Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page is for entries in any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/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 “brown leaf”



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged RFVs


March 2016[edit]


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

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

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

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

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

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] --Romanophile (contributions) 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

April 2016[edit]


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

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

Niger and other Latin countries[edit]

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

  • @Maggidim: This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.
  • Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
  • Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
    In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
  • Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
  • Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
  • Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
  • Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
  • Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
  • Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
  • Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
  • Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.
-Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maggidim: Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching google books:"Iraniam" haec shows that Irania is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.
In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.
  • Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
  • Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
  • Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
  • Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). dictionary.com states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran#English, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
  • Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.
So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.
-Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is total nitpickery... Second-declension placenames in Latin are virtually always -um and not -us. I've added a more obviously nominative Iracum cite. So as far as I can see, these are all cited now -- can we close this and move on? — Kleio (t · c) 19:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not "total nitpickery". There are second-declension placenames in -us, as for example Aegyptus, and there are reasons why one could assume a nominative *Iracus. -Slœtel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I'll amend that to mostly nitpickery. Besides, have a look at Category:la:Place names or Category:la:Countries. The placenames in -us are often loans from Greek (Aegyptus, Monoecus, Epirus, etc.), and New Latin coinages seem to pretty much always be -um. Anyway, since New Latin isn't considered a WDL yet (as it really shouldn't be), it's attested now with certainty with a nominative singular -um. — Kleio (t · c) 17:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've split off Irania (after broadening the definition) so it can be archived, since it is citable per this discussion. Some of the others may fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The brackets around it, likely already meant that the RFV is resolved (cp. your "since it is citable per this discussion") or at least somewhat resolved (cp. your "after broadening the definition"). - 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The two votes on treatment of post-1500 Latin threaten to bring more confusion than clarity; normally, if a proposal does not gain enough consensus to pass the status quo remains, and the status quo has been to require three citations for modern Latin, but the vote (which is close to the line between consensus and no consensus) is for, in effect, one mechanism of that.
It has also been pointed out that modern Latin were only required to have one citation, "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries". Would there be consensus to consider a modern source like "The Scientific Journal of the American Orchid Society" sufficient, or would we prefer to continue regarding modern sources as insufficient?
(Some might even argue that single texts from 2016 should be allowed because the continuing use of Latin into the modern day demonstrates that it is an extinct language, which would get really interesting, but I doubt that change would gain consensus...)
21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by -sche (talkcontribs).
The line you were quoting is about mentionings: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". And from my experience "citation" refers to usages as a short form of citation with or of a usage and not as citation with or of a mentioning. So with Latin being an LDL a single usage in the journal would be fine, while with Latin being a WDL it wouldn't be fine.
Technically, with Latin being an LDL, even a single usenet/google groups citation from whenever would be fine. (I wouldn't like it either, but Latin isn't a WDL, and that's why there were some suggestions of making New Latin an in-between language neither LDL nor WDL.)
Also, as pointed out before, some people (seem to) interpret WT:CFI's "should" as a recommendation not as a must. For example, there are some living* LDL entries based on a single usage or mentioning but without the {{LDL}} template or without its sources in it. So you could interpret the cited line "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list ..." as a recommendation too, and use that journal as a single source. (I wouldn't like that either, but that's not just a matter of Latin, and that's why I made some suggestions regarding the shoulds and (New) Latin.)
* I'm not sure what WT:CFI#Number of citations states regarding "extinct languages". Maybe it's saying that entries based on a single usage or mention in an extint language should have the {{LDL}} template in them too; or maybe it's stating that the template is only required for living and not for extinct languages. Some entries in Category:Latin hapax legomena do have the template in them (e.g. amosio), while some don't (e.g. neuroides). -Slœtel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Papua Nova Guinea[edit]

I've added two citations; we need a third. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Has only one citation, and I can find no others. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
One citation is sufficient, but that's another or just one Djibouti. "in urbem Dzibutum" refers to a city, not to a country. Furthermore it could be an accusative Dzibutum for *Dzibutus m. or f. and not necessarily for *Dzibutum n. A neuter *Dzibutum might be more likely (for that younger NL), but that doesn't attest any nominative, and as the Arabic term is m. or f. according to wiktionary (m. in Djibouti, f. in the Arabic entry) one could also argue for *Dzibutus. - 23:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
One citation is sufficient for classical Latin, but not for modern Latin. (This is not explicitly written in policy anywhere as far as I know, but it is how Latin is typically treated in RFV discussions.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK that's neither a rule (Latin is a WT:LDL as it's not a WT:WDL), nor common practice. There sometimes where comments that some users sometimes would like that 3 cites for NL would be required, but expressing that wish means that it is not required. Also, before having such a rule, it could make sense to split NL: From 1500 till 1800 Latin wasn't rare, but in the 19th century it declined and in the 21st century it's rare, almost an extinct language (some people even do leave out the "almost"). So while 3 cites for 1500-1800 NL might be a good idea, for 21st century NL it's less good. (Many terms from Harrius Potter would still be excluded by WT:CFI#Fictional universes.) Compared with other LDLs it could even be some kind of discrimination to require 3 cites for 21st century NL. Of course, one could still try to find three cites, but sometimes that's not possible, also because Latin is a LDL. - 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Requiring three citations for modern Latin is common practice. Here are two examples: Talk:birotula, Talk:Hogvartensis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's standard practice, to the extent that I can't think of a case where a modern Latin word has been passed with only one citation. To that extent, it's as if modern Latin is treated like the conlangs we include (and for similar reasons; new coinages in it are like conlang words). - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Cited now in the nominative. — Kleio (t · c) 19:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've found a third citation, so this now has enough to pass. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


I can only find one citation. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]


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

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

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

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあ[edit]

suzukaze (tc) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

@CodeCat Projecting the Cat-signal into Gotham's sky. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Does Koebler's dictionary have anything? —CodeCat 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Ten minutes of futile navigation attempts and two search engines later, he only lists the word with a single consonant. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Two observations:
  1. The etymology for euwi is copypasted from the entry at eowu, with "Old Saxon ewwi" replaced by "Old English eowu", but otherwise unchanged (notice the position of Dutch in both).
  2. Philippa's dictionary at etymologiebank.nl (here) mentions both ewi and euwi, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be sufficient attestation for a less-documented-language term according to CFI, though one could quibble about the lack of a list of accepted sources at WT:AOSX. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if euwi is a typo for 'ouwi' on etymologiebank. For one, I think 'euwi' violates Old Saxon phonotactics (lack of umlaut) and for the other Old Saxon 'euwi' would become Middle Low German 'uwe', which isn't recorded. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]


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

In clearly widespread use. Siuenti (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more like a candidate for RFD, why don't you try that? Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would personally much prefer if people only claimed that clause when citing is for some reason impossible or difficult. @KoreanQuoter, perhaps you would determine whether this is "in clearly widespread use"?__Gamren (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It is only used in North Korean political context and we are not sure if these groups do exist in North Korean political organs. It's a proper noun with unsure meaning, I would say. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well we do include words that denote non-existing things, like English unicorn or telekinesis.__Gamren (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


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

@YURi: Thai entered to mean gambler. Entered by User:Alifshinobi, who declares himself to be th-3. นักการพนัน found by Google translate. Apparently found at google books:นักการพนัน in space-free blocks of text. Are you sure the term does not meet WT:ATTEST? We are not here concerned with "correctness", merely with attestation in actual use.--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Put differently, how do you explain all those hits at google books:นักการพนัน? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's one example from Google books I was sort of comfortable with (can't guarantee a good translation):
เขาเป็นนักการพนันตัวยง  ―  kǎo bpen nák-gaan-pá-nan dtuua-yong  ―  he is an expert gambler
source--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • นักการพนัน is used among Thai-speaking people. นักพนัน and นักการพนัน are both "correct", although the former is used more often than the latter. Just because one form is used more often than other forms, doesn't mean that the other ones are not used at all and therefore are "incorrect". --A.S. (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alifshinobi If you can find citations satisfying WT:CFI, please add them to the page. Otherwise, it is liable to deletion. I also deleted the word above; but again, if you can find cites, do feel free to readd it. If you are unsure what constitutes sufficient attestation, there are many whom you can ask.__Gamren (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]



  1. Pronounced wěi? (archaic) a type of reptile (similar to a lizard)
  2. Pronounced wèi? (archaic) long-tailed monkey (similar to a macaque but larger). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The monkey sense should be cited (with help from Hanyu Da Zidian and Hanyu Da Cidian). The reptile sense seems to be only found in Jiyun. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]


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

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

JP fong2 fat1

I'm not sure how we should interpret "彷⧸仿彿⧸佛". I'm not sure this is strong enough evidence for 彷佛. Also, MDBG clearly has 彷彿 and 仿佛, but not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
"彷⧸仿彿⧸佛" means each character can be replaced in the traditional form. Wenlin only gives 仿佛//彷彿 fǎngfú. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev I'm not sure if that's what CC meant to say, since MDBG, which, if I'm not mistaken, is based on CC, only has 彷彿 and 仿佛.
(Continuing the discussion from RFD) @Tooironic I think there are all errors in digitizing the original text. Looking at the book scans of the four texts given here (封神演義, 太平御覽1, 太平御覽2, 太平廣記, 儒林外史), I think this would only legitimize keeping it as a misspelling. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


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

A Cantonese CC Canto dictionary gives 巴扎 as a form for both trad and simpl.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I found one mention and one use for 巴紮 and two uses for 巴扎 in traditional Chinese ([13], [14]) in Google Books so far. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
As an author, I'm OK to delete it. 巴扎 (bāzhā) is the correct Mandarin/Cantonese form. 巴剎巴刹 (bāshā) is an alternative. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(once more, Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (tc) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC))
Not frequent enough. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I found more uses: [15], [16], [17], [18]. I'd say it could be a t2. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be cited now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
RFV passed.__Gamren (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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



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

September 2016[edit]


To start, I'm not exactly sure what a "mayberry" is (though I can guess "strawberry" based on the descendants). Secondly, while Franco‐Provençal mayossa could plausibly be a descendant, I fail to see how Occitan majofa (-s- > -f-?) and Welsh meddus, mefus could derive from it. KarikaSlayer (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Trees of the genus Crataegus are often called may trees, and they bear berries, so I suspect a "mayberry" is the berry of the may tree. The ones native to the southeastern United States (thus presumably not the one the Vulgar Latin word refers to) are called mayhaws. I'm equally at a loss as to how to derive the Occitan and Welsh words from *majusa (which ought to be moved to *maiusa, surely). The Welsh words ought to go back to something like *medūsa/*medōsa and *mebūsa/*mebōsa/*memūsa/*memōsa respectively. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the source for this? We've never written a specific CFI for the Reconstructions namespace have we? Obviously WT:CFI only applies to the main namespace (nb this is not explicit and it is something I'd like to add explicitly). FEW doesn't list it and before you say anything it does include Occitan and Franco-Provençal. I'd be happy with one reputable source listing it as a reconstruction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile, do you remember where you got this? The big Welsh dictionary ({{R:cy:GPC}}) doesn't venture any etymology of meddus/mefus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, that would be a question for @Torvalu4. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? AFAICT you started the page and he's never edited it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Latin/majusa, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mefus&action=history. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


There's a link in the entry that suggests this exists, but absolutely no evidence in Books or Groups for a French term. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Two of the three definitions of this purported noun define it as an adjective, never a good sign. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
google books:miskines gets some hits. The problem with google books:miskine is there are a couple of politicians with the surname Miskine and they make up most of the hits. google books:"un|le|la|une miskine" gets a couple more. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


An Old English entry created by User:Leasnam in 2009. I can't find any usage in Books, Scholar, News, or Groups. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

stæfleahter is certainly attested. —JohnC5 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, You might need to search on stæfleahtres (e.g. Swylce betwyx stánhricgum gruttes and stæfleahtres swelgend), as that is the form that is glossed/attested. The nominative could be either stæfleahtor or stæfleahter, as the second element was leahtor/leahter (moral defect; crime; sin; fault) which had multiple forms. Leasnam (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
How does Bosworth-Toller attest "stæfleahter"? According to the entry for leahter (genitive leahtres, m.) there are the alternative forms lehter, lahter, leahtor, and according to the entry stæfleahter the attested form is stæfleahtres (and similary synleahter is attested as synleahtras). The nominative singular could be both *stæfleahter or *stæfleahtor (similary *synleahter or *synleahtor). So there should be the following possibilities:
  • Only have an entry stæfleahtres where both possible nominative singulars and their inflection could be mentioned.
  • Have both stæfleahtor and stæfleahter, at best with a usage note. stæfleahtor could be {{alternative form of|stæfleahter|lang=ang}}, or vice versa.
- 04:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Can't find very many attestations for this verb, supposedly meaning "to blog". Is it conjugated "je carnette" or "je carnète"? No clear attestations of either. Benwing2 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The recommended spelling is je carnète: http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/bibliotheque/dictionnaires/Internet/fiches/8363167.html
Here are two attestations from websites:
  • A partir d'aujourd'hui, je carnète ! (frenchmba.blogspot.com)
  • Personnellement, je "carnète" plus souvent sur le diabète de type 2. (recit.org)
Lmaltier (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


Can't find attestations of this verb. Benwing2 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As above abâtelle or abâtèle? Google Books finds neither, and all 5 hits for abâteler are from dictionaries, of which 3 are 19th century dictionaries, one 20th century (French-German dictionary), and one 21st century (French-German dictionary). Even a Google search only finds word lists and these same 5 hits. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In fact unless some as it in some sources that aren't on Google, this one is over, ladies and gentlemen. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "unwanted", as a result of WT:RFD#volente o nolente (to be archived here). @SemperBlottoΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

First, "volente o nolente" is a translation of Latin nolens volens. Second, unless nolente drastically diverges in meaning from the source, it would mean "not wanting" or "not willing" instead of "unwanted"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]


RFV of the Latin sense:

which isn't listed by any of the usual authorities. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"the usual authorities" only cover old Latin.
Does the definition even make sense? cantus is the "principal voice". Can't the principal voice be a tenor, alto or bass? Wouldn't it be more likely to have numbered voices (first voice = principal voice = cantus, second voice, third voice, ...) which then could have any of the Stimmlagen or "musical parts or sections" (tenor, alto, bass, soprano)? German wikipedia should state that once the tenor was the principal voice and for those times, the above wiktionary definition doesn't seem to make sense. - 02:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)



  1. a violent, ruthless, rude, unpolished person (one who behaves like those Russians that once raided the Swedish coasts)

I can see why an IP removed it, but the wording can be fixed- if the sense actually exists. I would think one would need to find someone called this who wasn't actually Russian, in order to confirm that it wasn't using the first sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of info in the attached SAOB link if anyone wants to wade through it, but I suspect you need to be Swedish to answer this point. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
For those who understand Swedish, this excerpt from Svenska Akademins Ordbok [19] shows that such sense exists:
c) med nedsättande l. klandrande innebörd med tanke på vissa osympatiska egenskaper (ss. rått o. ohyfsat uppträdande, vildhet, bråkighet, bullersamhet, krigiskhet) som ansetts l. anses känneteckna ryssarna; i sht i jämförelser. (Kristus) regerar thär (dvs. i himlen) som een Alzmechtigher Konung til ewigh tijdh, thär vthur kan ingen Tyran, Rysse eller Turck honom vthdrijffua. LÆLIUS Bünting Res. 1: 130 1588. (Han hade) slagit honom som ingen braf Karl utan som en Ryss och ingen Christen. HdlCollMed. 8/4 (1723). Gumman hon svor som en Ryss och Kossack. LENNGREN (SVS) 2: 323 (1796). Ryssarne hade landstigit på Åland, och som ryssar foro de der fram. CRUSENSTOLPE Mor. 6: 112 (1844). NORDSTRÖM Luleåkult. 234 (1925). jfr: (Gustav Trolle) lath the swenska fattiga dödha kropper liggia för hund och Ram och begraffues j owijgda jordh somt let han och brenna, som the icke hade warit christit folk, vtan rysser eller kettare. G1R 7: 428 1531.
The "etymology" in brackets was hardly accurate, and I took the liberty of deleting it. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems that I forgot to save the removal of the "etymology" that is provided in brackets. Thus, let it remain for the moment. Anyway, I think it should be removed eventually, unless someone can prove that the meaning really goes back to this particular behavior. Swedes and Russians were enemies for more than 1.000 years, and there have been plenty of opportunities to call the other side names. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Striking. This has been cited and rfv-tag has been removed by someone else already. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "rich" definition. None of the online dictionaries I tried seemed to have that as a sense for this character. Bumm13 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Cantonese: stool". Possibly a quirk of the Unihan database: google:䍇 粵語 does not immediately support the existence of this sense. —suzukaze (tc) 06:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This website suggests that 䍇 does exist in Cantonese but is only used by people who believe in 本字, and the meaning is not "stool". —suzukaze (tc) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Unicode most likely got the definition “stool” from “The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters” by Cheung Kwan-hin and Robert S. Bauer, which cites 《实用广州话分类词典》 and gives the example 屎䍇 (google:"屎䍇" gives 9 results only), defined as “primitive toilet stool”. It seems to be written more often as 屎塔 (google:"屎塔" gives 81 400 results only).
䍇 is also found in 《廣州方言詞典》:
[䍇] t‘ap˧˧ ❶大口的罎子:金~盛骸骨的罎子 | 屎~ | 尿~ | 米~ | 瓦~ | 菜脯~盛鹹蘿蔔條的罎子 | 餅~ | 腐乳~ ❷專指屎桶:四眼佬師爺倒~,不成睇桶(體統)歇後語 ‖ 玉篇他盍切:“下平缶也,瓶也“
《广州话本字考》 by 白宛如 (the editor of 《廣州方言詞典》) has something similar:
[䍇] t‘ap˧˧ 通常写作“塔”
大口的坛子:瓦~ | 金~盛骨殖的坛子 | 屎~马桶 | 尿~尿罐
Based on the above, it seems like “stool” is just a bad translation. As @Suzukaze-c has mentioned, it is a 本字 that most people are unaware of, so it is rare and not easily attestable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the Latin coccothraustēs, which is currently defined as a New Latin adjective meaning "kernel-crushing". It wouldn't surprise me if this existed as a noun, but I don't think it's an adjective. Its Ancient Greek etymon, κοκκοθραύστης (kokkothraústēs, grosbeak), is a noun, and its derived binominal species name, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, could easily have its epithet explained as a reduplication of the generic name used in apposition (cf. Vulpes vulpes, Perdix perdix, etc.). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, coccothraustes began its taxonomic life as a specific epithet in Loxia coccothraustes at AnimalBase. Following are other taxa that use it: Fringilla coccothraustes (L.), Pyrgita coccothraustes (L.), Sycoryctes coccothraustes, Syringophiloidus coccothraustes Skoracki 2011, Torotrogla coccothraustes Bochkov, Flannery & Spicer 2009. All are from the online database Index to Organism Names (ION)], which includes unaccepted names.
My excuse for not providing explicit citations is that the existence of a name is evidence that the taxon was used at least once. If necessary I could probably find actual citations. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: It goes all the way back to Linnæus? Goodness! Citations for the species' names will not be necessary. I'll try to look for uses of coccothraustēs (preferably as an adjective) outside binominal nomenclature. BTW, I love Coccothraustes coccothraustes coccothraustes; I've never seen that kind of re…&nsbp;triplication in taxonomy before. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I found two uses of Coccothraustus — does that mean anything to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a genus in Cardinalidae called Caryothraustes (κάρυον (káruon, nut)), 2 species of New World grosbeaks. I don't see anything in w:Cardinalidae that has capensis as epithet. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Any animal name prior to 1758 isn't part of the current system of taxonomic nomenclature, but it looks like it's the cardinal. I notice that the first work treats Coccothraustes as distinct from Coccothraustus, cross-referencing the first to Kirschbeisser- whatever that is. Linnaeus does give synonyms from older works, but in the case of Loxia coccothraustes, they they all seem to be for just plain coccothraustes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the German name ("cherry-biter") indicates a diet, fruit, for Coccothraustus, that differs from that of the hawfinch (Coccothraustes), nuts and seeds, though the New Latin name indicates nuts and seeds are the diet. I suppose the German vernacular name is based on ignorance of the North American bird's actual diet and may be influenced by the bird's color.
I see no principled lexicographic reason to exclude pre-Linnean "Scientific Latin" names, but, as a practical matter, I see no great return on the extra effort required to document them. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Other projects extensively document modern taxonomic names. I don't know any that do the same for pre-Linnean names. For that reason it seems worthwhile to me. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Pre-Linnaean names are legitimate, but there's less of a system to them, and their continuity with Linnaean names can't be assumed. In a way, they tend to be SOP: quite often they're just a short, descriptive Latin phrase. In this case, it seems to be a calque of an apparently obsolete German term (Kirschbeisser) for the hawfinch, which is now known as the Kernbeisser. All of these names refer to its habit of biting through cherries to get to the pits, which it cracks with its massive beak so it can eat the kernel inside. Another generic name, Carpodacus, has a similar meaning: from καρπός (karpós, fruit) + δάκος (dákos, biter). Chuck Entz (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@ I.S.M.E.T.A., 22:29, 20 October 2016: That are two mentionings and not usages of "Coccothraustus Capensis ruber" which is said to be a bird.
By the entry and its version history, it's quite obvious that coccothraustes is about a Translingual taxonomic word as in "Coccothraustes coccothraustes" and "Loxia coccothraustes". "Loxia Coccothraustes" (genitive "Loxiae Coccothraustis", abbreviation "Lox. Coccothraustes") and *"Loxia coccothraustes" (accusative "Loxiam coccothraustem", ablative "Loxia coccothrauste") do also appear in Latin, but it's likely better just Translingual Loxia Coccothraustes and Loxia coccothraustes and Translingual Coccothraustes and coccothraustes. As for the POS, Translingual Coccothraustes and coccothraustes could indeed be a noun instead of adjective.
If one argues for having Latin entries based on the attestion in Latin texts and the inflection, then likely Loxia and Vulpes deserve to have Latin entries too and then an informative label and/or gloss has to be added as (ATM) it's not just "New Latin" but "New Latin, taxonomy [or taxonomics], in taxonomic names [or as part of taxonomic names]". - 12:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. One citation is provided. Is it valid? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The current citation is from Google Books. —suzukaze (tc) 07:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The citations are good but there needs to be three to pass RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
google books:"唔" "係" "size". —suzukaze (tc) 08:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
RFV passed.__Gamren (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


A Chinese term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: both Mandarin and Cantonese usage need to be cited. If only one is cited, the other should be removed, ie (Mandarin) IPA(key): /mɛːn⁵⁵/. Admittedly, Cantonese rules are looser than Mandarin.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
This is very common slang, and noteworthy since its meaning is different than it is in English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't really consider this to be Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


I can't think of any way nix could be an adverb in English or Italian. I'd guess the meaning is the same as English nisba and that this is just a copypaste error. KarikaSlayer (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • It is in my Italian dictionary - I have adjusted the definition and added an etymology accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @SemperBlotto Thanks for clarifying that. Do you know where the b comes from? Is the scn.wikt entry the same word? KarikaSlayer (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
      • It certainly looks like the word in Sicilian Wiktionary is the same word. I've no idea where the "b" came from. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • It looks oddly similar to n'est-ce pas, but nothing else about it matches up very well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


@Embryomystic http://www.cornishdictionary.org.uk/ (which I believe is trustworthy?) gives the plural as ydhyn instead. Cornish Wiktionary apparently lists both. —CodeCat 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be in a variety other than the SWF. Not sure at this distance. embryomystic (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe "edhyn" is SWF/RLC and "ydhyn" is KK. That said, I'm still interested how well this form is attested. Google Books gives one source here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There are also quotations for edhyn in the Cornish dictionary by Williams and he also uses it in a translation in the appendix. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]


Rfv-sense for "to make a comeback" definition. I haven't seen this definition outside the Unihan database.—This unsigned comment was added by Bumm13 (talkcontribs).

