Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

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


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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


This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

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 “green leaf”

Templates:

Shortcut:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFVs


March 2019[edit]

synkaryophyte[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

CMNF[edit]

Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I've managed to find two citations which I think are uses: Citations:CMNF. There are a few other mention-y hits on Usenet, and one that might also be a use of CMNF which I put at CFNM (because it also uses that term). - -sche (discuss) 08:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

hypocapnically[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Adverbs are so hard to cite! Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

TERFdom[edit]

Not durably archived? Equinox 15:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books or Scholar; poking around another archive of academic papers all I saw were scannos of "-ter (FDOM)". There are two hits in one newspaper that Issuu has digitized, which are this article and a later reader response which quotes its title (so, not independent):
  • 2018 July 11, Alex Zaragoza, "No Time for TERFdom", in the San Diego CityBeat, page 8:
    [But] do one better than Chiamamanda Ngozi Adichie—whose speech was sampled for that song and who was called out for TERFdom and transphobia—and move that logic beyond the sexes.
Is there any easy place to search print copies of British papers? - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
...which I see has already been added, along with a questionably-durable Mary Sue article. Looks like this probably isn't includable now, but might be in several years. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The Mary Sue article is cited in Snopes, which is durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

terfdom[edit]

If TERFdom is deleted, presumably terfdom should also go. I mean, I don't see either capitalization... - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

opotherapeutically[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I only managed to find one. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

censually[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Those are citations of "inter-censually". DTLHS (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not "intercensually", because they treat "censually" as a word. Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not in the opinion of one censor of citations. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there are great advantages for Wiktionary from considering hyphens to be word separators in English. The proliferation of entries for hyphenated terms could be systematically brought to an end with no reduction of meaningful semantic content.
In the case of inter-sensually it is interesting to note that there are no Google Books hits for intercensually (There are two at Scholar.) DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see inter-censually as evidence for censually. The construction might be inter-censual + -ly for one thing. Equinox 20:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Then we only have one cite. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

forswink[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If we consider the language of Edmund Spenser (early) Modern English, then this is one use: [1].  --Lambiam 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

f8[edit]

Tagged by Special:Contributions/2600:1000:b100:697a:65a3:cbbb:f084:1882 but not listed. — surjection?〉 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

snaughle[edit]

Given citation is the only one on GB2600:1000:B119:704C:AB:BBA5:283D:7AA9 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019[edit]

hysterocystic[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

headwark[edit]

Noun, sense 1. Tharthan (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions. this looks like a use to me, this is a bit iffy. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

ochlophilia[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page - one very solid, the other a bit mention-y. Everything else I found was clearly just mentions. Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

zythepsary[edit]

Looking on Google Books, I see a few mentions, and two possible uses in the plural. Old Man Consequences (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find looks like mentions to me. I added what I could find. Kiwima (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

brennage[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I can find LOTS of mentions, but so far, only one use, which is on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The dictionaries generally specify "old English law" or something to that effect which would make this Middle French rather than English. A French journal article I found mentions that it was specifically in use in the 14th–15th centuries. However the definition, although given in a few English references, does not seem to be right; from what I can see "brennage" was the feudal tenure based on paying bran as a substitute for other duties, rather than other duties as a substitute for bran. This is how it's given at TLFi and some English sources also agree ([2]). I created a Middle French entry at brenage. —Nizolan (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

antisocialist[edit]

Rfv-sense "Alternative form of antisocial". Originally added by Special:Contributions/70.24.109.163 as two distinct meanings: "Not interested in meeting other people, a person averse to sociality", "Unfriendly toward others". — surjection?〉 06:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I found one cite, but that is all. Kiwima (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

/* moved from below */ verified on collins dictionary —This comment was unsigned.

There is already an RfV above. We need attestation of use, not mentions in a dictionary, though the dictionary mention would suggest that we can expect to find such attestation. DCDuring (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Name entries by IP editor[edit]

(Note to admins: Please archive this discussion to Category talk:English surnames from Japanese after the issue is resolved)

I cannot find a better place to put this, but I doubt the existence of basically all names (mostly surnames) added by Special:Contributions/24.105.160.0/19 and Special:Contributions/68.191.0.0/16, both for English and Non-English (Portuguese, French, German, Italian, etc.), since it seems that many of the names are those of fictional characters (or of Japanese emperors, etc.) and their use in the languages they are claimed to be used in is doubtful. There are simply too many to list on here. — surjection?〉 09:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If a large proportion of the names turns out to be unverifiable, I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of just deleting all of those entries, even if that may seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is also worth noting that this is possibly the same editor that was adding nonsense Egyptian entries earlier. — surjection?〉 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr What is your opinion on entries such as Fubuki, Masahito,Yoshihito, etc? These seem to be romanizations, rather than actual borrowings into English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. On the other hand, there are entries such as Shinzo, Nijo, Ichijo, Shinjo that have lost the "ō". Are these considered actual borrowings? KevinUp (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. Unless we've got verifiable examples of English speakers are using these names for their own children, I'm more of the opinion that these are romanizations -- and the dropping of the macron is not evidence of borrowing, in my view, so much as evidence of English writers and readers not understanding diacritics, or simply not bothering with them. We see the same thing with other languages, like Hawaiian humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa appearing in English contexts as humuhumunukunukuapuaa, losing both the macron and the ʻokina.
Otherwise, we may as well just romanize every name everywhere that isn't already spelled in Latin letters and dump all of that into Wiktionary as "English". Which seems to be what this anon is doing for Japanese names. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've cleaned up and removed English, Cebuano, Spanish, Tagalog, Portuguese, etc from the following entries:
@Eirikr These entries also need to be deleted:
I found similar entries created by Special:Contributions/130.254.82.135 and Special:Contributions/73.182.28.179 in 2016 so I will clean those up later. KevinUp (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Surjection: you're right that the names in the boxes are lists of personal names of emperors, but also first names of Madoka characters (I don't remember a real person named Kyūbei as in the familiar in Madoka), the dropped-macron names as mentioned before, and possibly IJN battleship names (edited 吹雪 long time ago).
Isn't the romanization of 久兵衛 written as Kyūbee or Kyūbē? I would like an analysis regarding the sound shift from べいゑ → べえ... ~ POKéTalker) 10:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Kyūbee appears to be legit. I'm glad you've restored the romanization entry. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: After analyzing entries created by various IPs, I've identified the following 540 entries with Japanese romanizations assigned as English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Tagalog lemmas. If any of these lemmas are indeed used for names of native speakers, then citations or statistical evidence will be needed. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Also, these entries need to be deleted due to incorrect romanization (using "o" instead of "ō", etc):

Cleanup is in progress. Please archive this discussion to Category talk:English surnames from Japanese once the issue is resolved. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added RFV tags to all entries on the "small list". Note to anyone adding cites that we specifically need examples of these being used in English texts and not as romanizations (or botched romanizations) of names. — surjection?〉 07:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think a very small number of these ought to have English entries as generally known historical figures, though not as "given names": in particular Hirohito and perhaps Akihito since they're in wide and unambiguous use in English to refer to specific people on the same principle as e.g. Cicero or Napoleon sense 1. —Nizolan (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

parrhesia [edit]

