аріка" but as usual, I'm not sure what. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you add