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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

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

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

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

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

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”



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 should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs

March 2023[edit]

There is a long-outstanding Tea Room discussion with few participants. To me it seems clearly NISoP. As long as we have an adequate figurative definition on toll, one or two usage examples of the frequent collocations take its/their toll should cover it. DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a question for rfd, not rfv. Your issue is not whether the phrase exists (it clearly does), but whether it is NISoP. Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidence in the form of cites supporting idiomaticity would be welcome. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are 22 uses of take its toll in the first 14 pages I scrolled through when I did a Google Books search just now, not even counting variants like takes its toll and taking its toll, so I say we should move it to RFD. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there anything about the uses that suggest toll is being used in a way not consistent with other uses?
It is clear that the expression is not a set phrase, I think, unless someone shows overwhelmingly greater frequency of use in this form compared with:
  1. uses with verbs levy, exact, etc.
  2. uses with their, a
  3. uses with adjectives like deadly, fatal, heavy, enormous, great, grevous, certain and comparative and superlative forms thereof, modified by adverbs
DCDuring (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you but you're basically saying this will fail RFD. It will surely pass RFV though, if and when someone bothers to find and add some quotes. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would a "cite supporting idiomaticity" look like anyway? This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DCDuring there are already 3 citations in the entry. What exactly is this RFV about? Ioaxxere (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This RfV is about showing that there is idiomaticity not found in the word toll alone. To me it seems obvious that there won't be, but I've been occasionally wrong about this kind of thing, so I don't want to SPEEDY it. Obviously, it is not a set phrase. Obviously toll in its figurative sense is used with a good few verbs. RfD ends up being a fact-free debate. I'd like the discussion to involve evidence of distinct idiomatic usage. It is easy to find evidence of frequency of usage of, say, red car, but we would want evidence that sometimes red car was used with a meaning other that red + car. That's what would be needed here to show that this expression is something other than take + (DET) + toll. DCDuring (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring I suggest that this is probably an RFD at this point, it is cited, and your contention is that those cites don't support that this term is idiomatic. Hard to close this as an RFV failed since it is cited, asking for cites which fulfill specific requirements (beyond usage) is probably not sufficient to fail RFV. - TheDaveRoss 16:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlike bigenital surgery, this term seems to have currency in some spaces, though perhaps not under the precise definition in the entry. It's mentioned in the Nonbinary Wiki's entry on article on bottom surgery. The lone citation provided in our entry isn't a use of androgynoplasty but rather a reference to a post by a Reddit user with the handle Androgynoplasty. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three of these cites look like they support a noun debending, not this verb. Or do we treat those uses as gerunds? This, that and the other (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Einstein2 does this look good to pass? Ioaxxere (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, two of the three works cited (1987, 2018) use bend in a clearly verbal sense. By that analogy, I would say we could treat these occurrences of debending as gerunds of debend, so I would leave the entry under its current POS. I've also just added two verbal uses from Usenet. Einstein2 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess this is what is referenced, but it isn't English. This, that and the other (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note quarnell is defined as this too. Equinox 14:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Failed, and RFVEd quarnell. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning "embrace". I found some uses in texts relating to fish, which clearly don't mean "embrace". This definition would be obsolete in any case. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. The biology sense is equivalent to amplexus. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 15:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RFV passed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A nonsense onomatopoeiac word from early bebop music." Is it only in the one song, or several? Equinox 01:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe [1] [2]? But they're mentions. Are we really after things like this and this? In any event it would need to be moved to ramalamadingdong. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This[3] appears to be the original form (Rama Lama Ding Dong) and there's a similar vocable sung in the Grease song 'Let's Stick Together'. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can it be attested other than as a meaningless vocable? We do not have an entry for lalala, which occurs in countless songs. I don't feel we should include terms that consist of a haphazard string of syllables not carrying referential or pragmatic meaning.  --Lambiam 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Outside the scope of lyrics or specific parts of speech, I see this word as an easily recognizable term expressing that something is intended as nonsense. I found three cites of that general type and added them on the page, but I don't know if they prove anything. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO ramalamadingdong is too specific to be dismissed as a haphazard string of syllables, so given that it's used in running prose in all three of those cites I would say this is cited and discuss further at RFD if necessary. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The definition, and even the part of speech, is clearly wrong though. This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If kept, this should be at the lowercase version. I think that two of the cites are directly referencing the originating song "put the ram back in the ramalamadingdong" and the one about speaking in tongues, the third one is perhaps not. Regardless, nonsense lyrics are probably not worth including. - TheDaveRoss 17:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I thought "Who Put the Bomp" was the original, that is the song referenced. - TheDaveRoss 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(humorous) A growl or scream, commonly in deathcore music." Some evidence on the Web. Equinox 04:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a term of art in a piece of software called "Connectome Workbench". I don't think we want to be including things like this. However, saving us from that discussion is the fact that this is hardly attested. This, that and the other (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oddly, the coordinate term grayordinate is quite well attested, making me wonder whether this is truly a software-specific term of art like I initially believed. This, that and the other (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

claimed to be a British term for Baptists, deriving from a Scots verb. The quotations bar opens up to reveal a link to the well-known DSL Scots dictionary, which I've come to see as trustworthy. There is, of course, no entry for dookie in that dictionary, nor for dook which is what the link actually points to. I did find this, suggesting that Scots douk (duck) can mean to baptize someone. But that's a far cry from dookie being a word for a Baptist, let alone saying that it's used in English all over the United Kingdom. Soap 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link seems to be broken because they changed their URL format. It should be to the entry for dook, which indeed has "Hence ... (b) dookie, a Baptist", with one relevant citation ("They ca'd him a dookie . . . what wud he be, Jamie?" etc., original context here). However in the dictionary the quotation is marked "em.Sc." (east mid Scots), so it's not English. If the sense is moved to a Scots section then as an LDL this citation should suffice. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's worth noting that Scots is not an LDL: WT:WDL. This, that and the other (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd, I should've checked properly. I see there was some support for some kind of change in status in the recent past, but in any case I don't think this term would pass RFV for Scots either then. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fear of deleted files/data. Equinox 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a second sense, which might even be more common than the first one ... the fear of being deleted, for those who believe we live in a computer simulation where someone outside the simulation has the same power over us that we have over computer files. Both are readily attetsable on social media but I'd rather not add a second sense if we're having trouble verifying the first one. Soap 13:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An obscure sex act. Failed RFV; was re-added by @Leasnam who commented there seemed to be enough citations available); but it still has no citations. Equinox 03:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It failed RFV back in 2008, but it now has more attestable citations. I'll get them added. Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current definition is very specific, and I think it can be reworded to allow for variations of usage. Seems a better definition might go something like "A kiss or sex act which begins on a body part, oftentimes the genital region, then culminates with a kiss on the lips or mouth". Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leasnam: These cites are not usage, they are mentions. One of them also is for a different sense, and another is probably not for the present definition, it is too ambiguous to be useful. It shouldn't be passed based on these cites. - TheDaveRoss 17:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WT:BRANDSURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "Glade plugin" used to generically to refer to electric air fresheners in general, not just those by by Glade? Not sure. If it that is the case, it warrants an entry. 2600:1006:B14E:C6CD:0:17:9804:9B01 14:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual trademark is Glade® PlugIns®. Equinox 20:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I believe we could cite a sense at plug-in for this kind of air freshener (I assume other manufacturers produce them too, unless there's a patent stranglehold), which would make this SoP (give or take a hyphen). Equinox 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Perplexity". The OED has a somewhat similar sense "b. fig. Confusing and bewildering ways; intricacies (of affairs, the law, a subject, etc.). Obs.", but almost all of their citations are better interpreted — and are interpreted by other dictionaries I can find them in, like Samuel Johnson's — as being the "circuitous path/journey" sense.
(Their citations are: "1576 Fleming Panopl. Epist. 285 They being ouerwhelmed in Meanders of mischiefes. 1631 R. H. Arraignm. Whole Creature i. 5 He was in such Meanders of miserie and labyrinths of troubles. 1652 H. L'Estrange Amer. no Jewes 71 There are many Meanders and windings in this question of Plantation. 1712 Arbuthnot John Bull 1. vi. Ten long years did Hocus steer his Cause through all the meanders of the Law. 1759 Franklin Ess. Wks. 1840 III. 132 In this purpose I am ready . . until by better information out of England, we shall be led out of these state meanders.")
- -sche (discuss) 20:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is telling that in all uses we find the plural, whereas perplexity as a confounding aspect of something problematic is quite commonly used in the singular. The juxtapositions (“Meanders” — "labyrinths”; “Meanders” — "windings”) and the metaphors (“steer through the meanders”; “lead out of the meanders”) strongly indicate these are figurative uses of sense 2.  --Lambiam 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- -sche (discuss) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The inflected forms are not found, which suggests the word belongs to Hawaiian Creole. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: sense 2: "(genetics) A subgroup of a subgenus or haplogroup"