Sense 2: “(rhetoric) the seeking of forgiveness for such [i.e. frank] speech”. Some dictionaries (e.g. Collins) have this as a second sense, but where does this come from? In the uses of the term I could find, it simply means “frank speech”, as in “speaking truth to power”, without having to say you’re sorry.  --Lambiam 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Isn't it where you say sorry immediately before being bold or frank in speaking to a superior? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    That is common cultural practice when criticizing someone, also in public speech, but is it a separate sense? We also do not define lecture as “1. A spoken lesson or exposition, usually delivered to a group. 2. Clearing one's throat before commencing such lesson or exposition.”  --Lambiam 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
According to Silva Rhetoricae:
"Either to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. Sometimes considered a vice."
The names of rhetorical figures often cover distinguishable phenomena, so I'd hope that many of them would have multiple definitions here. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Why, yes, that is what Collins and Oxford say too, and what we find in A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms. But these are all mentions. The issue here is whether the term is actually used in this sense. Something like, “‘Forgive me for spealing so bluntly, sir, and with all due respect, ...’. After this parrhesia he paused, wiping the sweat off his brow, and then resumed, ‘with all due respect, sir, you are a veritable douche bag.’”  --Lambiam 18:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: This use of the term is discussed in this journal article and is essentially 16th–17th century—the Skinner quote currently at the entry is unhelpful for dating since he is talking historically about how a 16th-century author used the term. However, this article only discusses rhetorical textbooks, which means the examples are properly mentions: "he will seem to bespeake pardon before hand, [in margin: Parisia, or the Licentious]" (George Puttenham); "Parresia, or libertie to speake, when by winning of curtesie to our speech we seek to auoid any offence thereof, as thus. Pardon if I be tedious, the circumstance of the cause requireth it [...]" (Angel Day, 1599). Given the temporal scope it might be difficult to source uses. —Nizolan (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Skinnet quotes Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, essentially an encyclopedic treatise of the figures of speech of eloquence; his section on parrhesia[3] also is a mention. Still, as I interpret the text, Peacham does not equate parrhesia with the asking for forgiveness; I think that the admonishment “do[,]desire them to pardon our boldneſſe” is not meant as part of the definition but as sage advice to the reader intending to practice boldness in speech; the subsequent exposition makes clear that the point of this advice is to avoid one’s due criticism being unduly dismissed. The term and its use by Peacham is discussed in the book Freedom of Speech, 1500–1800. Parrhesia is defined as having four essential elements, none of which involves an apology.[4] Further on the definition is given found in Thomas Wilson’s The Arte of Eloquence, described as the most influential Tudor handbook on rhetoric: “when we speake boldely, & without feare, euen to the proudest of them, whatsoeuer we please, or haue list to speake”.[5] This is immediately followed by a discussion of Peacham’s Parrhesia entry, with no hint that being apologetic is essential; only that it is prudent (and likewise for other authors treated). It seems to me that some later compilers of lists of figures of speech and lexicologists may have misinterpreted such accompanying usage notes as being part of the definition; as far as I can see, this misunderstanding has remained confined to such mentions.  --Lambiam 15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam: The version of Peacham you link is the first edition (1577); his definition was changed in a later edition of Garden of Eloquence (1593) to the following: "Parrhesia, is a forme of speech by which the Orator speaking before those whom he feareth, or ought to reuerence, & hauing somewhat to say that may either touch themselues, or those whom they fauour, preuenteth the displeasure and offence that might be taken, as by crauing pardon afore hand." The latter is the one Skinner is talking about (the reference is to Peacham 1593). The chapter in Freedom of Speech, 1500–1800 says much the same thing as the article I mentioned, at your link following the Wilson quote: "Parrhesia is thus not free speech itself for these writers, but carries within it the request for freedom of speech. In the absence of institutionalised universal rights, frank speech to those in power requires the indulgence of the listener in each instance" (my emphasis). Hence George Puttenham's definition, given ibid, which states that parrhesia is when an interlocutor "will seeme to bespeak pardon before hand, whereby his licentiousnes may be the better borne withall". As for Wilson himself, the article I linked in fact mentions explicitly (at pp. 198–99) that Thomas Wilson's definition is idiosyncratic for the period: "The only English rhetoric other than Wilson's which treats parrhesia solely as boldness of speech is Abraham Faunce's Ramist handbook The Arcadian Rhetorike". —Nizolan (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

exapoise[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the one paper, there is this. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]

tredecillionth, quindecillionth, quattuordecillionth[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I came here to say "don't bring obvious rubbish like quattuordecillionth to the RFV, just delete it" but then I found that it is in some (Google-scanned) books. Wow! But yes these do seem like "list words" like the phobias. Equinox 07:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added what I could find to the respective citations pages, omitting all instances that are just in lists of large or small powers. The result is one cite each for tredecillionth and quindecillionth, and two for quattuordecillionth. Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't find any other uses of them on Usenet, Issuu, or Scholar, nor in a Google search of Newspapers.com, nor in poking around Google News (in case that had pointers to any papers using the term). - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

untrigintillion[edit]

Created by the same editor as the other "large numerals" entries above, who still creates them without any citations. — surjection?〉 09:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move these to the dictionary-only terms appendix, or even give them an appendix of their own. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And shouldn't this be unotrigintillion, which has one citation? Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
untrigintillion is the form you’d expect, in analogy with undecillion. However, whereas undecillion is from existing Latin ūndecim + -illion, there is no Latin numeral *ūntriginta; the Latin term for XXXI is triginta (et) unus/-a/-um, literally “thirty (and) one”. Pages tretrigintillion, quattuortrigintillion, quintrigintillion, ..., were all deleted in 2006; the latter even again in 2015.  --Lambiam 22:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I've found two citations: Citations:untrigintillion. I like the idea of an appendix for the unattestable ones. (The citations at Citations:sexvigintillion can be used to attest many others.) - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

big mood[edit]

"(Internet slang, informal) Something that is deemed relatable. The way she was just lying on her bed is a big mood." The meaning is not clear to me from this. Also "deemed" seems like a weasel word: if it means something relatable then we should just say that; we don't define genius as "a person deemed very clever". Equinox 15:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems to be some sort of Twitter meme. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, definitely a Twitter(/Tumblr?) thing originally but since spread to other boards as well. Google Groups yields a fair amount of attestations of this usage, it's absolutely real (the definition and usexes could use some work, though). I don't think it's much older than 2017. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Cited. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

limp[edit]

"Acronym of Louis XIV, James II, Queen Mary of Modena and the Prince of Wales. (a code-word among Jacobites)". I can see a couple of mentions in GBooks but no real usage. How would it be used anyway? One source seems to say that a person actually limped (walked lamely) to subtly show Jacobite support. That of course doesn't attest the word sense. Equinox 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not cited. You have shown that throwing the word "limp" into conversation was a code-word, along the lines of Freemasons using certain words; but it still appears to mean "limp", like "walk awkwardly". It doesn't have a separate meaning; it is just that speaking of limping (walking awkwardly) is something Jacobites did to secretly identify themselves. Usage note at best. Equinox 22:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Drinking “the health of Limp” can hardly refer to an awkward gait. Here the term explicitly refers to the acronym, but then it becomes of course a mention. But can one really expect persecuted people using a code-word to avoid prosecution to record it durably in a way in which it is recognizable as such?  --Lambiam 19:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In an anti-Jacobite engraving, entitled “The Triumphs of Providence over Hell, France & Rome, In the Defeating & Discovering of the late Hellish and Barbarous Plott, for Aſſaſſinating his Royall Majesty King William Middle English the.svg III”, seen here, the word LIMP appears, as well as in the accompanying text.  --Lambiam 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like that gives us two, but we still need a third.
Macaulay refers to a letter of L’Hermitage (to the States General?) of September 5/15 1695, and Narcissus Luttrell‘s Parliamentary Diary, of which I can’t find an accessible online copy.  --Lambiam 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

revocationism[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

convocationism[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]

garadship[edit]

