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


Contents

January 2018[edit]

UTA[edit]

I can see it being used for several things, but not for Utah. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the only entry in need of verification – several of the entries added by Special:Contributions/70.52.11.217 are a bit dubious, IMO. How should we treat these abbreviations? I mean, there must me hundreds of local and national teams who use abbreviations on their scoreboards, but that doesn't mean that we have to include them here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This one is certainly worth the RfV and perhaps some others.
For some others we could decide, whether by precedent, vote, or consensus, that some classes of abbreviations are OK and focus on making them conform to some standard. For example, 3-letter codes for airports could be deemed OK and presented only as Translingual (See YUL, JFK and their histories.). This contributor is not even consistent for such entries and probably for other types.
We could also apply a short block to the IP to get its attention. If that doesn't work, longer blocks might be required. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the height of arrogance. None of you have ever left a message on my talk page, so how the hell am I supposed to know you have issues? Have you ever thought of ever interacting with anyone outside of blocks? MediaWiki has user talk pages for a reason, and messages posted there are actually delivered to the user in question. This Wiktionary BLOCK = HELLO THERE standardized behaviour is very disappointing. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't have a talk page. There is a talk page for your IP address, but that's sort of a hack, to get around the fact that there's no way to communicate with an anonymous individual. If you create a user account, then you will have a user talk page. You could also have a watchlist and look to see if people are having issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I can find lots of evidence for "University of Texas at Arlington" and "Utah Transport Authority", and some for a few other acronyms such as "Union de Transports Aeriens", "United Typothetae of America", etc, but none for Utah. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the geolocation and by the mediocrity of the edits, this is quite possibly Fête, who has never been known for taking a hint- whether administered with compassion and tact or with a 16-lb sledgehammer. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh well. You would know best. DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Utah" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. (ie. the w:Utah Jazz is frequently abbreviated via UTAH instead of JAZZ.) When multiple teams have the same geographic name in the same sport in the same league, then they don't just go by the geographic name, but instead either use the team name or a combination of team name and geographic name. University teams typically are abbreviated with the university name instead of the team name as well. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

11/13/17 Utah UTA 98 - MIN 109
GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN

-- 70.52.11.217 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

None of which matters much to RfV. See WT:ATTEST; URLs like forums..../boards/viewtopic.php (the second link) are clear warning signs that they aren't permanently archived.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have cited and removed the RFV tags from VGK, CBJ, NYI, NYR, and NJD, all of which are abbreviations of NHL teams. EhSayer (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

KIT[edit]

Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Kitchener" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

8. Riley Damiani (KIT), Ryan Merkley (GUE), Noel Serron (OSH), Curtis Douglas (BAR) – TI Score: 16
Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)
OHL - KIT (2015) RD: 3 (#44)
HAM–KIT–7:30 PM

-- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

ac-[edit]

ag-[edit]

al-[edit]

RFV-sense of the variant of ad- used before certain consonants. I suspect that this only existed in Latin, and not English, where examples of al- etc in this sense are just borrowings of Latin words, as is the case with e.g. allocate. The one example of ag- which claims to have been formed in English (aggenital) is suspect, because aggenitalis (and aggenitus?) seem to exist. Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made (the RFVed sense of) al- Latin-only. I see there are four words which claim to have been formed with ac-. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've switched ag- into a Latin entry, too, as all the ostensible examples of it have Latin etyma of which they seem like borrowings. Ac- is trickier: many of the words other dictionaries cite as derivations are obvious wholesale borrowings from other languages (accede, acquire), but accompass does not seem to have a Latin etymon *accompassus (two New Latin works use adcompassus)...but it's also not clear that it uses an ad- derived prefix and not the intensifier a- with the c doubled to ensure correct pronunciation, and/or under the influence of Latin-derived acc- words, and/or because spelling was variable when the word was coined. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

April 2018[edit]

[edit]

This was in the requests list; if I removed it, whoever added it might get upset. So I've created it and brought it here. The Unicode spec calls it "uncertainty sign" or "query" and says nothing further. Equinox 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

ashiyu[edit]

Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.
I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".
As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.
I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

stevvon[edit]

Searches for "stevvons", "stevvoning", "stevvoned", "stevvon'd" turn up just enough hits that one (consolidated?) verb definition-line is probably citable, although several of the places the word occurs are dialect dictionaries, whose usexes (if not direct quotations of real people or works) don't count. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's really a slightly more modern dialectal (spelling) variant of steven. It's listed as an Alternative form there Leasnam (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't (and don't) want to RFV steven until I can make an effort to cite its various senses and find out which I can and can't find citations for, but ultimately it too needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In any case consider glossing as obsolete unless we have good evidence that modern northerners have a clue what this means. Equinox 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

do someone a frighten[edit]

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

nu-male[edit]

Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

misdemeanorize[edit]

Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

eighthfinal[edit]

Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? -84.161.23.222 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Parker square[edit]

A specific "almost magic square" that doesn't quite work. Equinox 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that the word is from 2016, which is when the Numberphile video that led to the coining of the term was published, so any cites earlier than that simply cannot refer to this meaning. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to add: I do think this term is real, but it probably cannot be cited under Wiktionary rules. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

broderick[edit]

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

mlem[edit]

Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

vespivore[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

QQ brings up enough French usages, probably in this sense, but no English usages. Anyone want to convert this to/add this in French?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What is QQ? I have added a French entry, the meaning is the same. Also I found one English use from a newspaper. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The French quotes are mentions, not uses. Please delete if nothing else is forthcoming. Per utramque cavernam 13:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
vespivorous ought to exist as well, but is very rare. It is in Gilbert White#s The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne however. (and I don't know what QQ is) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Quiet Quentin – see the "Gadgets" tab under "Preferences". — SGconlaw (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Devil's Triangle[edit]

Rfv-sense: a sexual threesome. This word and boof have been in the news lately in the US (if you don't know why, count yourself lucky). Yesterday I added several new senses to boof, but I couldn't find any durably archived citations for this sense of Devil's Triangle.