Agreed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The usage originates from the following poem, 題烏江亭 by the Tang dynasty poet 杜牧 (Du Mu) describing the defeat of 項羽 (Xiang Yu) in the battle of 垓下.


If 項羽 had been brave to return to his homeland, he might still have the chance to defeat 劉邦 (Liu Bang), who later established the Han dynasty after 項羽 committed suicide.

The term "捲土重來" / 卷土重来 (juǎn tǔ chóng lái) is a popular 成語 proverb meaning to make a come back. The word 捲 has been simplified to 卷 in mainland China, which may explain why the definition has been incorporated into the Unihan database.


An anon removed this saying "hilik o higik ang tagalog. walang research?", which roughly translates to "hilik or higik in Tagalog. Was no research done?". I have restored it so it can be RFV'ed. We currently lack entries for both hilik and higik. @Mar vin kaiser, Andrew SheedyΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "hilik" is more common in Tagalog for "snoring", but the word "hagok" is a less known synonym, which is attested in all major dictionaries, such as Leo English Dictionary, Vicassan's Dictionary, Panganiban's Diksyunasyo-Tesauro, and UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser. Thank you. For RFV, we need to demonstrate that the word passes WT:ATTEST. I think the only relevant cite I see at google books:"hagok" is in Cebuano, right? Can you find uses in print newspapers or magazines? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Given the current state of the language where the large majority (greater than 50%) of the words in unabridged dictionaries are no longer in common use, due to the current education system and prioritization of English, I won't be able to find an attestation. And also due to the fact that most old Tagalog publications and literature are not digitalized, it's not easy to find. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried myself after my comment above and I failed to find anything durably archived besides dictionaries. I think this means we should probably take Tagalog off WT:WDL. What other editors should we check with before doing that? @Mar vin kaiser, Atitarev, Stephen G. BrownΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Despite being the national language (given the unification of Filipino and Tagalog), usage of the language in written form is very limited, since most written documents in the Philippines are in English, such as in the government, in business, and in the academe, and in literature. That is why most people are unfamiliar with more literary vocabulary found in the language, which are only privy to those who study Tagalog literature written more than a century ago, which not a lot of Filipinos get to read. Unlike in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand or Vietnam, where their national language is the default language in all cases. My point is that removing Tagalog from WT:WDL has a basis to it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think hagok, a noun, is good and should be kept. Finding written attestations of Tagalog words ranges from difficult to virtually impossible. —Stephen (Talk) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


I cannot find uses, only mentions of this spelling. The usual one is bien-pensant or bien pensant. --Fsojic (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's basically accurate but some of the 1990 reform spellings are notional, i.e. no-one's actually ever used them, if someone did use the 1990 spelling of bien-pensant it would be bienpensant. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


As far as I know, this is a relatively new character. Often pushed as a hanja form of "글" as in 한글 (han-geul). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

for what it's worth this webpage seems to have a sourced claim linking it to the nobi caste (historically used in the names of these people?). —suzukaze (tc) 12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the definitions under Etymology 2. Usually this is エッチ (etchi) or H (etchi). —suzukaze (tc) 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. エイチ is only for the letter L H. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Presumably, you meant the letter H?  :)
Also, I do find limited use of this spelling for the エッチ (etchi) sense: google:"エイチしたい". These sites wouldn't seem to meet CFI, but they do suggest that this エイチ (eichi) spelling is for more than the alphabet.
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Turkish challenged in diff. This process is governed by WT:ATTEST. For orientation only, absent from Turkish dictionaries at Türk Dil Kurumu[20].--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There are already valid citations. 123snake45 who wants to add his own made-up words to wikis is so mad because theş were deleted in the past. So he wants to be deleted some words because he read these words on some forum posts from the people argued with him even these words have valid citations and are listed on many dictionaries. -- 13:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The citations you mean would be those at Citations:estelik. Looks cited to me; what would be the objections to these quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The IP, as usual, is lying. 123snake45 started out by creating a couple of made-up entries, but stopped when informed of our attestation rules, and has been working since then to stop others from creating similar bogus entries. That's the only truth in the IP's statement. This IP has an agenda to replace ordinary Turkish words of non-Turkish origin with words either constructed from existing Turkish pieces or borrowed from related Turkic languages. They routinely do things like add citations in languages similar to Turkish, and citations of people mentioning the terms as hypotheticals, in hopes that no one will be able to tell the difference. So far their creations have almost invariably ended up deleted, but the IP is hoping that everyone has forgotten about this and they can succeed this time. Even in the few cases where they squeak by on the strength of the bare minimum number of cites, they need to be tagged as extremely rare, and they should be removed from translation tables as completely unknown to the vast majority of Turkish-speakers.
The citations should not be taken at face value, and should only be accepted after someone who speaks Turkish confirms that they're actually in Turkish and are actual uses that meet the requirements of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Just judging from Google Translate, the 1999 and 2001 cites are in archeological reports and refer to some massive object or feature found in excavations, not a memento. The 2003 cite mentions the title of a work, and includes a parenthetical gloss of the word in question, which may be an indication that the word isn't Turkish. The dictionary mention seems to refer to Ottoman Turkish, not modern Turkish. Google Translate is obviously not reliable enough to prove anything, but this does suggest that these may not be what they're claimed to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Özbekçe "esdalik" sözünü Türkçeymiş gibi göstermeye çalışıyorlar (At the Uzbek language "esdalik"'s word, They are trying to prove like Turkish). --123snake45 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
" I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Is this a quote from somewhere (it's not from anywhere on Wiktionary, as far as I can tell), or are you including the Turkish because you're not sure you're saying it right in English? I will mention, by the way, that this entry seems to be different from their usual pattern, because there's a perfectly good Turkish word they're replacing that can be traced back to Proto-Turkic, but their rhetoric and tactics are definitely consistent enough to show it's the same person or group. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Chucky I am from Turkey and I speak Turkish. You are talking about Turkish citations by trusting in Google translate? At last you could check them by looking up some online dictionaries such as SesliSozluk, etc. -- 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
After his made-up words were deleted from wikis, 123snake45 added many fake translations to Tatoeba and then he was banned there. Some Turkish speakers say his Turkish is very bad. See an example: "Last" yazacaktım iken dalgınlıkla "latest" yazmışım. Ask any Turkish speaker, this sentence is not a correct Turkish sentence. He also claims that the word Buzulkuşusu is correct. His Turkish sucks, why do you trust in this person? -- 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"estelik" is not Turkish in short, certainly. --123snake45 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you the ÖSYM or my teacher 88..? You are liar and vandal. Your "alısün, çınka, estelik, birdem, sögen, karamazdan, bağdarlama, köpyak..." words are fake, aren't Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, I'm sure he also started World War III and wears his clothes upside down. Those aren't the droids you're looking for, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. I'm sorry, but you're not going to make me forget your previous lies by telling more of them. It doesn't work that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
123snake45 said same things for the words such as çimerlik, haydamak, etc. If you think this word is fake then you may remove it from here. If you remove it from here, this doesn't mean this word doesn't exist. There are already valid citations and many dictionaries contain this word. -- 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we should delete this based on his word, or on my guesses obtained via Google Translate. What I am suggesting is that we shouldn't keep it based on your word or without examination of your cites by someone with at least some knowledge of Turkish whom I can trust not to have an agenda, say @Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Anylai, Sae1962, Curious. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have had a similar discussion at çıngı, the word supposedly had an extra sense meaning electricity. It is obvious there is a group of people trying to make up words and put them in online dictionaries recently. In fact if we had taken the online dictionaries as a source, there were a lot of coined words based on this fake word definitely which is not accepted by any scientific community nor used in literature in the proposed sense, and they should have been here too. Please take a look at here, see also the awkward copy-paste relation between Korean. Are "fake, coined" words bad? Not at all considering we have had many of them during the language reforms like this failed guy, but this truly needs to have recent attestations from various fields to stay here. There are attestations but all belong to nationalist topics. One attestion is from 1934, probably first time as a propasal for an ottoman word, second actually refers to a book called "Türkistan'dan estelikler" so it is not even an attestation, the one belonging to 2001 is from a symposium about excavations appararently done for the Turkic researches.
If it passes the attestation process, we may also consider it a loanword from Uzbek since many words were also borrowed from Chaghatai dictionaries and other Kipchak languages too. Coined or borrowed word's ultimate etymology goes back to here. Unfortunately I have never heard of it, when I google it the only things i get are this wiktionary and nationalist forum entries. --Anylai (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yaşar Çağbayır who is the author of the Ötüken Sözlük (a 5-volume Turkish dictionary) mentions the word cıngılı means electronic in Anatolian Yörük city dialect (Sprachmund). Turkish Language Association's Derleme Sözlüğü lacks of many words in Anatolian city dialects. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
"çimerlik" is not Turkish too. It is Azeri. Also, I don't believe in every dictionaries because of your forgery, false pretenses, fraudulence, dishonesty. I believe in rightful/truthful dictionaries. All of you add to dictionaries and says "there are many citations and dictionaries". This is your cheating. I know your cheating. --123snake45 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If some authors used this word in Turkish, then it is a Turkish word. You can only say it is borrowed from Azerbaijani. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There are three groups concerning language in Turkey: one are normal people, the other are the pro-Ottoman ones, the third the Kemalists. As you perhaps know, the Turkish language was significantly modified by the Turkish Language Association (TDK); they changed 80% of the words by introducing some local words, Turkish words of Old Turkish, or mostly created new words. The reason was the turn to the West by Kemal Atatürk, so 'do not use any words from the East or the South'. Other words were replaced with words from French, but later replaced by newly created ones. The result of this explains partly this discussion here. Concerning the words cited about, estelik is unknown to TDK, the official state organisation in Turkey for language issues. The same is true for çimerlik, but I think that this word comes from Azeri Turkish. The third cited word above, haydamak, exist in TDK. I had a lot of problems with entries in the Turkish Wiktionary with words like dilbilim (instead of dil bilimi, the now-accepted orthography). Another need for confusion is the mixed-up minds at TDK. I never forget my teacher for literature that until that year (1979), 17 orthograhy dictionaries had been published with 14 (!) different orthographies. I never checked it, but it shows the precarious way TDK is/was proceeding. My solution to this problem are stricter rules, like it is the case in the German Wiktionary, where you either need a refernce to an accepted dictionary, or at least five citations. By the way: Sesli Sözlük is often imprecise, and Google Translator is worse.--Sae1962 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice this citation:

  • 1934, Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Association), Tarama dergisi: Osmanlıcadan Türkçeden söz karşılıkları, 2. cilt

Estelik, Yadigâr.

The word 'yadigâr' is the Ottoman one, and the word 'estelik' is the Turkish one. Notice the date: 1934 If someone says this is a group's lie then this means Turkish Language Association is a liar in this situation. And 123snake45 doesn't check the citations or he tries to falsify them. He said these words were not in Turkish: haydamak çimerlik kol çekmek telefonlamak but there were citations for these words. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları Sözlüğü
So "cıngılı" is "very small" in TDK.
"telefonlamak" isn't valid. Turkish people don't use it.
Also "kol çekmek" isn't truth. All of they "telefonlamak, çimerlik, kol çekmek.." have to re-examine. --123snake45 (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Telefonlamak is generally being used in its reciprocal form telefonlaşmak (compare with: karşılamak-karşılaşmak, söylemek-söyleşmek). Some forms may be rare or may even be lost but it doesn't mean they don't exist in Turkish because of you don't know them. -- 09:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There is "telefonlaşmak" but there is no "telefonlamak". Both isn't same. "telefon almak" is different, "telefonlaşmak" is different, "telefonlamak" is different too. So there is no "telefonlamak". --123snake45 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
You can not compare "telefonlamak" with "telefon almak" which is totally irrelevant. If you look up any etymological dictionary you may see this explanation: telefonlaşmak < telefon-la-ş-mak. Because it is reciprocal form of the verb telefonlamak. -- 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't like to argue about Turkish with educated native speakers of Turkish, but there are many things that can happen to a word. Some words are old and not used much anymore, so a lot of people do not know them (such words are desirable for a dictionary); some words are slang; some words are regional; some words are borrowed from other languages; and many other possibilities. Words that fall into almost any of these categories are good to keep, with proper labels (such as obsolete, rare, regional, slang, colloquial, etc.). In the case of estelik, I see that it appears in the Seslisozluk online dictionary here and here. —Stephen (Talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Anylai, Sae1962, Curious Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about what we need to know. This is rfv, so the task at hand is to verify if this word is 1) in use 2) conveying meaning 3) in Turkish' 4) as Turkish as documented 5) in durably-archived sources. Also, the cites only count if they are independent' of other cites

  • An obscure regional or obsolete term, as long as it's in some form of modern Turkish, is okay, but must be labeled as such, and should not be given as a translation.
  • If I have a quote that says "let's all call this estelik from now on", that's a mention, which doesn't count, because it's not in actual use.
  • Using it in an example sentence doesn't count, because it's not conveying meaning.
  • Any text that's not in modern Turkish according to Wiktionary's interpretation, i.e., Azeri, Ottoman Turkish, etc., doesn't count.
  • A quote that says estelik is the word for this in [some other language]" doesn't count.
  • Online dictionaries don't count, especially if they allow addition of words by the public.
  • Even an official publication that says "this is the correct word to use from now on" doesn't count, since it's a mention, not a use.
  • If a term is used with some other definition, it won't count for the current definition: a cite that refers to estelik as something 12 meters across that's found in an excavation will not keep the entry from being deleted, unless there's a definition in the entry that's consistent with that cite (and 2 others like it). If there is the sense that isn't supported by cites will be removed, but the other one will stay.

There's more to it then that, but that's all I have time for this morning. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me but I don't know enough Turkish to make a judgement. Like in Turkish, there is a fine line in Russian between Old Russian (Old East Slavic) or words borrowed from other languages (including Slavic), sometimes it's not a real borrowing but a quoted sentence may make readers believe that a term is actually used (this can be said of any language). We have to rely on honesty of contributors and their understanding of our rules. Disproving them may be difficult without a thorough knowledge of the language and citations.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed; creator no longer active at Wiktionary. Not in the main Irish-English dictionary ({{R:ga:Ó Dónaill}}) but maybe somewhere else. There's an ailse, but it means "cancer" (same as the Scottish Gaelic aillse), not "fairy" or "heedlessness". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I dunno about "heedlessness", but Armstrong's 1825 (Scottish) Gaelic Dictionary has
Aillse, s.f. A fairy; a ghost; a diminutive creature; rarely a cancer; delay. Ir. aillse. In some parts of the Highlands this word is pronounced taillse.
Take that with as many grains of salt as you might need. Especially as aillsiu goes back to Wb, and no sign of a "fairy" sense --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, "heedlessness" is probably from O'Brien's 1768 Focalóir Gaoidhilge-Sax-bhéarla:
Aillis, a Canker, an Eating or spreading sore, hence braon aillse a drop observed to fall upon the tombs of certain Tyrants so Called from it's Cankerous corroding what it falls upon.
Aillse of or belonging to a Cancer vid. aillis
Aillse delay, neglect, heedlessness.
Again, I have no idea how he found the second sense. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've refactored the entry a bit, it could probably stand someone else having a look. I've put the two mystery definitions in the same etymology block for lack of anything better to do with them. I mean, they're attested, but they come out of nowhere, seem to vanish afterwards, and have no immediately obvious etymologies. I have also added {{R:ga:O'Brien}} and {{R:gd:Armstrong}}. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Could the mystery definitions be fictitious entries? - 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


This Turkish entry passed RFV last year and has three citations; however, 123snake45 believes that those citations were fabricated. I can see the source of the 2013 citation here; however, the 1990 and 1998 citations do not show up for me, so I can't independently confirm their existence. If they are indeed there, could someone upload the screenshots, so that this issue can be put to bed?
Pinging @Chuck Entz, Renard Migrant, Atitarev, Prosfilaes, -sche, Curious, Dan Polansky, who contributed to the first RFV discussion (IPs omitted). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been suggested that citations may have been fabricated. In any case, they can't be reproduced, so might as well fail the term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I could see these quotations back then. In an unrelated search, it seemed to me I could no longer access Google Books pages that were previously accessible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
One thing to try would be which domain you're using for Google. Sometimes it behaves differently if you use Google.com and, say, Google.co.uk, especially if you're not accessing the version of Google for your country. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Google Books has been relisting a large quantity of books from page view or snippet view to no preview over the past few months. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The link of the first citation was added by Dan Polansky: [21] --2001:A98:C060:80:7D09:D38C:E87:9412 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 09:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

http://imgur.com/a/zorsP in Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang It's "Vietnamese bra" which is clearly a rough translation because there's that word "Vietnamese". You can call yếm the Vietnamese equivalent of a Western bra in a way. ばかFumikotalk 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(RFV failed?suzukaze (tc) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC))
@Fumiko Take Not quite sure what you mean - the rfv was added to Etymology 2, not 1. Wyang (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang My concern was the rfv on the sense of "bra" which I've already removed. But the rfv under the Etymology 2 section should be dealt with too. ばかFumikotalk 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
What is wrong with Etymology 2? Wyang (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fumiko TakeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang It seems obscure. I got nothing on it from [22]. Could you give citations? ばかFumikotalk 04:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Added. Wyang (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This second etymology appears to not be Vietnamese at all. All the quotations given are no more than Classical Chinese text transcribed using the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation. For example, the Việt Nam Sử Lược quotation is (in the original) first given as "遂令宣德之狡童,黷兵無厭" (original Chinese), then on a further page transliterated as "Toại lệnh Tuyên Đức chi giảo đồng, độc binh vô yếm" (transliterated Chinese) and finally translated into actual Vietnamese as "Đến nỗi đứa trẻ ranh như Tuyên-đức, nhàm võ không thôi" (actual Vietnamese). MuDavid (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I am ignorant of the situation, so I cannot respond to MuDavid's concerns. Note that regardless of that, two of the quotations are from the same author and therefore are not independent, so one more quotation would be needed anyway to pass RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course Hán-Việt is Vietnamese. I don't understand why it is so hard to keep Sino-Vietnamese information (it is found in compounds such as yếm thế), when Korean Hangul entries do it routinely () and yếm functions exactly like Korean (yeom). Feel free to delete. The time of finding citations would be better spent elsewhere. Wyang (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Sino-vietnamese vocabulary may be a part of Vietnamese, Chinese transcribed with the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation (as the three quotations given) is not. The best that can be done in this case is to delete the quotations (which are not Vietnamese) and replace that part of the entry with something like in the case of minh here (which appears to be essentially what the state of affairs was before the request for verification was launched). The thing is that yếm with the Etymology 2 meaning is not an independent word in Vietnamese (making it impossible to "verify"), but it is used in compounds as Wyang notes (and many people not familiar with Vietnamese might encounter such compounds, think they are independent words and start looking up the parts; for them a note that yếm might be part of a compound as in the case of minh is certainly useful). MuDavid (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]


I should've stopped where Fumiko stopped. No elements above 118 are attested. Nibiko (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it would appear that the other systematic names hardly have any citations at all. The four new non-systematic names already have citations in Google Books, Groups, News, and Scholar, and are only going to get more, so it's not a general problem with the language. Note that some are more dated than others. Each of these needs to be individually verified, however, I couldn't verify any of these in my searching, so I think that very few, if any, would pass. The list starts from element 104 and goes to element 122. Note how the English entries for some of these are marked as dated and lacking a translations table. To be clear, the non-systematic names (such as ラザホージウム (razahōjiumu, "rutherfordium")) are easily attested, whereas the systematic names (such as ウンニルクアジウム (unnirukuajiumu, "unnnilquadium")) are very rare. Nibiko (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I’m sure the systematic names for elements 104-109 were in 理科年表. Elements 110-118 should be easily attested too. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I can't attest them, so for whatever reason, people aren't using the elements with Latin numbers in the name. I get 10 hits on Google Books and 40 hits on Google Scholar for "104番元素" and 6 hits on Google Books and 1 hit on Google Scholar for "104番目の元素". Nibiko (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)



















Forms of the Latin synaeresis[edit]

RFV for some of the declined forms of synaeresis. I know for sure that the dative plural *synaeresibus is unattested, I'll be very surprised if the vocatives exist, and I have my doubts about the isomorphic genitive singular and the dative singular. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally do RFVs for specific inflected forms, do we? I thought we accepted terms if any form was attested, and in the lemma form if it's unambiguous. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't afaik -- not for Latin anyway. Don't really see why these should be RFV'd. (though I don't doubt that the vocative plural of synaeresis is unattested) — Kleio (t · c) 19:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it depends on the language. We only have entries for attested inflections in Gothic, though we do include unattested inflections in inflection tables. —CodeCat 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, KIeio, CodeCat: As I've argued before, inflected forms should always be subject to attestation requirements, though with a presumption in favour of inclusion unless challenged (that is, it's perfectly fine to bot-create entries for all such non-lemmata, but if they're challenged, they still need to be cited). See synaeresis#Declension for the way I've handled the unattested and probably-unattested forms of this lexeme (which is probably similar in effect to what CodeCat et al. envision for Gothic). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
As User:-sche, User:Ruakh, I, and others have argued before, we should include inflected forms even when unattested (unless there is some reason to think they don't exist, such as the possibility of a verb being intransitive or a noun being uncountable). See Talk:dulcamini for a past discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Thanks for the link to that discussion, and I'm sorry I neglected to contribute further to it at the time. From further reading, I note discussions from October 2011–June 2012, June 2012, November 2013, and the aforementioned one from September 2015–February 2016. The points raised make me a little less confident in my general position. In the specific case of synaeresis, however, I think its declension is sufficiently uncertain as to warrant RFVing particular forms (per Ruakh in this post); why might the dative singular not be *synaereseï or the dative plural not be *synaeresesin? And which vocative singular should we list, *synaeresi or *synaeresis? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, CodeCat, KIeio, Mx. Granger: Compare the way amaurōsis, diaeresis, dioecēsis, haeresis, and syntaxis decline. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. If I understand correctly, then, the concern is that the challenged forms can't be confidently predicted from the attested forms. In that case, I think RFV is appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Yes, that is my lingering concern. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
But some of them can. If the ablative plural synaeresibus is attested, there's really nothing else the dative plural could be. Likewise if the nominative plural synaeresēs is attested, there's really nothing else the vocative plural could be, however unlikely it is that one would be addressing two or more synaereses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: Dative and ablative plurals nearly always match, but they very occasionally differ in Greek borrowings (presumably because Ancient Greek has the dative case, but not the ablative case), so the dative plural could be *synaeresesin or something. I accept your point with regard to the vocative plural, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: When dative and ablative plural differ, then it's most likely just a matter of attestation, and not a matter of any dative-ablative difference. Sometimes just a dative in -sin is attested, sometimes just an ablative, sometimes both. Examples (according to dictionaries, not according to grammar books which might include invented forms): Adryas has dative plural Adryasin, herois has dative heroisin, ethos has ablative ethesin, schema has dative and ablative schemasin. -Ko·mine (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ko·mine: Actually, I have seen dative–ablative differences in the plural, but only in New Latin texts; I am inclined to believe that Classical scriptores would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative and ablative (in both the singular and the plural), whereas some Modern authors would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative only — believing that since Greek has no ablative it can supply no ablative — and that this is hypercorrection. There are more of these Greek-type dative and ablative plurals beside Ādryasin, ēthesin, hērōisin, and schēmasin; examples include Dryasin (Dryas), Hamādryasin (Hamādryas), Metamorphōsesin (Metamorphōsēs), Thȳniasin (Thȳnias), and probably many others. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
It has been my position that inflected forms should be subject to attestation, but I have not seen consensus on this. Unattested inflected forms could carry the label "hypothetical" or "unattested" and be kept if that would be the preference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd personally favour a small disclaimer indicating that the form is predicted to exist, but has not yet been verified. Either way it seems obvious to me that the inflected forms should stay, even when not manually cited or otherwise verified yet. Many people use Wiktionary to quickly look up how a given form could be analyzed; for 99.9% of Latin words which follow very predictable inflections, it's an excellent resource in that regard, on par with something like Perseus. It'd be a great and needless loss to get rid of all those non-lemma entries by unleashing CFI on them all. — Kleio (t · c) 16:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


synaeresis (genitive)[edit]