I see evidence of a general sense, but didn't have the patience to determine whether "a subgenus of" should be part of the definition or whether this definition is a duplication of or a subsense of def. 1 (which I just added and which seems abundantly attestable). DCDuring (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern taxonomy is based on cladistics, so subgenera should all be clades- by definition. The taxonomic literature is full of articles explaining why subdivisions at one rank or another aren't natural clades and are therefore invalid. The only way this sense wouldn't fit under sense 1 would be if there was a subdivision of a genus that wasn't itself a clade, i.e., containing part, but not all of more than one clade. As for haplogroups, they would presumably be clades, but I'm certainly not well read at all in the literature that discusses haplogroups, so I don't know if subclades are part of the terminology.
This has all the markings of a guess by someone skimming through a subject they knew nothing about- which describes a great deal of SemperBlotto's work in the life sciences. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia has an article with this definition, which was already used in the oldest revision from 2013. It cites a source, but this source is from 2022, so possibly subject to citogenesis. An earlier source ( Genetic Genealogy: The Basics and Beyond[4] (in English), Author House, 19 December 2013, →ISBN, page 13), possibly contaminated by the Wiktionary entry from 2009, was briefly used but removed as being a vanity press publication.  --Lambiam 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems very implausible that subclade and superclade would be used other than in deixis, ie, not in reference to a specific rank of taxon. DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Unattractive; unappealing; unworthy of love" Ioaxxere (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strictly speaking, this fails, but I have no objection to a single Internet slang sense. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ioaxxere - Only the nominated sense ("unattractive; unappealing; unworthy of love") failed to pass RfV here. More due to the difficulty in targeting searches to find instances of that specific sense than its unattestability, I would say. The other two senses that you removed were added subsequent to this nomination by me and both have a year's worth of cites (just barely). One might argue that these are simply permutations of existing senses. I think they're distinct - thus why I added them. But that would be a matter for another RfV to consider. Please remember to check the edit history and citations page before closing. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WordyAndNerdy it seems kind of pointless to add more unverifiable senses in the middle of an ongoing RFV. But if you insist, I'll create another one for your new senses... Ioaxxere (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two new senses aren't unverifiable. They both have a full year's worth of cites (to the day, in one case). When I've initiated RfVs in the past I've tried to keep track of changes to the entry. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect others to check for changes before making a determination in an RfV/RfD. This happened before with based. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar concerns to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/CJK#神デレ, although there are actual Google results. @Immanuelle

Fish bowl (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Russian" and "Slav". I suspect we might be missing an {{altcaps}} of sense 3 of Communist ("Any citizen of a country controlled by such a party"), which is probably what "Russian" is getting at and should be changed to. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense: “The flesh of goat used as food. Synonym: goatmeat”. Removed by Getsnoopy on 15 March (“Removed incorrect definition.”) It was added by Kslays on 12 November 2019. J3133 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can find citations which speak of "goat mutton" or "mutton from goats", but because they often contrast it with "sheep mutton" or "mutton from sheep", I don't think they are using mutton to mean "goat meat specifically, to the exclusion of other kinds of meat like sheep", but rather that they're using it in a general way similar to sense 1 of beef ("the meat from a cow, bull or other bovine", which then has "cow-meat" as a subsense). My suggestion is to drop this goat-specific sense; I will add a more general sense "the meat from a sheep, goat or other caprine" with some other citations of things like "urial mutton" (leaving "sheep meat specifically" as a separate sense or subsense). - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Failed, better handled as the broader sense. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Diminutive of Ive" (but Ive, other than a surname, is given as a diminutive of the name Ivy, which would make it circular). Equinox 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me, given how many other surnames get diminutized this way (Smithy, Jonesy...it seems like a productive process), but I don't know how to find it, as search results are swamped by the reverse (people using Ive and Ives as nicknames for Ivy). - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stare at a man's genitalia. Created by that awful old "manbulge"-obsessed user. Equinox 16:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far we have two independent cites for a noun peter-gazing. There are two raw Usenet links in the entry, and I also found the Andy Borowitz book mentioned by one of the Usenet posts (would be better to cite that than the Usenet post that quotes it). This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(British, programming) Used as the name of a metasyntactic variable."

Just in case there's still anyone on Wiktionary who isn't a programmer: a variable is a named value in a program, like numberOfEmailMessages, and a metasyntactic variable is a placeholder variable name where it doesn't matter what the variable means. There are some traditional ones like foo, bar and baz.