If we do find citations, we should try to figure out whether the term just means a threesome or specifically a threesome with two men and one woman. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your boy Equinox created devil's threesome a while ago. Please check your capitalisation. Equinox 02:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good that we have that entry, and a quick search finds some citations for it. But I can't find citations for any capitalization of Devil's Triangle/Devil's triangle/devil's triangle with this meaning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, most of what I find is mention's doubting the "Drinking game" story, but I did find one news article that actually used the term. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This New York Times fact checking page states that classmates of the Judge said the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman.  --Lambiam 09:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a quotation, albeit without capitalization:
1915, Wilbur F. Crafts, “Dancing in High Schools”, Journal of Education volume 82, no. 19 (November 25, 1915), p. 510:
High school dances are just now especially untimely, for there is a sex madness on the nation, as shown from the increased “suggestiveness” of dance and drama and song and dress and magazines,—the latter now so reeking with stories strung on the devil’s triangle, “the husband, the wife and the lover,“ that Pittsburgh has felt constrained to appoint a censor for the magazines.
 --Lambiam 04:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There are also a few (very few) cites out there for "map of Tasmania"/"vulva" with inconsistent capitalisation,[2] [3] if anyone cares to pursue it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

devil's triangle[edit]

An entry for the lowercase form has been created, so I'm adding it to the RFV. It currently has three citations, including the one that Lambiam gave above, but the 1915 quotation looks like it's for a different sense (it sounds to me like it's talking about a love triangle, not a threesome), and the 2018 quotation is a non-durably-archived mention. The 2007 quotation looks good, assuming that it's durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • BTW, what about the drinking game sense? Seems like that's a hot sense at the moment. Purplebackpack89 00:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • All 3 are durably archived mentions. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I've seen mentions, but no uses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Added citations from 2007 and 2013. -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The 2013 citation is for the capitalization "Devil's Triangle" (above), and I'm not sure it's durably archived. The 2007 citation looks good, so we need two more. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
2013 citation is durably archived. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain how you know that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Cosmopolitan‎ is a magazine. It is durably archived via microfiche in libraries around the world in multiple locations. -- Cirt (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Most publications with web sites have online content that never makes it into their print editions. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It's also been online since 2013, and has likely been cached elsewhere. -- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Online caches aren't considered durably archived, as they can disappear pretty easily. Unless we can find evidence that the article in question was published in the print edition of the magazine, we can't consider it durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The content of the 1915 quotation suggests strongly that magazine stories on devil’s triangles, whatever they were, were symptomatic of sex madness and necessitated the institution of censorship. I cannot quite put myself in the 1915 mindset of Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts, Superintendent of the International Reform Bureau, but I doubt that stories on love triangles not involving threesomes, already found in the works of Shakespeare (e.g. Twelfth Night) and an essential plot element in most of Jane Austen’s novels, would have been considered so scandalously appealing to the prurient interest that they justified the institution of censorship.  --Lambiam 20:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's clearly describing a love triangle involving adultery, which I'm guessing would have justified censorship in Wilbur F. Crafts' mind. The page you linked says: "Opponents called Wilbur Crafts a reform fanatic. Among many other things, he opposed alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, narcotics, divorce, close dancing, and 'joy rides.'"
There's no adultery in the Jane Austen books I've read, and as for Shakespeare—well, Othello considered adultery to be justification for murdering his wife. In any case, I don't know for sure what Crafts meant either, but the "adultery" reading seems more plausible than the "threesome" reading to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the outcome of the discussion is. It seems to me that we have one good citation of the lowercase form (2007), one citation of a different spelling of the lowercase form used in wordplay so that the meaning isn't completely clear (2018 October 2), one citation of the lowercase form with what appears to be a completely different meaning (1915), and two citations of the uppercase form from the same year (2018 September 27 and 2018 October 1). Is that enough evidence to keep either of the entries? If so, which one? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As I see it, we have 3 good cites for the uppercase form (2013, and the second two 2018s - the first 2018 is a mention). On the lower case form, there are two cites (2007 and Oct 2008), but as an alternate form, we usually let this sort of thing squeak by. Kiwima (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't usually let alternate forms slide with less than three cites—if anything, we've traditionally been less willing to bend the rules for alternate forms than for lemmas. As for the 2013 cite, as far as I can tell no one has provided any evidence that it's durably archived. The October 2 2018 cite is dubious at best IMO, with a different spelling and a meaning that's somewhat unclear since it's using the term as a joke. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
After thinking about this for a few days, here's my suggestion: we lump the citations to support Devil's Triangle (which has two good citations compared to one for devil's triangle), and delete the lowercase form. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

blep[edit]

"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

nephophobia[edit]

Fear of clouds- a good number of mentions in phobia lists, one mention-y Usenet use. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I suffer from phobocatalogophobia – a phobia of phobia lists, in particular such as have been formed by the accretion of “the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter”. We should only include -ophobias if they are attested by clear uses.  --Lambiam 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't that sort of thing; it's mentioned in non-Internet sources back to at least 1981. In fact, I suspect most of the phobia lists are derived from pre-Internet words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't clear: I meant phobia lists in books, not the internet ones (I never bother to look at those). That said, the same things can be said about most of the ones in books: some reference makes up a word, and all the other references copy it. The rest of the hits are for a certain type of self-help book that talks about fears as something to be overcome, and includes a list of "official" names of fears as a sort of filler. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I could only find one quote that looks like a use. In addition, there is [this article], but the text is unavailable. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not an article but one poem in a series of four: “Cymophobia: Fear of Waves”, “Aulophobia: Fear of Flutes”, “Erythrophobia: Fear of Blushing”, and “Nephophobia: Fear of Clouds”, published together in the Summer 1988 issue of The Paris Review. They are behind a paywall, but I’ll be vaguely surprised if any of these terms appear anywhere else in the poems other than their titles.  --Lambiam 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Added two more cites.-Sonofcawdrey (talk)

I once had an idea to combat this continual fight against arrant "phobia-adders", namely, add them all! Yes, add _all_ the stupid phobias from those phobia lists, and then the rest of the editors interested in adding real words could concentrate on more important things and the "phobia-adders" would recede away and stop bothering us. My idea was that we could add them as entries, and for the un-attested ones, simply have a permanent notice saying: This entry is not properly attested, it only appears in phobia-lists; please add CFI-worthy citations (or something to that effect). Once they got properly cited (if ever), the notice could be taken down. I suppose the problem with this solution is that it might be the thin edge of the wedge. I mean, if we do it for phobia-words, why not other types of words? There are lots of lists of -mancy-words, and -philia-words, etc. But, might not this idea be worth thinking about? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We already do this in some places, e.g. Pokémon. I don't really approve. Having an entry saying "this is not an entry" is foolish. Equinox 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Darkeye[edit]

A male given name. Equinox 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added three cites to the citations page, but I can't really say whether they are male given names or nicknames. I also found Darkeye as a surname, and as a woman's name. Also as a variety of sunflower, of daisy, and of dahlia. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Soufrican[edit]

Given citation is actually "Sou'frican". DTLHS (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've found one cite for the adjective and two for the noun on Usenet. Still need two more adjectival uses and one more nominal use. Khemehekis (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]

teguline [edit]

Rfv-sense - the adjective

I can find "Teguline clay", where Teguline seems to be a proper noun, and I found:

  • 2009, NG Wilson, M Schrödl, KM Halanych, “Ocean barriers and glaciation: evidence for explosive radiation of mitochondrial lineages in the Antarctic sea slug Doris kerguelenensis (Mollusca, Nudibranchia)”, in Molecular Ecology:
    To roughly date divergences between trans‐Drake sister groups, we applied a teguline gastropod COI molecular clock calibrated over the Isthmus of Panama (Hellberg & Vacquier 1999).
where the POS is unclear, but that is all I could find. Without a definition, it is hard to know where else to look. Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
To understand the adjective, you need to know that tēgula is the Latin word for "roof tile", and that it's also the name for a genus of marine snails/gastropods. Currently, they're classified in the family Tegulidae, but that was formerly (from 1971) classified as the subfamily Tegulinae within the family Trochidae. The standard ending for adjectives referring to subfamilies is -ine, so a teguline gastropod is a gastropod in the former subfamily Tegulinae. As for the clay, roof tiles were made from clay, so teguline clay would probably be a type used for roof tiles, or associated with roof tiles somehow. I don't think it's a proper noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved The clay passes, the gastropods fail. Kiwima (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

childism [edit]

Rfv-senses: 1. Reading literature from the perspective of children 2. Responding to children's particular lived experiences

There are no actual citations, only "references" to books which use the term according to the author's own definition. I view such references as mentions, though others may disagree.

There are two other senses, one of which had a citation which was deleted when three other senses were added (today). I think I can get cites from Google News for those two senses, which are, more or less, "prejudice against children" and "advocacy for children". w:Childism was deleted. No OneLook reference has anything related to our definitions. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have cited The second sense, but can only find the one book for the first. Kiwima (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Second sense passes. The first does not look promising, but we will let it wait out its month. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. The sense you added was one I'd forgotten about and hadn't noticed in use in my review of childism citations. DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved The second sense passed, the first failed. Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

lease [edit]

Senses of etymology 2 related to lying. DTLHS (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The noun sense was already cited, so I am not sure why you did not just apply this to the adjective sense. Do you have a problem with the existing cites? Kiwima (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they're from Middle English and furthermore they're all from the same work. DTLHS (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

siderodromophilia[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has an article Sidérodromophilie. Interestingly, the article opens with “La sidérodromophilie, serait une paraphilie”, as if the Francophone editors doubt that this is for real. Compare with Tricophilie, which starts with “La tricophilie est une paraphilie”.  --Lambiam 14:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
OTOH, the one cite I managed to find is a statement about a porn site in which a guy does nothing but drive trains, and you wouldn't expect there to be such a porn site unless there are SOME people with this fetish. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

wanbelief[edit]

Maybe OE or ME. Equinox 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not Old English. Also, not found in Middle English with this spelling. It's Modern English, but I am not finding any uses of it with this spelling either. It may survive (somewhat) in/as wan belief which is easily found in GBooks, but this can also be wan + belief, although it's had to say why anyone would use wan this way were it not for wanbelief Leasnam (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
There are examples of wan faith[4] and wan conviction[5][6][7], so why wouldn’t writers use wan belief?  --Lambiam 13:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh okay, Thank you. I wasn't aware that wan was still being used this much. It's awfully rare to hear nowadays Leasnam (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That’s true. These uses have a somewhat old-fashioned literary feel to them.  --Lambiam 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The ME spelling is supposed to be wanbeleve, which is listed in several ME dictionaries. The Century Dictionary (1895 edition) lists the word in the spelling wanbelief while also marking it as obsolete. Other than that, I find nothing for this spelling in print.  --Lambiam 09:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

firepower kill[edit]

Sense 2: a vehicle whose firepower systems are damaged (as opposed to easily attested sense 1, the damage itself). Equinox 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Medical personnel might metonymically say something like “the ruptured appendix has been prepared for surgery” when they mean that the patient suffering from a ruptured appendix is ready for surgery. It seems to me that this is similar metonymy, referring to an entity (a tank damaged by a firepower kill) by a currently salient aspect (the firepower kill it suffered). That is not worth being listed as a separate sense.  --Lambiam 18:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

follow someone to the toilet[edit]

All I can find are literal uses. The linked example is now dead. DTLHS (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still alive at several places: [8][9]. But one example is not enough.  --Lambiam 23:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Even there, it looks more like a case of reducto ad absurdum than like an idiom.
In any case, in the example it is literally a non sequitur.  --Lambiam 22:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

colma[edit]

I don't think anyone would spell it this way. DTLHS (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a few hits in Google Groups, two of which are Usenet: here and [10] (there are other Usenet hits, but they're not independent from these two). I searched for "a colma" to avoid all the references to places and most of the non-English ones, so there may be a few more. That shows that this exists, but it's extremely rare- too rare IMHO to merit a misspelling entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Another source, with two uses in one para: [11]. I don’t know if this is durably archived.  --Lambiam 10:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Kevinism[edit]

I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

hirquiticke[edit]

A dictionary-only word if ever I heard one. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Usenet provides no hits for "hirquiticke", "hirquitic" nor "herquitic", nor their plurals. Khemehekis (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
From here. DTLHS (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

meldrop[edit]

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a cite to the citations page, but it looks like Scottish to me. Kiwima (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

enbyphobia[edit]

Equinox 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of Google hits on non-durably archived pages, but nothing on Google Books nor Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

-ey[edit]

"Old Norse suffix for place names". Was it ever productive in modern English? Equinox 18:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

whiteout[edit]

Rfv-sense "The elimination of white men in media", recently added. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 22:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It is easy enough to cite the opposite meaning (the elimination of all but white men), but I find no evidence for this meaning. Kiwima (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

chud[edit]

Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).
Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

parabombing[edit]

"The systematic adding of parenthetical information in the middle of a text or a sentence." Appears to be used on the TVTropes Web site (only?). Equinox 20:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

scallop[edit]

Rfv-sense "to make or cook scallops", was an RFT template for a couple years but the discussion there was mainly questioning whether this was an actual definition. - TheDaveRoss 13:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything I find about cooking scallops calls it "cooking", except for a number of recipies for "scalloped scallops", which is clearly definition 3 (the casserole). Other than that, all I could find was this. Kiwima (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

flag[edit]

Rfv-sense (academics) To fail a test or a course., anyone familiar with this usage? - TheDaveRoss 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Could it be someone's error for flunk? The problem with searching for "flagging students" etc. is that you find the other sense of flag, i.e. someone who is slowing down at their studies due to overwork or weariness. Equinox 02:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Some universities will ‘flag’ (sense 5) students who are doing badly in a given semester as a sort of warning that they’re on track to fail and need to shape up. See, for example, [12]. Perhaps sense 10 is an extension or misinterpretation of such a usage? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

taggle[edit]