RFV for the isomorphic genitive singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

synaeresis (vocative)[edit]

RFV for the isomorphic vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


synaeresī (dative)[edit]

RFV for the dative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

synaeresi (vocative)[edit]

RFV for the Greek-type vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the vocative plural form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "till" sense. Listed in the Unihan database but I couldn't find it in other online dictionaries. Possibly a misspelling of "until" (which is a valid sense)? Bumm13 (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the language but since "till" and "until" are synonyms (no misspelling!) we should probably just merge those two lines. Equinox 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes the Unihan database gives too many definition lines. Nibiko (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


This is Sichuanese romanisation, as used in dictionaries, what should be done? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This particular entry is not Sichuanese; it's Wuhanese. I don't think this one is the most extreme of cases; since the cited article used 勒 for this, so there is hanzi used. It is possible that the locals actually write it with some hanzi, albeit not documented in the literature. If it were the most extreme of cases, I think we could allow romanization entries for varieties of Chinese covered by {{zh-pron}}, and IPA entries for varieties not covered by the template. BTW, we probably need some policy on including topolects not covered by the pronunciation modules. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No progress on this discussion. I don't want to act as a destroyer of Wuhan dialect terms but what should we do? The term is obviously unattestable, only used in special dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If Wuhan dialect is considered to be part of Chinese, then it would need three cites with usages, and then it might fail RFV. If Wuhan dialect would be treated like a separate language just like it's done with German dialects here (cp. Category:Alemannic German lemmas, Category:Bavarian lemmas, Category:Luxembourgish lemmas, Category:Central Franconian lemmas, Category:Rhine Franconian lemmas), then it could be different. - 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Min Nan) a contraction of bô iàu (無要). It seems to be from the article on Hokkien on Wikipedia, tracing back to this edit on Wikipedia. I can't find it outside of Wikipedia. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


アムブロシア (amuburoshia) seems to be used much more often in reference to the mythical Greek foodstuff. —suzukaze (tc) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @sukukaze-c: Google Books has a lot of hits. I assume at least three of them fit the meaning, so that this can be marked as an alt-form. Can you confirm that? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    When I change search settings from "Sorted by relevance" to "Sorted by date", "157 results" changes to "8 results".
    1. Transcription of a restaurant's name
    2. Used as someone's name(?) in a translation of an English work of fiction (w:Maria_V._Snyder#Study_series)
    3. Used as someone's name in a work of fiction
    4. Used in the place name(?) "Ambrosia Estate" in a translation of an English work of fiction
    5. Used as a simile for champagne?
    6. Same as #3
    7. Used as a simile for an omelette; its usage is glossed as "foodstuff of the gods that grants immortality" and it's a translation of a 1942 English book
    8. Transcription of a restaurant's name
    suzukaze (tc) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


English + Japanese. —suzukaze (tc) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Youtube is filled with MMDs [23] (switch your preferred language from English to Japanese to see both sets) -- 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well yes, but specifically "computer-generated cartoon" (akin to powerpoint and photoshop)? You don't even see people talking about blenders and mayas. —suzukaze (tc) 23:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Copied from Sichuanese dialects on Wikipedia by @Prisencolin. I can't find it with the pronunciation men4 in any Sichuanese dictionaries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I found it in 渠县方言词语研究, but it doesn't have a pronunciation. I don't think Wikipedia has any basis for this reading other than personal knowledge. I found 澎(𡌂) pen2 in 四川方言词典, which has the same meaning and seems to fit this character well with its pronunciation. @Prisencolin, should we replace men4 with pen2? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Maybe it could've been a typo too.-Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: pile (Sichuanese). Taken from Wikipedia by @Prisencolin. After looking at three Sichuanese dictionaries, this spelling is not found. It is only found as 𤆵拉 and 𣲩拉. Also, in all three dictionaries, it does not appear on its own, but only as 一𤆵拉. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]


English Bank of England has extended senses. It's not guaranteed that Japanese shares these senses. —suzukaze (tc) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I can only confirm the literal sense, not the "building" nor "controlling organization" senses. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Christianity: angel". —suzukaze (tc) 02:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "football club". Using トトナム for the place alone already has a rather weak existence in Google. —suzukaze (tc) 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


As above. —CodeCat 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


As above. —CodeCat 14:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Bakkum's The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus could mention a Latin script -cue = Latin -que. It could however be a transcription. But well, there is also ik#Gothic and watashi#Japanese which could justify an entry -cue#Faliscan. - 14:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the inflected forms (except accusative singular gelum). - 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the inflected forms with stem genor- (genoris, genorī etc.). - 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

When searching at Google Books for genoris one often finds OCR errors for generis and sometimes for Agenoris. Exceptions:
  • books.google.com/books?id=glNJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=genoris (German text relating to Medieval Latin which also mentions Vulgar Latin and Romance languages): "die Gen. sg.-Form genoris zu genu [= knee]"
    books.google.com/books?id=-cMAurDgc0MC&pg=PA45 : "In einem inschriftlichen Gedicht der Antike erscheint die Gen.-Form genoris zu genu566 [...]" and "566 CE 1253 (= CIL VI 9604), 5 (vgl. ThLL 6, 2, Sp. 1875, 32). That is: "In an inscriptive poem of the Antiquity the genitive form genoris for genu appears".
  • books.google.com/books?id=QofQAAAAMAAJ&q=genoris (English and Latin, might have a medical context): "In volnus genoris quot subito occidimus: genoris esse τοῦ γόνατος [Greek for of the knee or the knee's] (the knee) viderat Mommsen"
  • books.google.com/books?id=rRwjAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA99 (about Vulgar Latin inscriptions): "ín volnus genoris quot || subito occidimus." í should indicate an ancient I longa, and the text resembles the one above.
Thus, genoris should be attestable as a Vulgar Latin genitive for genu meaning of the knee or the knee's. But this is different from genus meaning kind, sort. - 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: both senses in etymology 2. It is still a bit dubious with the references given. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Weird partial calque of iPhone? I don't see anything relevant in Google Books. —suzukaze (tc) 23:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

フラワー, スターズ[edit]

Are these used outside of transcription of English? —suzukaze (tc) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

フラワー is okay. There are tons of examples: [24], [25], [26]. スターズ is just a transcription. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Is フラワー "compounds only" like ファイヤー? —suzukaze (tc) 09:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Does not appear to be use in credible Japanese(-language) sources [27]. ばかFumikotalk 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be rare and dated. It appears in the table of contents of at least two books (1934 and 1953): google:鴯鶓 site:ndl.go.jp (click on 詳細レコード表示にする to show) —suzukaze (tc)
For posterity's sake:
suzukaze (tc) 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "mound" definition. That sense was added by an anon IP and I can't find it in any of my regular online Chinese dictionary sources. Bumm13 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]


Rfv-sense for "take small" definition. This doesn't appear to be a proper English phrase and only shows up in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on other definitions from a quick online search it might be a truncation of "take small bites". —suzukaze (tc) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Apparently descendants are not real. I don't see reason why this entry should exist. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably to explain prefixed forms in daughter languages, no idea how to handle it properly though. Crom daba (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Author could create entry with prefix (for example *orzmysljati, *otъmysljati). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as i understand, *mysliti is imperfective, so what is *mysljati? —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Useigor, CodeCat, Benwing2: What ought we to do with this? Edit: Sorry if that ping directed you to the wrong section; there was an edit conflict. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If *mysljati has no direct descendants, then we have to ask where the derived verbs that have it as a base came from. Could these derived verbs themselves be of Proto-Slavic origin? If so, then there should be a Proto-Slavic page for those, and the existence of *mysljati is only guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, not Proto-Slavic. If they can't be posited for PS, then is it possible/feasible that the languages created these -mysljati verbs independently? If so, then there's no merit for a PS page, but if not, then reconstructing *mysljati for Proto-Slavic seems warranted. —CodeCat 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither of the above are the case. -jati, producing Russian -я́ть (-játʹ), is a common imperfectivizing prefix that is added to prefixed perfective verbs to form imperfectives. Hence *orzmysljati was formed directly from orzmysl(iti) + -jati, and similarly with *otъmysljati. This means there was never a *mysljati, and the entry should be deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat, i don't see reason why it's guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, unless *mysliti originally was perfective (so *mysljati is imperf.) but it's just assumption. At this moment, it's better to delete. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


Is this spelling ever used instead of 亞歷山大? Or is it a result of simplified-traditional conversion error? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, there are some cites on Google Books. Wyang (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Sufficient to pass RFV? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it is likely sufficient to pass. @Justinrleung Looking at Google Books, a lot of the cites are from three publishers (which is not ideal), but there seem to be some (for example [28]) valid ones. Wyang (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The one you picked (東正教修道主義) only uses it in 亞曆山大利亞. I can't find any other good cite from Google Books at the moment, but there might be some from Google News. I'll look through them later. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

толстый троллинг[edit]

Is this idiomatic? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be; see e.g. [29]. However, as defined on that page it refers not to lazy trolling but to direct, in-your-face trolling, the sort that is nothing but insults and gross violations of a site's rules, whereas the opposite "тонкий троллинг" seems to refer to more subtle trolling. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


As it now stands, 病癥 is clearly a wrong traditional form of 病症. Is there a separate word from 病症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It probably is. It is now cited, but lacks a definition. @Wyang, Tooironic, any ideas? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a variant traditional form of 病症, isn't it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't think so. 癥 is only read as zhēng, never as zhèng. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If that is the case, 古代汉语词典 and CEDICT are wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it:
zheng1, zing1
"(strictly) disease signs; (loosely) signs and symptoms"
among other non-medical meanings and the music zhi3, zi2 pronunciation
zheng4, zing3
"symptoms of disease; disease"
zheng1, zing1
"abdominal tumour; (fig.) sticking point"
(alt. form of 徵/征 - "signs and symptoms of disease")
(alt. form of 症/症 - "disease")
Wyang (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I agree, with one exception. If 癥/症 is read as zhēng, would it really be an alt. form of 症/症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Alt. term would be more appropriate (for example, at 病癥). Wyang (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

punctus (genitive punctus, sense point)[edit]

From dictionaries:

  • L&S: "punctus, ūs [...] II. A point: mundi, Plin. 2, 68, 68, § 174; cf. Isid. Orig. 11, 1."
  • Georges: "Spät. Nbf. pūnctus, ī, m., Gromat. vet. 360, 29 u. 374, 11 13. Boëth. inst. arithm. 2, 30. Isid. orig. 1, 19, 3; 3, 12. no. 1 u. 6."
  • Gaffiot: "punctus, i, m. c. punctum: Isid. 1, 19, 3"

Pliny the Elder's Natural History (e.g. here) contains "mundi puncto", Isidore's of Seville The Etymologies (or Origins) (e.g. here) contains "punctus oculi", and in New Latin it's also sometimes punctus, -i, m. in mathematics while other authors use punctum, -i, n.
Thus, it looks like L&S contains an error which was copied into the English wiktionary. - 22:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In Plinius' work it is puncto. However, in old texts it is sometimes cited as mundi punctus or rarely mundi punctûs and in old editions it sometimes appears as mundi punctus (old is usually before 1850). I added citations for boths, so it's somewhat cited. - 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Yu Garden, the shopping district around the Shanghai city god temple. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

All words in Category:Cia-Cia lemmas in hangeul[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article Cia-Cia language, writing Cia-Cia with hangeul has never been official and seems to have been already abandoned. Isn’t it just a linguistic experiment rather than actual use? I’m afraid they don’t meet our criteria. Japanese Wikipedia has decided to delete them. @Visviva : do you have a source of Cia-Cia words in real use, not a word list? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a linguistic experiment. I do not believe that Cia-Cia was ever written in Korean Hangeul. I read somewhere that there were 190 students (out of 79,000 speakers) recruited to try to learn it. I believe that the individual who originally proposed the idea wrote some sample transliterations in Hangeul. Supposedly there is a little Cia-Cia book that used Hangeul, but I could never locate a copy of it. Perhaps the original proponent of the idea wrote an example text, transliterated it into Hangeul, and printed a few copies on his inkjet printer. That would explain why I was never able to obtain a copy of the book. That would mean that the Hangeul examples are simply protologisms. The specific booklet that I was searching for was a story called 뼁겜발라 돔바 마이 스리갈라 (penggembala domba mai surigala, "the shepherd and the wolf"). I can’t find the book. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is in the book “바하사 찌아찌아 1” but I can only find Korean translations: [30], [31]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, we only need one citation, and many of these entries are cited. I'm really not sure what the best course of action is here. @-sche, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If the citations are valid, i.e. the book in question contains Cia-Cia text written in hanguel, then AFAICT it is fine to have these entries, but according to what has been said above, they should all be alternative forms of Latin-script entries, rather than main entries. (If the issue is the categorization of the entries into the "lemmas" category, that seems unavoidable without a shift in what we consider lemmas for the purpose of categorization, not just in this language but also with regard to e.g. Arabic-script Afrikaans, which is currently in the Afrikaans lemma category.) - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Nansha, short for Jianyanansha, one of the shoals of Jiuduansha off Shanghai in the East China Sea — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


I cannot find any evidence that inflected forms of "Deut" are used, other than accusative singular (as in the idioms, in which "Deut" is used). --Bruno413 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Deut states "Deut m (accusative only)", and Deuts was created by a bot. "Deuts" exists, but seems to be a currency, and might be in plural. So ATM the entry should be deleted until someone adds the currency. - 01:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Deut now has a second sense (a Dutch coin, doit), and this has Deuts as a plural. The genitive could be *Deut or *Deuts. I only found the genitive Deuts once in "nicht um den Werth eines Deuts", and it seems to have a figurative sense "a bit, a little".
As Deut and plural Deuts are attested, and as genitive Deuts would be RFV-failed by now, I changed the entry from genitive singular to inflected form. - 15:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Inflections seem wrong. Should be übler, übles, ... --Bruno413 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Boths forms exist and are easily attested, e.g. simply doing a google books search for "übler Geruch" and "übeler Geruch". Also zeno.org's search has enough results for both forms ("üble Laune", "übler Nachrede", "übles Nachreden" - "eine übele Gewonheit", "übele Bedeutung", "in übelem Rufe", "eine übele Vorbedeutung"). -Wilhelm-231 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Are these forms archaic then and should be described as such? --Bruno413 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Is this actually used with the pronunciation chò/chòe for 做? This could be a variant of 作穡, but that would mean it should only be read as choh. chò-/chòe-sit is only found in a database that seems to have some errors. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

做穡人, 做田, 做田人[edit]

Same with these ones. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


+ 蒙古ガゼル, 蒙古野馬, 蒙古馬, 西蔵砂狐, 西蔵野驢馬, 嘴白啄木鳥, コディアック羆, 日本氈鹿, 白氈鹿, 白岩山羊, スマトラ氈鹿, 鬣狼, 蟹食犬, 蜜穴熊, 小爪獺, 小爪川獺, 斑ハイエナ and maybe more?

See Talk:亜米利加白鶴. —suzukaze (tc) 08:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, @Eirikr: if it isn't too much trouble, could the content from the deleted pages be restored under the "proper" Katakana spellings? —suzukaze (tc) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to katakana. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What a mess of entries. I just had a poke around the web re: 蒙古山猫, and I have no clear idea where Fumiko ran across this. I did find this Weibo page that uses the term in Chinese, but I can't find it in any Japanese books: google books:"蒙古山猫" "は" generates zero hits. Even searching in the broader web (google:"蒙古山猫" "は") doesn't find much, only 195 ostensible hits, collapsing to 45 as one pages through. But even then, many of these are Wiktionary mirrors or other dictionary sites of dubious value. After filtering these out, there are enough hits to suggest that this might meet CFI, but even then the entry would require a clear indication that this is not a common term for this animal -- マヌルネコ (manuru neko) gets around 176K hits on the wider web, even after filtering out wikis and some dictionaries, but we don't seem to have an entry for this yet.
Similar situation for 西蔵砂狐 versus the much-more-common term チベットスナギツネ (chibetto sunagitsune).
These need vetting to find out if they pass CFI. It looks like a few of these might, while others won't. The entries also need expanding to at least add usage notes explaining the rarity of the terms, and referring users to the more-common synonyms.
(PS: the ping didn't work, sorry for the delay. I only just saw this today, and quite by accident.)
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


My own creation, why not. —suzukaze (tc) 08:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]


I really like this word, but I am beginning to become concerned that I can't seem to find it anywhere else on the Internet... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a correct derivation. I think this is a valid citation: Nizami Xudiyev (2013) Azərbaycan ədəbi dili lüğət tərkibinin inkişafı, ali məktəblər üçün dərslik: seçilmiş əsərləri, Bakı:

  • «…Yüzlərcə, bəlkə minlərcə əcnəbi kəlmələr var ki, onları türkləşdirmək (azərbaycancalaşdırmaq – N. X. -- 13:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Variant of 拖布 seems dubious. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Why? I see plenty of hits on Baidu and Bing. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I see lots of hits on Google, too, but I'm not really sure if they're referring to 拖布. There seems to be other (SOP) meanings like "to take some sort of cloth off". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


There are 3 meanings in this Czech entry, but the last two need verification. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The RFV-ed senses:

  • (informal) A gypsy (itinerant person), a vagabond.
  • (informal) A liar or a thief.

Both senses seem present in cikán in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, 1960–1971, 1989, which, however, is no attesting quotation for WT:ATTEST purposes. In particular, the senses seem to be "tulák, dobrodruh" and "lhář, podvodník, zloděj". Attesting quotations could be sought in google books:"cikán" and cikán in Kartotéka Novočeského lexikálního archivu. The latter source of quotations contains various non-literal uses but I do not see ones specifically in the above senses. I seem multiple uses of "cikán" to refer to child, perhaps a loud child. If someone wants to give it a try, they may. User:Jan.Kamenicek or User:Droigheann? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There can be found examples for the verb cikánit in both senses "to wander from one place to another" and "to lie", but I also failed to find any quotation attesting the senses for the noun cikán. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
One problem is that wading through the quotations found by the above sources is a lot of work. Many of the quotations are for the literal sense of Gypsy, so it takes a lot of patience to fish for the rrelatively rare figurative senses if they exist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember that in my youth I occasionally heard a parent tell their child "Ty jsi ale cikán" meaning "a liar", but I doubt it ever appeared in print. --Droigheann (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Cantonese: burnt". Added by an IP user. Usually written as . —suzukaze (tc) 08:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


Can this term entered as Bashkir be attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


Existence questioned by User: in RFD. Entered as Azeri. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • This can not even be questioned. It has a very common usage:

itmək : f.

  • 1. Yoxa çıxmaq, qeyb olmaq. [Koroğlu:] Nigar, Düratın itməyi; Yandırır məni, yandırır. “Koroğlu”. // Azmaq, azıb qalmaq, başqa yerə düşmək. [Səriyyə və uşaqlar] bu qarışıqlığın, bu qaynar bataqlığın içində itməkdən qorxaraq, bərk-bərk bir-birinin əlindən tutur(lar). M.İbrahimov. _ Gözdən itmək – görünməmək, görünməz olmaq, çəkilmək, yox olmaq. Bağır həmişə gülümsəyəndə gözünün qarası itərdi. Çəmənzəminli. Şirzad yavaş-yavaş addımlayaraq yastı-yapalaq kənd evlərinin arasında itdi. M.İbrahimov. // Gizlənmək, örtülmək. Ay buludlar altında itdi. _ İtib-batmaq –
  • 2. yox olmaq, yoxa çıxmaq, məhv olmaq, itmək. O gedən uşaq itib batdı. – Hər gün itib-batmadadır xanları; Mollaları, şeyx və işanları.. Ə.Nəzmi;
  • 3. görünməz olmaq, gözdən itmək, yox olmaq. Yolun alt-üstündəki kövşənlərdə küləş göy otun içində itib-batmışdı. Ə.Vəliyev. O, bəzən dalğaların arasında itib-batır, sanki bir müddət suyun altı ilə gedir. M.Rzaquluzadə. [Carçıyevin] gözləri qırışlar arasında daha da kiçilib, dərin çuxurlarda itib-batdı. İ.Hüseynov;
  • 4. tamamilə yox olmaq, puç olmaq, heç bilinməmək. [Rüstəm:] Mənim ağlım belə kəsir ki, sənin savadın gərək itib-batmasın. S.Rəhimov. İtib getmək –
  • 5. başqa şeylər içərisində, arasında qeyb olmaq. Hər şey dəniz kimi bərq vuran bir sərab içində itib gedirdi. İ.Əfəndiyev;
  • 6. bir yerə gedib qayıtmamaq, yoxa çıxmaq. İki saatdır hara itib getmisən?
  • 7. yox olmaq, yoxa çıxmaq. Pirkətanqulu pirinin şöhrəti və nüfuzu xalqın içində yavaş-yavaş bilmərrə itib getdi. E.Sultanov. İtib yox olmaq – yoxa çıxmaq. [Dostəli:] Tamam neçə aydır ki, şəhərimizin adamları itib yox olur. Ü.Hacıbəyov.
  • 8. Əvvəlki keyfiyyəti yox olmaq. Yuyulandan sonra parçanın rəngi itib. Yaşa dolduqca gözün nuru itir. – Amma gənclik keçəndən, qocalıq gələndən, bədəndə təravət itəndən .. sonra, elə bil [Mirzə Cavadın] isti başına soyuq su töküb qəflətdən ayıltdılar. Mir Cəlal.
  • 9. məc. Puç olmaq, heçə çıxmaq, hədər getmək, boşa çıxmaq. Vaxtım itir. Yaxşılıq itməz. Əməyi itmək. – Bizim dünyamızda itməz zəhmətin; Həyatın qəlbidir şerin, sənətin! S.Vurğun.
  • 10. məc. İçində sözü ilə: ...içində itmək – bir şeyin bolluğunu, çoxluğunu bildirir. Qızıl içində itmək. İpək içində itmək. – Müqim bəy vurnuxur, zər-ziba içində itən Zərintac xanımın mərhəmətini qazanmaq istəyirdi. S.Rəhimov.