My problem here is that I don't think we could ever attest this in English, nor as a noun. Computer program code is not a human language and does not have (natural) grammar or parts of speech. (If you think you can do it, beyond mentions like "increment wibble by 1", then have at it!) So: should we make it Translingual? No. It's still not human language, and anyway this one is marked as "British": an American or French programmer presumably would not use it. Equinox 00:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I added one where it's used as a variable name in a pair of English sentences if that counts... ? I think this might be handled better at RFD, but it seems like foo, bar, baz, foobar, quux are defined similarly atm and are currently justified as placeholder terms, though I'm not convinced at all that metasyntactic variable names are doing the same thing as proper placeholder terms like "blah blah" and "John Q. Public" and the like—my inclination would be to move all of these to an appendix. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If something is definitionally meaningless, why include it? - TheDaveRoss 17:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verb sense 2: "British vulgar slang: To exhaust, tire out. I woke at 17:05 and felt totally bollocked. After a shower, I went to the NAAFI for some sarnies and orange juice." I am fairly sure this is legitimate, but I think it's only an adjective, bollocked. I don't think it's a verb: "this piece of work bollocked me" (made me tired) does not seem to exist, and I did do some searching. If this fails, please move it to the Adjective, where I can probably cite it if required. Equinox 05:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense: "to be overwhelmed by emotion and take on a childish expression with a quivering lips and chin". The definition seems overly specific compared to the more general sense "to wobble" (which I've just added to the entry). I could find uses like "his bottom lip wibbling" and "her chin was wibbling" but these are just examples of the other sense. Einstein2 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two plants: The first one's taxonomic name doesn't come up anywhere except Webster's 1913 dictionary. The second one is weird, as it claims it is used to make a drink in Austria. Good luck searching for this ... Van Man Fan (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first one was just a typo (or maybe a scan error) for L. pseudothea, but i couldnt turn up anything associating it with the phrase we're looking for. As for the other plant, .... i found the phrase "Brazilian tea" for related species,[5][6] but not this one. it might be a name for the genus as a whole, but I couldnt find anything listing Stachytarpheta mutabilis in particular, let alone defining it as the one and only Brazilian tea. Soap 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will not find credible cites that support any specific concoction being the one and only Brazilian tea. The most common referent for Brazilian tea seems to be maté (Ilex paraguariensis). It is hard to find uses for other referents in running text, though there are mentions galore, often in tables, in handbooks, dictionaries, enyclopedias, and other reference works. DCDuring (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contributors to our discussions have opined against use in tables as providing valid cites. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no mention of "running text" being a requirement for valid attestation in WT:ATTEST. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have substantially altered the entry, adding mate as a definition, and making the Lippia and Stachytarpheta definitions subsenses of a more general definition. I can find support for a Stachytarpheta definition, but not for a Lippia definition, though L. pseudo-thea is native to Brazil and used for an infusion. IMHO, the Lippia def. really needs {{rfv-sense}}, but the others do not. I would claim widespread use for the mate def. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Boy, I just love RFVing taxonomic terms like this, as Wiktionary does so damn well at fleshing them out! Long live DCDuring! Van Man Fan (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What you would probably love even more is citing, correcting, referencing, and illustrating vernacular terms like this. The biggest frustration is that use of the terms in tables is not accepted as citing the entry. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A business that spreads its costs." I found one citation and it seems to be the only one: a nonce coinage? Equinox 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like every use is in stuff by Peter Cheverton apart from this section header. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesting reading, thanks. I wish we could save this term at least as a verb, but I couldnt find anything else either, and the link above is such a close paraphrase of one of Cheverton's books that I wonder if Cheverton was involved in writing that chapter too. Soap 22:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense of the sex sense (the label of which needs templatizing), as with catholic above. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 3: "Someone who frequently ridicules others (takes the piss)." Equinox 03:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's definitely a real thing but seems surprisingly hard to attest. Sense 2, where it essentially is defined as meaning pseud, is the one that should've been challenged. I've added one citation and three other possible ones to Citations:piss artist. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's not like piss-prophet, which specifically refers to quack medicine? I dont think I can get to the Siriol Troup book (google books literally just highlights an "a" when i click the link), but reading the second one i at first assumed that it (and pseud) were terms for doctors who falsely claim to have cures outside the reach of mainstream medical science ... with piss coming originally from a literal sense because of how some of them claim they can find evidence of diseases by inspecting urine. Soap 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the first time I've come across piss-prophet tbh. I suppose there may be a connection but I suspect that sense 2 of piss artist, if it exists, stems from the idea that, by trying or pretending to be an intellectual, a pseudointellectual is 'taking the piss' out of an intellectual. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that makes sense. A doctor wouldnt normally be called an artist even in sarcasm. Soap 11:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think we should change the definition of sense 3 slightly to "Someone who frequently ridicules or shows contempt for others (takes the piss).", add the citations I've put at the citations page to it and delete sense 2. What's everyone's thoughts on that? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(chiefly in negative polarity environments) In a true or literal sense; as one would expect from the name or description.
It's not a museum per se, but they do have some interesting artefacts.
  • a. 1998, anonymous conversationalists, quoted in, 1998, Tom Chiarella, Writing Dialogue, Story Press, →ISBN, page 12:
    I take photographs. But I'm not a photographer.
    Per se.
    Right. Not per se.

Added as “As such; as one would expect from the name.” by DCDuring in 2009. The label was added by Ruakh; the quotation by Kiwima and the usage example and changed definition by Mihia (“new examples per Wiktionary:Tea_room/2019/October#per_se”; “copy relevant def from "as such"”). Removed by Getsnoopy on 18 March 2022 with the edit summary “That meaning is not attested by any reputable dictionary because it's incorrect.” J3133 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entry seems to have problems other what concerns User:Getsnoopy (whose objection seems mostly prescriptive.). It would be nice to get the views of OED on this. What seems clear is that per se is used both as adjective and adverb (just like most English prepositional phrases, though we don't grammatically analyze Latin-derived expressions used in English in that way). It is also used both before and after what it modifies. We lack all but one of the adjective uses. Also, there is often ambiguity as to what is being modified (subject of sentence, verb, object of verb, adjective).
The cloud of synonyms advanced for the expression, in the original definition line, in the list of synonyms, and in the thesaurus includes prepositional phrases (usable both as adjective and adverb), manner ("-ly") adverbs, and other expressions. It may be that substitution of these may tease out distinct meanings in use. DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging from this and the Scandinavia discussion above there seems to be a bit of a habit here of Getsnoopy changing entries for prescriptive reasons. The OED's not much help here unfortunately since it doesn't have this colloquial sense, but it only treats the "by or in itself" sense as an adverb for what it's worth. This looks cited to me now.
(However, it also has some archaic/obsolete senses referring to letters used by themselves, as in "I per se I" for the letter "I" acting as a pronoun, which for some reason it analyses as noun senses of per se. This suggests our etymology for ampersand is slightly off, incidentally: at the moment it suggests that it's from "... and per se &", with the first "and" coming from its recitation at the end of the alphabet, but the OED's citations suggest that actually the whole thing was always treated as the name according to the template "X per se X": "I per se I", "O per se O", and "and per se and".)Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It still needs some cleanup. I need to be well-rested to deal with this kind of thing. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An alt form. Not possible to lose the capital A on "America" after a hyphen in English, to my knowledge. Equinox 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless that is the point of the coinage. DCDuring (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the same contributor as sawyer's handful. Not in OED. There are various uses in GBooks, but they do not appear to have the sense "perpetuity". There are a surprising number of uses of moral perpetude where moral turpitude was intended. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both the adjective ("Of, from, or pertaining to, Bishkek") and the noun ("Someone from Bishkek"). Not seeing much evidence of either, but the noun is more plausible. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've cited the noun. Einstein2 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: def. 1: A gudgeon, such as Gobio gobio."