2 BGC results. — surjection?〉 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020[edit]

gayelle[edit]

A lesbian. Term proposed on a Web site that never caught on; I see no uses in Google Books. Equinox 14:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of mentions (here and here), but no actual uses, except ones that are not durably archived, such as this and this. Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO the 2008 citation is not acceptable. It uses the word as a word: "choosing gayelle", like "saying strawberry aloud". Equinox 20:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have added another one. It seems to be emerging as a word, but is still too new to have made most writing that is not targetted at the gay community. Kiwima (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Not cited. Two of the three non-mention cites are from autostraddle.com, which is not durably archived. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

lusûs naturæ[edit]

A horrid creation of the author of many such, with one cite that I can't confirm. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I found and added one other citation (which I was able to see has this on the page; I was not able to confirm that Dickens does). But the inclusion of so much etymological information seems excessive/unusual for an inflected form, especially when the singular entry already covers the plural's etymology. And the singular lemma should itself be moved from lusus naturæ to lusus naturae (Ngrams). - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the lemma (of the singular) to the ligatureless form, at least. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely this is an alternative, archaic spelling of (the plural) lusus naturae, rather than a plural of lusus naturæ. Madame Blavatsky died in 1891, so her quotation of 2018 must have been channelled through occult forces.  --Lambiam 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point. (Please revise the presentation as to "form of" as you see fit.) And older editions of her work don't have the û, though that doesn't prevent this edition from being used as a citation of a work that does have û (it exists in the world as a work someone might "run across", in the words of CFI). - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Another point: I doubt that the specific form “lusûs naturae”, which is given as an alternative plural at lusus naturae, was ever used in actuality.  --Lambiam 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If you find this entry in its challenged form objectionable, you might wish to review other contributions by the same person, distinguished by extreme pedantry. DCDuring (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a list of English entries using âêîôûāēīōūæœ (characters I've seen used in archaic Latinate entry titles) which aren't marked as archaic or obsolete. Many are valid, e.g. placenames, some are things that need to be marked as archaic (with content moved to another spelling), but many are other plurals, like Aramæans. Probably we should come up with a general policy on whether to present these as plurals of the ligature-using singulars or as archaic forms of the non-ligature plurals (or singulars). - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam other entries in this vein: conatûs, nexûs, nexūs, ictūs, lapsūs linguae, statūs (with an anti-pronunciation section). - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

heliumide[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • 1989, M.D. Gabovich, N.N. Semashko, N.V. Pleshivtsev, "Ion and atomic beams for controlled fusion and technology"
The possibility of obtaining solid pseudosolutions of inert gases such as titanium argonide, scandium heliumide, etc., has been demonstrated
  • 2020, Quizlet, Compounds Quiz [6]
ionic: NSiHe - nitrogen silicon heliumide
-- 65.94.171.6 19:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I added one more. This is now cited Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not cited. The 2020 cite is not durably archived. Old Man Consequences (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020[edit]

oligoisolating[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

macropicide[edit]

All mentions, no uses- even on regular Google search. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I managed to find one use (on citations page). There is also this, but it doesn't count. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

poecilonymic[edit]

1 use in BGC. — surjection?〉 17:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

theriatrics[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I added a few lines to the citations page, although they seem to support other senses. I only found uses of Citations:theriatric and Citations:theriatrician in relation to veterinary medicine. – Einstein2 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]

far (2)[edit]

Adj. sense:

Widely different in nature or quality; opposite in character.
2009, Graham Huggan, ‎Ian Law, Racism Postcolonialism Europe, page 1:
Tsiolkas's Europe, as voraciously predatory as his own undead protagonist, is a far cry from the fount of idealistic humanism dreamed up by generations of both pre- and post-Enlightenment politicians and philosophers, a Europe defined by its durable capacity for civility in an otherwise barbarous world.

The one example that is given seems bogus, not just because "far cry" is an idiomatic expression, but also because the origin of it, or literal meaning, has nothing to do with a "cry" that is "Widely different in nature or quality" or "opposite in character". Are there genuine examples where "far" means this? Mihia (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of anything with far off the top of my head, but there may be some. What comes to mind is phrases with the superlative like "the farthest emotion from my mind" or "the farthest color from purple is yellow". -Mike (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
If you have a point on the rim of a wheel, the point that is farthest from it (in distance) is the opposite point. If that wheel is the representation of a space of qualities, such as the colour wheel, that opposite point will often be as different in quality as possible. I still interpret this as the first listed sense, “distant; remote in space”.  --Lambiam 09:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
It is interesting that you say that because Merriam-Webster groups the space, time, and "quality or relationship" together as closely related senses. However I still see a difference in quality as being different than a difference in spacial location. One could say that the difference in quality of color is a figurative use of the spacial difference because the color wheel only exists in our minds and doesn't actually exist in space (unless one constructs such a physical wheel and is displaying it). Whether to combine them comes down to preference I suppose. A single definition could just be "remote in space, time, quality, or relationship". However, keeping them separate might make it easier if one wanted to construct lists of synonyms, antonyms, and such. -Mike (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
You could be right that this definition should be along the lines of "distant/remote in degree/quality/nature", rather than the wording that we presently have. furthest has a combined definition: "Most distant in time, space or degree". I suppose that if we replicated this at far then we could perhaps fudge the issue of not having a specific example for "degree/quality/nature". One problem with this approach, though, is that the existing translations at far are specific for "remote in space" and "remote in time". (Whether they really need to be, I'm not sure, and, generally speaking, I suppose it is a case of the tail wagging the dog if translations prevent us from perfecting English definitions.) There are, I think, examples of the "distant/remote in degree/quality/nature" sense that involve the phrase "far from", e.g. "his views are far from mine", and I suppose, at a stretch, we could say that "yellow is far from purple" in a "quality" sense. However, the problem here is that I am unsure what part of speech "far" is in that phrase. It seems to me that it could be an adverb. See Wiktionary:Tea_room#far_(2). If we can verify that it is an adjective then "far from" examples might do, or if we can come up with a good example along the lines of "he has far views" or "yellow is the far colour" (neither of which seem to me to work properly, other than, in the latter case, literally spatially), where "far" is more clearly an adjective, then so much the better. Mihia (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree that the new citations support the challenged sense. The phrase "far difference/remove", as used therein, does not mean a difference or remove that is "widely different in nature or quality" or "opposite in character", as it would need to. It is the things being compared that are widely different. Mihia (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
RFV-resolved. I have tweaked the definition to take into account @Mihia's comments. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

troon[edit]