An item with small dangling tags. DTLHS (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

deathlock[edit]

"A deadlock." I can see a couple of uses of "putting the deathlock on something" etc., seeming to mean that the thing is paralysed or halted: that's not quite what a deadlock is, because deadlock implies that neither side has supremacy, but they are equally matched. So the definition might need changing a bit. (BTW, the other "deathlock" sense, a wrestling move, seems that it might not exist outside of "Indian deathlock".) Equinox 02:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added a number of other meanings, with cites, but found no evidence of a deadlock. I suspect the editor who added that definition was confused about the meaning of deadlock. (andas for the wrestling move, there is also a "scorpion deathlock", plus I saw a couple of cases where "deathlock" appeared on its own) Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

corporate monster[edit]

The definition here is specific enough that it can pass RFD, but can this specific definition really be cited? If only a more general idea is attested, the entry would have to be redefined as SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

In most cases in which the term is applied to a corporation, it is also a huge one (Facebook, Amazon, Monsanto), which makes it difficult to distinguish between the senses of being antisocial versus unusually large. Probably, it is the conjunction of both senses that makes the monster metaphor attractive. The definition is clearly too specific. You will never find all these negative aspects combined in a single application. Rather, the term should be defined as: “A large corporation whose practices pay insufficient heed to social responsibility.” However, with this less specific definition, the discussion should be re-opened whether this is not just SOP; the question was deflected earlier precisely because of the specificity of the current definition. BTW, there are also many uses of the term that refer to an individual rather than a corporation: [13], [14], [15], [16]. That sense was recorded before (also with an excessively specific definition) but has been deleted.  --Lambiam 08:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I think any non-rantish, not overspecific definition would automatically fail RFD. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

chronic[edit]

Rfv-sense of the anthropological sense, which is a PaM toy. Searches for the plural on BGC doesn't give this sense and searching for "a chronic" doesn't yield any noun senses within a reasonable amount of pages. There may be a sense/misconstruction for "chronicle" by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Searching through the anthropological literature, I only find chronic used as an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Strike that, I think I see what this entry might be trying for. Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
All the same, all I can find is use as an adjective or another version of a person who is chronic. Kiwima (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

caddr [edit]

Rfv-sense this one seems to be stretching the idea of what constitutes English. - TheDaveRoss 18:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter for RFV - it is a genuine command in LISP, but I agree that it is not English. Perhaps RFD? Kiwima (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Having overheard LISP programmers speaking, I can testify that they use the term as if it is an English noun (as in “now take the caddr”). So (I think) the question is if a sufficient number of such sentences have been durably recorded, like here: “Is the caddr of a tree a datum?” or here: “The car of a list is always the first element, the cadr is always the second element, and the caddr is always the third element.” This is similar to the use of the term cosine in mathematical discourse.  --Lambiam 21:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That is trivial to do, cited. One could, however, argue that this is like using a foreign word. Kiwima (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
What foreign language? As I've argued before, if a string (in this case, "caddr") exists as a word in writing, we should not let fussing about the language stop us from recording it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The foreign language would be LISP. (e.g. When I got my PhD., programming languages served to meet the foreign language requirement.) Kiwima (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
But we don't treat LISP as a foreign language, which means as a word, caddr needs to recorded as the language it's used or we simply won't record it at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Would French (e.g.) LISP programmers use the same word caddr in running French text with equal ease? I would guess they would. It is more translingual than English, but really it is just LISP. Every programming language has various structures and reserved words which have specific definitions in those programming languages, the question I have is whether or not those are de facto English (which I think they are not), and if not, how do we handle them. - TheDaveRoss 13:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Look at this pdf; I believe it's related to the first cite. It's not about LISP, and it explains it uses LISP based terminology because that terminology is so common. This is not just LISP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I would not agree about that document, and even if a function from one programming language gets borrowed into another that does not imply that it is English. Due to the nature of the term I am not sure what conclusive evidence could exist to make me feel that it was actually an English term, especially if I am unconvinced by the type of text which you provided. I might just be wrong. - TheDaveRoss 13:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
A thousand years ago, when I was a programmer, we would use terms from COBOL in running English. Also the COBOL textbooks did the same. I reckon it's English (and any other language that we can find quotes for). SemperBlotto (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You can e.g. find people talking about "DIMming an array" (dimensioning it, in various forms of BASIC where DIM is a keyword). Equinox 14:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

bourgeoisie[edit]

Rfv-sense ‘Those who profit more than the profit of their total labor’, added by User:Учхљёная, many of whose other contributions were rather untrustworthy. Is this really distinct from the Marxist definition 2 (‘The capitalist class’)? Can any uses of the word that clearly refer to this particular distinction be found? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

In the analysis of the Western socioeconomic relations given by Marx, the bourgeoisie is a class whose status evolved to become the ruling class as the power of nobility wanes and eventually becomes mostly symbolic. This process coincides with the transition to an industrialized society. Characteristic of the bourgeoisie as a class is that it owns the capital (that is, the means of production). According to Marxist analysis, capitalism as an economic system requires that surplus value of the workers’ labour accrues to the owners of the capital. However, whether one is an adherent of this Marxist theory or not, that claim is the conclusion of a deduction within Marxist theory. As such, it is an accidental property, not an essential one, and thus should not be part of the definition. There is a theory that the habitual use of cannabis leads to mental impairment. Even if true, we should not define stoner as “Sufferer from mental impairment due to the habitual use of cannabis”.  --Lambiam 19:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

proletariat[edit]

Rfv-sense ‘Those who profit less than or proportional to the profit of their total labor’, similarly to the rfv-sense for bourgeoisie above, and for similar reasons. Is this really used with this particular meaning distinctly from the other senses? (Perhaps by some school of Marxism?) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the mirror image of the above. In Marxist theory, the defining property of the proletariat as a class is that they do not own (to a considerable degree) means of production, so that they can only survive by offering their labour for sale. That capitalist employers appropriate part of the fruits of their labour may be true, but is not a definitional aspect. We also do not define slave as “Someone who is the property of an owner who has control over them and therefore may treat them cruelly.”  --Lambiam 19:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

freet[edit]

Rfv-sense: simple past of fret (to consume). Tagged but not listed. I managed to find only one cite, and that was Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

helpie[edit]

A selfie you take for someone else, basically. Equinox 04:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

griend[edit]