This is an easy mistake to make as the type genus for Gobiidae (def. 1)) is Gobius. Only we and those who seem to be copying us, have this definition. Etymologically gobio is an inflected form of gobius ("gudgeon"), but gobius has been appropriated for fish that somewhat resemble gudgeons, but are not very closely related.

I am not sure how to find instances of use of this mistaken def. or whether to call it mistaken. It can be found in aquarium, fishing, and wildlife references, but we don't seem to deem such occurrences as mentions not uses. DCDuring (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Senses 2, "A staunch advocate, cheerleader, publicist, or mouthpiece", and 3, "(anthropology) A woman who leads a tribal war dance".

The one instance of sense 3 I can find is a much-referenced 19th-century quotation about "old naked women daubed over with red ochre acting as fuglers", which seems to just be referring to sense 1, fugleman, anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In computing: a quarter of a byte, i.e. two bits of data. Equinox 19:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abbreviation: "officially known as". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hide oneself in a corner. All three citations were mentions (now moved to talk page). Perhaps a dictionary-only word. No "latibulating" found on GBooks. Equinox 20:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

serendipitous find while looking for cites for latibulize:
  • 1874 November 16, The Wheeling Daily Register, Wheeling, West Virginia, page 2, column 1:
    He is probably after the manner of his prototype Kellogg, "latibulating" in some secure position, in breathless expectancy that His Excellency, will again uphold usurpation [] .
added it to the entry. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 20:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adjective: "Not showing due respect." (If real: should it be marked as slang?) Equinox 21:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added in diff. The hits at google books:"gutsy" disrespect about people being "gutsy" by disrespecting someone or some thing seem like roughly sense 1, maybe with some tweaks (maybe add something like "bold" to the definition?). - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Rfv-sense "Of or pertaining to the urinary bladder or gall bladder (in compounds).", currently listed as noun. Of the three compounds given as usexes, two already have etymology sections saying they are in fact using the prefix cyst(o)- and the other one also looks like it is probably the prefix. - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect this was added by someone in good faith who simply didnt know that we would consider cyst- as in cystitis to be a separate word from the standalone cyst. An easy mistake to make for someone not well versed in how dictionaries usually organize things. Soap 11:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noun sense 9: "a barrier to vision". We already have separate senses for "a barrier" (e.g. seawall, firewall) and "something with the apparent solidity and dimensions of a building wall". Equinox 03:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose a wall of smoke need not appear "solid" (it can still be obvious that it's smoke and could be walked through), nor does it—or any of the usexes under sense 10—have to have the "dimensions" of a building wall. But probably this is better handled by revising sense 10 like "Something with the apparent solidity, opacity, or and dimensions [...]"; I think you're right that this isn't distinct from the other senses. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Failed; I tweaked the sense below it as I suggested, to cover non-solid "walls of smoke". - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suffusion of red[edit]

I am adding another RFV for the English word suffusion, sense 4, a flush of red color on the surface of an object. It's possible that both this and the unfilled French sense are both medical senses, perhaps specifically meaning a suffusion of blood in both languages, visible from the surface of the skin in some cases if someone has a particularly serious infection under the skin. Thats just a guess though. I wasnt able to turn up anything obvious in which the word suffusion by itself in English refers to blushing or subcutaneous bleeding or anything else that could turn skin red, nor could i find reference to inanimate objects turning red without the word red being juxtaposed to make it clear. This sense has been present since the entry was created in 2005. Soap 11:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equinox 01:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equinox 01:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To scrutinize. This would need to be distinct from the other two verb senses: ""gauge, estimate or judge by eye, rather than measuring precisely; to look or glance at", and "stare at intently". Equinox 03:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internet slang: "big old frown". Never seen this in 20+ years of Usenet, Web and IRC... Equinox 06:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entry is in a most sorry state. English senses are supported by Old (!) and Middle English cites. This is presumably nothing more than an alternative form of kithe (incidentally, the OED goes into IMHO excessive detail about the varying senses of that verb - I think our pithy single sense captures the essence of about eight of their senses). This, that and the other (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmmm ... can we take a look at the pronunciation of kithe while we're at this? The audioclip to me sounds like it ends with IPA /θ/ instead of IPA /ð/, and we have the vowel transcribed as /ʌɪ/. Thanks, Soap 13:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED provides post-1500 cites for only the following senses:

  • Wikt 7 = OED 5: innocent, harmless
  • Wikt 9 and 10 = OED 6a: pitiable; helpless
  • Wikt 12 = OED 7a: insignificant, trifling
  • Wikt [missing sense] = OED 7b: frail, worn-out (OED also includes "crazy" in this gloss - not sure what sense of crazy they mean!)
  • Wikt 1 and 8 = OED 8: foolish, simple, silly

The following senses are Middle English only:

  • Wikt 4 = OED 2: fortunate, auspicious
  • Wikt 2 = OED 3 and 4: spiritually blessed; pious, holy

The remaining Wiktionary senses (3, 5, 6, 11) are absent from OED. This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside: I'm sceptical that it'd be conceptually possible to attest all our senses distinctly from each other. - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, I added one cite to the citations page, but it seems impossible to tell whether it means "wretched", "lowly", "weak", or "innocent" (or possibly other senses we have). - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me this clearly belongs to our senses 9 and 10 (which overlap), since he is being heaped with sorrows and we are supposed to feel pity for him. OED has a cite talking about "seilie poore wretches" which it puts under sense 6a. Also the full book shows that the text is a modernised-spelling edition of a work from 1555; not a 19th-century text at all. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"To offer help when necessary." This, that and the other (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This, that and the other (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really only used in that one article, as well as a couple of other social media posts. This, that and the other (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can find one source in Google Scholar using the name 2D bilayer ice I, but nothing for this. I wonder what the real name for this concept is. This, that and the other (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(slang) To exceed expectations. Your outfit is giving!" I tried some searches and couldn't find any "outfit is giving" (other than longer phrases like "your outfit is giving me a heart attack" which don't count). Equinox 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard this, though I took it to be ellipsis of a broader slang use of give we don't seem to cover yet, which is saying an outfit, action, etc is giving Wednesday Addams, giving boho, or giving Ted Cruz during the 2021 Texas weather crisis, etc, itself a shortening of it's giving [me] Wednesday [vibes]. (The Atlantic has an article about this, "'It's Giving': A Gift to Language".) I'm looking for cites, but as you say most hits are longer irrelevant phrases. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethnic slur against whites. Equinox 18:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Google Books results are an impressive array of scannos ("Cobstinacy,' corrupt practices, Caudacity" where the Cs are quotation marks, "manly caudacity and successful gallantry" and "the Caudacity of King Koko" where the C is a smudge on the page, etc) and real but unintelligible uses which may be typos and in any case don't seem to have any obvious connection to this sense / whiteness. (The usual form is Caucasity.) - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I expected it to be about tails in some way. DCDuring (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 2, uncountable: something unwanted or undesirable: "I don't have time for all this dipshit". I don't believe this exists. Dipshit is a countable term for a person ("he is a dipshit, they are two dipshits") it's not an uncountable general term for bad stuff like "bullshit". Prove me wrong? Equinox 18:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see a few hits where dipshit is used attributively in a way that might be this sense, but it's not entirely clear, e.g. google books:"apply for this dipshit babysitting mission" (although I suppose that could be a mission to babysit a dipshit), google books:"apologising for all this dipshit dumbfuckulousness" (the latter by Gautam Malkani, who Wikipedia says is "a journalist for The Financial Times, and the author of the novel Londonstani which Dutch writer Robert Vuijsje described as the worst book of the year"). I haven't spotted any clear, non-attributive uses. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV for Etymology 1:

  • Noun: The cheek or jaw. OED gives only Middle English evidence. It is listed in EDD but marked "obsolete" and no textual evidence is provided.
  • Verb: To continue to talk about a specific subject. This was added last year by LadyGreyCornFlower, reverted by Chuck, then re-added.