Originally added under a capitalized form. — surjection?〉 22:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This one is real. Popular among TERF/GCF bloggers on Tumblr, and seemingly elsewhere as well. Seems to specifically be a slur against trans women who don't pass well rather than a general slur against transgender people. Not citable yet, it seems. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I've also come across this on several occasions though I can't be bothered to do the legwork for verification. I believe it's a portmanteau of trans + goon and originally referred neutrally to trans members of Something Awful (see final sense of goon), so Googling "troon" + "Something Awful" will probably yield something. Generalisation might be from assimilation of other senses of "goon".—Nizolan (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I never made the "goon" connection but I think you must be right. "Troon" seems to be popular on Kiwi Farms too; they may well have got it from Something Awful. Equinox 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing on Issuu as far as I can tell, although the fact that Troon is a place which a number of magazines are named after or write about means there's too much chaff to be sure. On Usenet, all I see are things like "a troon kite bag" and "a troon golf course" which seem like errors for the capitalized proper noun Troon = some place or company. - -sche (discuss) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
What I can find are several uses of Citations:troons referring to some item of clothing (pants? underpants? a kilt?), if anyone wants to take a crack at defining that, and of course hits at google books:"troons" referring to some fictional(?) beings which may not meet FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As a point of interest, Urban Dictionary's early definitions (from as far back as 2005, and 2009, up through 2015) say this refers to a woman who looks like a man or a badly-passing trans woman but who is in fact just an ugly (cisgender) woman. It's only their later definitions (after 2017?) which say it's someone who is trans. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm not sure how far back troon as "trans SA member" goes, though based off hits on Twitter and SA itself it's at least 2010.
"Troons" the clothing article is definitely a British variant of "trousers" but I don't think it's a specific regional dialect. I can find examples from people in various parts of England and as a Brit I'm inclined to read it as just a funny portmanteau of trousers + pantaloons. For example here someone refers to "goretex DPM troons", i.e. these trousers used by the British Army. Fwiw the guy who posted about "yellow tartan troons" in the citation seems to say he's using it as a nonce word in the thread ("May one enquire what are, "Troons"?" / "A joke on my part aimed at Americans. It did not come off, often the case with Yanks"). —Nizolan (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Algerian Saharan Arabic[edit]

Ghost language. A few uses are SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but from what I can see, the language is more comomonly called Algerian Saharan (which is citable). Perhaps we should move the entry. As it is a form of Arabic, it is, as Fay Freak points out, SOP, but only if we have "Algerian Saharan" Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, these seem two uses for an alleged distinct language, and at the same time they look like somebody didn’t even know what he talks about but went through some lists and said a sentence or two about every one. Encyclopedism, third-hand uses. This is probably a candidate for the template {{no entry}}. Fay Freak (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Saidi Arabic[edit]

A database monster. Even if considered a language, not spelled so but with a ʿ or an other apostrophe after the a and often a macron or two thereafter, and preferrably with . Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It could be a spelling variant, but I can find multiple uses of Saidi referring to the people. However the would probably only be used by scholars in specialized publications; common English wouldn't (or I would argue shouldn't) use it. Almost looks like it could be SOP as Arabic of the Saidi, but I don't really know anything about it. From the Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed., vol. 1)[7] "Varieties of Egyptian Arabic include ..., and in Middle and Upper Egypt (known as Saidi Arabic)." -Mike (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like “common English” wouldn’t conceptualize such a language at all. “Commoners” wouldn’t know how to pronounce it and call it Egyptian Arabic, as do also most language scientists without exerting themselves much in splitting. Fay Freak (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

quintrigintillion[edit]

Since this has been created 3 times now I guess it should be RFVed. DTLHS (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that I already asked the creator before to stop adding these number entries, but it seems they decided to ignore my request. — surjection??〉 10:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I added one citation to the citations page, but that is all I could find. I find it interesting that the creator copied my Usage note about the long form being unattested that I added to the big numbers that passed RFV. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

unquadragintillion[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's two: in a table of calculations in an ancient Buddhist text and in a discussion of names for huge numbers. They are somewhat mention-y, but they both use it to refer to specific numbers in actual use elsewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

as [edit]

Adverb sense:

In the manner or role (specified).

Per Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/April#as, the examples that previously supported this definition have been deemed not to be examples of "as" as an adverb. To save it, we need to find genuine adverb examples (distinct from the other existing adverb senses, of course). Mihia (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

chiromachy[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I can find several mentions, but no uses. Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's one use from 1659, can't find any others: [8]Nizolan (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Slavosphere[edit]

Collection of Slavophone countries. Equinox 13:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I found a single use on Wired with a slightly different meaning. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a word, but I don't see it in the usual places that I look for words. I have to go to the wider Internet. Besides the podcast, I see instances at Twitter (just a single tweet), fandom.com, scottishreviewofbooks.org (appearing in quotes), vice.com, rbth.com, a nationstates.net poll, and prospectmagazine.co.uk (lower case variant). -Mike (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It's more like an instance of -sphere as a productive suffix, I think—though I take the expected definition to be more on the lines of Sinosphere's looser "countries and regions influenced by". You can also find scattered usages of terms like "Japanosphere", "Hungarosphere" etc. Might still be enough for verification (you can find a dozen or two more tweets incidentally with a general rather than hashtag-specific search, cut off before the podcast started—use the keywords "Slavosphere" until:2019-10-01). Nizolan (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

crespillo [edit]

Tagged but not listed. DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a few mentions in travel books and cookboks, but I only found a single proper use in English texts (citations page). The Spanish entry could be created, though. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a more general issue. For many dishes originating in a region speaking language X, there will be a name for it in language X. That name will then naturally be used by people discussing the dish in language Y. For concreteness, there is a Turkish desert named kazandibi. (We do not have an entry, but see kazandibi at the Turkish wiktionary.) A Google Books search for [recipe kazandibi] gives plenty of hits in English texts. But does that make it an English word, or is it code-switching? I think it is the latter. This will also hold for uses of crespillo in English texts – the uses on the Citations page exhibit all the common signs of code-switching. We should reassign the term the L2 of Spanish.  --Lambiam 06:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that cleaning up all the instances of code-switching could occupy a great deal of your time, should you choose to do so. Finding, getting agreement on, and testing some bright-line criteria for making a distinction would be a good start. DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Conversely to how they were sorted, I think at least the last occurrence in the 2018 cite could be a use, while the 2001 cite is clearly mentioning the term twice, once in italics and once in quotation marks. Food names are commonly borrowed, but I agree that in this case we don't (yet) have enough citations which are uses (or which are even of the same sense). - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

thester[edit]

An attempt was made to convert this to a Scots entry by changing the L2 header (would that it were that simple). Before taking it the rest of the way, though, is there any possibility that this might have some Early Modern or Northern English usage? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can find plenty of uses in Middle English. But once we get into Modern English, (even very early Modern English) everything I find turns out to be a scanno of "chester". In more recent Modern English, its mostly scannos of "theater". I found one very early Modern English text which had "thester wyke" which was glossed as "the Easter week". Other than that, all I could find was the following:
  • 1950, Publications - Volumes 2-3, page 107:
    Cloune was in the said Devision geven to Eynon fab Collion and was some tyme a parke belonginge to the Castle of Llantrisaint, but now his Lordshipes parke is removed to thester parte of that Lordship which hath free tenantes customary tenantes as aforesaid, and leases nowe sett by Indenture for iii lives.
which might support the definition, but not clearly so. Kiwima (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

tune[edit]

Noun sense:

(Britain, slang) A very good popular song.
You heard the new Rizzle Kicks song? — Mate, that is a tune!