Probably UD-esque rubbish. Initially added as Dutch, but I suppose the contributor had a hard time figuring out language headers. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. I found more, but not on durably archived sources. It looks real, if not citable. Kiwima (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I added a number of additional cites from Usenet. I tried to filter out the ones that are probably typos (F and G being next to each other on the keyboard) This is cited. However, I would suggest merging the two definitions. Kiwima (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If the text makes perfect sense under the substitution griendfriend, how do we know it isn’t a typo? “Would you want to be my girl friends” and “sweet shy tv seeks female friends” seem just fine to me. There is also no lack of hits for gried rice and gried chicken, and we see both grench fries and french gries.  --Lambiam 19:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
1995 is also a typo, the friend becomes a "he" later in the same post. And the poster of 1997 corrects herself in a later post, stating that "griend" is a typo. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The one remaining citation is from a question from the Common Admission Test, an Indian test comparable to the SAT in the US. The question is designed to test for analytical reasoning. I find it quite implausible that such a question would use an obscure slang term without further explanation. My conclusion is that the sense as an English slang term for female friend is not verified and very likely unverifiable. The original verification requester surmised that this is “UD-esque rubbish”. Interestingly, the Urban Dictionary lists the term but gives a very different definition – which is probably equally unverifiable.  --Lambiam 16:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

cycoplasmic[edit]

Looks like a misspelling of cytoplasmic to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I found three cites on Google books, but they look like typos to me. (e.g. one instance of cycoplasmic and many for cytoplasmic in the same work) Kiwima (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
In view of the definition it is completely obvious that this is a typo and should be deleted.  --Lambiam 18:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not read the entry carefully. As defined, it purportedly means non-cytoplasmic. If the term is real, it would seem to be wordplay. The Greek root κυκ- means something like “mix”, so the meaning is not readily explained in a traditional etymological way; also, it is unnecessarily confusing since (again, if real) the term is easily thought to be a typo for its antonym cytoplasmic.  --Lambiam 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The cites don't support that definition. It looks like @Elfabet just got misled by the typo. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, in the first few scholarly contexts where I found the word, it turned out to be a typo for cytoplasmic. A strikingly obvious example is on this page.  --Lambiam 19:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was taken astray indeed by such works. I appreciate it. I'll correct the instance I came here from, and you can feel free to delete/remove/mark as a common error or whatever else you usually do with such a thing. Please do mention me again should you need me. Thanks kindly~ Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Mode into a misspelling entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Unstriking. It's exceedingly rare; I say we just delete it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Very rare error. We should delete it. Equinox 06:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

pocket beer[edit]

"A unit of beer that an alcoholic hides." 1. Meaning unclear: does the person physically conceal the drink, or merely fail to report it when counting units? 2. I can't find usage of the term in this sense. Equinox 06:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I found one cite (on citations page), but I suspect it simply means a can of beer carried in a pocket. I also found quite a few cites for something called a "pocket beer engine", which is something else entirely. Kiwima (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahle Quran[edit]

Rfv-sense of "a follower of this belief". PaM entry. I am sceptical that this is attestable as a singular, BGC doesn't look promising at all. It seems to me that the -e comes from Arabic -ay, which is a plural construct ending. Apart from that, this entry and its "alternative forms" (most of them probably actually attestable as singulars) needs a bit of a cleanup if this sense fails RfV. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

forslowth[edit]

Equinox 19:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a number of quotes from Middle English, but nothing in modern English. Several were published in 19th century books about Middle English works. Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
In 2011 when the entry was made, there was not yet a consensus for when the Middle English cutoff was. Many of us were using the invention of the printing press (Mid 15c) as the beginning of Modern English era rather than 1500. @Kiwima, to find cites post-1500 you may want to try searching on 'forslouthed' Leasnam (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I did, but they were all,as I said, 19th century books about Middle English works (Chaucer, Piers Plowman, etc)
Thomas More's Apology was written 1533 [[17]] and More's translation of The Life of Pico della Mirandola was published in English in 1510. The citation quoted on the page is showing the date it was originally written in the Latin (1485) (But for this délaie I thretened- him two yere together, that he would be punished, if he forslouthed that purpose whiche our Lorde had put in his mind.). I've updated the page. Please correct anything I've done amiss. Leasnam (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't we look for exact spelling correspondence of stems in (Modern) English? Don't we need three independent uses? DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

cate[edit]

"Cat" in Internet slang. I have only heard of doge (which we also have, with no citations either). Equinox 19:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

CanE [edit]

Really? 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:8996:810B:C857:3F31 20:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

hilt[edit]

"To use the hilt of a sword to penetrate a sexual orifice." Apparently was in a 2009 comic called Oglaf...? Equinox 06:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Weeeeell... that'll be http://www.oglaf.com/hilting (warning: NSFW) but it's not enough on its own to pass CFI. I would delete that sense. It's a play on words of sense 2, rather than established general use of a new sense. -Stelio (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

corner[edit]

Etymology 2: "Someone or something that corns." Equinox 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

misthanasia [edit]

A bunch of mentiony stuff in Google Scholar, all in translation. DTLHS (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

My bioethics professor in Brazil mentioned this word, by surprise I could not find the word in most internet dictionaries. It seems that Brazilian Bioethicist are promoting this neologism. I ended up doing my first activity in Wikitionary about this. It's just a stub and I did it in the run. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Great job! Before I read the definition, I thought it meant a hatred of death. Khemehekis (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


I have to add that I'm unsure about the etymology. I did some research and I found that it was first coined by Márcio Fabri dos Anjos in 1989 in his essay "Eutanásia em chave de libertação".

A mistanásia nos fazer lembrar os que morrem de fome, cujo número apontado por estatísticas é de estarrecer. Faz lembrar, de modo geral, a morte do empobrecido, amargado pelo abandono e pela falta de recursos os mais primários. Mas também nos remete aos mortos nas torturas de regimes políticos fortes e que os deixam por fim como “desaparecidos”. Nesses casos, a mistanásia (do grego mis = infeliz (unhappy) é uma verdadeira “mustanásia”, morte de rato de esgoto (do grego mys = rato (rat)).

Last line translation:

In these cases, a misthanasia (from greek mis = unhappy) is a truly "musthanasia", death of sewer rats (from greek mys = μυς = rat).