This, that and the other (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED does not exactly give a sense "thief" for this word. The closest senses are "destroyer, plunderer" (which we have at waster) and "The designation of a class of thieves mentioned along with ‘Roberdesmen’ and ‘Drawlatches’ in a statute of Edw. III. Obsolete exc. archaic." (which we lack, but we are not missing out on anything by doing so). They put the Chaucer quote under the sense "One who wastefully dissipates or consumes".

In any case this is nothing more than an alt form of waster, at which the sense "thief" should not be added on the grounds of unattestability. I would have just gone ahead and altered it myself if it weren't for our quote at wastour, which is given as an alternative form of wastor (not waster). This, that and the other (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only Spenser is given for Modern English, so I presume this is Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internet slang for puppy. The pronunciations seem fake too, since this is a text-only typo. Equinox 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to have appeared on Tumblr and TikTok last year. Not widely known, judging by the reaction at [7]. This, that and the other (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Large amount of damage. Evidently do a number on is intended, but "number" alone might not occur. Equinox 07:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: The fibre by which the petioles of the date palm are bound together, from which various kinds of cordage are made. It is probably (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the etymology. Most English uses are mentions or italicised, but there is probably enough to pass RFV, e.g. [8] [9] [10]. A simpler gloss would be just "date palm fiber".
I doubt the alternative form lief exists outside mentions though, so I am listing that under a separate heading. This, that and the other (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This, that and the other (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: The plant privet. - I see but the one quote. It is probably (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED identifies this with the English regionalism pry (Tilia cordata), a sense not in our entry. This seems more believable than Webster's privet. This, that and the other (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Especially since all the other plants in that quote are trees in England (though sallow is also a shrub), as is Tilia cordata (linden), while the privet found in England at the time (Ligustrum vulgare) is a shrub. Of course, the 19th century editions of the work that I've seen do annotate it as privet, so Webster isn't alone in that. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: A long movable shed used by besiegers in ancient times in attacking the walls of a fortified town. Used in French, and in a couple of dictionaries. It is probably (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The English terms for this concept are apparently testudo = testude (our entry is missing the exact sense; it is not the same thing as formation of shields) or mantelet = mantlet. This, that and the other (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely exists as archaic French, can't find it in English It is probably (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has three cites (all with a capital V, interestingly). This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Someone who dodges work because of (feigned) illness." PUC – 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this used outside of off the beaten track? PUC – 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, on the beaten track is used more than a thousand times It is probably (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There’s also ‘a/the more/less beaten track’. There seems to be a greater prevalence of ‘beaten track’ in British/Commonwealth English and ‘beaten path’ in American English FWIW. —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe one hit... It is probably (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slang, humorous: "To misunderstand." UNDER + STAND, OVER + SIT, get it? Example given: "Nobody understands me; they all oversit me." (Some of the other senses and citations look very dodgy too, but I'll leave them for now.) Equinox 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noun? (but I can't parse the definition; it does not sound nouny): "away from or off from the general locations and area where a movie’s, a film‘s, or a video’s scenery is arranged to be filmed or from those places for actors, assorted crew, director, producers which are typically not filmed." Equinox 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect someone got confused by the adverbial sense which matches this definition (which was missing and which I added, along with the missing adjective of the same meaning.) As for a true noun, the closest I could find was:
  • 2012, Brian J. Robb, A Brief Guide to Star Wars:
    Daniels provided his dialogue from off-set for the benefit of the other actors.
which has a hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone verify whether or not this expression has actually taken on a sexual meaning in common usage as suggested by this second entry? Thanks! Metrowestjp (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue isn't really whether it has taken on a sexual sense but exactly what the sexual meaning is - I'd say that there's probably enough citations to be found on GoogleBooks to support the meanings of 'experienced hard sex', 'sexually abused', 'raped' and 'promiscuous'. Many hits can be found if you search for something like 'slut|whore was rode|ridden hard and put away wet' on GoogleBooks. I'll set about adding some examples. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cited the current sense 2 (see Citations:ridden hard and put away wet). We may want to consider about how to treat similar verbal phrases like 'ride me hard and put me away wet' though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems somewhat similar to the issue discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2023/March#the_sky_fell_in, but with the addition of an object (me) and not mere inflection. I would redirect as many forms as possible (for findability) to as small a set of lemmas as possible (to avoid duplication). There is also e.g. google books:"ride her hard and put her away wet", so should we create ride hard and put away wet and redirect ride me..., ride her... to there...? or redirect all of them to the past tense form? - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does seem similar, with the added problem that ride hard and put away wet and phrases like ride her hard and put her away wet function as verbs and the past tense forms with rode/ridden function as adjective. Perhaps we should cover it all under ride hard and put away wet and simply define it as a 'phrase' (without specificying whether it's a verbal or adjectival one)? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't imagine how the expression with rode is adjectival. And with ridden it is no more or less adjectival than most expression using a past participle. I don't think we can find support for adjectivity (gradability, comparability, different meaning from verb). DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't neglect him. "Romance" novels are full of such variants of the expression in most imaginable inflected forms. The rare or missing forms involve putting (rare at b.g.c.) and puts (not found at b.g.c.). DCDuring (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not written as one word, even in Middle English. OED has modern quotations for Scots only, where the term is variously written on loft, vp on loft, vpone loft, apon loft. This, that and the other (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess what? It's Middle English only. OED has nothing modern. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]