I query whether "tune" specifically means a very good song. Yes, the usage example implies that, but you can use the pattern "that is a ~!" to convey appreciation of anything. The meaning doesn't seem to be inherent in the word "tune" itself. Mihia (talk)

I am familiar with this; see choon. You would exclaim "choon!" to sound your approval of some sort of club anthem, if you were a horrible chav. It does just mean "tune"/"piece of music" but it's used in that certain way. Nobody would shout "song!" or "track!". Equinox 18:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, on this basis, I propose to change the definition to something like:
(Britain, slang) Used as an exclamation to show appreciation or approval of a song.
You heard the new Rizzle Kicks song? — Tune!
I'll leave it just a little while in case someone shows that the word can be used in this sense other than as an exclamation. Mihia (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
A noun defined as "used as an exclamation..." seems like it wants to be an interjection perhaps. On the other hand see Talk:shoop, where shouting "X!" just means "this is an X!". I think we could get into circles here. Equinox 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
You could have said, “Circle!” :)  --Lambiam 06:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, personally I don't feel enthusiastic about creating a separate "Interjection" heading for this. Mihia (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • As there have been no further comments, I have implemented my suggestion above. However, if people feel that it is just an instance of a general usage of shouting "X!" to show appreciation of X, claim an X, etc., then the sense can be nominated for deletion. Anyway, as far as I am concerned, this RFV is Resolved. Mihia (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I vaguely remember trying to find citations for this, without luck. Maybe from some UK TV series? – Jberkel 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

thagomize [edit]

1 BGC use; Usenet has more uses, but they don't seem to match this meaning. — surjection??〉 18:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

cockwomble[edit]

Challenging senses 2 and 3: #2: "(UK, slang, derogatory) Patriarchal or patronising discourse, particularly between men"; #3 "(same glosses) The results of any patriarchal or patronising discourse or behaviour". So something like "mansplaining", supposedly? If it's real, consider redefining, since "patriarchal" and "patronising" are hardly the same thing. Can women produce "cockwomble"? etc. Equinox 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

While the overwhelming preponderance of uses I can find refer to a person, I did find a few references to "a load of cockwomble" (but not on durably archived media). Also, "going cockwomble" (again not durably archived). Kiwima (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

simper out [edit]

"To trail off, to peter out." One citation is given. It sounds like a one-off idiosyncrasy or error to me. Equinox 21:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It does. I added another cite to the citations page that has a similar meaning, but which is more clearly talking about simpering. Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

crocias[edit]

As a generic term for the two species. DTLHS (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The definition is not for both of the two species, but for either of the two species. It is definitely possible to find cites for each individual species (see citations page). Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose the question is whether "crocias" occurs by itself, e.g. as "I saw a crocias", outside the full (common) names of the two species. (If so, I think it's unimportant whether it's presented the way it currently is or by listing "a grey-crowned crocias" and "a spotted crocias" as separate senses of "crocias".) On the raw web, I can find examples of "a crocias", but not in books. It's possible this should be converted to an {{only used in}} entry pointing to the two full names. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

proskýnesis [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything I find italicizes the word. It looks Greek to me. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Turk [edit]

Rfv-sense: "(US, slang) A homosexual, assuming the active role in anal sex." This was removed out-of-process with an incorrect edit summary (this or other senses have been removed by Turkish POV editors in the past), but in checking the citations, I notice they're all mentions (two are in slang dictionaries / lists of words). I will try to look for citations myself later but wanted to go ahead and list it. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to sort through. Most of what I found so far that looked promising turned out to be about somebody who was from Turkey. I did manage to find and add one (and moved the mentions off to the citations page). Kiwima (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Russian[edit]

Rfv-sense "A sex act in which the penis is stimulated by rubbing between a woman's breasts; a tit fuck" Can't find anything on Google News or Google Books. Koopinator (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Subaru [edit]

Rfv-sense

  1. The Pleiades star cluster.

This seems to consist of nothing but mentions of the Japanese term- mostly in reference to the car company named after it. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

big girl[edit]

  1. (idiomatic, informal) An adult female.
  2. (informal) An older girl or grown-up girl; a girl who is no longer an infant.
    You can tie your own shoelaces – you're a big girl now.

RFV sense 1, not to be confused with sense 2 (which could in certain circumstances be used to refer to an adult, if the point is that they should e.g. act like a grown-up, or be capable of doing so). Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/April#big_girl. Mihia (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say just remove sense 1 and retain sense 2, which covers the sense 1 situation. (The song "Big Girls Don't Cry" is now playing in my head.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It is somewhat unfortunate that in the usage example for sense 2 it is not clear whether tie own’s own shoelaces is used in the literal sense or meant to be figurative.[9][10][11]  --Lambiam 13:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Aha, that's the beauty of it! Mihia (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I question whether this is an RFV or an RFD. I think it would be pretty easy to come up with three cites for each meaning - three where it is used for an adult, and three where it is used for an older child - but if I do so, won't @Equinox just accuse me of falling into what he has called the kiwima trap? Kiwima (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kiwima: If sense A and B each have three citations and all of those citations could equally belong under A or B then either we need less ambiguous cites or we need to merge the senses. Equinox 15:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Every one of these senses is SOP, should be an RFD. - TheDaveRoss 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
True. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the definition for which I added cites is not SoP (I could be wrong.), but all the others seem very suspect to me. We are a lonely lemming at OneLook. DCDuring (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

pallid [edit]

Rfv-sense "round and chubby". I'm not opposed to it being speedied as tosh. — surjection??〉 17:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

quindecalogue[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

king[edit]

Newly added: US slang: "a male person". Equinox 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not an adequate definition of the slang and not sure it's been used generally for over a year. e.g. the relevant ghits for "don't worry king" are all from 2020, and the Urban Dictionary entry was only added this February. —Nizolan (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The definition at queen ("A powerful or forceful female person.") may also need some refinement, but ultimately may help us define this (if it is attested...), since the usage I've seen does seem intended to parallel women building each other up by calling each other "queen". - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]

copycat kiss the rat, go home let your mother slap[edit]

Needs verification, I think. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

chancleta[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I could only find two quotes, and both of them used the term in italics, which looks like code-switching to me. I think this definition is only really used in Spanish. OTOH, I did find plenty of uses of the word to mean a slipper or sandal, and I added that definition along with citations. Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

unprimeable[edit]

Rfv-sense: That cannot be turned into a prime number by changing just one of its digits to any other digit. DTLHS (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For base 10, these form sequence A192545[12] in the OEIS. They do not use the term, but Wikipedia does – which does not count for attestation purposes. I found one usable cite: [13].
There is another Google Books hit at [14]. These and the number of reasonable-seeming hits in general web search seem persuasive that this probably is a genuine term. Mihia (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Noting also that there are one or two hits with the spelling unprimable, as well as one or two instances of unprimable in the sense "unable to be prepared for work", as in e.g. "unprimable pump". Mihia (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

mealprep[edit]

Without the space I think this is just a hashtag, not a spelling of the actual word. Equinox 08:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

your mother, yo momma etc.[edit]

Our definition:

Interjection
your mother!
A general purpose insult.