I could not find a greek word similar to mis that means unhappy, maybe someone who knows greek could help us, when I created the article I just guessed that it was from the english prefix mis- and I put a word that would somewhat fit: "unfortunately"
I tried to find the original essay to see if it had been written in the greek alphabet, but I can't find it online.
If there is no "mis-" = unhappy, I would think it came from μυς=rat.
There is also two people who currently write about this term, Leo Pessini and Luiz Antonio Lopes Ricci, I could try to contact them to get some clarification.
Arthurfragoso (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no Classical Greek word or root mis meaning unhappy, only miso- meaning "hatred of", which can be shortened to mis-, as in μισάνθρωπος (misánthrōpos) – but only before a vowel. For unhappy in the sense of bad, lamentable, a possible prefix of impeccable Greek pedigree is caco-.  --Lambiam 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

1312[edit]

This makes no sense. 1312 = all cops are bastards?--Pious Eterino (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. 1312 clearly refers to letter indices. DTLHS (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This is 100% a thing, but good luck finding attestations of this (that aren't mentions). You occasionally see it written on bathroom walls or as graffiti where I live. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 01:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I added two cites from Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I added two cites from Google Books, although it's probably a matter of opinion whether both of them are uses, one is a use and one a mention, or both of them are mentions. Khemehekis (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018[edit]

clench[edit]

Sense 1 says "To squeeze; to grip or hold tightly"; that's fine. I am challenging sense 2: "To move two parts of something against each other", with the example of bruxism. I think this is a confusion: bruxism requires clenching the jaw so that the teeth can make contact, but the subsequent friction/rubbing is not the clenching part. I checked a recent Chambers Dictionary (c.2005) and it has no such sense. Equinox 08:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This might be a job for the OED.
Also, the entry could stand some revision. It misses senses, eg clinch/clench a nail, omits transitive/intransitive distinctions, etc. clench in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 shows the number and complexity of older senses. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

figure-eight[edit]

Verb: "(slang) To engage in mutual masturbation (meaning 2)." Equinox 09:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I moved the verb entry to figure-eight, which is by far the more common form (in fact the existing quote for sense 1 was hyphenated), and made figure eight an alternative form. On "figure-eight" I managed to find only one quote for this sense. Kiwima (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion at rec.backcountry is about preserving the powdery nature of the snow for later skiers. While I am not sure of the precise meaning of figure-eighting in this context, it appears to be a solitary activity, apparently easier to execute while bowl skiing than tree skiing.  --Lambiam 18:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Then we are down to zero quotes. Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

GDW[edit]

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

here[edit]

RFV of etymology 2, the "army, enemy" senses. I can only find the historical "an army in the Anglo-Saxon era" sense, and that only italicized to indicate that it's the Old/Middle English word. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

arietinous[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a dictionary-only word, from what I can find. Kiwima (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I found exactly one occurrence other than in a glossary, but that one occurrence was a mention, not a use.  --Lambiam 07:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

solid, adj sense 2[edit]

See WT:Tea room#solid, adj sense 2. Ultimateria (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks cited to me, but I would probably say "substantial" rather than massive. Kiwima (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be an improvement, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I made it "Large in size, quantity, or value" (taken from a def. at substantial) and added massive and substantial as synonyms. It is always a problem to rely exclusively on one-word definitions using polysemic words. Having a string of them often doesn't help. DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

turducken[edit]

Rfv-sense of "series of five strikes in a row in bowling". Added by a red-linked user with only one edit in 2010, edit wrongly tagged as minor. Only ever seems to be mentioned based on the bowling sense of turkey, with various numbers of strikes suggested. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

fletcher[edit]

Rfv-sense "Generally, a manufacturer of bows and arrows". The only citation makes a distinction between "bowyers, fletchers, and arrowhead makers" and therefore does not verify the sense. It's also given as a synonym at bowyer. SpinningSpark 22:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the other sense, "One who fletches or feathers arrows", other dictionaries I've checked say that "fletcher" means a person who makes arrows, rather than specifically one who fixes the feathers on them. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

hedonium[edit]

Most of what I see isn't English. Kiwima (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added three quotations and tagged the sense as "rare". I agree there are a lot of non-English results—I wonder if there's enough to support an entry for Hedonium in some language, presumably with a different meaning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

she'sn't[edit]

1. She hasn't; 2. she isn't. The most prominent Google Books results are grammar texts using this as an example of an impossible contraction in English. Equinox 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I can find some instances on non-durably archived newsgroups, but that's it. Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

pirate-ninja[edit]

Humorous unit of energy, oft quoted but rarely if ever used. Equinox 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

he'sn't[edit]

1. He has not; 2. he is not. Equinox 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2012#I'mn't offers three GBS citations, one of which is hidden from my sight. The other two are both contractions of “he is not”.  --Lambiam 22:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
With another cite from Usenet, "he is not" is cited. I also found one cite for "he has not" (and one for "he does not"). Kiwima (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

yeggogology[edit]

Does this meet WT:CFI? —Suzukaze-c 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

sourceror[edit]

A programmer (from source code). May probably be found as open sourceror (one working with open source specifically) but, I think, not usually alone. Searching finds some irrelevancies (relating to a Terry Pratchett novel etc.) and maybe the name of a specific software program. Equinox 07:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

sourcerer has now been added as an alt form, but with two additional senses! Equinox 09:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I added one cite for "open sourceror" - I can easily add two more if that is what we are looking for, but I cannot find this term used on its own, except as the name of a specific disassembler. Kiwima (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
So a move to open sourceror may be needed. Equinox 19:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I would think so, although I did manage to find one quote that talked about a "free sourcerer". Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

invocation[edit]