Only used in papers where Ivo D. Dinov is an author. This, that and the other (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "To cover (something) or provide with clusters of things.", "To cover or provide with clusters of things." Apparently added by @Sgconlaw by editing an older "To cover with clusters", by itself a bit ambiguous, but nothing compared to this, where I have absolutely no idea where this would be used. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has both these senses. The intransitive sense only has one cite: "clustering with all variety of verdure". The intransitive sense, likewise, is typically attested as "clustered with" - searching Google Books for older texts seems to turn up a few likely cites? This, that and the other (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure any of those match the definition I gave (especially the "cover" part) - maybe they could work for "to furnish or decorate with clusters of things"? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm withdrawing this for the transitive sense anyway in favor of rewording it - the 'intransitive sense' you mentioned is however not intransitive. "to be clustered with" is passive use of the transitive verb, not a use of the intransitive one. "be clustering with" would count, though... — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@This, that and the other has mostly replied, but I should just point out that the sole quotation in OED indicating the intransitive sense "To cover or provide with clusters of things" was "Stupendous crags, clustering with all variety of verdure" rather than a construction with "be clustering with", so that does appear to be intransitive rather than transitive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense: “A user of or someone who spends a lot on Discord.” Added under adjective by on 11 April with the edit summary “Legit a thing”. J3133 (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've split the entry into two etymology sections, moved the challenged sense under a Noun header and created Citations:Discordian. Discord uses the term both on Twitter and its Support website. I've found one use in an online magazine. Might be citable from Twitter or other online sources. Einstein2 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: pony in My Little Pony slang. *sigh, I hate those equine bastards* It is probably (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost as much as you hate Care Bears, am I right? It's not hard to find uses in such places as Facebook, but durably-archived uses are another thing. This, that and the other (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: slander. Probably just Middle English It is probably (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had trouble finding this in OED, as the form disslander is apparently not attested. However, I eventually located it under disclander (which is itself an unattested form!). OED only gives one modern cite for the verb (Palsgrave). This was havily used in Middle English as per EEBO, but there is nothing modern there either.
(Just noting for posterity that the noun definitely survived into modern English, although barely.) This, that and the other (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a bunch of cites. I'm not convinced the "Easter" definition is actual distinct (see the citations for it). I would suggest merging it with sense 1. I created an additional sense as well. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

enm only? It is probably (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED2 has three post-1500 quotes. Einstein2 (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English usage rather than mention? DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and malanga coco and malanga lila do not even have proper definitions: they are all just "a type of malanga", and nothing distinguishes the three, though clearly they are not the same thing. I would consider deleting and posting at WT:REE — or using the rfdef template to request real definitions (in which case we ought to have some other entry content beyond the request: e.g. strong citations, pronunciation). Equinox 18:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English usage?

English usage, not italicized, not in quotes, for all the above. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Internet slang) The process of elo boosting in the Video Game Overwatch”. J3133 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Internet slang) The process of elo boosting in the Video Game League of Legends”. J3133 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was added by User:DCDuring. I have since put three citations on the citations page.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The history says Simplificationalizer added the entry. The 2022 cite is for Central African oyan. DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So? If WP is to be believed, oyan is nothing more than a synonym for linsang in the context of the Poiana genus. This, that and the other (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Users treat Central African oyan as an idiomatic expression, not Central + African + oyan. The instances of oyan being called the same in meaning as linsang are (almost?) always mentions rather than uses. A large portion of similar non-English words applied to organisms don't seem to be truly incorporated into English. At best they need some kind of label to indicate the usage context, eg, {{lb|en|zoology}}, even if it is "popular" zoology. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: (intransitive) Often followed by down: to take shelter in a bunker or other place.

This implies that the adverb down is optional, which I’m not sure is true. If we can only cite this as part of bunker down, then this sense only belongs there. Theknightwho (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theknightwho: you added this sense. Are you sure it’s correct? You’re not confusing bunker with hunker, are you? — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sgconlaw No I didn’t - you did in 2021. Theknightwho (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: my mistake – I was looking at this on a mobile device and interpreted it wrongly. Seems like I added it after consulting Lexico. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cited. I've added three cites using the verb independently. bunker down, which is currently treated as a misspelling, should perhaps be changed into a synonym (or misconstruction?) of hunker down influenced by bunker. (For that matter, bunker in also exists, although we don't have an entry for it yet: "bunkering in for doom", "bunkering in for the ... snowstorm".) Einstein2 (talk)
Thanks. I think it would make sense to change the definition to (intransitive) To take shelter in a bunker or other place., but link to bunker down just beneath it as an in-line synonym. It may well be a misconstruction though, you’re right. Theknightwho (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not English. PUC – 17:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. Compare accent acute. Einstein2 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced. The second, third, and especially fourth quotes look to be code-switching. AG202 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really agree, but added a couple more works (1991, 2010) using the term in a clearly non-French technical context (more can be found at Internet Archive). Note that the French equivalent of the analogous accent acute (which is easily attestable) is accent aigu. Einstein2 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female name. Mainly found in the name of one Dawinka Laureys, who as far as I can tell is Belgian. Equinox 18:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can find "butyl zymate" and "ethyl zymate" in publications about rubber. I don't think this is what the old 19th-century definition was referring to though.
Someone needs to have a word to this contributor; surely Equinox has got all the legitimate words from these dusty old tomes by now... This, that and the other (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: To rack; to torture only Middle English? It is probably (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was used as an archaism in a Thomas Chatterton poem, according to OED. This, that and the other (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: A domestic or familiar. just in Chaucer? It is probably (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At most this is an alt form of familiar, but even then, I think it has been normalised by Webster and this precise spelling may well be unattested. Chaucer apparently used the form famulers [11]. This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: Having discomfort or misery; troubled. unlikely survived out of Middle English It is probably (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find 2 modern uses in EEBO: [12] and [13] (in footnote). This, that and the other (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couple of definitions. Probably didn't survive out of Middle English It is probably (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 1 ("utterly") probably survived only in Scots, although OED gives a cite from a glossary of Whitby dialect words, and EDD shows it was used in Northumberland and Yorkshire (without giving cites).
Sense 2 is obsolete, however, it could possibly be combined with a new sense "outwardly", which the OED editors managed to find in two 20th-century philosophy papers. This also seems to appear in various mathematical books (not sure if the sense is the same though - mathematics is a world of its own).
There may even be an adjective. This, that and the other (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cleaned up the entry, removing sense 1 (RFV-failed), but technically the remaining adverb sense does not yet pass, as cites are yet to be found. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: An avenger. - probably not surviving Middle English. And that's all for today It is probably (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has three modern uses, one of which is clearly derivative of Chaucer's use of the word, using it in exactly the same context (as an epithet for the stork). This, that and the other (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Following YouTube channels toward extremism" - both quotes are from the same book, and the second quote appears to be coining the term. Needs to be distinct from sense 5 ("A time-consuming tangent or detour"), which the first quote could just as easily apply to. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down the rabbit hole in the sense of entering a vast, real but unexplored world, one that is hard to disentangle oneself from once entered, predates the Internet and social media.[14][15][16] Senses 4 and 5 are more specific instances of this sense. I doubt that sense 5 originated as an extension of sense 4.  --Lambiam 11:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verb: to be friends with. The example given uses "pal around", which is a real verb. I don't think "pal" alone is. Equinox 09:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a joke, although it is listed on Urban Dictionary I dont see anything durably archived. Soap 23:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could be both. Urban Dict.'s famous for its users making up sexual acts. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently just used once in the play Arden of Feversham by Thomas Kyd It is probably (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

probably didn't survive out of Middle English It is probably (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has some limited Scots evidence post-1500 only. This, that and the other (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely Scots, and not Scottish English. Should probably be moved to Scots and labelled obsolete Leasnam (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surived out of MEng? It is probably (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 2 May 2023.