I have never heard of this in the sense that our definition seems to indicate. Does it exist? Of course, I have heard of it as part of an insult, e.g. "Your mother's so fat, ... etc.", or as a punchline or rejoinder "What's fat, stupid and ... etc.?" -- "Your mother!", but does someone say "Your mother!" without such a context, as other insults might be used? Mihia (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly heard it growing up in Texas in the '80s. If someone insulted you and you couldn't think of a snappy comeback, you could say "yo mama", even if you didn't predicate anything of her. Wikipedia's article Maternal insult agrees: "the phrase 'yo mama' by itself, without any qualifiers, has become commonly used as an all-purpose insult or an expression of defiance". I'm not sure whether it works with "your mother" instead of "yo mama", but it might. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mandate of Heaven[edit]

Etymology 1, following up Tooironic's question at WT:TR#Mandate of Heaven. Except in glosses explaining the era name, where the sense of the term itself is the normal Etymology 2 one ([15] [16]), I can't find any evidence that "Mandate of Heaven" is used in English to refer to the Tianming era. Googling "Mandate of Heaven era" and "Mandate of Heaven period" doesn't turn up anything relevant and it seems improbable to me prima facie. —Nizolan (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

baby fathers[edit]

Is there a reason why the main entry is in the plural? Is it at least idiomatic? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The present definition, "Fathers of child in common, particularly unmarried", does not make sense to me. Mihia (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

wlatsome[edit]

--Apunite (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The only normal Modern English (barely) attestation for this appears to be "Oh waltsome murder that attaynts our fame, / O horrible traytours, wanting worthy name." (1563, John Dolman, from the Mirror for Magistrates). A Glossary of Tudor and Stuart Words considers this specific instance an idiosyncratic imitation of Chaucer; for whatever reason in the 2019 Cambridge edition they've "modernised" waltsome back to wlatsome, but they footnote it there too as "a Chaucerian archaism". So it was a term that was already archaic in the 16th century. I'm guessing this is the thing User:-sche mentioned on the talk page, though somehow they saw it before it was published.
I've found three other examples but they are dodgy: this story in the NYT where they're deliberately using obsolete words beginning with "wl"; the nonsense one that's already on the citations page; and page 7 of this book ("Where the subject of choice is so wlatsome what is presented must depend finally and ultimately upon a certain oligophrenial whim"—search "wlatsome" via look inside). —Nizolan (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

quotinoctian[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trumper[edit]

Rfv-sense "A member of Donald Trump's businesses or political team." This was the original sense in the entry, but it seems hard to find cites that unambiguously support this sense rather than the general "supporter" sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tigger sense "member of The Independent Group"[edit]

This is a hot-word more than one year old. I find several mentions in the press between February and July 2019, but (perhaps) nothing since then, with the following possible exception:

2020 May 5, John Crace, “Matt Hancock's career continues to win the battle with his conscience”, in The Guardian[17]:
Normally Matt Hancock is relentlessly upbeat. The very model of middle-management enthusiasm. The Tigger who gives good meeting and likes to say yes.

If this is the relevant sense, then I guess I've verified my own request. While I'm not entirely up on British politics, though, I think the Independent Group were main Labour and Liberal Democrats, and Hancock is a Conservative. Cnilep (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That example is etymology 1 "overly enthusiastic or energetic person, often characterized by bouncing", which is habitually applied to Hancock as an epithet for whatever reason. As such the Independent Group only existed for 10 months or so in 2019 before being thoroughly wiped out in the December election, but I can find a very small number of "historical" references in media from 2020: [18], [19], [20] (paywalled: "These Tigger MPs were brave", referring to the group), .—Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Cited, I think: a newspaper, magazine, and recently published book, squeaking past a one-year span. —Nizolan (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hakkoz[edit]

The page points to Ezra 2:61 ("... the children of Koz...") and 1 Chronicles 4:8 ("And Coz begate Anub..."). Is this referring to another translation, maybe? I found a mention in 1 Chronicles 24:10, but it seems like it refers to an individual ("The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah"), and I'm not sure if that works as a surname? I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into what was being pointed to originally. grendel|khan 06:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hebrew has הַקּוֹץ(hakots) for the Ezra passage, קוֹץ(kots) for 1 Chr 4:8 and הַקּוֹץ(hakots) for 1 Chr 24:10. To understand what's going on, you have to know that Hebrew has a prefix ה-(h-) which is the definite article. Apparently the translators of the KJV decided that the first syllable was the definite article and not part of the word. The Ancient Greek Septuagint translated Ezra as Ακους (Akous) and the Latin Vulgate as Accos- in fact, I don't know of any other English translation that has only the one syllable. I'm not very good with the fine points of Hebrew grammar when it comes to the article, so I'm not sure why it didn't end up as "children of the Cos". At any rate, there's no reason whatsoever to include 1 Chr 4:8, since it doesn't have the first syllable in the original or in any translation. It's also wrong to call this a surname- Biblical Hebrew didn't have surnames. The person who created the entry was very confused. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddie would go[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Although this is more of a standalone surfing slogan used on bumper stickers and T-shirts, I managed to find a few inline uses from Usenet. – Einstein2 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

au reservoir[edit]

One independent use in BGC, with a ton of French false positives. — surjection??〉 20:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's widely used in the Mapp and Lucia series of books, and [21] [22] are two books unrelated to Mapp and Lucia that use it twice each. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Two more from Wikisource: s:The adventures of Mr. Verdant Green, an Oxford freshman/chapter 10 and s:Ulysses (1922)/Chapter 14. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I speedied it because this is an IP who frequently, repeatedly adds large batches of rubbishy (i.e. often non-existent) words with poor definitions. It's not worth RFVing all that junk IMO. Equinox 01:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I used to hear it in high school. DCDuring (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Citable in Usenet/Google Groups, including: "Same to you, and just remember not to menschen the war. Au reservoir." usage from alt.usage.english (2000). DCDuring (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Added some cites. I also found it in 1854 but I'm not sure that was intentional. In the 1855 quote it was clearly on purpose, reservoir is italicized. There's more: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

cat lady[edit]

Sense 2: (slang, euphemism) a spinster. (Really euphemism and not dysphemism?!) Anyway I think this is just sense 1, with the actual cat ownership: if you say jokingly "I'll live alone and be a cat lady" you mean sense 1, and you are just using a joky tone about it. Right? You can't be a catless cat lady. Equinox 05:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Except for the of-off-Broadway Cat Lady Without A Cat. To me the term means one of two things: (1) a middle-aged or elderly woman who takes care of feeding the neighbourhood cats; or (2) a middle-aged or elderly woman, living on her own, who keeps a bunch clowder of cats. Being owned by a single cat or a pair of cats is not enough to earn the epithet, unless the submission to the whims of B’sst is so extreme that it is considered strange by others.  --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The idea is, she's past the normal age of marriage and has nobody in her life. Her only two options are a husband and a bunch of cats. There's no husband in sight so she'd better get some cats. I see this sort of use occasionally but I don't have any quotes at hand to clarify the sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Cushite[edit]

Rfv-sense for the proper noun sense (language subfamily). If cites can be found, care should be taken to assess whether a 'dated' label or similar applies (at least, 'uncommon' will!). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I added three cites. It seems to be a rather common term for the subfamily. – Einstein2 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

spaceforce[edit]

No space. DTLHS (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like they're out of a job then. Equinox 16:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

penopause [edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

Fails WT:ATTEST. –MJLTalk 01:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It has two citations. This is a WT:RFV matter, not an RFD matter. Equinox 01:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep, duly moved to RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Cited. Seems reasonably widely attested. I verified the two existing quotations and cited a third. —Nizolan (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

shayataan[edit]

Most instances that I have found, capitalise it and use it as a proper noun. Any durable cites for this form? --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

bacon[edit]

Rfv-sense "misogynist". Some quick googling was of no use. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

forcremp[edit]

Modern English? Equinox 07:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No 16th/17th century hits for any form on Early English Books Online. —Nizolan (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably an OED import since the etymology (with MHG cognate) and definition there are largely the same, but their only example is firmly Middle English (1250). —Nizolan (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

raise one's hand[edit]