(Azərbaycan dilinin izahlı lüğəti)

  • Note to everyone else: this has apparently entered into our long-running Turkic purism wars, which are especially frustrating when we lack trusted admins or editors proficient in Turkish. The anon who left the above block of text (copied from a dictionary?) has also left comments on two other Turkic RFVs in favour of keeping them (despite those two clearly not having enough citations). I am sorry to say that I don't know whether the anon who nominated this word or the anon who seems to have cited it is more trustworthy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Existence questioned by User: in RFD. Entered as Azeri. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Just an alternative script form. Whether it passes or fails should follow the (Latin script) lemma. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


As mentioned in the Tea room, this seems to be a dead end: it's said to be an adjective, and to be an alternative form of polus. The only problem is that there's no adjective sense at polus, nor can I find a likely candidate in Lewis & Short at Perseus. There is pollulus, but that's an alternative form of polulus, a diminutive of polus. We thus have an entry and a complete set of inflected forms, but no definition and no examples of usage. Is this a complete figment of User:SemperBlotto's imagination, or is there a real word out there somewhere?

By the way, I tried searching for this, but there are scannos that mistake just about any letter with a vertical stroke for one or more ls. If it helps any, SB was apparently working on taxonomic names from User:Pengo/Latin/Most wanted at the time he created this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Probably a cockup. If nobody can dind anything, I'll delete it all. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is said that DMBLS, "The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources", contains "pollus v. 1 pola, 3 polus, 3 pullus". So it might be a British Mediaeval Latin spelling. - 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary has "polla, fusca" (possibly a mentioning) where "polla" could be ML for pulla (from pullus).
Thus pollus could be an alt form of pullus instead of polus. Alternatively the POS of pollus could be wrong and then it could be an alt form of a noun. - 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense of senses under translingual (added by @Suzukaze-c). They come from the Unihan database, which got them from “The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters”, which got them from Meyer and Wempe's The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary (which I cannot find a full copy of). It seems to be a rare/obsolete variant of (lou1). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Seems to be a mistake, since the pronunciations are all for 安提瓜和巴布達安提瓜和巴布达 (Āntíguā hé Bābùdá) instead. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

and 𫢙[edit]

RFV for Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For 働, see the talk page.
For 𫢙, I wonder if the evidence for inclusion in Unicode can be located... —suzukaze (tc) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Unicode got 𫢙 from 中國大百科全書, according to its G source (GBK-1000.40). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I know about that part; I meant specifically within the patchwork PDFs they assemble and dump into http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/. —suzukaze (tc) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. That will take some fishing. As for 働, why don't we just have a {{zh-see}}? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've traced 𫢙 back to the extension D submission by the PRC (IRGN1262), which lists it under characters used in personal names. I don't see evidence from the original source, though. (It might be there, but I can't find it at the moment.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to verify ALL kokuji and Japanese shinjitai, which are different from Chinese simp. forms for their existence in Chinese and Korean? Unihan just does a misservice by providing reading for characters that are not used in these languages, IMO.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

chrȳsocarpus (adjective)[edit]

RFV for the adjective chrȳsocarpus (alternative form chrȳsocarpos, from Greek χρυσόκαρπος (khrusókarpos)).

  • L&S: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., I a kind of ivy which bears gold-colored berries, App. Herb. 119; called in Plin. 16, 34, 62, § 147, chrȳ-sŏcarpus, = χρυσόκαρπος."
  • Gaffiot: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., Apul. Herb. 119 ou chrȳsŏcarpus, i, f. Plin. 16, 147 [...]"
  • OLD: "chrȳsocarpus ~um, a. ~os ~on [Gk. χρυσόκαρπος] Having golden berries.
    duo genera huius (sc. hederae) faciunt a colore acinorum erythranum et ~um Plin.Nat.16.147; hedera quam ~on appellauimus 24.77.
  • Georges: "chrȳsocanthos u. chrȳsocarpus, ī, f. [...] Ps. Apul. herb. 119. Plin. 16, 147"

Latin texts:

  • Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius: That work contains pictures. BL mentions "Chrysocantis (or Crisocantis)" and on f.40r and f.40v it has: "Herba hedera chrisocantos · ideo q; g^na [page turn] fert coloris au[line break]rei · Hec g^na ·xx· ĩ uini sextario c̃t'ta, ex eo uino t̃ni ciati bibantv q' p^ urinã exinaniuntv." (I can't type most of the special characters and diacritics, especially where I put ^), and "Crisocantos" next to a picture. CML IV contains in CXX on p. 206: "Herba hedera crisocantes, ideo quia grana fert coloris aurei, haec grana XX in uini sextario contrita, ex eo uino terni ciati bibantur per dies VII, qui per urinam exinaniuntur.   A Graecis dicitur cissos crisocantes."
  • Pliny's Natural History book 16, 147: "alicui et semen nigrum, alii crocatum, cuius coronis poetae utuntur, foliis minus nigris, quam quidam Nysiam, alii Bacchicam vocant, maximis inter nigras corymbis. quidam apud Graecos etiamnum duo genera huius faciunt a colore acinorum, erythranum et chrysocarpum." In book 24, 77: "hedera, quam chrysocarpon appellavimus, bacis aurei coloris XX in vini sextario tritis, ita ut terni cyathi potetur, aquam, quae cutem subierit, urina educit; Erasistratus eiusdem acinos V tritos in rosaceo oleo calefactosque in cortice punici instillavit dentium dolori a contraria aure."

Pseudo-Apuleius' Herbarius contains chrȳsocanthos and thus is irrelevant for this. Pliny has "chrysocarpum" once in book 16 and "chrysocarpon" once in book 24. That would only attest 2 words and not 4 (2 parts of speech and 2 forms make 4 words). Compared with dictionary entries, Pliny's book 16 should attest chrȳsocarpus f. and his book 24 chrȳsocarpos, on.
So the adjective with unusual and questionable nominative, chrȳsocarpus, us, um, isn't attested by this. - 19:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It is in use as a specific epithet (chrysocarpus, -a, -um), ie, in New Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • chrysocarpus, -a, -um is not chrysocarpus, -us, -um.
  • Specific epithets are not necessarily Latin. It could very well be non-Latin, e.g. English or Translingual. Google books had no result for "Rhachidosorus chrysocarpus", several English and one German and one French result for "Rumex chrysocarpus", some English and one German result for "Juncus chrysocarpus", some French results for "Diospyros chrysocarpa", and some English results for "Archidendron chrysocarpum". I haven't searched for Rubus chrysocarpus, Styrax chrysocarpus, Crataegus chrysocarpa, Diospyros chrysocarpa, Duguetia chrysocarpa, Hedera chrysocarpa, Pyrausta chrysocarpa, Rollinia chrysocarpa, Myrceugenia chrysocarpa, Senna chrysocarpa, Geronema chrysocarpum as that are several terms and as I expect similar results. One can't attest a Latin term with non-Latin usages in non-Latin text, but just attest a Latin term with Latin texts. That's like one can't attest English terms with non-English texts (cf. anglicisms and pseudo-anglicisms), but just attest an English term with English usages in English texts.
- 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I've placed a number of citations of running Latin text at Citations:chrysocarpus, on Citations:chrysocarpo (one of which refers to R. chrysocarpus) and on Citations:chrysocarpa. I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, one could argue that the cites use the Translingual taxonomic term, namely in O. chrysocarpa (= Oxytropis chrysocarpa?; in Latin with ablative singular O. chrysocarpa), R. chrysocarpus (= Rubus chrysocarpus?; in Latin with dat. and abl. R. chrysocarpo), Juncus chrysocarpus (in Latin with dat. and abl. Junco supino), Hedera chrysocarpa (spelled edera chrysocarpus with abl. edera chrysocarpo).
"edera chrysocarpo" would show that there is a feminine chrysocarpus. Google also has some results for "hedera chrysocarpus" (once in a Latin index) and "Hedera chrysocarpus" (once in English and once in German), but compared with the number of results for "hedera chrysocarpa" and "Hedera chrysocarpa" the feminine in -us seems like an error.
If these taxonomic results are accepted as cites for the Latin term and the doubtful feminine in -us, then Citations:chrysocarpa shows that the entry missed the feminine in -a. Moreover, a label like {{label|la|New Latin|botanical taxonomy}} should be added. In case of Translingual taxonomics, chrysocarpa is the common feminine while the feminine chrysocarpus is very rare (and seems like an error). For Latin there could be so few results for both forms that one can't add such a note for it - but IMHO the Translingual situation could be mentioned. - 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Any evidence of this in Latin? —JohnC5 04:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There are species Fusarium ananatum and Salmonella ananatum. There's also one hit for "ananatibus" in a modern work (Classical Folia). DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
All three google book results for "Fusarium ananatum" and the one result for "Salmonella ananatum" were in English, which does not attest a Latin term.
Indeed, there was one result with ananatibus, this one (from 1966 according to google) with this snippet: "... malis, bananis; campi qui ananatibus pleni sunt; pomaria quae tam lata et magna sunt quam hoc oppidum.'".
Before the 20th century one can find "Ananas" in Latin works too, especially in biological works. But one can also find "De Ananas" and "cum Anana sylvestri" (both from the biological text Historia plantarum by the Englishman John Ray), as well as "Ananas siluestres" besides "Ananas siluestris" (from the biological text Universalis plantarum historiae) in Latin. So there could be more inflections: ananas, indecl.; ananas, ae - first declension; ananas, atis - third declension. But well, the attestation of other inflections is not the matter of a RFV for one inflection. - 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any more evidence for the third declension paradigm, though its use in scientific nomenclature probably deserves a usage note in the entry once actually attested declensions are added. But the RFV is for the term as a whole, so this is evidence enough to pass it; we simply need to figure out how to treat it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed on the basis of the citations above, but I've commented out the declension table until we can figure out what declension the word actually had. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The entry now has four citations (and with ananatibus above there is a fifth), so the word itself is attested. By the cites it seems as it's originally indeclinable, at least in the singular, and later became a first declension noun (and with ananatibus above a third declension noun). From a Greek-Latin point of view, a first declension ananas should be masculine (which Modern Greek ανανάς m (ananás) and translingual-taxonomic Ananas m are). In NL it could feminine anyway, but maybe there should be a note like "the attested feminine gender could belong to the indeclinable noun only while the first-declension declinable noun could be masculine (compare the Greek first declension)"?
Was the meaning "pineapple" correct? It is said that English pineapple - at least now - is translingual-taxonomic Ananas comosus, while there are other Ananas. German Ananas could have an older wider sense (maybe similar to translingual-taxonomic Ananas) and a younger narrower sense (similar to pineapple and Ananas comosus, and similar to German "eßbare Ananas", "wahre oder eßbare Ananas", "gemeine Ananas", "gemeine Ananas, wahre oder eigentliche Ananas" etc. which is translingual-taxonomic "Bromelia Ananas" or "Bromelia ananas" or "Ananassa sativa" which is pineapple in English). By the time, Latin ananas could have a broader sense like Ananas. Similary English ananas could have another meaning or two meanings. At dictionary.com/browse/ananas?s=t it is "the pineapple or a related tropical American bromeliaceous plant [...]" which is more than just pineapple. - 23:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Dutch. All the currently listed noun senses. It is possible to find some nouns, but the most common sense I found was "worry". If the first sense is attested, it almost certainly comes from pieken (to peak). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Attested in English with the dotless i, or even with dotted i? Should perhaps be coverted to a Turkish(?) entry. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

With the dotted i, I can find two citations:
  • 2007, Ghillie Basan, Middle Eastern Kitchen, ISBN 0781811902, page 136:
    Walnuts are used in a variety of syrupy desserts and pastries, such as kalburabasti, a Turkish dish of walnut spongecake soaked in syrup, and the much- loved baklava.
  • 2014, Banu Atabay, Mutevazi Lezzetler English, page 575:
(the second has a recipe for how to make it). Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Even if attested, this is surely not an "alternative spelling" of kalburabastı! - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Claimed to be a common misspelling. I've never seen this, but the IP that added it has a history of good edits.__Gamren (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


fortryde” in Ordbog over det danske Sprog makes reference to this, claiming it to be an Old (or should we call it Middle?) Danish word (glda. is short for gammeldansk).__Gamren (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


I find nothing on Google Books. Searching Google gives some mentions; Urban Dictionary, Slangster, Vi Unge (a magazine for early-teen girls), some blog, I don't even know what this is. Actual use is hard to find.__Gamren (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


The Nguni languages (and perhaps most Bantu languages?) don't have a "numeral" part of speech. Instead, words for numbers are grammatically adjectives or nouns. Which one is this? —CodeCat 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "without a subject". A valid construction, surely, but Google Books gives mostly the first sense. ReVo has only the first one. By the way, it might be interesting to categorize Esperanto words with multiple analyses, like aroganta.__Gamren (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


It only gets 19 webhits, of which one is Wiktionary. Nibiko (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, NibikoFrom http://www.zukan-bouz.com/nisin/etu.php "漢字◆漢字「刃形魚」。参考文献/『新釈 魚名考』(栄川省造 青銅企画出版)". A description of this book can be found here: http://www.onsenmaru.com/book/B-100/B-130-gyomeikou.htm 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr Does this count as an attestation? (Asaka-ku Chorus Group News letter): http://asahi-lirio.org/chorus/zatsu/zatsu83.pdf 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That appears to be a mention, not a use ("this term is also spelled as `XXX`") -- and only uses are acceptable as attestation. One of the distinct challenges with Japanese and alternative spellings is verifiably nailing down when a given spelling is used in running text with a given reading. Finding a spelling isn't so bad; Google helps. Finding a spelling with a particular reading is much harder, and is often limited to those cases where 1) the reading is rare and readers are unlikely to know it, and 2) the author is kind enough to include the reading somewhere. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr I see what you're saying. I only found one web site ( http://www.fish-food.co.jp/message141.html ) where 刃形魚 was called 別名, and I don't think that is correct based upon the following. At http://www.zukan-bouz.com/syu/エツ it says, "漢字 「刃形魚」...由来・語源 漢字は形から、音の意味、由来は不明" which is stated directly in reference to the headword エツ. Some of the web sites I found have "エツ(刃形魚)" which to me makes it look like 刃形魚 is the kanji spelling for えつ and they also provide an alternate name for the fish which is a transliterated Chinese word, フォンウェイイ which diretly relates to the Chinese Spelling (風尾魚), but neither フォンウェイイ or 風尾魚 are ever given in parenthesis next to the kana spelling エツ the way 刃形魚 is. One other web site, http://d.hatena.ne.jp/fishinfish2010/20120904/p1 has, "「斉魚/鱭(魚扁に齊)/刃形魚/比魚/鰽(魚偏に曹)/鮆(「紫」の糸の部分が魚)のエツ」" and this seems to be the most clearly defined usage that I can find, but other Japanese writers have clearly taken 刃形魚 to be a spelling of エツ. See the blog site http://maruk-skn.jugem.jp/?eid=92 where えつ appears as furigana next to 刃形魚.馬太阿房 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) By the way... a little about myself (which I may or may not put on my user page some day)... I am a Fisheries major with a minor degree in Food Science, and a major interest in Japanese language/culture, hence the interest in the various spellings of Japanese fish names. I find it facinating how fish like Etsu and so many seemingly insignificant little fish are so valued by the Japanese and I have had the pleasure of eating some of the dishes which use them. Note: If this entry is deleted it will then also need to be removed the other wiktionary pages where I have provided 刃形魚 as an alternate spelling (see えつ and 斉魚).馬太阿房 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure it's only used as a component of a character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a variant of 𬊇 (U+2C287, ⿱炏乂): [32]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

illic and istic[edit]

For the inflection, as sometimes the templates in Wiktionary create incorrect forms.

  • Dictionaries seem not to mention a genitive or dative singular or most of the plural forms.
  • Allen and Greenough's grammar has only nom. sg., acc. sg., abl. sg. and neuter nom. and acc. pl., which might mean other forms are unattested.
  • Imman. Joh. Gerh. Scheller's grammar has similar forms as Allen and Greenough, without genitive and dative singular and without many plural forms too.
    BTW: He mentions alternative forms with h for istic, as isthic, isthaec, isthoc which might be Medieval or New Latin alternative forms. L&S has "istic (not isthic), aec, oc, and uc" (bolding added).
  • T. Hewitt Key's grammar has illic with gen. illiusce (ilius + -ce), and dat. illic but as "D*. illic, illic, illic." with the note "* The dative illic is only used as an adverb.". In the plural he has different forms than Wiktionary. Wiktionary's plural of illic resembles the plural of ille, except of some neuter forms. Key's forms often resembles the plural of ille + -ce, with some exceptions. He has dat. and abl. of all genders illisce (illis + -ce), nom. illice (illi + -ce) / illaec / illaec, acc. illosce (illos + -ce) / illasce (illas + -ce) / illaec, gen. illorunc / illarunc / illorunc (-or- and -ar- as in -orum and -arum but with -unc from acc. sg. instead of -um?). In an addition he says, that to the forms ending with c an e might be added as illunce.
    Some forms with -ce are also mentioned by others, e.g. by Allen and Greenough who give illiusce, isce as examples, but not as forms of illic.
  • Wiktionary's forms in the singular could be formed in analogy with hic, but that doesn't attest forms for illic and istic. In the plural many forms should come from bare ille/iste without the -ce or -c part, which doesn't attest forms for illic and istic too.

So it might be that Allen and Greenough and Scheller are correct. Forms of ille and iste are forms of illeand iste and not of illic and istic. Forms of ille with -ce could be mentioned in a usage note, as related terms or as see also in illic. - 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC) -- as far as I can tell, the templates are just applying the basic inflectional pattern for "hic" to these words (except the non-oblique neuter singular of illic is given as illuc instead of illoc). The most obviously fishy-looking one is illūc for neuter ablative, since the neuter is normally the same as the masculine in cases other than nominative, accusative, and vocative -- but I don't know what is and isn't actually attested in ancient texts for these words... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That does better explain Wiktionary's forms, but doesn't change much:
  • illī as plural of illic looks like illī from ille.
  • many forms should be unattested, namely genitive and dative singular and most plural forms except the neuter forms illaec and istaec. An Allen & Greenough: archive.org/stream/allengreenoughsn00alleiala#page/66/mode/2up (p. 67) - which BTW has neuter abl. illōc and istōc.
- 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then neuter ablative illūc on the illic page is most definitely an error. The others are merely extrapolations -- and such templates do a lot of extrapolating all the time (whenever there's some combination of verb person/number/tense/voice/mood or noun number/case or adjective gender/number/case which doesn't happen to be attested in ancient texts). AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In case of nouns and verbs one often can 'extrapolate' forms, but even for that there are exceptions, and extrapolating forms of 'normal' nouns and verbs is different from extrapolating pronoun forms. In case of nouns and verbs, one can compare words: For example one can compare laudare and amare, so one can assume a form laudat if one finds amat. But what word could be used to compare it with illic and istic? illic and istic come from -ce - but hic? The c in hic might be related to -ce, but that doesn't mean that it's obviously related or that hic is considered to have -ce in it. As Allen and Greenough mention terms like "hûiusce" (hujus + ce) and "hunce", hic maybe wasn't seen to be formed as some term suffixed with -ce. Also illī is already the plural of ille and istī is already the plural of iste, while for hīc with plural hī there's no *he with plural *hī. So hic is different from illic and istic. - 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A reference for the inflection with three cases got added, and more older ones could easily be added:
  • 1861, Lewis Marcus, A Latin grammar, London, page 26 - it explains the etymology as is + hic and ille + hic
  • 1854, Peter Bullions, The Principles of Latin Grammar, New York, page 77 - explains it as ille and iste + hic
  • 1790, Imman. Joh. Gerh. Schellers ausführliche lateinische Sprachlehre oder sogenannte Grammatik, 3rd edition, Leipzig, page 122 - also explains it as ille and iste + hic, and mentions isthic
  • 1862, T. Hewitt Key, A Latin Grammar, London, page 50 and 51 - gives full inflection but has different forms than wiktionary and suppletively adds forms with complete -ce like illiusce for genitive
By google book search it seems that 21st century grammars do not mention these pronouns - which underlines the fact that 21st century grammars are incomplete. - 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "male prostitute". ContraVentum cited it with section 216 of Skånske Lov, where it may as well mean the same as in Modern Danish. §215 begins with "hittær man annær man i siangu mæþ aþulkunu sinni . ok drepær bondæn horkarl i siangu...", which I interpret as "If (one)/(a man)(?) finds another man in bed with his (noble? lawfully wedded?) wife, and if the (peasant? farmer? husband?) kills the adulterer in the bed...". However, our def of adultery indicates that the person not involved in the marriage is not engaging in adultery, so maybe the translation needs to be changed.__Gamren (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]


Rfv-sense: Can't find this sense in any dictionary. Only found in the Unihan database. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


Is this actually attested in Classical Latin? And if not, is it in Old Latin? —CodeCat 00:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries state it's Old Latin, e.g. from L&S: "lātus, a, um, adj. old Lat. stlātus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 313". The edition at archive.org/stream/deverborumsignif00festuoft#page/454/mode/2up however has "Stlatta" for p. 313. So maybe it depens on edition, or maybe L&S reference is insufficient, cp. with stlata/stlatta where L&S has "stlāta, ae, f. 1. latus, q. v. init". - 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
On Google Books, all Latin-language books I found that contained the word were either mentioning it, or didn't really contain it but were the result of OCR software misinterpreting & lat-, strat-, etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Recovered from abuse filter log:

Dictionaries state it's Old Latin, e.g. from L&S: "lātus, a, um, adj. old Lat. stlātus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 313".
The edition at archive.org/stream/deverborumsignif00festuoft#page/454/mode/2up however has "Stlatta" for p. 313: "Stlat-ta ..... latum mag ..... appellatum ..... consuetudin ..... tem antiqui ....." and "Stlatta genus navigii latum magis, quam altum, et a latitudine sic appellatum, sed ea consuetudine, qua stlocum pro locum et stlitem pro litem dicebant.". So maybe it depens on edition, or maybe L&S reference is insufficient, cp. with stlata/stlatta where L&S has "stlāta, ae, f. 1. latus, q. v. init".
The edition at archive.org/stream/deverborumsigni00fest#page/312/mode/2up has "Stlata": "Stlat-a genus erat navigii latum mag-is quam altum, sic appellatum a latitudine, sed ea consuetudin-e, qua stlocum pro locum, et stlitem antiq-ui pro litem dicebant."
The French translation at has remacle.org/bloodwolf/erudits/Festus/s.htm: "STLATA, sorte de navire plus large que profond, et ainsi appelé de sa largeur. On disait stlata par une modification semblable à celle que l'on trouve dans les mots stlocus pour locus et stlis pour lis."
Looks like Paul. ex Fest. doesn't use the word.

sophos, sophus[edit]

Most of the references have it as masculine only, which would mean that feminine sophē or sopha, neuter sophon and sophum either don't exist or are ML or NL. Furthermore: Wiktionary has it as adjective which can be used substantively, while most references have it as substantive which can be used adjectively. This could explain the lack of feminine and neuter forms. The "A new Latin-English school-lexicon" (Philadelphia, 1867) by G. R. Crooks and A. J. Schem exceptionally has "SŎPHOS, or SŎPHUS, a, um, adj. [= σοφός]. (Lat.) Wise (pure Latin, sapiens)".
Additional RFC matters for sophos:

  • The entry has feminine sopha in the header but feminine sophē in the declension table. This is contradicting.
  • It has the meaning "(substantive) A wise man, a sage." which lacks the gender of the substantive. Well, it's masculine and it might be quite obvious, but it's not mentioned.