Sense 3: "Enforcement to the implementation & application of a right or liberty of just justification." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Note that sense 2 already covers a judicial call or summons. Equinox 17:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Our entry seems, erm, dated.
MWOnline has four definitions including: "an act of legal or moral implementation: enforcement". I don't really understand that definition, but it does seem to be in English. The contributor (User:X8BC8x, last contribution: July 2016) was interested in law, especially human rights. This may make more sense to someone familiar with such law and/or with the Napoleonic Code. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be covered by a missing sense having to do with use as a sort of alternative past participle or gerund of invoke. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Searching for uses that might shed light on this arcane definition I find numerous cases where “invocation” of a legal rule or right apparently means appealing to that rule or right in the course of an argument or presentation before a court or other body. Like when someone invokes the right to remain silent, it is an invocation of the Fifth. Might that be the intention here? This sense is not covered by any of the other current senses.  --Lambiam 01:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That could be covered by generalizing our first sense and making the religious use an "especially". Does anyone understand the sense of implementation in the MW definition above? That definition strongly reminded me of the definition being challenged, partially because of the use of implmentation. DCDuring (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there is a relationship with sense #1, and that the commonality can be defined as “an act of appealing to a higher power”. I strongly suspect, though, that the current sense #1 is the original one, in which the higher power is a supernatural entity, and that the sense of appealing to legal or moral rights is the result a later generalization. French has an idiom sous l’invocation de which means so much as “under the protection of”, usually under the protection of some specified saint. Le Trésor notes that an extension to human rights such as égalité and fraternité is by analogy with the religious sense. As to the occurrence of implementation in some definitions, the sense of implementation in this context may be essentially the same as given on Wikipedia in the “industry-specific definition” of the term for political science, namely, “the carrying out of public policy”. Community standards, whether set by the law or by custom and sense of morality, need to be maintained by some process of enforcement, or they will dissipate. Enforcement needs a justification, and that justification is then an appeal to (invocation of) the standards being enforced.  --Lambiam 10:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what Lambiam said. I think we are missing the basic sense of "an act of invoking something", and that the torturous sense 3 is just a specific instance of the act of "appeal[ing] for validation to a (notably cited) authority" (invoke, sense 2). — SGconlaw (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
See also my comment above. Indeed, not only tortuous but even most tortulous. French invoquer has a similar range of meanings as English invoke. Also for this word, Le Trésor gives the appeal to supernatural higher powers as the original one, and the others as derived by analogy or extension.  --Lambiam 10:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Good points. As a historical dictionary we should have a separate definition if a given definition was historically limited in its application. (Ideal would be having {{defdate}} information that allowed a user to see what senses a word could have had at a particular time.)
Is such limitation actually true of invocation? That invocatio was apparently so limited (ie, to the gods) is supportive, but not conclusive. DCDuring (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look at OED Online. The entry has not been updated (1900), and is just as out of date as ours. It lists four senses which are, briefly: (1) an act of invoking or calling upon (God, a deity, etc.) in prayer or attestation; (2) a form of invocatory prayer during a religious service; (3) an act of conjuring or summoning a devil or spirit by incantation; (4) in admiralty prize procedure, the calling in of evidence or papers from another case. On the other hand, the more up-to-date Oxford Dictionaries Online includes the "act of invoking something" sense which I mentioned earlier. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Good old facts. Thanks. I still wish someone could explain the MW definition I gave above, which they apparently thought different from "act of invoking (something)".
I am legally trained, but the definition is not clear to me (particularly the reference to "moral implementation"). My understanding of invocation in the legal context is the act of relying on some authority (for example, a statutory provision, a legal rule, a contractual clause, etc.) in support of one's position. I'm not sure whether I would describe this as "implementation" or "enforcement". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
MWOnline also has as one of their 6 definitions of invoke: "to put into effect or operation: implement" DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
We have a computing sense ('invoke a subroutine') that seems like a specialization of the MWOnline sense. DCDuring (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently in law, at least for judges, and in computing, invocation is tantamount to implementation. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
In computing, an implementation is a computer program – or system of cooperating programs – created by software engineers/programmers/coders. The activity of creating an implementation (countable) may itself be called “implementation” (uncountable). Usex: We need to hire qualified personnel for the implementation of the new algorithm. On the other hand, invocations are actions performed by the running code (and by metonymy, the snippets of code responsible for such invocations may also be called invocations, in the same way that the formula 239 × 4649 denoting a multiplication may itself be called a multiplication). Usex: This was the last invocation before the fatal exception was raised.  --Lambiam 19:05, December 8, 2018 (UTC)
Yes. To be devil's advocate: it's even possible to (try to) invoke something that hasn't been implemented (e.g. a pure virtual function call), which would usually crash the software. Equinox 19:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. That’s what triggered the fatal exception.  --Lambiam 23:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, Webopedia has "Invocation means the execution of a program or function." which fits my (remote) understanding. I thought that a programmer can say that his program had several invocations of a subroutine, referring to the instances in the code that call the subroutine. But at the execution of the program each instance (eg, inside a loop) of (called) execution of the subroutine would also be an invocation.
But MWOnline's definition (of invoke "to put into effect or operation: implement") is not restricted to computing. The challenged definition seems to be related to this. Consistent with this definition of invoke is MWOnline's definition of invocation ("an act of legal or moral implementation: enforcement") is consistent with their definition of invoke.
I am unfamiliar with such usage and have yet to find another dictionary with the definition. Does anyone have any good ideas about how to search for the usage? DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

lole[edit]

How common is this misspelling of lol? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

unremittant[edit]

I believe this entry is a misspelling of unremittent. Note the etymology: there is no English word spelled remittant. Can we delete this entry and create unremittent? (Aabull2016 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

It may be, but it's not that rare- so we should have some kind of an entry for it (and English remittant, too, by the way). That said, unremittent is much more common, so it looks like that should be the lemma and this should be either an alternative form or a misspelling of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Unremittent occurs about 0.25% as often as unremitting" and unremitting about 0.01% as often. DCDuring (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
It is now cited. I have made it an alternative form of unremittent. I am not sure how we determine that it is a misspelling rather than an alt form -- It seems common enough to be an alt form....Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

duty[edit]

Noun: "Describing a workload as to its idle, working and de-energized periods." Sense line needs improvement; also not totally sure what this refers to. I'm 95% certain I asked about this sense before, somewhere, but couldn't find it with a quick search around Tea Room etc. So let's RFV it. Equinox 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your earliest inquiry was four months ago in the Tea room. The answers may not have satisfied you, as there was another attempt two months later. I observe a two-months cyclical process at work.  --Lambiam 11:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
There are several things wrong with the current definitions of duty. For example sense #2: “A period of time spent at work or doing a particular task”, with as usex: I’m on duty from 6 pm to 6 am. We may as well add a sense to shower of “Time spent bathing using a device that sprinkles water from above”, with the usex He could spend hours under the shower. The sense given should not apply to the noun duty but to the prepositional phrase on duty. (Other entries have similar problems; for example, the non-literal meanings for hot water should really be assigned to the prepositional phrase in hot water.) Even then, consider the sentence “there will always be someone on duty”. That does not mean, “there will always be someone during a period of time spent at work or doing a particular task”. The actual sense of duty here is not the period, but the activity of performing the work or task – when applied to humans, an obligatory activity, something the duty-bound individual has been charged with. For engines, by analogy, duty means performing the function it is supposed to perform, or more generally, being active. In this sense it is usually used as an attributive noun, with the adjective idle serving as the usual antonym. The term can be seen at work in the concept of ”duty cycle”, and also in ”duty factor”. Compare also ”heavy-duty battery” – essentially the same sense of duty. It is closely related to sense #7, for which I wonder if it merits inclusion over more common technical use. Finally, there is the colloquial use in a sentence like “by the looks of it, these boots have seen some heavy duty”. Or should that go under heavy duty?  --Lambiam 11:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I beg to differ on assigning NP meanings to the corresponding PP. Taking hot water as an example, it occurs with prepositions like into, out of, as well as in. It can also appear in more creative uses that build on the metaphor. Having multiple PP entries seems silly and still would miss the general metaphorical use of the NP. DCDuring (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course I wouldn’t want to assign an NP meaning to the phrase. I think it should be treated the same way as the prepositional phrase in a bind. For any multi-word idiom you are likely to find creative variations, such as replacing in by out of. There are plenty of hits for in even hotter water. That does not mean we must prize the idiom in hot water apart, with hot sense #18 (Uncomfortable, difficult to deal with; awkward, dangerous, unpleasant) and water sense #6 (A state of affairs; conditions; usually with an adjective indicating an adverse condition).  --Lambiam 10:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't view it a matter of creativity that one can find abundantly attestable uses of figurative bind with prepositions like into and out of. I suppose one could make entries for each attestable preposition used with figurative bind and insert usage examples that show (???creative???) usages like "out of a tight bind". DCDuring (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It appears that bind in this sense was first recorded in 1851 in the phrase in a bind. Even today, the vast majority of uses takes the simple form in a bind, with the preposition in and with no further qualifications of bind. If we can explain the meaning of in a bind from the meaning of bind, it is only because we have extracted the meaning of the noun from the earlier idiom in a bind. We have defined bind as “a troublesome situation; a problem; a predicament or quandary”. But can one say, “I advise you to avoid binds”, or ”Here is a bind that I’d like you to solve”? It is not simply a synonym of these definitions. The use of the noun remains bound to the figurative context provided by the prepositional phrase.  --Lambiam 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The figurative use of bind is somewhat restricted as you say. That, together with the fact that the multiple prepositions in, into, out of work in both the literal and figurative uses, suggests to me that the metaphor has not completely fossilized. But such restrictions are not too unusual: some words work better in some grammatical situations than some of their synonyms.
To avoid overlong, inconclusive discussions (usually at RfD) we often follow the lemming heuristic/principle. If other real dictionaries have it, we should too. So in a bind at OneLook Dictionary Search makes the case for in a bind, as on duty at OneLook Dictionary Search makes its case. DCDuring (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