Nothing on Google Books; first Google result is us (second is Urban Dictionary, third is a mirror of us). - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three Usenet citations seem to have. DCDuring (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A rather unpleasant word and one of mine (2013), back when sticking a link to Usenet newsgroups on Google seemed to be enough proof (there were definitely three, or many more, because I know how I operated). Now that is gone. I have to say I can't find anything convincing in GBooks and I doubt we'd miss much by losing this one. Equinox 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the quotes listed at Usenet, I'm not convinced the definition is right anyway. It seems like it's being used to describe music more specifically (especially rap?). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems not to be used as if by a linguist. It seems to refer to any sounds authored/spoken/etc. by a black person that the speaker (of niggerbabble) allegedly finds hard to understand. DCDuring (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are still plenty (many more than three, actually) of Usenet cites. DCDuring (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was deleted by Sgconlaw last month. I dived into the depths of Usenet and re-created the entry with three cites and a different definition. Einstein2 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very limited usage, but in lots of dialectal dictionaries. Wiktionary, of course, would never directly copy stuff from other dictionaries. It is probably (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am unable to track down the required three citations Pious Eterino (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just one citation? Possibly an alt-sp of hoeful is promising, tho It is probably (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: thin and long; slim; slender - obsolete and provincial, apparently It is probably (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently once rendered thus in one edition of Francis Bacon's Essayes, and picked up by Samuel Johnson for his dictionary. Not a lot else, although there are some cites of ducks quecking... It is probably (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first part of the definition, "To stir; to move" makes me wonder if this is not simply a form of quick, rather than quinch as claimed. - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: A large flatboat used in the West Indies for taking freight from shore to ship. It is probably (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

probably just used once by Ascham It is probably (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also appears here as a gloss for Italian poderosità, itself a rare word according to Treccani. I'm not much of a fan of using glosses as evidence for RFV though. This, that and the other (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also this: the all-Puissantness of the Pope. Another cite of questionable application... This, that and the other (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've found two 21st-century works using the word: [17], [18]. Einstein2 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense a dice roll of two twos. Had been tagged and redirected to the section on ballerina roll, above, but although the longer phrase ballerina roll couldn't be cited, but a user said they found ballerina in at least one book, so I'm creating a separate RFV for it. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this attested in English texts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@justinrleung: This is similar to Talk:kamchulia) (which appears to be an uncommon spelling); both of which I think should be considered as a Cantonese word. There seems to be no actual usage of "sodiasm" in English texts, and even in Cantonese a lot of them are mentions rather than usages. – Wpi (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: fretful; peevish; cross Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in the EDD here [[19]] under the second teeny (adjective). A Lancashire word. Leasnam (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense “An LGBTQ+ person”.  --Lambiam 13:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also question the new third sense ("a progressive ideology"). It feels borderline, on the border between maybe a distinct sense (I guess) and just nominalization of the adjective, ~"that which is woke". Compare e.g. (from Google Books) "The futuristic is thus associated with the Greystones", "The futuristic is the greater danger now, because it has become the prevailing convention." - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense " A diamond that has been illegally mined by criminals and sold on the black market." as distinct from sense 1. See Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/April#blood_diamond. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we accept "lexicographical encyclopaedias" as dictionaries, then this is a candidate for moving to the dictionary-only terms appendix (unless two other cites turn up). - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nonce word Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly found: [20] [21] [22] (I assume none of these are Carlyle). @Wonderfool April 2023 did you actually check any of these? This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol, no, I didn't check this one. I checked plenty of others, though. Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the first and third one are viewable in full here on archive.org [23] [24] – both are from Stanley T. Williams. the second one is Carlyle again. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[25] (maybe hyphenated) [26] This, that and the other (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than Pope, I could only find this. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All uses seem to ultimately refer back to this use [27] [28], but it would probably pass. This, that and the other (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete nonce term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has three cites, and there are more in GBooks. Surprising, considering the apparent lack of evidence for foraneous. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The broader question should be that we need to look at Category:English nonce terms better. Perhaps that category shouldn't even exist, as if a term is only used once it isn't valid for WT, and if it is used more than once it isn't a nonce term...Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We call terms used only once “hapax legomena”. J3133 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My interpretation of our use of "nonce term" is that each of the 3+ authors that have used the term has coined it independently as a nonce. However, I'm not sure if that is a very meaningful thing to keep track of. Also I'm sure many of the things in that category need deleting (or removing from the category at least). This, that and the other (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought a nonce word was one that was created for an occasion, but not necessarily a hapax legomenon. Lewis Carroll invented many words which might be considered nonces (such as brillig), but if they have been used by other writers they wouldn’t be hapaxes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "(Wikimedia Commons jargon) To completely delete all uploads of a user, usually due to copyright violations or vandalism." I know mw:Extension:Nuke is a thing, but has this use (specific to Wikimedia Commons and not other wikis?) actually made it into durably archived sources? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect this is going to be near-impossible to cite with durably archived sources, but we could probably ask on Commons if this is accurate haha. Theknightwho (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless there is some rule that says Wikimedia jargon is exempt from needing durably archived citations then that doesn't matter. Category:en:Wiki shows that there are several other Wikimedia jargon entries which are properly cited. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems redundant to sense 2 ("to destroy or erase completely"). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this is just Wikimedia's use of a common term. You can find similar references to forum threads and Reddit accounts being "nuked" as well. There might be enough for an internet-specific subsense, but it's not Wikimedia jargon by any means. Binarystep (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a surname? Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

some obsolete crap, and stuff that should maybe be noun Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the "hope" sense, OED gives this as a Scottish form (verb and noun). Howp is the lemma in DSL (also verb and noun) but there is a lack of textual evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can't see this escaping from the dungeon of Middle English Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle English only? Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just Middle English? hendy should be included in the RFV, as an "obsolete form" of this already obsolete term Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED lemmatises at hend, which would be a better place for our lemma. Hende is probably attestable as a form of hend.
hendy is more than likely Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ORLY? Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

only in dictionaries? Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks very iffy. If it fails RfD, it could be made a hard redirect to [[glandular]]. DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've only spotted one cite (in two copies), this one. - -sche (discuss) 13:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging from the author's name, the work might have been translated, which makes it just barely better than a mention, by my lights. DCDuring (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A person or group of people acting as the source of a country's constitution." MW has this word, but not in this sense, at least when necessarily worded this way. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of the word "source" in the def is odd. Surely "framer" is a better term. This should definitely be findable with the tweaked definition. There is also a second sense in OED - a member of an 18th-century "Constitution Club" at Oxford. This, that and the other (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(idiomatic) a sexual act in which a pouch of clingfilm or similar material filled with faeces is placed in the mouth of one participant and subsequently penetrated by the second participant.

We've had this since 2005 with 0 cites, and it seems to be a textbook Urban Dictionary entry from that time. Only durably archived thing I can find is a 2015 slang dictionary, who probably got it from us or UD. Theknightwho (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF, right? Only the brave should attempt to cite this! Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

obsolete spelling of trist i.e. sad. A handful of hits seem to fit better with "trusty". This is probably passable, though. Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has Middle English evidence only for "trusty" and limited Middle English evidence (and one modern cite) for "sad". This, that and the other (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only in that Tooke booke? Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like a pseudo-anglicism, as opposed to an actual English proverb, and thus doesn't belong under an English language header. Megathonic (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems SoP. It is a flat, boring definition of more colorful and common expressions like if it ain't broke don't fix it. IOW, it seems more deserving an RfD. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy to verify. Sending to WT:RFDE#never change a running system. This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. in a manner attributed to an unhappily single man; incel-like.
  2. Generally rude, obnoxious, or deplorable.