- 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries give the following sources:
For the noun: Mart. 7, 32, 4 with sophos. It's nominative singular (see sophos), that is, the given reference {{Q|la|Martial}} once in sophus doesn't attest it.
DMLBS gives some other cites, but "sophorum" could belong to both sophos or sophus, and sophos could be nominative singular or accusative plural [ie. sophōs] of sophos or sophus (similary with sofos). Except from a mentioning, DMLBS doesn't have a cite which undoubtly would belong to sophus and not sophos. With the mentioning, an inflected form like sophōrum or sophōs, and a note as now in sophus there could be an entry for the noun - or not?
For the adjective: Phaedr. 3, 14, 9 and 4, 15 or 17 (it's 18 at TLL), 8 with sophus. At TLL both places have "sophus" in it, so the dictionaries did not change the case (which they sometimes do).
DMLBS only cites Ælfric Bata for the adjective. In Early Scholastic Colloquies which DMLBS mentions as a source it is: "Consultius est uobis esse sophos quam stolidos et <h>ebetes uel inertes et ignaros." For the text in Anglo-Saxon Conversations see sophus. With vobis, inertes, hebetes and stolidos (from Latin stolidus and not from Greek) it's accusative plural sophos [ie. sophōs] which could belong to both sophus and *sophos. As there is the adjective sophus and ATM no source for sophos, it is better placed in sophus. As for the feminine and neuter I've added a note in sophus, and in this way the forms could stay - or not?
To sum it up: A noun sophos is attested, and a noun sophus is kinda attested in medieval Latin. For the feminine and the neuter forms of the adjective sophus there now is a note. The adjective sophos with it's contradicting feminines is unattested for more than a month, and should go.
The entries should be ok now. - 03:05-04:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC) and 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Unkonventionelle Spreng- und Brandvorrichtung[edit]

The German Wiktionarians decided to delete this vocablon. Perhaps we should too. --G23r0f0i (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If attested and not SOP, it should be moved to unkonventionelle Spreng- und Brandvorrichtung. There's no reason for the u to be capitalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
There could be a reason to have it as Unkonventionelle Spreng- und Brandvorrichtung, namely attestation (WT:ATTEST). One can indeed find it with a capital u (that is inside of sentences, not just at the beginning), but I don't know if it is attestable for en.wt which requires three durably archived German sources.
Maybe also compare German Schwarzes Brett (which is not necessarily schwarz in the sense of black or illegal) → 1996 reformed (§ 63 & § 64) schwarzes Brett → 2004 rereformed still only schwarzes Brett or already schwarzes or Schwarzes Brett (?) → 2006 rerereformed schwarzes or Schwarzes Brett. - 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
dict.cc has the same entry, but with a small "u", and the abbreviation USBV. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The entry has been moved, and there is an entry for improvised explosive device, so providing it's correct this can be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Cited both. - 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: alt spelling of 女子. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


RFV of this specific kanji spelling. No Google Books, Aozora Bunko, or National Diet Library website Google hits, and doesn't appear in other online dictionaries. —suzukaze (tc) 07:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I have easily found three attestations : [33], [34], [35]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
So a search for the expanded spelling brings up tons of unreliable sources and a search for the abbreviated spelling brings up a decent handful of printed sources... Should the entry be moved to 摸々具和? —suzukaze (tc)
Personally, I think it makes the most sense to leave it the way it is mainly because to have 々 in the kanji table with a reading under it wouldn't make much sense, since it just means to use the same reading as that of the first kanji. 馬太阿房 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The kanji table shouldn't be a concern; see 蝶々 for example. —suzukaze (tc) 04:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
All the three sources say it is read モモングヮ, old pronunciation of モモンガ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


see second def d1g (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wanjuscha, Atitarev, can you cite this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The sense is used in some dictionaries and also as a name (capitalised) of restaurants, cafés on water but I can't find a real usage example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

vyhodíte ho dveřmi, vrátí se oknem[edit]

@User:Jan.Kamenicek: Do you know of any attesting quotations for the phrase, that is, quotations meeting WT:ATTEST? I cannot find any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:Dan Polansky: Here are some: [36]. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. I wonder whether these are "permanently recorded media"; they are neither from Google Books or printed media, nor from Usenet. They are from online periodicals such as tyden.cz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I hear the proverb often and so I did not really think somebody might feel it needs verification. I believe the above mentioned periodicals are OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Anyway, here are some printed quotations from Google Books that come close to the phrase:
  • Blaník by Smoljak, Svěrák, 2001: Podle něho tu zřejmě zapůsobila letitá zkušenost pregnantně vyjádřená příslovím „Vyhodíš-li ho dveřmi, vrátí se ti oknem."
  • Královský nach tě neochrání by Vaňková, 2003: Darmo by vypukly spory. A Habsburk je dotěra. Vyhodíš ho dveřmi, vleze ti oknem.
  • Démon z jiného světa: Pátrání po tajemství Adolfa Hitlera by Duffack, Jensen (I am too lazy to find the translator), 1997: Mohli bychom ho charakterizovat slovy „vyhodíte ho dveřmi a vleze zpět oknem!"
  • title:Jurist, Volume 146, Issues 7-12, 2007: Vyhodíte ho dveřmi a vrátí se oknem. Jestliže je naše běžné chápání charakterových rysů jen iluze, pak je to iluze neobyčejně hluboce zakořeněná a dokonale rezistentní proti jakýmkoli „lékům" z laboratoře Racionalita.
  • Projevy a stati by Antonín Novotný, 1964: Situace je taková, že ho z jednoho místa vyhodíme a on vleze jinam. Jak se říká, vyhodíme ho dveřmi a on leze oknem.
  • Odvrácená tvář moci: zločiny českých králů by Antonín Polách, 2008: Prostě vyhodíte-li ho dveřmi, vrátí se vám oknem. A defenestraci, abychom trochu parafrázovali Járu Cimrmana, měly Cechy vynalézt až o více než dvě stě let později.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

nero / Latin[edit]

Seems to be a misspelling of Nero. - 19:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In which language do you think it is a misspelling? In Finnish it isn't [37]. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I checked the edit log. The anon contributor has tagged the Latin section. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: bullet. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Really? Nothing obvious in a quick Google search. Not on de.wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be very rare, about as rare as its English gloss, but there are a few hits on Google Books, most of which are in scare quotes. You can find a few more usages by searching for inflected forms like werdbare and werdbaren. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
becomable failed RFV in 2011, by the way. Equinox 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Google Books results often are mentionings or OCR errors.
Usages: "erst eine werdbare Beziehung", Aber diese Realität hat es »in sich«, werdbar zu sein"
Doubtful usages: "habhaft werdbaren Selbstverständlichkeiten" which could be strange formation from "habhaft werden", and "Das »Werdbare«, das Sinnmögliche" which would be a noun Werdbares/Werdbare
OCR errors: "gleich ans werdbar ist" for "gleich an- | werdbar ist" = "gleich anwerdbar ist" and "dahin ver, werdbar behauptet" for "dahin ver- | werdbar behauptet = "dahin verwerdbar behauptet", "inne werdbare Gegenwart" for "innewerdbare Gegenwart", and "drehbar, werdbar" for "drehbar, wendbar"
Mentionings: "so bedeutet [Greek: genhto/n] hier so viel wie »werdbar«, »zum Entstehen befähigt«" and "Denn [Greek: genhto/s )estin] bedeutet ja nicht nur „er ist geworden“, sondern auch „er ist ‚werdbar‘, unterliegt den Bedingungen des Werdens, birgt in sich die Möglichkeit zu Werden und Veränderung“"
- 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

hür yazılım[edit]

hür yazılım is not used in Turkish as Synonym of özgür yazılım (free software), the user is trying to force the word hür in here and in the Turkish wikipedia.--Paseyn (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this from RFD. We have had a long-running conflict between Turkish language purists and the interests of Wiktionary, but in this case, I believe that hür is the "less pure" form (being Arabic, rather than Turkic), so I will not necessarily assume that Paseyn, who just started editing here, is a purist.
As for the relevant evidence, I see no hits in BGC for this term in the lemma form and more than enough for özgür yazılım. If it fails RFV, please be sure to delete the inflected forms that were created as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Sae1962 has added a citation, and removed the RFV tag. I'm not sure if they know how RFV works; you don't self-pass RFVs, you have to let others check the citations first. Also, Turkish is a WT:WDL so three citations are called for. —CodeCat 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I've already told that User:Sae1962's only reason to add the word is vandalism, User:Sae1962's submitted references use Wiktionary. The user is trying to force this and other Arabic words, one may check Açık Kaynak and the user's other contributions in Turkish wiki, almost all of them are replacing modern, popular Turkish words with old and unused Arabic words and there is an ongoing discussion about the user in Turkish wiki's complaint page.--Paseyn (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I've added two uses of this word outside of dictionaries. The references section shows that this seldom form is registered already. The discussion in the Turkish Wiktionary is a positive discussion about usage of synonyms and is still ongoing.--Sae1962 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sae1962, we have had long-running problems with your entries in multiple languages, not just Turkish. Please read WT:ATTEST; none of the citations you have added are relevant to this RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think 'hür yazılım' is OK, because özgür is an adjactive which was derived by analogy with hür. You may see there are some other usages such as serbest yazılım, too. -- 14:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Turkish term for free software that is in common use is özgür yazılım. Özgür and hür are synonyms, so theoretically hür yazılım should be OK too, but it doesn't seem to be in use (or is very very rare at best).
The three citations in the entry don't meet CFI (not durably archived); besides, the first and third citations are machine translations.
In the entry, there are three dictionary references, but none of them are reliable sources; moreover, those dictionaries use Wiktionary as their source:
  • Glosbe: [38] > If you click on the block symbol at the right, you'll see as the author: "Dbnary: Wiktionary as Linguistic Linked Open Data".
  • WordSense: [39] > In the right column, you'll see the text: "This article based on an article on Wiktionary. The list of authors can be seen in the page history there. [...]" .
  • Woxikon: [40] > The used gloss ("software that can be freely copied and modified") is exactly the same as at page free software, in the header of the translation box.
I believe these three dictionary references should be removed from the entry as unreliable sources. And the two machine translation citations as invalid. Currently, there aren't any valid citations that meet CFI.
(About User:Sae1962: I think it's unfair to call him a vandal: he edits in good faith and tries to improve Wiktionary & Wikipedia with his contributions. I'm aware that there are issues with his contributions, but that doesn't make him a vandal. However, as User:Paseyn clearly shows with diffs at tr.wiki, Sae1962 systematically changes words with Turkish origin into words with Arabic/Persian origin at tr.wiki. (Özgür >> hür is just one of these.) What happens at tr.wiki should of course be discussed there. But in case Sae1962 or any other user makes this type of edits (systematically replacing words based on their origin) here at en.wikt, we may need some policy about this. In my opinion, the language at wiki projects should represent the language in real life, so users should not be allowed to systematically filter out certain words and "promote" other words purely based on their origins.) -- Curious (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Italian noun. An Italian adjective may exist, but I am unsure if enough cites exist for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Compounds with quis[edit]


For the feminine quaequam and the plural.
Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis.

  • Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
    One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely).
    Maybe note that the conjunction quamquam which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word.
    Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's quispiam where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam.
  • Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
  • Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [....] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...] Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [....] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.] [...] Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...] Quisquam has no plural. [...] [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.] Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
    Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table.
  • The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
    Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men").
    The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text.
  • The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
  • Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
    • Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
      "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and w:en:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error.
      "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:".
      So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct.
    • Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like isthic for istic? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
    • The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
    • The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: quamquam) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
      F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)."
      After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word.
  • With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

substantivally adjectivally
sg. sg.
m./f. n. m. f. n.
nom. quisquam quidquam/quicquam quisquam quisquam / [quaequam] quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
gen. cujusquam
(cuiusquam, or cûiusquam by Allen's and Greenough's notation instead of a misleading cūiusquam to denote the "consonant i")
(cuiusquam etc.)
dat. cuiquam cuiquam
acc. quemquam
quidquam/quicquam quemquam
[quemquam / quamquam]
[ [quenquam] / [quanquam] ]
quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
abl. quōquam
also quīquam
quōquam quōquam
also quīquam
[quōquam / quāquam] quōquam

BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun quispiam attested?
- 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


RFV for:

  • feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
  • feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

Rationale and notes:

  • Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
  • As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis#Usage notes). There could be other cites - but are there any?
    As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition.
    There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition.
    • If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
    • There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
  • Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
  • Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
    For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā.


  • See quisquis for some citations and notes.
  • Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
    "In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō.
    Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine.
    Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective."
    • Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
  • Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
    Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...]
    Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...]
    44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt. Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv.
    [...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275).
    [...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45."
    Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites].
    The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv.
    44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.]
    [...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites].
    [...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]."
    • So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
  • L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
  • The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
    (a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8;
    (b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159;
    (c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.;
    (d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.).
    Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work.
    For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl.
    There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition.
    As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition.
    F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].".
    So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority."

From what I've seen, there could be three forms:

  • substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis#Usage notes)
  • adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
  • adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

- 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


This entry was not created yet, but maybe it should, if we can find a few citations for it.

Searching citations for symbols is inherently hard, but apparently this is a very common symbol so maybe there's some hope. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what I've understood the CFI clause about "in common use" to refer to. Words that are hard to cite, but everyone is familiar with. I know the more common consensus is that it just refers to words that are easily citable, but I kind of wish that wasn't the case, as it keeps out a lot of informal language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm one of the people that understand the CFI clause about "in common use" as "words that are easily citable in three independent durably-archived sources". As you said, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But, naturally, feel free to disagree with me on the interpretation of the rule if you want. If the consensus about the "in common use" rule is unclear, it probably should be discussed further, eventually. Apparently, that rule was never even voted in the first place.
I believe probably all emojis fail that criterion, the way I see it. I oppose creating entries for emojis on the basis of the "in common use" rule without the need for citations.
Here are two existing emoji entries, with one citation each: 😀 and 😉.
Apparently, emojis are "internet slang". They may be used a lot on the internet, but if we created entries for some or all emoji just because they presumably exist online, without the need to check for attestation, then on the same basis we would have a precedent for creating entries for some or all internet abbreviations and informal internet speech with the same lack of standards. For a list of these items, see Appendix:English internet slang and Appendix:Portuguese internet slang. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Carrero -- I kind of wonder why you're even bothering to ask this, since your similar request on ⚤ eight months ago turned up plenty of information, but somehow none of it was acceptable to you... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean, plenty of information? In the discussion about ⚤, you just linked to one Wikimedia Commons category and one Wikipedia article, and I linked to a non-durably-archived SMBC comic, right? As I pointed out in that discussion, just linking to other Wikimedia projects doesn't count, and the article had three sources which, apart from being on the internet and thus being non-durably-archived too, are mentions (lists of symbols and their meanings) instead of actual uses.
By contrast, and have a number of CFI-compliant citations for certain senses.
I intend to create a few more RFVs for symbols at some point, not only to see if they are actually attestable, but also to see to what extent our current CFI rules work for them.
I'm not saying I personally agree with all our current CFI rules (I agree with some rules, others I would rather propose to be changed). This is not simply a matter of I, personally, considering some information acceptable or not. Even if I really wanted to say "RFV passed, the symbol already appears in some internet lists!", that is not proper procedure to close an RFV.
Actually, I'd rather propose a few changes to our CFI rules to relax our criteria for symbol entries. But that's a matter for the BP. (I created this RFV as a result of this ongoing BP discussion: link) Also, hopefully past and future RFV results can be used as a precedent to be discussed there too, to revise the rules if needed.
For now, my question is naturally whether 😊 passes CFI under our current rules. That is an important question, whether the answer is yes or no. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


Certainly not the normal German word for "gnat". I'm not having any luck finding it. Of course it's the German word for the fighter aircraft listed at Gnat#English, but not for the biting fly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A search for Gnat in Duden brings up Gnatz as the closest match. Anyway I think this German entry can be safely removed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
One can find Gnat (= 1. f., the same as Germ. Gnad, Gnad' and Gnade, 2. m., proper noun, a cetain mountain or mountain range, 3. f., Gnat) and GNAT (= 1. GNAT, compiler, 2. GNAT, Go/No-go Association Test) in German texts. But I don't know which of these meanings are attestable. As an insect I haven't heard or seen it.
BTW: The meaning got added on the 26th September 2005 - so it was more than 11 years in the entry... - 11:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectives[edit]

RFV for the ablative singular and the genitive plural or neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural to determine the declension of some adjectives (abl. sg. -ī or -e, gen. pl. -ium or -um, neuter pl. -ia or -a).

  • It could be that the declensions is unknown or that wt's declension is wrong. Well, in Medieval or New Latin some more forms could be attested, but then there should be a note and then it could be that there are multiple forms.
  • Just BTW as defence in advance: Knowing how wiktionary creates inflected forms, and seeing what grammarians write or grammars state, it's justified to question multiple entries with doubtful inflected forms.


  • Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
    "121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] The following have regularly -e:—caeles, compos, [†dēses], dīves, hospes, particeps, pauper, prīnceps, sōspes, superstes. [...]"
    b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1
    1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
    2. Sometimes, in poetry, in participles in -ns: as, silentum concilium, a council of the silent shades (Aen. vi. 432). [...] d. Vetus (gen. -ĕris) and pūbes (gen. -ĕris) regularly have -e in the ablative singular, -a in the nominative and accusative plural, and -um in the genitive plural. For ūber, see § 119 [note: there is ūber, abl. sg. ūberī, gen. pl. ūberum, neuter plural ūbera, and the note "An ablative in -e is very rare."; but there is also vetus with abl. sg. "vetere (-ī)"]. [...]
    122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. [...] Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
    1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."
    • Stating that sōstes has abl. sg. -e, but not stating that it has gen. pl. -um could mean that the gen. pl. is -ium or unattested. If it is -ium, there could be more declensions than just abl. sg. -ī, gen. pl. -ium (like i-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e, gen. pl. -um (like consonant-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e or -ī, gen. pl. -ium (poetically sometimes -um) (participles, with forms depending on the way of usage). In fact, with ūber, abl. sg. -ī (very rare -e), gen. pl. -um, neuter plural -a A&G have another declension form.
  • 21st century grammars (Pons, Klett, Duden and others) mention the following adjectives with abl. -e and gen. pl. -um: vetus, dīves, pauper, prīnceps, compos, superstes, sōspes, particeps, although many grammars just mention a few of them.
  • William Smith & Theophilus D. Hall, The student's Latin grammar. A grammar of the Latin language, 2nd edition, London, 1867, p. 18 had this: "The following Adjectives have [Ablative Singular in] ĕ only: paupĕr, pūbēs, dēsĕs, compŏs, impŏs, caelebs, princeps and sŭperstĕs."
  • Just BTW: An 18th century grammar noted that several adjectives, such as "ales, bipes, bicolor, cicur, compos, concolor, degener, deses, dives, impos, inops, immemor, memor, locuples, paper, particeps, praeceps, redux, superstes, sospes, teres, anceps, biceps, triceps &c." don't have a neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural, which would mean that e.g. *sospitia or *sospita is unattested (or was so centuries ago, or at least was uncommon or proscribed). An 19th century grammar mentioned something similar; namely that some adjectives such as "vigil, memor, compos, impos, pauper, dives, sospes, superstes, redux, supplex, particeps, princeps" are often used of persons, thus are often used in masculine and feminine gender, although they are sometimes also with neuters, but it's avoided to use them in the neuter plural cases in -a; for example one can say numen nemor, but not numina memora. So it could be more complicated to attest or verify the correct declension of caelebs or sospes for example.

- 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


See A&G cited above, and compare with superstes.


See A&G cited above.
Georges: "particeps, cipis, Abl. cipe"


See A&G cited above, and compare with particeps.


See A&G cited above.


See A&G cited above.
L&S mentions this example: "sub caelite mensa, Paul. Nol. Carm. 24, 9 al.", though it is Late Latin.
Also RFV for the nominative singular as L&S states "but not found in nom. sing.", as Gaffiot states "(inus. au nominatif)" and as Georges states "Nomin. caeles nicht nachweisbar." (nom. [sg.] caeles not attestable).
BTW: A&G mention defective adjectives too. From the defectives A&G mention, exlex and seminex/semineci here are mentioned without any note, while primoris has one.


Compare: caelebs#Citations
Though it's an poetic example with abl. sg. caelibe (used out of metrical reasons?).
Also: GBS has results with caelibum like "[...] vt inprimis de Collegiis caelibum virginum ita constituatur [...]" (with should be: of the unmarried virgins), but for caelibium there is only one GBS result found thrice (in "[...] quam Senior Augustus post Julius rogationes incitandis caelibium poenis & augendo aerario sanxerat [...]") and that could be something else.


See A&G cited above.
Compare: Talk:pubes#Latin
www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/ gives some more results with puberum, and some with pubere and puberi, but none with puberium or puberia or pubera.


Compare with pubes.
Note: Pliny might have impubium but that would be a form of impubis and not of impubes (gen. pl. impuberum or impuberium?)


  • L&S: "rĕdux (rēdux, Plaut. Rud. 4, 2, 4; id. Capt. 5, 1, 2), dŭcis (abl. reduce, Liv. 21, 50: reduci, Ov. H. 6, 1), adj."
  • Lewis: "redux ducis (abl. reduce; poet. also reducī, O.)"
  • Georges: "Abl. Sing. bei Dichtern auch reduci"
This implies that the abl. sg. is usually reduce and poetically (out of metrical reasons?) also reducī. The questioned plural forms however could be unattested (in ancient Latin).


  • See A&G cited above, for gen. pl.
  • L&S: "supplex (subpl-), ĭcis (abl. supplĭci, but also -ĭce freq. in dactyl. and anap. verse [...] As subst.: supplex , ĭcis, m."
  • Lewis: "supplex (subpl-) icis (abl. icī or ice; gen plur. -icum, rarely -icium), adj. [...] As subst m."
  • Georges: "supplex, plicis, Abl. gew. supplice, doch auch supplicī, Genet. Plur. supplicum u. (selten) supplicium"
This could mean that the adjective has both forms. However, this is more complicated as the dictionaries maybe don't properly differ between the inflection of the adj. and the subst., and it get's more complicated as there is also a noun supplicium.
Gen. pl. supplicum for the subst. should be attested (Cic. Mur. 4, 9: "repudiatio supplicum"). supplice and supplici for the adj. should be attested too (see supplex). Though as for now, supplice could be a poetic form (out of metrical reasons?). How about the gen. pl. or neuter pl. of the adj.?