To dare to question. Equinox 09:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox Can you use it in a sentence? Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You should ask @DCDuring since he added it. I'm the one challenging it since I think it's erroneous. Equinox 19:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't remember what I had in mind three years ago. I am guessing that the idea is that if one raises one's hand when not invited to, one is questioning, interrupting, challenging the speaker. I can't produce a citation. DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@DCDuring: two of the citations I added were invitations to do that, “Please raise your hand if you think that I hate Kevin.” and “Raise your hand if you want America to be less safe and less secure.” The other one, “Raise your hand if you absolutely love spiders.”, is more a figure of speech because the writer is addressing the reader, the reader is obviously not expected to actually raise their hand while reading a book. They're all literal though. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
If a singer sings "let me hear you say yeah!" or "raise the roof" or "get on down" (haha, I have no idea what the popular beat combos would sing these days), they also aren't explicitly asking a specific person to do it. It's just sort of rhetoric. Equinox 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
When a singer sings "let me hear you say yeah!", "raise the roof!" or "get down!" they generally do expect the audience to respond and either say "yeah", make noise or dance uninhibited. In particular the first one they won't often sing in a studio I think. It doesn't matter that the audience is addressed as a whole and it doesn't matter whether they answer the call or not. When that writer wrote “Raise your hand if you absolutely love spiders.” they expected absolutely nobody to do it, and not just because very few people would "absolutely love" spiders. The readers were supposed, if anything at all, to think about whether they support the statement. Not to move limbs. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
In none of the situations or citations mentioned is the hand-raiser challenging the speaker in any way. "Dare to question" would clearly refer to such a challenge. DCDuring (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's related to "not raise a hand in opposition", meaning to acquiesce to something objectionable. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The way I read it, “Please raise your hand if you think that I hate Kevin.” means “I don't hate Kevin. Raise your hand if you dare to question me.”, but in terms of language you may be correct. I don't oppose deleting of that sense. Perhaps another should be added, like "ask yourself a question". Because the “Raise your hand if you absolutely love spiders.” example doesn't involve any kind of hand-raising. At best one might raise their hand in their mind while reading. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you are making too much of a usage that is an exploitation of the normal use, which occurs in classrooms and other meetings of similar size. Almost any expression can be similarly exploited in one way or another. For example, run over, as in "Run me over! I dare you!" You can't mean we need a different definition to reflect counterfactual, hypothetical, subjunctive, optative, etc usage. DCDuring (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not think “Please raise your hand if you think that I hate Kevin.” means “I don't hate Kevin. Raise your hand if you dare to question me.” at all, I think it means “Please make a signal so I (or, we all) can count how many people here think I hate Kevin.” The speaker may assume that no-one will raise their hand because everyone knows the speaker doesn't hate Kevin, but "raise your hand" does not mean "dare to question me" on any lexical level, IMO/AFAICT. To some extent the "volunteer" sense in our entry is also reducible to this, "raise your hand as a signal if you are willing to volunteer", although there are a lot more "extended" metaphors based on that, e.g. calling someone a helium hand or saying they have helium hands, so it may be more keepable. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. I should have read more of the context. It could mean what I said, but in this case it doesn't. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't really understand the "dare to" part, but if we are to have "To volunteer by lifting one's hand" as a separate sense, then it seems to me that we should logically also have the "To lift one's hand in order to ask a question / make a request" sense too, since this is just as common a use of that gesture. Mihia (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
One gesture with two meanings isn't really two separate senses, any more than colon has a separate English sense for each separate thing a colon happens to be used for. Equinox 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, we do explain the meaning(s) of e.g. V sign and thumbs up. I think in cases where there is a standard term for a gesture, and the gesture has a standard meaning that is expected to be understood without full explanation, then it is reasonable for us to cover it. How far "raise one's hand" qualifies can be a grey area, I think. I mean, one could say "Teacher explained that adultery was a sin, but little Johnny raised his hand", expecting it to be understood that Johnny had a question (or wanted to go to the little boys' room). OTOH, there are variants such as "put up one's hand", "lift one's hand", so perhaps it is not enough of a fixed expression, in which case we are more getting into just explaining human behaviour generally, which is out of scope. I think it is a debatable case. Mihia (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
In fact, thinking about it, put up one's hand (to something) can also have the meaning of confess (to something), which I think has a good claim for an entry, since the expression is used when there is no physical gesture. Mihia (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure V sign should, in fact, be two senses. We could cover it with subsense lines, or with one definition that explains both potential meanings. Suppose that a weird electrical storm causes my fingers to perform that gesture, but I didn't intend to. It's still a V sign, which means that the mental intent doesn't count, only the physical movement, so it's only one "thing" despite two possible interpretations by the observer. Equinox 14:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I think in my reply I slightly swerved your actual point. Yes, when it is the same gesture, just with different interpretations, I agree that the definition should essentially be structured along the lines of: "description of gesture, indicating meaning 1, meaning 2, etc.". However, as it would happen, V sign is two different gestures, depending on whether the palm is inwards or outwards. 17:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
And going back to raise one's hand, the other two entries presently read:
1. Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see raise,‎ hand.
2. (idiomatic) To volunteer by lifting one's hand.
I question whether sense 2 is "idiomatic" at all. Isn't "raise one's hand" still just a literal description of the gesture, that has a certain meaning within a context? Mihia (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I have had a go at reworking the entry along the lines suggested. I am not 100% sure about the result. I am not sure that the separate uses of the gesture are really "figurative" or "idiomatic" as the present layout suggests, nor even whether they are all really dictionary material. However, if we don't include them then I guess we have no article at all. The one I feel most confident is dictionary worthy is the "raise one's hand (against someone)" sense, and it would seem odd to mention this and not others. Anyway, if someone sees a better way to present this, please go ahead. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

forestology[edit]

Probably informal if attestable. — surjection??〉 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cited, it doesn't look informal from the examples though it's certainly rare. —Nizolan (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

twote [edit]

I don't think the 2 quotes on this page are durably-archived. Whaddya think? --Undurbjáni (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Cited from 3 better sources —Nizolan (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

murbie[edit]

(It's short for "market urbanist".) I've found tweets ([29], [30], [31], [32]), but nothing in more permanent places. Note that it's apparently not that intuitive, as you can frequently see people asking "what's a murbie?" in the replies. grendel|khan 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Daty[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CFI[edit]

Sense 4: (Wiktionary and WMF jargon) criteria for inclusion. This specific definition was added by @Espoo. I don't see anything indicating "CFI" means "criteria for inclusion" in general contexts even on Google Books, let alone others referring specifically to our policy here at Wiktionary for inclusion. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

lin[edit]

RFV of the water-related senses (ety 2): "a pool", "a waterfall", "a steep ravine". I added all the citations I could find, which are all of the "waterfall" sense, but many of them seem to actually be Scots (and one seems to be the proper name of a specific area of water). Btw, the EDD also has this as "linch (pin)" with enough citations that, if we could find one or two more, that (etymologically unrelated) sense might be addable. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Aha, I find more citations when I search for the spelling linn, though many (including those given in the EDD) are still Scots. I've made that the lemma entry (it also matches the etymon), although lin and lyn still need English citations showing their existence as alternative spellings. I will add what I can find to lyn soon. For lin, we will need to ascertain how many of the citations that exist (several of which I added) are English vs Scots. - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This rings a bell... got a feeling these senses came from Webster 1913 (which doesn't automatically pass them of course, but may suggest some amount of legitimacy). Equinox 19:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I did manage to find adequate citations under the spelling linn, so the lexeme itself is real. I wonder if it was lemmatized at lin simply because that's the alphabetically first of the various spellings, though not the most common (or because some dictionaries, like the EDD, lemmatize it as "lin(n" with a half-parenthetized n). - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

tis[edit]