Rationale: I don't see these as distinct senses, since single/no bitches/etc. are generally used as catch-all insults.

(and I guess I need to make explicit: this RFV applies to all current and future senses added without attestation except for sense 3)

Ioaxxere (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody would accuse people who don't tip their bartenders, or a woman making anti-trans comments, of "single behaviour" or "no bitches behaviour", surely...
Also this seems like an RFD matter. It is true that the terms are supported only by Twitter evidence which needs to be voted on, but it seems like that isn't the concern. This, that and the other (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sense 3 is distinct from sense 4 because singledom doesn't necessarily make one "pathetic, angry, or bitter" or "incel-like." Lots of people are single by choice and are perfectly content with that state of affairs, while some unhappily single people experience more inwardly-turned feelings such as sadness, loneliness, despair, etc. Sense 4 is comparable to divorced guy energy. Antipathy towards women and/or a sense of aggrieved entitlement are baked into its usage. So it can technically apply to a partnered man who exhihits either of those two characteristics. Sense 5 is distinct from sense 4 because it's possible to deem someone "rude, obnoxious, or deplorable" without deeming them "incel-like." The quotations for sense 5 aren't attributing incel-like or misogynistic aggrievement to the people mentioned. Sometimes it's necessary to have multiple precise senses rather than trying to fit everything under one catch-all definition and creating unintended connotations in the process. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And sense 5 is distinct from sense 2 because sense 2 is gendered in a way that sense 5 isn't. Sense 2 implies coarseness that runs counter to the softness and refinement society expects of a "proper" woman. Sense 5 just implies gender-non-specific rudeness or obnoxiousness. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@This, that and the other My point was that I don't normally RFV online-only senses, but in this case I feel like Twitter alone doesn't warrant these kinds of fine-toothed distinctions (like the equivalent of WP:UNDUE). Therefore, I'll let the RFV process go along as usual and remove the senses that way.
However: in response to @WordyAndNerdy, how would you feel about this reorganization?
  1. (sense 1 unchanged)
  2. (sense 2 unchanged)
  3. (Internet slang) Single; lacking a girlfriend. [from 2022]
  4. (Internet slang, by extension, derogatory) Pathetic, deplorable, or toxic in a manner characteristic of an unhappily single man; incel-like. [from 2022]
    maidenless behaviour
Essentially, just divide the quotations by the clear line of derogatory vs non-derogatory rather than trying to list every facet of the insult "maidenless". Ioaxxere (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shortening sense 3 is a good call. But I don't think removing sense 5 would be an improvement. Most of the citations under that sense wouldn't fit neatly under the other senses. The three featured cites involve not tipping a bartender, JKR's anti-trans Twitter commentary, and someone threatening to boycott a game developer. None of those are examples of "unmaidenly" or "incel-like" behaviour. They are behaviour considered rude, obnoxious, or contemptible in a more generalized way. (To be clear, the person threatening to boycott a developer wasn't a Gamergater, but someone who felt the developer was favouring XBox and PC players over PlayStation players). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that senses 4 and 5 have so much overlap that I don't really see how you sorted the quotations.
  • Criticizing someone for starting an OnlyFans is truly maidenless behavior.—Is the behaviour "pathetic, angry, or bitter" or "rude, obnoxious, or deplorable"? Seems like it could be either one.
  • Saying your favourite writer is Hemingway is absolutely maidenless behaviour—Again not at all clear.
  • Lol imagine simping for nazis, total maidenless behavior, your mother wishes she'd let you run down her leg.—This was sorted under sense 4, but it seems like "deplorable" would be a closer synonym here.
  • Hating on and harrassing game company staff is never okay. In fact, it's what I would call maidenless behaviour.—This was sorted under sense 5. But wouldn't hating on people be more aptly called "angry and bitter"?
My point is that definitions can only be considered distinct if you can easily identify which one a given quotation corresponds to, and this doesn't seem to be possible here. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sense 4 includes male aggrieved entitlement and antipathy toward women. That's what "incel-like" is intended to convey in a succinct manner. 1. Demeaning and harassing women with OnlyFans accounts is a thing that incel types do for obvious reasons. 2. Hemingway is widely considered to have been a man's man. He's drawn criticism for his treatment of women in both his personal life and his writing. There was some "what favourite author would you consider a red flag on a first date?" discourse on Twitter a couple of years back and Hemingway's name came up a lot. 3. This was in response to someone citing an Andy Ngo tweet as evidence that "trans activists" are a bigger threat to women than "Nazis." Basically, there's conservative types like Matt Walsh who frame their opposition to trans rights as a defence of women's rights, while often opposing or dismissing issues central to feminism such as abortion rights, pay equity, #MeToo, etc. I interpreted the quoted tweet as a brutal condemnation of that mentality. 4. It's not specifically misogynistic anger or bitterness, just general entitled gamer anger or bitterness. Analysising cites one-by-one like this is kind of tedious. All that's required for the attestation of any sense are three clear cites. That requirement has been met in both cases. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm understanding you, you're saying that the difference between senses 4 and 5 is whether it involves misogyny. The thing is, everything either is or isn't misogynistic, so no precision is lost by combining the senses and omitting mention of this aspect entirely. Is splitting the definition along this line is any less arbitrary than splitting it, say, by the speaker's eye colour? The fact that you sorted the senses using obscure context clues (like Twitter's opinion on Hemingway) rather than differences in actual usage convinces me that the split is artificial.
Also, "three clear cites" is definitely not the requirement for attestation—as of next month, the senses are failing due to be cited only from Twitter. Nevertheless I would like to get input from others first. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't obscure. There are probably dozens of books examining Hemingway's ideas about masculinity and women. There's at least one journal article about the 2020 "red flag" discourse on Booktwt that I mentioned. Granted, this isn't context that is immediately familiar to everyone, but then not everyone gets Elden Ring references without explanation either. Anyway, I'm done. This will be my last edit. I don't really care what's done at this point. Editing an Elden Ring-related entry was supposed to be a fun distraction, not having to wade into a discussion of more insidious cultural manifestations of misogyny. There's a reason women rarely choose to reveal their genders in certain online spaces like wikis, including finding out someone has compared my wiki-participation to "the tragic tale of the abused wife who comes back." WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I write this, leaving aside the ephemeral nature of most of the uses, I see three senses:
Sense 1, literally without a maiden. The first half of sense 3 "Single; lacking a girlfriend" should be merged into the this sense.
Sense 2, a woman who doesn't act like a maiden should.
The second half of sense 3, "characteristic of someone who is single" and all of senses 4 and 5. It's Twitter slang for "rude, obnoxious, unjustly angry". There is no profit in trying to distinguish "guy who needs to get laid" from "woman I disagree with".
Briefly explain the rapid sense development in the etymology section. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Variant of scrod - fish Wonderfool April 2023 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]