For the doubtful plural forms.
  • A&G has abl. sg. -ī, "very rare" -e, gen. pl. -um, neuter pl. -a
  • Dictionaries have abl. sg. -ī and one reference or cite with -e, but often they don't mention the doubftul plural forms.
  • Note that there is a also a noun uber which also has gen. sg. uberis, so just attesting the word forms uberum or ubera, doesn't mean anything.


French, created by WF. fr.wikt has an entry, but there are zero hits on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I nominated this for deletion on French Wiktionary, but was informed by User:Lmaltier that French Wiktionary does not have CFI standards equivalent to our own; therefore, the use of the term in a few transient blog posts is considered sufficient to support its inclusion there. However, I can find no uses at all in permanently recorded media to support its inclusion here. bd2412 T 01:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


German. Bad stub created by someone who does not speak German. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, eleven years ago. I wouldn't create it today. bd2412 T 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I see only one result at google books: "Die weitgefächerten Bandbreiten des Theismus schließen den Deismus, den Polytheismus, den Pantheismus bzw. Pandeismus und den Panentheismus bzw. Panendeismus mit ein" (year?, Heinz Duthel, Die grosse Geschichte der Freimaurerei: Freimaurerei Rituale und Grade). German wikipedia has the same at de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Theismus_und_Atheismus - but this is not reliable and might violate de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keine_Theoriefindung regarding "Begriffsbildungen". - 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      • That could very well be a typo. It was added in this edit by User:Anima; maybe they can explain. bd2412 T 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


This particular traditional Chinese variant. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


This particular form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


This particular form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Seems unlikely to be a phoenix. --G23r0f0i (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • This is why TBot was never removed. Looking at Fugl Føniks that appears to be the correct word, and føniks appears in the Bokmålordboka and Nynorskordboka. "føniks (fra gr. 'purpurrød') i gresk mytologi: fugl som levde 500 år, brente seg selv og stod opp igjen: reise seg, stå opp igjen som en fugl føniks (av asken)". But ildfugl appears to be used in Danish, but not Norwegian, for some species of butterfly. Anyway I think this entry can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Literally translated ildfugl would be firebird, but it doesn't seem to be used in that sense either (OK, that's the bird species, not a Pontiac). DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Created by someone who does not know any Arawak, and I think based on confusion about the language versus the family. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Unattested afaict. — Kleio (t · c) 16:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is unattested and fails RFV, shouldn't it be "*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" in 𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍃? Overwriting the form by "|f_nom_pl=*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" or "|strong_f_nom_pl=*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" or similar seems not to work -- unlike in Latin entries for first and second declension adjectives where one can use "|gen_pl_f=FORM" to overwrite the form and where one can add a * so it links to Reconstruction:Latin/FORM. - 16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I'm pretty much 99.9% sure that it's unattested, I only post these here and don't {{delete}} them because it's good to follow due process. As for the asterisks, this is indeed something of an issue. The functionality to manually override each form currently doesn't exist (afaik) for most Gothic inflection table templates, and it probably should at some point. It's honestly not too pressing though imo; most Gothic words inflect very regularly and those that don't usually have custom inflection tables or no table at all. So even though only the attested forms have entries, the other forms are still predictable enough that it just wouldn't be worth it to manually edit in asterisks for all of the 1500+ Gothic entries that include some form of inflection-table template (the vast majority of which list at least some forms that aren't attested -- there aren't all that many Gothic words with every form attested). It might however be worthwhile to add a note to the templates stating that only those forms that have their own entries (i.e. are bluelinked) are in fact directly attested. That is, unless someone really wants to go through the bother of editing asterisks into all those tables, which at this stage of Wiktionary's coverage of Gothic seems to me to be rather unimportant and not worth the time investment compared to adding new words and etymologies for example. — Kleio (t · c) 18:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
RFV failed, needs admin to delete. — Kleio (t · c) 19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter Another creation by User:D1gggg. Is this real? If so, can this entry be fixed up? Thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's vertical lines, not slashes and more hyphens. I doubt I've seen it in print, it's usually handwritten.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I generally agree with Anatoli that it is much more common in handwriting. However, I believe I have seen it reproduced with a typewriter (!) in the form -"-. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess there are various ways to write this: --!!--, ==||==, --//--, ==="===. Not sure how to go about this RFV. I don't care either way, to be honest, whether it is kept or deleted. This set of symbols seems similar to the way character substitution works, you can use *** or ####, any number of them, with no particular rules. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning towards delete. I suppose this nomination is different from the one archived at "Talk:---" because that discussion was about line patterns that were not regarded as language, whereas in this case we are talking about a symbol that represents the word ditto. However, I think the fact that there is no consistent way of representing this symbol in print (unlike, for example, the @ symbol) means that it may not be verifiable. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed this was translingual; in any case, it is quite common in Danish, although I've only seen it in handwriting. As Atitarev says, the lines are vertical, nor slanted. When I see it, it is written just below what it replicates, as in
The cat has a velocity of 3 m/s.
The dog ------||--------  5 m/s.

where the length of the (solid, not dashed) horizontal lines are appropriately adjusted. I have never heard anyone regard this as nonstandard.__Gamren (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Russian but in German something like " should be attestable. But I can't think of any good way to search for it on Google. Maybe one could attest Unterführungszeichen (compare de:w:Unterführungszeichen) and find reference works, and then claim that " is in "clearly widespread use" (WT:CFI). Maybe the same can be done for Russian?
" and do already exist and are Translingual. Maybe Russian uses one of these? - 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


The Chinese usage needs to be verified in durable sources. The image here was used to show that the Japanese character is used in Hong Kong. The superscript not only suggests the meaning "station" but also the reading "zaam6" (Cantonese).

Usage of in Hong Kong along with a superscript gloss of (zhàn).

Please refer to (de) and previous discussions on the inclusion of the character as a Chinese term as opposed to Japanese.

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. http://hikaru-no-nihongo.blogspot.hk/2013/09/blog-post_28.html
  2. 陳詩慧Eva Chan - 東角駅【Official Lyric Video】 - YouTube
  3. w:zh:都會駅與城中駅
suzukaze (tc) 22:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Character Variants says that it is a variant of 驛 (referencing 角川漢和辞典). I'm not sure if this should be separate from the Hong Kong usage. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should be. Modern HK usage seems to be a sort of "Japanese is cool" phemonemon independent of classical usage. —suzukaze (tc) 01:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The entry has turned from a mere soft redirect (as a variant) with {{zh-see|驛|v}} into a half entry with an image and usage notes. This already violates the previous agreement among Chinese editors that simplified and (some) variant entries are only soft redirects. If it's NOT a redirect but a full entry, it should have pronunciation sections with a PoS parameter, context and geographical labels and should be cited (that's why it's in RFV). Despite the links above, I think it may only be used for visual effects, not in a running Chinese text, and mostly limited to Hong Kong. If it fails RFV, it should probably remain just a soft redirect (minus the image and usage notes), I think. It would be hard to verify the pronunciation but if the usage in the Chinese context is attested, we could add some notes for both "jik6" and "zaam6". What do you all think? Also @Wyang, Tooironic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't really have any a strong opinion on this. Soft-redirects to both 驛 and 站 seem like a good solution, with usage notes to explain its uses. Wyang (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there are two distinct 駅s to consider:
  1. Variant of 驛 (as described in the Dictionary of Character Variants). This may not pass RFV because it's citing a Chinese-Japanese dictionary, which really implies that it's Japanese.
  2. 駅 as used in Hong Kong. From what I've watched and read, this can be read variously as 驛 (jik6, the "etymologically correct" way), 站 (zaam6, semantic reading), 尺 (cek3, youbian dubian), 澤 (zaak6, youbian dubian), and 馬尺 (maa5 cek3, reading the components); the first two are probably most common. It's not quite a replacement of the ancient 驛, nor is it really 站. This could most likely pass RFV since the locations (usually stores/shopping centres) have been mentioned in the news before. It's also used in the song that Suzukaze-c mentioned. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. I am not particularly sure how Wiktionary defines the term variant character (異體字), but I was taught by my teachers that a variant character is a character written in a non-standard form but has the same meaning and pronunciation with its original form (正體字). The statement "A is a variant character of B" and its converse statement "B is a variant character of A" are not equivalent statements as one character has to be the true form and the other, a variant form. Can "駅" be attested as being a variant form of both “站" and "驛", ie. having the same meaning and pronunciation as that of "站" and "驛"? It has come to my attention that 東角駅 is not only the title of a song, but also the name of a mall in Hong Kong while 都會駅與城中駅 is a residential complex. I am unsure but in my opinion, "東角駅 站" refers to a station next to 東角駅 mall. Perhaps 駅 is just a character used for names of places. To the best of my knowledge, the Mandarin pronunciation yì and Cantonese pronunciation jik6 was provided by the Unicode Consortium in Unihan 8.0. Is this adequate enough for 駅 to be classified as a variant character of 驛? Note that Unihan provides Mandarin and Cantonese readings for shinjitai characters. Kevinup (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kevinup, KevinUp: You're pretty much on the same track as what we generally consider to be a variant. Since Wiktionary is aiming to be descriptive, there is no actual "orthodox" character, but the "most common" character used in traditional Chinese, which usually (but not always) overlaps with the Taiwanese standard. I don't really think 駅 in the Hong Kong context is actually equivalent to 站 or 驛. It's kind of special and should have its own full entry.
While encoding systems (like Unicode and HKSCS) are useful for determining whether a character is used in a particular language, it is not strong evidence on Wiktionary; we need to have durably-archived attestation. In fact, the Unihan database is riddled with errors, especially with definitions. If we don't find any use of 駅 as an equivalent to 站 or 驛, I don't think we can call it a variant of either character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Old Saxon/writhan[edit]

This is really for the Middle Low German and Low German descendants. I cannot find anything on either (Middle Low German wrîden, Low German wrieden). Without descendants, we cannot rightly reconstruct a form for Old Saxon. Leasnam (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


Welsh. Rfv-sense "a person from Trevethin". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


@Atitarev To verify:

  1. The word itself.
  2. The position of the stress. It was created by User:D1gggg with final stress, i.e. лута́ть (lutátʹ), but Anatoli says it's more likely to be лу́тать (lútatʹ). Can we find a video source with the word pronounced? Benwing2 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I was wrong. This video uses отлута́ть (otlutátʹ), лута́ть (lutátʹ), also лут (lut) and лу́ты (lúty) several times. I only checked one video, though but I'm satisfied. I'm not familiar with gamers' slang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like a mistake, if Japanese people follow the western custom and refer to a ship as "kanojo", that would be pronoun sense #1. Siuenti (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
彼女 is used in this sense in Japanese. Japanese also has the expression, 処女航海 (maiden voyage). See http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/19kan/idacho.htm where you will find "彼女の処女航海". See also, http://whalingmuseum-arcticvisions.org/captain-john-bartlett-of-the-panther/?lang=ja . I also agree that this sense should be listed under Pronoun. 馬太阿房 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Move it to the pronoun section and mark it as rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If the sense is real, the definition should also change from "Western custom" to "English custom" (re treating ships as females). English is not the only "Western" language, LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

More Volapük scientists and academics[edit]

hitümologan, jitümologan, tümologan, histrologan, jistrologan, hiprofäsoran, jiprofäsoran, profäsoranef, hiprofäsoranef, jiprofäsoranef. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All of these are absent from Wikisource. strologan would probably also fail, giving only one hit. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Volapük is a LDL (Wiktionary:Limited Documentation Languages - Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages), so a single usage in a durable archived work should be sufficient to attest it. - 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
All approved constructed languages, including Volapük, are WDLs, per WT:WDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Usual Scots forms are becum, becumin, with the past tense being becam; I can't find becamt anywhere Leasnam (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

kio (Esperanto)[edit]

The Esperanto plural form of kio (kioj) and plural accusative (kiojn) do not exist. Zamenhof clearly stated en La unua libro that kio can only take the n-finaĵo and not the plural -j. Confer https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Esperanto/Appendix/Table_of_correlatives. In my opinion the pages kioj and kiojn should be deleted or at least updated to specify that this form does not exist. Furthermore the kio page should be updates to specify that the word does not have a plural form despite ending in -o, just as the plural forms should be removed from the conjugation. Any objections or comments to this? --Miestasmia (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miestasmia I've moved your request to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not very hard to attest that "kioj" exists as a relative pronoun and even as an interrogative pronoun, so it should be included, but a label like {{lb|eo|nonstandard}} would be necessary. "kiojn" is a different story, I've only come across one valid hit, hidden in snippet view but also present in an errata list. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that kioj is attestable, though rare [41] [42] [43]. As for kiojn, if a word is listed in the errata list along with obvious errors like "koscienca" and "intetnacia", I would not call that a valid citation. But I do see enough citations to attest it at Google Groups: [44] [45] [46]Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant "valid hit" as in "not a scanning error". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


“Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names of plants to mean ‘having five leaves’.” — Latin or Translingual? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It exist translingually in taxonomic names like "Botryosicyos pentaphyllus", "Hibiscus pentaphyllus", "Phyllanthus pentaphyllus", "Pileus pentaphyllus", "Fragaria pentaphylla", "Manihot pentaphylla".
In Fragmenta phytographiae australiae, contulit Ferdinandus Mueller. Vol. II. (Melborne, 1860-1861, page 13) "Hibiscus pentaphyllus." is the title of a section and the text is in Latin. So one could argue that it appears in a Latin text. But as it is in italics and as it is just a section title and no sentence, it could be a mentioning and no usage. Anyway, "Hibiscus pentaphyllus" is a translingual and Translingual* taxonomic term and so is pentaphyllus.
pentaphyllam (fem. acc. sg.) does occur in Latin texts. Often it could be in Latin texts and yet be Translingual taxonomics (unlike English, Latin might decline taxonomic terms in a Latin way). It seems that there are also real Latin non-Translingual usages:
  • Ernsti H. F. Meyer commentariorum de plantis africae australioris [...] Vol. I. Fascic. I, Leipzig, 1835, page 193: "Celeberrimus hujus ordinis conditor coronam stamineam non solum modo monophyllam modo pentaphyllam dixit, sed hoc discrimine quoque in generibus disponendis usus est. [...] Quae discriminis illius ambiguitas nec ipsum Brownium fugisse exinde colligo, quod Xysmalobio suo in conspectu generum coronam pentaphyllam, in generis ipsius charactere monophyllam seu partitam tribuit, et vice cersa Metaplexidi suae coronam hic pentaphyllam, ibi quinquepartitam." "coronam stamineam" could be a species name spelled differently than in modern taxonomics (w:Corona (gastropod)) or it could be a corona consisting of threads (w:Perianth). By the spelling it could be that genera are spelled with a capital letter, so corona could be a normal noun and pentaphyllus could be a normal adjective.
  • Joannes or Joannis Raius [abl. sg. Joanne Raio], Historia plantarum [...] Tomus primus.", London, 1686, page 468: "Caulis bipedalis est, alis divisus, rotundus, striatus ut angulosis videatur, asper albâ hirsutie, umbellas edens, ut in penultima trifidas, sed breviori petiolo & crassiori impositas, basin habentes trifoliam, sed juxta flores pentaphyllam."
But by the version history, it was created as a Translingual entry (on 21 September 2014 someone changed Translingual into Latin), and by the meaning it is about the meaning used in translingual and Translingual taxonomic names ("Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names"). So the easiest and safest way would be to change it back into Translingual and maybe add some derived terms (like Botryosicyos pentaphyllus etc.). If a non-Translingual Latin word can undoubtly be attested, it could still be added later.
* translingual and Translingual isn't the same: By attestation some Translingual terms could at the moment be monolingual (e.g. only English), although hypothetically they could be used in other languages as well. pentaphyllus is used in more than one language, so it's used translingually and is Translangual (WT:About Translingual#Accepted: "taxonomic names").
- 13:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


"Caddy" (→"Cadillac", see user's other contributions)


"beemer" ("BMW motorcycle")


"Chevy" —suzukaze (tc) 04:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: is it used to refer to any other Kennedy other than Arthur Kennedy? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


French noun. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of scannos for friabilité and cut-off appropriabilité, but no good hits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that this is a protologism that was used just once by an author in a joke. [47] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the Latin adjective / Translingual taxonomic epithet. It's defined as “Used as a specific epithet; shining, gleaming.”, but I don't see on what usage that definition is based. The etymology given reads “From Ancient Greek αἴγλη (aíglē, sunlight, gleam), possibly from an Epic Greek genitive and dative form, or possibly via Latin Aegle (any of three mythological figures)”, but that doesn't explain the -fīnus element. Compare Aeglefinus, which I think derives from the French églefin (haddock), which appears to be attested since circa 1300 as the Middle French egreffin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find what source I might have used for the etymology. I fear there may not have been one. The derivation that Robert shows for églefin does not include any Greek or Latin. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The meaning is likely based on the presumed etymology, and the "usage" likely is the one in taxonomic names.
  • David H. McNicoll, Dictionary of Natural History Terms with their derivations, including the various orders, genera, and species, London, 1863, page 9 gives this etymology: "Ægle'finus (Ichth.) αἰγλοφανής [aiglophanḗs], brilliant, lustrous". It contains a change of ο to e and of a to e - and the only explanation for that that I can think of is English mispronunciation or French or English deformation. Alternatively, the given etymology could be incorrect.
  • Dictionaries and other books mention French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (by Frenchies) or eglefin (by non-Frenchies or in caps as EGLEFIN) and English eglefinus as names for haddock. The origin is once said to be Dutch (14th century, so likely Middle Dutch) eschlevis which is said to literally mean shell-fish (from Why is an Apple a Pomme? A Journey with Words by Denis Dunstone, 2014, e-books version at books.google, which also mentions Spanish eglefino, Portuguese eglefim, Italian eglefino). A German book mentioned a Dutch schelvis (which looks more like Schellfisch) and says there was a "Umbildung". In another context a French aigle fin with the meaning "clever person" (schlauer Mensch) and the literal meaning "fine eagle" (feiner Adler) was mentioned.
    So maybe the etymology is like this: some Dutch word, likely for the haddock -> French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (French caps, maybe in older typography, EGLEFIN), maybe by folketymological deforming of the Dutch to resemble aigle fin and then maybe to deform it as it's no eagle (aigle) -> maybe English or some other European language -> Translingual aeglefinus. Maybe one can find more and better references for this.
BTW: The long e (Wiktionary: "aeglēfīnus") is likely from one of the two presumed etymologies. So if the etymology is a guess, the length likely is too, and if it is a guess, then it shouldn't be "aeglēfīnus" without any note.
BTW 2: By connecting aeglefinus with the French noun aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin, aeglefinus could be a noun too (in taxonomics used in apposition), so it's almost like an alternative form of Aeglefinus except that modern taxonomic uses capitalisation in a special way.
- 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to be Cantonese. There are very few Google results, some of which point to other dialects. It should be 十劃都未有一撇 in Cantonese — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Not found in Thai dictionaries.--Octahedron80 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Shinjitai form of 謳歌. —suzukaze (tc) 03:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Character 𧦅 is part of Extended shinjitai, "unofficial characters". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)



originally listed as Category:Buyeo lemmas

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

See Category talk:Old Korean appendices. I think both Appendix:Old Korean deleted entries and Appendix:Baekje deleted entries should also be deleted, moving unattested terms to an appendix is not a solution to things. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm relisting this as RFvs of the only two entries in the category. If they can't be cited or moved to better titles in a month, they can be deleted. Wikipedia says some Buyeo words are attested, so the category itself seems fine. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the second entry, the New history of Korea (2005) by Hyŏn-hŭi Yi, ‎Sŏng-su Pak, ‎Nae-hyŏn Yun, page 111, says "When Wigeo was king, his uncle was in the position of uga. For this reason, the maga, uga, jeoga and guga, collectively called the daega officials, were appointed from among the king's relatives. In Eastern Buyeo, governors, called "ga" in Korean," as if the word is Korean and not Buyeo. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]


Latin for Tokyo. Tagged but apparently not listed. Does not seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - How does an ancient language, no longer in daily use, have a word for a city that was unknown to the Romans. Do we make it up as we go along. Is there any policy or precedent.--Dmol (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Some people (especially the Catholic Church) have kept writing in Latin, so some modern places have attestable Latin names, e.g. Tzadia. But this one does not seem to be attested. I suggest it be moved to Tokio, per google books:"Tokio" Iaponiae, which finds many hits like:
  • 1891, La Civiltà cattolica, issues 993-996, page 730:
    ... et constituimus, atque illustrem urbem Tokio quae Imperii caput et ...
- -sche (discuss) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17713/17713-h/17713-h.htm is a volume published in Latin in Japan after the founding of Edo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That gutenberg text was printed in Roma and doesn't seem to have Tocio or Tokio (or inflected forms with stem Tocion- or Tokion-) in it. It also doesn't seem to have Jedo (or Jeddo, Iedo, Ieddo, Yedo, Yeddo) in it.
The given Latin example could contain an indeclinable Tokio, not Tokio with genitive Tokionis etc. Internet NL seems to have Tokio, -onis but isn't durably archived. In printed books at google one can find "in Tokio" in NL as in "Dedicavi hanc speciem domino Prof. geologiae Harada in Tokio." = "I have dedicated this species to mister Harada Professor of geology in Tokio" (biological context). Furthermore, there is the gender which would need attestation although feminine gender seems fitting (maybe cp. with WT:RFV#Olisipo). Alternatively it could be without mentioning a gender which is the better way if none is attested. But maybe one then has to use {{head|...}} instead of those specialised Latin entry templates. - 22:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Dmol and -sche -- every place which has a Roman Catholic diocese has to have an official Latin name of the diocese as used by the church authorities. These are always listed in the Italian Wikipedia articles on the dioceses, and often in the corresponding English Wikipedia articles. Sometimes these show the placename in the genitive case (Archidioecesis Angelorum for Los Angeles), while in other cases a generic adjective in -ensis is used. The official Catholic church name of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tokyo is Archidioecesis Tokiensis... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there durably archived Latin sources for these Roman Catholic names? Well, "Archidioecesis Tokiensis" seems to appear in such a source (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), so never mind. However, the adjective Tokiensis does not attest the name Tokio. In an Acta Apostolicae Sedis one can find "quarum altera Tokio urbem atque civiles praefecturas de Tokio ...", but it has italics with it and thus doesn't appear like a nomral usage.
BTW: Based on the Acta Apostolica Sedis, the declension template in archidioecesis could be wrong. Roman Catholics have accusative "Archidioecesim" and ablative "archidioecesi" which make more sense. dioecesis gives accusative -im and ablative -i too, but also might have many made-up or very uncommon forms. - 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged ages ago but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be an incorrect singular from the plural צבאות of צבא. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


RFV-sense "expertise". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  • In British Medieval Latin it could mean "competence" which is similar to "expertise", cp. eg. Engl. sentence (also ending in ce) and Lat. sententia (also ending in tia) and cp. DMLBS: "competentia , a appropriate matter. b opportunity. c competency, (adequate) supply, resource. d competence, qualifying capacity. e competence (leg.)." - 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • "Rerum britannicarum medii aevi scriptores: Monumenta franciscana" has "Super litteraturae competentia vestra sufficiunt experimenta." which in DMLBS is cited as "super litterature [...]" and given as a source for the meaning "competence, qualifying capacity." - 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