phono-semantic compound[edit]

Requesting verification of this entry. There is a RFD discussion of the entry on the basis that it may be SoP, but we'd like to determine if it is attestable or whether it is a neologism. If it is not attestable, it may be moved to "Appendix:Glossary". — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

[18], [19], [20].  --Lambiam 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I found one cite on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

mini[edit]

Rare plural of minus! Equinox 20:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If attestable, this has about the same status as the plural octopi except that it is much rarer. You can also find dozens of occurrences of geni as the plural of genus ([21], [22], [23]), and corpi as the plural of corpus. While attestable, should we really include these hypercorrect plurals?  --Lambiam 09:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is even an occurrence of “pli and mini” (!), not durably archived.  --Lambiam 21:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

sampsuchine[edit]

In Google Books this only appears in The Alchemist (play), a play of Ben Jonson, works about the play, glossaries, and older dictionaries (Century, Collins), DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears in something called "Rosa Anglica Sev Rosa Medicinæ Johannis Anglici: An Early Modern Irish Translation of a Section of the Mediaeval Medical Text-book of John of Gaddesden", if someone can dig up the original ("take sorrel juice, liverwort and sampsuchine, a fistful of each;..."). DTLHS (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Here. I've also come across a use in a French work. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
We're not trying to cite it in Irish, French, or Translingual are we? DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Just thought it could be added to a translation table if the word is verifiable. However, it may not be, as I haven't found any other occurrences apart from the two already indicated on the entry page. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the Rosa Anglica cite would be in an English translation of the Irish translation of the Latin "original"? DCDuring (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

hoardy[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see a bunch of uses on Usenet, but I am not sure the meaning is the same as the definition. Kiwima (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

student doctor[edit]

Is there some context (some nation's academia?) where the narrow, year-specific sense 2 is used? If so, is it distinguished consistently enough from sense 1 to be a separate sense, or is it more like how only a dietitian who is licensed/registered in a certain way can call themselves a "dietitian" in some countries, but the word itself doesn't inherently mean "a person who is registered in a certain way who practices dietetics"? I'm tempted to just delete/broaden the sense (which dates to 2008) but it is at least conceivable that some medical schools might make a distinction between a student doctor and some other terms similar to the distinction between sophomore and junior and senior, but do they? - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

fear and loathing[edit]

Defined as "The type of anger and distrust generated when politicians or representatives of the American legal hierarchy (i.e. District Attorneys) clash, or disagree, with the people they are paid to represent, causing a threat to the people." This seems like a curiously specific definition. Is that meaning attested by quotations? If not, I think this may be a candidate for RFD on the grounds that the term is SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that the Urban Dictionary and FOLDOC both give completely different, mutually incompatible definitions. Assuming this is a set phrase, its meaning is too fluid to be susceptible to being caught in a stolid definition. It means just what the speaker chooses it to mean – neither more nor less.  --Lambiam

Brit[edit]

Proper noun sense:

Abbreviation of Britain.

At the risk of stating the obvious, note Britain not Briton or British, and no full stop (Brit. is a separate entry). Mihia (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Added three cites. Einstein2 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

pull-you-round traction engine[edit]

As a follow-up to Talk:PYRTE, which failed RFV. Equinox 13:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Altuve[edit]

Humorous(?) unit of distance in baseball. Equinox 18:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

sporae dispersae[edit]

Supposedly English but is a member of a Latin category. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are we supposed to verify? Occurrences of the term in Latin texts? Obviously, this is a Modern Latin neologism (like spora by itself is), somewhat like the term generatio spontanea, only much more recent. Since it was coined only after Latin had fallen into disuse as a language for scientific discourse, any uses in Latin text wil almost be like borrowings. Perhaps we should classify the term as translingual, something we should probably also do with in vitro and other “Scientific Latin” neologisms that are used across language borders.  --Lambiam 11:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

semantic[edit]

Rfv-sense: In such writing systems as the Chinese writing system, the portion of a phono-semantic character that provides an indication of its meaning; contrasted with phonetic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The term was used in this sense in the Wikipedia article Chinese character classification as late as November 9, 2017, but that cannot be used as a source. It means that we have to be careful, though, that uses found are not just mirroring this strange former use in Wikipedia.
There seems to be a use here (see the last line of the bootom of the page); one can seriously question, though, if this is truly a noun rather than the adjectival use of “the semantic one” in which the word “one” has been omitted – which I think it is.
A more clearcut use is perhaps here (on p. 21), but in snippet view I can’t see whether this is in the context of characters being phono-semantic – search inside the book reports no matches for that term.
Finally, one undoubtedly genuine attestation is here, on p. 25. That is all I have found.  --Lambiam 12:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

phonetic[edit]

Rfv-sense: In such writing systems as the Chinese writing system, the portion of a phono-semantic character that provides an indication of its pronunciation; contrasted with semantic (which is usually the radical). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The source I gave above for attesting semantic can also serve for phonetic.  --Lambiam 12:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

desvesetlanocide[edit]

Any takers? Needs cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Doubt it will pass, but I note the etymology does not adequately explain the lan; could the word land have been a passenger on the train wreck too?) Equinox 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)