Noun: alt form of tizz, i.e. a state of excitement or distress. This can also be a tizzy or tissy, but I've never seen tis. The extremely bad and inaccurate state of the tissy entry until recently makes me suspicious of this one too. Equinox 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

corona[edit]

Rfv-sense: A crown or garland bestowed among the Romans as a reward for distinguished services. Unitalicized? DTLHS (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Added three unitalicized cites. – Einstein2 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

corona[edit]

Rfv-sense: The upper surface of certain parts of the body. Which parts? DTLHS (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I turned it into a generalized sense which now includes three subsenses. – Einstein2 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

compersion[edit]

RFV of senses 1 and 3: "1. Joy from witnessing another's enjoyment of something" other than sense 2 (joy specifically at one's partner enjoying sexual or romantic activity with someone else), and "3. Joy produced by knowing of something, unrelated to oneself, that brings a loved one joy." Sense 1 is plausible. I'm not familiar with sense 3, and not entirely sure what it is intended to cover that sense 1 would not. - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

vika[edit]

Hot word from September 2017. I can't actually find any durable citations, searching Google Books, Scholar, and Usenet for Solomon + "a vika" or + "vikas". I do see it used in a Reuters story, so newspapers (accessible via Issuu or other ways) might have something, but the fact that this also means "week" in Icelandic et al makes searching tedious. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

able for[edit]

Doesn't turn up on google books that I can find. And if it does exist, is it really best classified as a phrase? 76.100.241.89

I'd be fine with this being moved to RfD, if that seems more appropriate. 76.100.241.89
I don't really understand the definition. Do the numerous 19th century results on Google Books not fit? DTLHS (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I don't really get the definition either. 76.100.241.89
From the edit history/entry creator, I would guess this may have been added because some other dictionary has it. I added a citation to the citations page, "I'll not be able for get up [...] I'll be goin' for die for sure", but that seems to just be using "for" in place of "to", not using "able for" idiomatically. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Searching Google Books for "able for the work" throws up some apparently relevant hits, but to me "able for" seems like a collocation, or even merely a juxtaposition, not a phrase. I'm not sure there is any more reason to list this than e.g. fit for or ready for. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I think this trying to explain something about a certain construction in a certain dialect; it says Irish. Okay, able generally means "fit to do something", i.e. qualified and not hindered by any obstruction or disability, so you would think SoP. But there is the matter of the construction. Why do we say "I would love to swim" and not "I would love swimming", or "I adore to swim"? So: "able to swim" (normal) but "able for swimming" (dialectal) maybe? If only the Irish use this form (I have no idea) then it's interesting to document. I am not sure about this kind of weird Adjective+Preposition entry title... I have expressed my opinions about the need for a WikiGrammar before. Equinox 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

y'all[edit]

Rfv-sense: "To block discussion on an internet board to restrict dissent". If attestable, I'd be interested in knowing what the etymology is. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ety presumably a social justice thing: [33]. In such circles those who disagree are encouraged to "sit down and shut up", "educate themselves" etc. Equinox 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

metrostenosis[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I found a single relevant cite. Another use seems to be a misconstruction of mitral stenosis. – 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

meraklon[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this will hinge on WT:BRAND, since there seem to be enough raw hits to pass otherwise. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

meneito[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I added what I could find to Citations:meneito. Only one cite for this spelling. – Einstein2 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

pith[edit]

Rfv-sense: The ordinal form of the number pi. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Cited. Found a few uses on Usenet. grendel|khan 02:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Not cited. Only two cites were added. Old Man Consequences (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Added a third cite (and a noun sense). --Einstein2 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the definition accurate? What would this even mean? How can a non-integer be an ordinal? Equinox 13:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Non-integer rational ordinals have common real-life use for handling insertions. DCDuring (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't find any references to the concept of an "irrational ordinal number", which is what our definition of "pith" would imply. The present citations/examples are all for "pith power/root", in which "pith" is apparently termed an ordinal number by analogy with "second power", "third power", etc. Mihia (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
There are attestable instances of real ordinal numbers in this search. The numbers used in powers are ordinal numbers, expressing the order of successively higher exponents. DCDuring (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

sneakery[edit]

OneLook gives us an Urban Dictionary reference and a Google search connects it to sneakers. Any cites where the meaning of "stealth; the practice of sneaking" is used? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I added three cites. 76.100.241.89

vaginalist[edit]

Rfv-sense: Someone who frequently courts women for sex. Different senses would probably includable. DTLHS (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

strap[edit]

Rfv-sense, as short for strap-on. I can find uses on Twitter ([34], [35], [36], [37]), but it's difficult to search for, and I haven't found it anywhere durable. grendel|khan 23:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

monocephalia[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Teochew[edit]

Rfv-sense "the city of Chaozhou". —Suzukaze-c 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

neko[edit]

Rfv-sense: cat DTLHS (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

moschinato[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

litiatic[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I created lithiatic, which this might have been an error for. Old Man Consequences (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

lipomatosous[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

liniculture[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

lactifugal[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I found two cites with different senses. --Einstein2 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

lapidable[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It's starting to look like someone's got it in for me. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy! Mihia (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This partially visible article researches a different meaning: "marriageable, fit for a husband", based on a lapis ("stone"). The joke is the secondary meaning of stone. DCDuring (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

egghead[edit]

Sense of "A bald person, especially a man." פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

katoforit[edit]

= the mineral katophorite (and stated at that entry to be the "original" form). Is it English? Judging from Google Books it may be German (with capital K), though katoforite with the final e can be found easily in English. Equinox 18:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

jack[edit]

Rfv-sense: Noun (baseball) A home run.

I didn't find such a definition at jack at OneLook Dictionary Search. It does appear in some on-line glossaries, including w:Glossary of baseball. It appears in some blogs, but not in Books or UseNet. DCDuring (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Cited from Usenet. --Einstein2 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, yea, plural. Good job. Thanks. BTW, the baseball noun and verb definition seem to come from the idea of jacking something up, elevating something, which would place it with all the definitions with similar sense evolution in Etymology 1, not in its own etymology section. DCDuring (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

nutritionistics[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

notogamia[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

myriadaire[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

hanjaeo[edit]

A term derived from Korean, sense "transliterated Korean hanja" - this seems inaccurate is the only sense listed so I was not sure whether to add the whole entry or just that one sense. I do not speak Korean but given the meaning of the equivalent Chinese characters in Chinese, and the Korean word linked in the Etymology section (which says: (linguistics) Sino-Korean words; Korean words etymologically from or influenced by Chinese), it seems irrelevant and inaccurate. I think it is possibly confusion between the etymology and the definition. Hkbusfan (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

what[edit]

This may be a bit unorthodox, but I am requesting citations for North American /ʍɑt/ and /wɑt/, which the pronunciation section claims are used.

Anything but /ʍʌt/ and /wʌt/ sounds either affected or jocular (I could imagine /wɑt/ [and maybe /ʍɑt/] in some "online funny talk" or something like that) in North American English.

So I am requesting citations for those asserted pronunciations in North American English. Tharthan (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree that the strut vowel is far more common than the lot vowel in the North American stressed pronunciation of what, both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster list the /ɑ/ pronunciation first, before the /ʌ/ pronunciation. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

shoot the daylights[edit]

Chat casually. I see only "shoot the daylights out of", i.e. totally blast with guns etc. Equinox 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a notorious mass creator of wrong/invented entries who has come back. User name Shamar (with some digits I can't remember). Please keep an eye on them. Equinox 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Rar[edit]

"Roshal Archive, a proprietary data compression format" —Suzukaze-c 17:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)