RFV-sense "to deduce, to conclude". Tagged by the person who added the sense, but not listed. Pinging some recently-active users who know Hebrew, who may know if it's valid: @Julien Daux, Wikitiki89. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added one quote. The meaning exists (compare hashlakhá of the same root meaning "consequence", "ramification") but is less common than the third and especially first meaning and so is relatively difficult to find attestations for, but I'll see if I can get some more. — Kleio (t · c) 17:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Just note that this sense was taken from Morfix, so the fact that it exists in Morfix means nothing. But thanks for the quotes, I was having trouble finding any. --WikiTiki89 17:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, point is that Morfix rarely adds nonsense in my experience, so it's at least a good indication. I just added a third quote though, so it should count as attested now I think. Gotta say though I'm not 100% sure about how to exactly render some of these in English, and the second quote I couldn't even get the name of the author and the article (Google Books snippet view sucks), just the issue and name of the magazine/journal it was in. — Kleio (t · c) 18:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Translations don't have to sound good, they just have to help readers understand the Hebrew. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
There's also another meaning: "to influence", "to impact", as in להשליך על התוצאות, להשליך על הבחירה בין... Morfix and Sapir don't have this meaning, but Milog does. —Julien D. (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

L&S: "Perh. a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)." Maybe that's the source for it, and maybe in another dictionary it's without the "Perh.", or maybe it's coming from L&S but with ignoring the "Perh." which should abbreviate "Perhaps". - 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"Perh." means perhaps in L&S.
  • L&S: "Perh. [= perhaps] a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)."
  • L w/o S: "a curb, used as an instrument of torture: civīs tradere camo, H. dub. [= doubtful]"
  • Gaffiot: "carcan : *Acc. Tr. 302."
  • Georges: "Strafwerkzeug für Sklaven u. Verbrecher, Acc. tr. 302. Hor. sat. 1, 6, 39."
Based on this it should rather be a yoke (frame around the neck) than a necklace (jewelry worn around the neck).
As for Horatius, it does depend on the edition and camo could be less common than Cadmo.
The works mentioned by the dictionaries:
  • Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Noni Marcelli compendiosa doctrina. Emendavit et adnotavit Lucianus Mueller. Pars I, Leipzig, 1888, p. 295f.:
    Collus masculino Accius Epigonis:
    quid césso ire ad eam? em, praésto est camo† collúm gravem.
    16 Epigonis Me; epigono C. – 17 equidem illud camo idem quod κάμπτω olim putaveram. sed ne sic quidem sententia satis facilis et commoda. vulgo ita explicatur, ut camus sit κημός, et significet, quod exemplo caret, vinculum collare. propius a vero existimo catellae (cf. pg. 199 l. catellae) vocabulum latere et hausta quaedam, quibus octon. iamb. impleretur, ut puta: quid césso ire ad eam? eam praéstost. et catélla (ablat.) habet collúm gravem. nam interdum in hoc metro caesuram neglegi notum. illa quin de Eriphyla dicta esse videantur non intercedo. at pessime puto factum, quod Epigonos Accii eandem cum Eriphyla habuit fabulam Ribbeckius duasque res diversissimas Thebarum expugnationem et Eriphylae caedem una tragoedia contineri existimavit.
  • Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Nonii Marcelli de conpendiosa doctrina libros XX onionsianis copiis usus edidit Wallace M. Lindsay. Volumen I. LL. I–III, argumentum, indicem siglorum et praefationem continens, Leipzig, 1903, p. 294:
    Collus masculino Accius Epigonis (302):
    . quid cesso ire ád eam? em, praesto ést: camo collúm gravem.
    16 epigono (etiam F3)
  • Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae, Leipzig, 1852, p. 148 (L. Attius [= Lucius Accius], Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302):
    Iám quid cesso ire ád eam? en praesto est: én camo collúm grauem!
    302 iam om. libri   em praesto est camo libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
  • Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae. Secundis curis. Volumen I., Leipzig, 1871, p. LV and p. 176 (L. Attius, Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302) (similary at wikisource):
    [p. VII and IX]  PRAEFATIO
    [...] eis
    quod infra sequitur contexui.
    [p. XLIX]  Attium et debebam et volebam ACCIVM scribere. Nam hoc fuisse poetae nostri nomen fidem facit cum frequentia, immo constantia huius potissimum scripturae in testimoniis, tum Pisaurensium titulorum auctoritas, ubi A c c i i apparent, maximi illa momenti, si probabiliter statuitur Accianum (nam sic apud Hieronymum dicitur) fundum, qui iuxta Pisaurum fuit, a patre poetae colono possessum et filio traditum fuisse. [...]
    [p. LV]  V. 302 violentius Buechelerus eiecto camo ad senarii modos constrinxit:
    quid césso ire ad eam? em praésto est : em (vel iam) collúm grauem.
    [p. 176]  [Séd] quid cesso ire ád eam? em praesto est: cámo [uide] collúm grauem!
    302 sed om. libri   em praesto est, om. uide, libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
  • Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satirae = Sermones, liber I. In: Horace Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica with an English translation by H. Rushton Fairclough, 1942, p. 78f. (similary at wikisource and thelatinlibrary):
    "tune, Syri, Damae aut Dionysi filius, audes
    deicere de saxo civis aut tradere Cadmo?"
    "Do you, the son of a Syrus, a Dama, a Dionysius,d dare to fling from the rocke or to hand over to Cadmus citizens of Rome?"
    d These are common slave-names.
    e i.e. the Tarpeian rock from which criminals were sometimes thrown by order of a tribune. Cadmus was a public executioner.
- 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In an edition with English translation, Attius/Accius' "camo" is interpreted as necklace or neckband. So there are (a) Horatius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device) or "Cadmo" (proper noun) and (b) Attius/Accius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device or a necklace or neck-band). It's doubtful, but should be cited. - 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Pinging recently-active editors who know some Thai and may be able to ascertain if this is a real word or not and provide citations: @หมวดซาโต้, YURI, Octahedron80, Iudexvivorum, Atitarev, Alifshinobi. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a[n uncommon] misspelling of ริเริ่ม (rí-rə̂əm). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
We should delete this entry. As หมวดซาโต้ wrote above, it's a(n uncommon) misspelling of ริเริ่ม (rí-rə̂əm). --A.S. (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It's just typo. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

combat à l'arc[edit]

Compare #dodge_bow; this seems to have been created as part of the same promotional effort. The hits I see don't support this meaning and may be SOP. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Latin: vocative singular of vir. Really? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's likely not just a matter of vir, but a matter of Wiktionary's templates, in this case of Template:la-decl-2nd-er. According to dictionaries, there is the vocative puere from which one might derive a voative in -e for such terms -- but there is also the nominative puerus to which this vocative belongs. L&S only has "old voc. puere", but Gaffiot has "arch. puerus Prisc. 6, 41 || voc. puere Caecil. Com. 100" and Georges has "Archaist. Nomin. puerus, Augustin. serm. 57, 6 Mai; vgl. Prisc. 6, 42: Vokat. puere, Caecil. com. 100. Afran. com. 193. Plaut. asin. 382 u.a.". Maybe some users or grammars did derive this voc. -e from puere like it's mentioned in L&S without puerus. In ML and maybe in (British) NL this voc. -e might occur more often, but then it should be marked and then it should only be added if attested (like it's done with the verb form in -ier by the parameter "|p3inf=1" which gives this text: "The present passive infinitive in -ier is a rare poetic form which is attested for this verb."). According to common grammars, the voc. of such terms like puer and vir only is the same as the nom.
BTW into the template this voc. form was added in diff without any reference or explanation. In diff it was moved from the note into the table. Luckily, someone later moved it back into a note. - 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


It was tagged before as wiktionary had it as m. in Olisipo and as f. in Lisabon.
The RFV tag has been removed in contrary to the normal RFV procedure as mentioned at the top of WT:RFV with the comment "it's masculine", but no cite was given to support it. The person who removed the tag gave this comment in the old discussion:

"Both Lewis & Short and Gaffiot say masculine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)"

He did not provide any cite which proves the gender. As dictionaries sometimes are wrong or contain unattested information, they don't attest anything. Furthermore, as pointed out in the old discussion, there are dictionaries which have Olisipo as a feminine:

"In some dictionaries the word is mentioned with feminine gender, e.g. in an appendix in F. K. Kraft's and M. A. Forbiger's dictionary (from 1826) it is: "Lissabon, (Lisboa), Olissipo (Ulisippo, Olisipo), onis, f. Plin. Lisbona." Furthermore the OLD (1968, p. 1246) has: "Olisīpō (-ippō) ~ōnis, f. Also Vlis-.". So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested."

Again: "So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested."

  • Links for the old discussion: Talk:Olisipo#RFV discussion: April–May 2017 and Special:PermanentLink/42770951#Olisipo.
  • Regarding the arching comment "This has already been detagged; I'm archiving it, as we have references for the listed gender":
    It was detagged in contrary to RFV's procedure and without being cited properly. (Well, if one just looks into wiktionary and into Gaffiot and L&S then wiktionary's m. seems to be correct, while its f. seems to be an error. But it's not so easy.)
    One can find incorrect or unattested information in dictionaries, and sometimes different dictionaries (like Gaffiot, L&S, L without S) also do have contradicting information. If that would attest anything, one could add much nonsense, or unattested stuff.
    As for now, the gender is not properly attested, and for me it seems that one can't attest it properly, at least with classical sources.
    But if dictionaries can be used to attest anything for (classical) Latin then one can attest both genders. Though, by which rule or exception of a rule are dictionary information sufficient for Latin entries?
    WT:CFI has "For terms in extinct languages" - does Latin, even though it is still used, count as extinct? Later it's "For all other spoken languages that are living" - is Latin still spoken? Written it is, but that's not spoken. Maybe it's spoken by the Pope and other church people, so that it counts as spoken. And then maybe it is the "only one [..] mention is adequate" for spoken languages which could be used to justify using dictionaries. But there is the condition: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". By Wiktionary:About Latin#Attestation, L&S, Gaffiot and OLD aren't deemed appropriate.
    So the proper way to resolve this RFV likely is this: Wait one month as likely there comes no attestion for the gender, at least not in classical Latin. Then add a usage note mentioning what's stated in the dictionaries (m. in L&S and Gaffiot, f. in OLD) and remove the RFV and the gender from the headword line. Of course, a better way would be to properly attest the gender, but that could be impossible.

- 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC), PS from 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this comment, L&S does not mark the length of final vowels ever. They are not claiming it is short. —JohnC5 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if they never mark it, but I'd too guess it's just unmarked (that's why it was "short or unmarked o at the end" with "unmarked" in it).
BTW: I already added a usage note as suggested above. If the gender get's attested, it could be removed too. If it doesn't get attested, an additional "The gender is unattested." could be added. - 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "smelt". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's right. In my dictionary I find: плав (plav) (melt), related to: плавень (plavenʹ) (flux, fusing agent), плавильник (plavilʹnik) (crucible, melting pot), плавильный тигель (plavilʹnyj tigelʹ) (crucible, melting pot), плавильный (plavilʹnyj) (melting, smelting), плавильщик (plavilʹščik) (founder, smelter), плавить (plavitʹ) (melt, fuse, smelt), плавкий (plavkij) (fusible, meltable), плавление (plavlenije) (fusion, melting), плавленый (plavlenyj) (fused, melted, smelted). —Stephen (Talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuam[edit]

Latin phrases purportedly meaning “everlasting” or “permanent”. I’m most sceptical, however, about the usage note included under ad perpetuum, viz.:

  • The words ad perpetuum or ad perpetuam rei memoriam were normally placed at the end of the salutation on Roman documents to convey the meaning that the documents were trustworthy and permanent.

I didn’t see anything about that in the usual lexicographic places (see perpetuus#References). The phrases in perpetuō (ablative) and in perpetuum (accusative) are well attested (elsewhere), but nowhere do I see mentioned a phrase with ad and any form of perpetuus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=%22ad+perpetuam%22&k=Bibliothek has many mentionings of "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" or "ad perpetuam memoriam". www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/A/Bulle+%5B1%5D could imply that "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" appears in Medieval documents. As the pope lives in Rome and as it is "Roman Catholic Church" the quoted "Roman documents" could be correct, but vague or misleading. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magni_aestimamus.jpg (said to be a bull from 2011 by wikipedia) has "Benedictus Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam." and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_Quo_Primum_tempore.JPG (said to be a bull) has "Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam" at the top.
    www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Key%C3%9Fler,+Johann+Georg/Neueste+Reisen+durch+Deutschland,+B%C3%B6hmen,+Ungarn,+die+Schweiz,+Italien+und+Lothringen/Erste+Abtheilung/51.+Schreiben?hl=ad+perpetuum cites a text with "ad perpetuum" in it. Maybe it is a British Medieval or New Latin form of "in perpetuum"? - 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

deinde scriptum[edit]

RFV for this supposedly idiomatic Latin phrases defined as:

  • "in place of a signature", "the same" (referring to a signature written above on the page, typically following a P.S.)

I haven’t been able to find it in L&S, du Cange, Elementary Lewis, Niermeyer, or the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be NL and not CL, so it would be missing in L&S and OLD. w:de:Liste lateinischer Abkürzungen, w:de:DS and w:de:Postskriptum mention it, but that's not a reliable source and could be a German abbreviation. Talk:deinde scriptum gives another etymology, but in English, German, Latin that would be unlikely. - 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "bathroom". --WikiTiki89 16:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's in Morfix. Perhaps the definition needs to be clarified to "room with a bath". --WikiTiki89 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, a Google Image search turns up pictures of both bathtubs and bathrooms, usually with a bathtub in the frame (so perhaps those are still pictures of "bathtub"), but sometimes with only a shower, or only a toilet and sink, which suggests that the word sometimes refers to the room. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I see from those results that "חדר אמבטיה" is one of the terms for a home bathroom, and that the word "חדר" ("room") is omitted in most expressions such as "ריהוט אמבטיה" ("bath [room] furniture") and "ארונות אמבטיה" ("bath [room] cabinets"). I wonder if anyone ever says "באמבטיה" to mean "in the bathroom" rather than "in the bath". --WikiTiki89 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Is this Latin, or just the second part of the Translingual taxonomic Solanum lycopersicum added as a Latin noun?
In Latin taxonomy one can find "Solanum Lycopersicum" and "Lycopersicum Humboldtii" but that's not the same as just lycopersicum. - 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Sense 1: "False plane tree".
By the version history I get the impression that probably there is just the second sense and this first sense is a misplaced literal translation.
In Latin Acer pseudoplatanum and Acer Pseudoplatanum (the latter in Carolus Linnaeus') do exist, but that would have the 2nd sense in it.

  • If sense 1 doesn't exist, this likely better is a Translingual than a Latin entry.
  • In modern non-Latin taxonomics pseudoplatanus could be an adjective as there is Anomalocentra pseudoplatana (in a English taxonomic book from 2002). But well, ATM this might be the only source for the feminine and this taxonomic name.

- 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


RFV to be on the safe side, since the entire entry seems to be a rehash of this Yahoo! Answers question. —suzukaze (tc) 09:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

farlig er den, som intet har at miste[edit]

__Gamren (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

forretninger før fornøjelser[edit]

__Gamren (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, I am expressing my doubt that the saying forretninger før fornøjelser exists. As for a translation, I suppose man må yde, før man kan nyde comes close.__Gamren (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

livet er blot et lysglimt i mørket[edit]

__Gamren (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

sygdom kommer flyvende, men går krybende[edit]

__Gamren (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

tal ikke om rebet i hængt mands hus[edit]

__Gamren (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

tidligt gift gør tidligt gammel[edit]

This should be the last one.__Gamren (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

rust fortærer jern og misundelse fortærer sig selv[edit]

Forgot to list this one.__Gamren (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact what I thought would be a false friend, "(gul og) grøn af misundelse" appears in the DDO. And there's no entry for misundelse either. DonnanZ (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, those idioms both exist.__Gamren (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Can't seem to find anything definitive on Google books. Google News only has three results for google books:"祕闻" -"祕聞" -"秘", but I'm not sure if they were converted into simplified Chinese from traditional Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Is this actually used to mean "rock and roll" aside from the album by Beyond? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Google Books has a single Swedish book, apparently about some outcast kids ("de nummerlösa") who were forbidden from speaking their native Esperanto by an authoritarian government in a dystopian setting:

    • 2015, Marta Söderberg, Athena, Gilla Böcker (ISBN 9789187457319)
      ”Tror du att jag räddade dig bara för att du skulle kunna ge upp ? Då hade jag väl för fan låtit dig drunkna. Jävla fektruo!” [emphasis not mine]
      Do you think I saved you just so you could give up? Then I would have fucking let you drown, wouldn't I? Damned shithole. [I never know how to render väl (or vel, in Danish) constructs in English]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't count. I'm not sure whether this is durably archived. And then there's a Reddit comment (in an otherwise-English post). There's some other stuff, too, like this and this.__Gamren (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that an Esperanto word used in Swedish doesn't count. Kajeroj el la Sudo (the last link) looks like a published periodical which is presumably durably archived. Google Groups (esp. soc.culture.esperanto) doesn't turn anything up, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Japanese adjective, "incredible". 6 pages of Google hits, all largely about the Disney movie. —suzukaze (tc) 06:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with the google books hits? Siuenti (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The Incredibles, when discussed in any language, does not cite the adjective in question. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "favorite, concubine" definition. I couldn't find it in any online Chinese-English dictionary sources. Bumm13 (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's included in the Chinese-Chinese Yedict as "妾", citing the word 纳宠. —suzukaze (tc) 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be cited now (with the help of Hanyu Da Zidian and Hanyu Da Cidian). Someone could help to improve the translations of the quotations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
(Is this sense invariably found along with the word 纳? —suzukaze (tc) 20:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC))
Of all the examples I've seen, when it means "concubine", it always has 納 around it somewhere. Also, I think "favourite" might need to be separated. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be included as such in CC-CEDICT (not that it means much for our purposes). Taiwan's Ministry of Education dictionary seems to describe something more specific. —suzukaze (tc) 22:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
(google:"青鮫的" has a really feeble amount of hits...) —suzukaze (tc) 22:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


For the doubtful feminine forms heptaphyllus, heptaphylli, heptaphyllo etc.
BTW 1: In Translingual taxonomics the feminine is the more logical "heptaphylla".
BTW 2: this is the only Latin adjective ending in -us and using "la-adecl-2nd" besides the doubtful chrysocarpus. - 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


An Esperanto word for have sex borrowed from Toki Pona? I'm skeptical, and a quick search on Google Books, Google Groups, and Tekstaro turned up nothing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, if it passes, we should determine whether it's transitive or intransitive—if it's not transitive, an "intr=yes" parameter should be added to the inflection table. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unpi" is a slang term that is sometimes used in Telegram chat rooms, for example. It comes from using "unpa" (one of the most well-known Toki Pona words) as if it were a normal Esperanto word with an adjectival -a ending. I do think the word has a fairly high chance of survival as a slang term, considering the amount of Toki Pona speakers and learners among Esperantists, and the high recognizability in the present tense form "unpas" and the adjectival form "unpa". I that weren't the case, I wouldn't have added the word to Wiktionary. But frankly, I forgot about the attestation requirement. I don't think you'll find it in any article or credible source. At least not at this time. —Rajzin (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Design by contract[edit]

For the spelling, the gender and the inflection.
"Design by Contract" with neuter gender and genitive "Design by Contract" are attestable, but that's not "Design by contract" with masculine gender and strange genitive "Design by contracts".
IMO it could simply be moved and changed... - 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not a proper noun either. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The source for "Design by contract" could be de:w:Design by contract, but German Wiki uses "Design by contract", "Design by Contract" and "Design By Contract". The masculine gender could come from the given German translation in "Design by contract (kurz DbC, englisch für Entwurf gemäß Vertrag)" as Entwurf is masculine. But Design is neuter. The strange genitive "Design by contracts" could come from en.Wikt's template.
      German Design by Contract n does now exist (which also means that Design by contract can't be moved anymore to the correct place...). - 11:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. The anon who tagged it said "There is only one result on Google Books that doesn't represent this meaning!". @Crom daba was the creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "Chongqing" definition; it doesn't seem to be an abbreviation for the city name and couldn't find it in any other online dictionaries. Bumm13 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's clearly correct (per zdic.net definition) Bumm13 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a correct definition. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense, the chess piece. An IP address has expressed concern that this may not be a valid term, and tried to remove it, so could someone please verify this? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Duden has the same definition, but there is no mention of it in the German Wikipedia article on "Schach". SemperBlotto (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • This book and this book are using the term with the intended meaning. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Easily cited - but maybe not by Angr's examples as the books discuss some chess variants like Courierspiel, Märchenschach, Vier-Personen-Schach. - 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        As it isn't obvious by the above: The entry now has four citations (which are durably archived and convey the meaning). - 16:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Looks real, but I can't find any cites. w:bar:Hawara suggests it's not just Austrian, incidentally. @-sche? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in the bar.WP article, Wolfgang Teuschl translated the New Testament into Viennese in 1971 and called it "Da Jesus und seine Hawara", which I find somewhat amusing (picture a priest in an old chapel in London opening his mouth and in a Cockney or MLE accent telling you about "da Jesus an his mates"), but also somewhat clever given the ultimately Hebrew derivation of the word. Anyway, that's one cite. It's bar, not de though. - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I see you changed the entry to Bavarian. In that case, I guess it's cited? But should there be a German entry as well? Our handling of the German topolects always confuses me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't thought it was attested in this spelling in German, but maybe it is, rarely. Btw, we are missing German and English sections for the place Hawara and for another unrelated term "Hawara" that refers to a person (see google books:"Hawaras"). - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
And, indeed, three of the citations I found are of a compound word (and at least two seem to be connected with a specific person). However, there are enough German citations of "mein Hawara", "dein Hawara", and "deine Hawara" available that this is attested as a rare form. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Chinese) balloon.

This word does seem to be used (google books:"条风船"), but seems to refer to a type of actual ship. —suzukaze (tc) 04:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

atentu, pretu, ek[edit]

When (and if, I suppose) this fails RFV, please let the French and Danish Wiktionaries know (the first entry, and probably also the second (noting the creator), have been copied hence).__Gamren (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

fr.Wikt has extremely lax inclusion "standards", and probably considers it sufficient that eo.WP uses the term. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Searching eo.wiki, the only use (or mention, for that matter) I find is a one-off translation of the title of the Tokio Hotel song "Ready, set, go!".__Gamren (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

binde op[edit]

Rfv-sense "to truss". Even if attested, it may not be a separate sense.__Gamren (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


差別 does not mean discrimination in Chinese like it does in Japanese, so this term seems unlikely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a doctor's degree in optometry". Seems to me like it's probably just English, or possibly Translingual, but I suppose it could be New Latin. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In Latin it could abbreviate a New Latin *"optometriae doctor". But for the full form, I only saw a few mentionings or non-Latin usages like English "[...] give the degree of O.D.--Optometriae Doctor, or Doctor of Optometry." The degree could be from the 20th century, hence it's more likely that it's not Latin but just English or at best Translingual. - 23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Seems to be restricted to 陸若漢 (João Rodrigues Tçuzu). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Which still leaves it as a rare transcription of the name. I'm fine with adding a tag, but there's no reason to remove the entry or to force the Wikipedia article to link to the meaningless separate characters. — LlywelynII 08:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's only used in one person's name, I'm not sure if it would pass the "independence" criterion under attestation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a thorny question. Books by three different authors all referring to "Saint-Brieuc" would attest that placename, even though they would all be referring to the same town. But of course "Saint-Brieuc" should not be defined as "any town" but rather as the specific commune in Côtes-d'Armor in Brittany, so if "若漢" is only used to translate one specific João, then maybe it should not be defined as "Alternative form of 約翰: John, Johan, João, &c.", but rather as a transcription of the name of that specific João ... if it is sometimes used (even to refer to that particular João) without being next to "陸".
However, if it is common for different Johns to have different transcriptions of their names (if there are a large number of transcriptions), then I would want more input from Chinese speakers on whether it is sensible to regard the ones that are used of only one particular John or another as independent and includable.
And if "若漢" only occurs in the compound "陸若漢", then it could be argued that the individual parts of the compound don't deserve an entry because they are not attested (with any relevant meaning) outside of it, and the compound as a whole is excluded by the rule that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic".
Would we include an English first name if only one person had it? I suppose we probably wouldn't, and so shouldn't include this, either... - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: formerly used sometimes as a transcription of Rodriguez or Rodrigues. Seems to be restricted to 陸若漢. (I'm only requesting for verification of the connection to Rodriguez/Rodrigues. If RFV fails, the surname sense should still be kept.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, you've provided your own verification and its commonality is aside the point. Just add a rare or obsolete tag. — LlywelynII 08:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Commonality is not an issue if it could be found independently of one particular person. This type of phono-semantic matching of names is common even to this day, e.g. 定康 (Chris Patten), 家平 (Frank Scarpitti), but if it's only used for one person, I don't think it merits inclusion at Wiktionary. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
If I name my child Wiktionary, do I get to add {{given name}} to Wiktionary, using public records as citations? —suzukaze (tc) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


[48]__Gamren (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added three quotations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I see several mentions, but no durably archived uses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


After the last rfv process, there are new citations: two printed sources and some results from the GG. -- 08:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC

I found the first cited book, where the term is bolded in the original, and capitalized and immediately glossed "televizyon". I couldn't find a copy of the second work. One of the citations (from özgür milliyetçiler) is not actually from Usenet, but a less durably-archived Google Group. The term seems to be rare, possibly nonstandard, and would need labels to that effect. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anylai, Djkcel, could you look over the citations at Citations:sınalgı and translate them? Does "sınalgı" seem to mean "television" in them? (Maybe you are already familiar with this, but) Wiktionary has a long-running issue where some people promote "more Turkic" neologisms for things that are normally referred to using loanwords. Sometimes, the neologisms are not attested; sometimes, they are but they're rare; sometimes, the citations offered turn out to be written in dialects (which would merit a {{label}}) or even not in Turkish but in Azeri. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, the March 25 2014 citation is apparently copied from, here, (March 24), it is obvious looking at the title and citation dates. But the original article does not contain "sınalgı". Plus, the sentence is broken, honestly I am not sure if it is written by a Turkish person, he did a bad job. One thing to note, we again see çınca in the sense of electrics, electronics or whatever. This word which i noticed in the failed rfv process of çıngı is an interesting one and it can not be a coincidence.
I cannot understand a lot of words in 2014 September 23 citation, namely "arna", "bağdarlama". (from "soc.culture.turkish")
2014 March 5 citation is again from "soc.culture.turkish", i dont know what this source is.
2016-7, Hani Astolin, Tanrı'nın Göksel Çocukları (ISBN 6053235717) is very poorly written, I found the page in googlebooks indeed, but lots of made up terms there. Let me write down those: tak, soykök, alaf, ünalgı, ışıksun, efil, efilem, kam, tol, tap, kızıklan-. There are 11 words, 12 with sınalgı, that i do not understand, some have explanation within paranthesis. This is not usual, as a non native speaker of english, i dont even find such unheard words in a page of a book written in english. The page is saying something but i can not get it, sorry.
The word overall looks to be a recent attempt to replace televizyon, but the citations are poor and attested in controversial media. We could accept it as a loan from Kyrgyz сыналгы (sınalgı, television) if attested legitly, but as i said citations are very poor which again seems to be arranged by a group of people with little to almost no impact at all. --Anylai (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anylai Thank you, that was a very helpful, informative comment!
"soc.culture.turkish" is a Usenet group. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The 2014/03/25 citation is not copied from elsewhere. It is a reply to the copied news. -- 20:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response; I can't say that I've ever heard a TV referred to as a sınalgı. We just say televizyon or TV. I agree that the passages are poor, they look like they were run through Google Translator. Djkcel (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • [G]örüntü, ses ve konuşmalarını aktarabilecekleri bir Sınalgı (televizyon) ve ünalgı(radyo) bir arada diyelim.

TDK GTS (Turkish Language Association's Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary) doesn't contain the words sınalgı and ünalgı in this sentence. Except the words sınalgı and ünalgı (which you may not know), the other words are in Turkish, so this sentence is certainly in Turkish. Since the writer used paranthesis in order to explain the meanings of both words, there is no doubt about their meanings.

  • Bir tane bile Türk Okulu, Türk Bilimyurdu, Türk Ekin Ortayı, Türk Araştırma Ortayı, Ulusal Sınalgı ve Ünalgı Yayını olmayan topluma ne denir?

TDK GTS doesn't contain another more word bilimyurdu (university) in this sentence but you may find many citations by searching books (with different spellings such as "bilimyurdu", "bilim-yurdu" and "bilim yurdu"). There is no doubt this sentence is completely in Turkish, and sınalgı means 'television' and ünalgı means 'radio' in this sentence.

  • Ayrıca sınalgı dizilerinde bizim toplumumuza uymayan şeylerin gösterildiğini de görebiliyoruz.

There is nothing strange in this sentence, TDK GTS contains all other words than the word sınalgı. --2001:A98:C060:80:70C6:D0C5:7891:C71C 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


This particular capitalization. The two dictionaries here seem to indicate that language names are uncapitalized, as in Danish. The kl.wikt entry was made by a user who made other capitalized entries that were subsequently moved to lowercase pagetitles.__Gamren (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See also User talk:Qaqqalik#Tulorutsitut. Unless any objection is made, I am going to regard all capitalized language names as mistakes, and move them summarily.__Gamren (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That should apply to all terms in Category:kl:Languages (similary to WT:RFVN#Sapaat).
There already are kalaallisut (Greenlandish from May 2010) and Kalaallisut (Greenlandish from May 2012). Could both forms exist? - 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


This capitalization. DAKA says it is lowercase. It says the same of kalaaleq, which is also included in the Excel spreadsheet in that form. It seems defensible to hypothesize that demonyms are always lowercase.__Gamren (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


This capitalization.__Gamren (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

All the terms in Category:kl:Days of the week are capitalised, and it very likely makes sense to either capitalise them all or to non-capitalise them all. So shouldn't all capitalisations or no capitalisation be doubt?
In www.kujataamiu.gl/2014/kujataamiu%2012%2019juni2014.pdf PDF page 11 it's "Ataasinngorneq - tallimanngorneq" (from Monday till Friday) and "Arfininngorneq - sapaat" (from Saturday till Sunday). And unreliable google results like wikitravel.org/en/Greenlandic_phrasebook#Days and ilanguages.org/greenlandic_vocabulary.php also non-capitalise it. (E.g. at malik-nuuk.gl/gr/aabningstider/ it's capitalised, but that doesn't show anything as it's like a beginning of a sentence.) - 08:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Uesta Virginio[edit]

__Gamren (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


I wonder what it is about this language that makes people so eager to enter their protologisms.__Gamren (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are two durably archived quotations: [49] [50] I see more use online, but I don't see anything else that's independent and durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh[edit]

First of all, this is all wrong. It should just be Sǫʼ Naalgeedí (I think, as adding gohwééh would just make it SOP). Second, this is not attested at all. No references on the Internet except for us, the Navajo Wikipedia, and sources linked to those two. I have a lot of respect for User:Stephen G. Brown, but this entry is all wrong. Very good translation ability, but this translation is not attested. I was skeptical about the word "Starbucks" even being transferable into a language like Navajo at all, and when I checked, I was like, knew it. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Come on man it's Navajo you're talking about here, of course there's going to be a dearth of online appearances. —suzukaze (tc) 03:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
But then prove it. What source(s) do you have of anyone using "Sǫʼ Naalgeedí" in reference to "Starbucks" the coffee shop chain? I'm not sure exactly of the verification rules of Navajo specifically, but I think if we can't find one source of its usage in Navajo, the entry will be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, Suzukaze-c, Stephen G. Brown: I just called Jordan at Starbucks corporate and she confirmed it is "Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh". She is emailing me now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koavf/34634744761/in/dateposted-public/Justin (koavf)TCM 04:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Lol. I don't think that'll cut it. Plus they probably just copied that from the Navajo Wikipedia article or from here, once again. We need book, scholar, Usenet, etc. sources that use this term to mean "Starbucks", and as far as I can see, those don't exist. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. All I can say is that's what they call themselves. She confirmed that they don't have any paperwork or literature using that phrase--just an internal database. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(also, "this is all wrong" is quite a bold claim for someone so uncertain ["I think"] and who doesn't speak Navajo, no? —suzukaze (tc) 04:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC))
Well, Wiktionary itself is intended to be a resource, so hypothetically, if Wiktionary has every word in X language, someone doesn't have to know X language in order to find out what word in X language means and how it's used via Wiktionary. According to the entry given, this is a compound of Sǫʼ Naalgeedí (an alleged name for Starbucks) + gohwééh (coffee). Therefore, it may be SOP. Anyway, that doesn't even have anything to do with this RFV. Since I have no sources of the usage of Sǫʼ Naalgeedí or Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh, then we will never know how it's used, because it's not used. Therefore, this RFV will be failed and the entry will be deleted, unless someone finds some spot that I seriously failed to see. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Navajo is an WT:LDL, so a single mention (not even a use) is sufficient, but "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". Those sources are not required to be online. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
First, PseudoSkull, why do you think that Sǫʼ Naalgeedí is the correct term? And why do you think that Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh is wrong? Sǫʼ Naalgeedí is almost meaningless in Navajo. It means "the star that bucks" (which is meaningless, since there is no star that bucks). Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh is the correct term. It is the term that Navajos use. I don't want to repeat myself with a long explanation about how things are with written Navajo, but very little written Navajo can be found online, in spite of the fact that some 130,000 people speak it daily. It has to do with the fact that the U.S. Government tried for at least two centuries to stamp the Navajo culture and language out; and that, although the Navajo alphabet was designed some 75 years ago, no Navajo schools taught Navajo (including reading and writing), until about 2002. Today, only a small handful of Navajos have managed to teach themselves the Navajo alphabet (which is complicated and difficult to use), and even when these few write it, hardly any Navajo speakers can read it. Only since 2002 have a few Navajo schools begun to teach the language and how to read and write it. We started a facebook group to teach Navajo reading and writing, but almost all of the 17,000 participants are adults and it is difficult for them to learn an alphabet that is so different from English.
Even for the few who can write it, the diacritics and the glottal stop are a problem. The glottal stop is best written as we do here, with ʼ, but for those who don't have a Navajo keyboard (i.e., most people), it is easier to use '. If you search for "Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh", you are unlikely to find anything (because of the glottal stop). However, if you search for "Sǫ' Naalgeedí Gohwééh", you will find this video about Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh. The other Navajo diacritics can be written in various ways, too. Áéíóń ąęįǫ can be written as we do here, or they can write aeion aeio and add combining accents ́ ̨ ̀ to them (there are also other choices). So even when a text exists, it is often misspelled, and even if spelled correctly, the Unicode glyphs chosen are unpredictable.
This is precisely why I add virtually no new Navajo entries anymore (or entries in Lakota or other Native American languages). Most editors here do not comprehend how the situation with Native American languages is so different from that of most other languages in the world, which results in uninformed editors deleting perfectly good entries. Rather than waste my time entering Native American terms that someone is likely to delete eventually, I don't add words in these languages anymore. —Stephen (Talk) 09:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As regards SOP, Navajo is a transparent language. Virtually every polysyllabic Navajo word is SOP to a native Navajo speaker. That's why Navajos do not need a Navajo dictionary for Navajo words. Every Navajo word is understandable to every Navajo speaker, including every word that nobody has used yet (Navajo is polysynthetic, so the lexicon is virtually infinite). They don't know how to spell the words, or how to access the diacritics and special letters needed to write them, but they know the meaning of every spoken word and phrase. The language is completely transparent. The words are not transparent or SOP for foreigners like us, but they are for the native speakers. So if you don't want to include any Navajo words that every Navajo already understands perfectly, then you need to delete every Navajo entry except for the monosyllabic words such as and the roots and stems such as -GEED. No one who is not a native speaker of Navajo will ever be able to use such a monosyllabic Navajo dictionary to read or write so much as a single polysyllabic word in Navajo, but if you don't accept anything in Navajo that is SOP, that's what you're left with. —Stephen (Talk) 10:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A solution could be to create requirements even weaker than LDL, and invent an appropriate badge of shame for that degree of verification. For LDL, the badge of shame is {{LDL}} template, used e.g. in xéireagrafaíocht. The question is, what would the requirements be? Entry confirmed to be accurate by an experienced and trustworthy editor? Or at least one item of evidence supplied, without necessarily being durably archived? (The video linked above would fit the bill.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I told you, if you don't like them, delete them. Use whatever requirements you wish and delete everything that does not fit. It makes no difference to me. —Stephen (Talk) 10:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you are objecting to this being driven by CFI's WT:ATTEST? It's not about what I like or dislike; I have never nominated a Navajo entry for RFV, but someone will, as you see, and then what? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I've said on numerous occasions ... eventually someone will delete many, most, or all of the entries. That's why I don't add Navajo entries anymore. I'm tired of repeating this. As far as I'm concerned, whenever anyone thinks a Navajo entry is not worth keeping, or does not meet their interpretation of CFI, they should just speedy-delete them. Note also, a significant proportion of durably archived Navajo words (as most editors would judge them to be) are incorrect and misspelled and should not have entries. A great deal of experience with Navajo is required to make correct entries, and simply being found durably archived is not proof of correctness. There is only one other editor (User:Julien Daux) at the moment who is capable of recognizing correct spellings, and other editors should not be adding Navajo entries. —Stephen (Talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's http://www.unco.edu/library/pdf/Navajo_English_Dictionary.pdf, published in 1958. Consistent with WT:CFI#Number of citations, this can be used to source Navajo words even via mentions as long as the Navajo editing community accepts the dictionary for mentions. Therefore, a complete removal of Navajo from the English Wiktionary via current CFI is unlikely. If you have specific CFI modification proposals, they can be discussed in Beer parlour and a vote can be created. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I know that dictionary. It is useful to a native speaker, but it contains misspellings and typos. Besides the misspellings, most of the words are not lemmas. That dictionary cannot be used except by editors who are experienced with the language. —Stephen (Talk) 12:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
None of which changes the fact that a complete removal of Navajo via current CFI is unlikely, and that policy change proposals can be discussed and enacted. Furthermore, if that dictionary contains flaws, futher similar works can be used for double checking, including perhaps A Navajo/English Bilingual Dictionary by Alyse Neundorf, 1983, found at google books:"navajo dictionary". Perhaps published grammars can be used for double checking as well. It seems to follow that the current CFI's approach to Navajo is not entirely hopeless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: Have those misspellings been propagated in the literature? If so, these alternative spellings/misspellings could merit inclusion too, wouldn't you say? Even if just as misspellings. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, not propagated. The Navajos do not use dictionaries, since Navajo is a completely transparent language. Every fluent speaker knows the meaning of every Navajo word, including words that have never before been spoken. The dictionaries are only for people who want to try to learn the language. If we tried to include misspellings, it would be a project of immense size, because most Navajos invent all their spellings on the fly, and the spelling of every person is different from that of every other person. The Republicans who hold sway over the Navajo lands have never allowed their schools to teach them how to read and write their language, so their individual "misspellings" number in the billions at the very least. —Stephen (Talk) 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Alyse's dictionary, like all other Navajo dictionaries, contains misspellings and typos. Even the greatest and most important dictionaries, those of Young & Morgan, contain misspellings, typos, and other mistakes. All of those dictionaries were written before the age of computers. When they were written, there were no spellcheckers, no computerized sorting, no true Navajo fonts, and no one who knew how to typeset, knew Navajo, and knew the Navajo alphabet all at once. The written language was too complex for the state-of-the-art typesetting technology of the time, and errors were unavoidable. CFI may not be hopeless, but no one who has not studied the language in depth should attempt to enter Navajo words based on what they find in existing dictionaries and books. Well, I see that this discussion is going around in circles. I have explained to the best of my ability. I have nothing more to add. —Stephen (Talk) 13:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
"Virtually every polysyllabic Navajo word is SOP to a native Navajo speaker" — maybe transparent, but our convention seems to be that WT:SOP only applies to compounds and phrases. All derivatives or inflected forms are fair game, as long as they're marked as such. (Also, being familiar with a few heavily derivational languages including my native one, I suspect that you probably underestimate the amount of non-productive derivation that exists in Navajo.) --Tropylium (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Stephen G. Brown, I am extremely sorry for the lack of Navajo attestation out there, regardless of the amount of spoken language. To me, this is incredibly sad, and I wish that the Navajo language could have been better documented. Perhaps I am just entirely too bureaucratic. However, I have another suggestion. Perhaps we could use literal videos of people speaking Navajo to attest the words? Screenshots as Koavf has presented? According to you, this term is correct, but if CFI could be modified it can be kept. You seem very knowledgable in the language, as I've said above, so I'd say you can be trusted with creating Navajo entries, but unfortunately, Wiktionary has to have some sort of verification in order to provide an entry. I would support any efforts to modify CFI to let Navajo terms be attested easier in Wiktionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you won't get much cooperation from most Native Americans. The Navajos were almost exterminated, with both Americans and Mexican raiding their towns to use them as target practice and to steal a few survivors to sell as slaves. At the low point, they were reduced to only 2000 mating pairs, which caused a genetic bottleneck in their population. They have recovered to about 300,000 people, but the genetic bottleneck means that all surviving Navajos carry genes for several genetic disorders, including Athabaskan severe combined immunodeficiency, Navajo neuropathy, Navajo poikiloderma, and Athabaskan brainstem dysgenesis. Republican predators push them out of their homes to steal their land for mineral rights, and mine uranium in their midst, leaving the uranium dust to float in the wind and on the rivers, causing a lot of rare cancers among them (Navajos were previously almost cancer-free). Since the days of "Indian-Killer" Andrew Jackson, the Navajo children have been forcibly removed from their homes at the age of 6 or 7 and taken far away to Government boarding schools. These boarding schools held the children prisoner throughout their school years, where they were punished for speaking Navajo and for following their native religion. They were forced to speak only English and to become Christians. For speaking a Navajo word, they were punished by slapping, kicks to the rear or the genitals, starvation, forced to stand naked in the freezing cold, sleep deprivation, water deprivation, forced to suck on bars of soap, beatings with cudgels or paddles. I know a woman who was kicked so hard in her genitals that she cannot bear children. Only in the past 15 years or so have the boarding schools begun to close, and there are even now 4,000 Navajo children still in distant boarding schools. The Republicans are very strong in the Navajo area, and the Republicans still want them gone. Since WW II, linguists have been fascinated with their language, and the linguists go among them and pick their brains and learn about their language. Then they take the information and write books and make money, but not a cent is paid to the Navajo (data mining). They will not be helping us.
Because of the situation with most Native American languages, and certainly Navajo, there is no way for a non-speaker of the language to look somewhere and verify any but a very few simple words. The biggest, most expensive Navajo dictionaries list only a smattering of common Navajo words. If you take a Navajo book and try to look up the words in every dictionary you can lay your hands on, you probably won't find more than about one word per sentence in all the dictionaries combined. There is nothing in Navajo similar to the Oxford English Dictionary, which attempts to list every English word. The Navajo language is horribly complex, and in most cases, inflected word forms often do not even look related to their lemmas, and most speakers of the language would be hard put to identify the lemma of a given word. That's why I have said repeatedly that, because of our requirements that editors who don't know the language must nevertheless be able to verify words, it means that we cannot host more than a few basic words on Wiktionary, and that most of the words that we already have should just be deleted. Native American languages are simply not compatible with en.wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@koavf No, it didn't propagate to the literature because the literature is almost inexistant. When some literature exists, those misspellings and typos are real misspellings and typos, of that kind that comes once and never again, and takes various form within the same document. The only productive source of documents written in Navajo is (sadly) articles from the Church of Latter Days Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and other Christian stuffs of the sort. LDS write-ups are pretty much riddled in typos: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/here-to-serve-a-righteous-cause?lang=nav. The very well known nominalizing and unmistakably high-tone suffix -ígíí can appear as *-igii, bibee appears in the same document as *bibéé also, some nazalized vowels arbitrarily fail to denazalize before suffixes (*-ʼą́nii instead of -ʼáanii), some short closed syllables receive a random high tone when the Navajo tonotactics totally disallows it (*-nísh instead of -nish or -níísh), etc... They of course remain extremely valuable sources for the learner and the lexicographer, but as Stephen explained, they can't be used as is without prior in-depth knowledge of the language. —Julien D. (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

haltica, altica[edit]

  • As for the noun: By the version history and the given ref (compare this revision of haltica and this revision of altica) it's very likely just Haltica and Altica put into wrong entries.
  • As for the adjectives: There are haltica and altica without any gender and they don't have a nominative entry halticus or alticus, and so they don't have any definition. Very likely it's just the word used in Translingual taxonomic names like "Phalaena altica" and "Oeonistis altica" (these both names are rare) which instead of being an adjective could be the noun used in apposition (comparable to Vulpes vulpes).

- 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? There's a Wikipedia article and plenty of Google hits? --Hekaheka (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "bright" definition. Couldn't find it in any online dictionaries or brief scanning of Kangxi and Shuowen Jiezi dictionaries. Bumm13 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Lots of mentions, but is there any use? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any, for sure. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


The standard spelling for nominative (and also vocative) plural of “cherry” is vyšnios, yet there remained some possibility as an alternative form (compare gurklys : gurklis and stabdys : stabdis). Looking up both vyšnia and višnia on LKŽ, however, told just a fruitless result.--Eryk Kij (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

When I visit http://www.lkz.lt/startas.htm and enter vyšnia, I get to an entry of the word. In the same location, when I enter višnia (with 2nd char being i rather than y), I get "Žodžių nerasta" (word not found). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Can't find any use outside of Wikipedia (and mirror sites). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's kinda my fault for adding it to Chinese Wikipedia in the first place. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Wikipedia, some dictionaries and wordlists, a Yahoo discussion where it seems to be a misspelling of edzo, some discussions that seem to use it as an example of something. Have I missed anything?__Gamren (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I see two uses, but I can't find a third. [51] [52]Granger (talk · contribs) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense I wouldn't add it for Castellano (native speaker) --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be easily attestable ([53] [54] [55]). —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "scholar", per request of PseudoSkull on her talk page. Attestation hunt is go.__Gamren (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Den Danske Ordbog [56]: akademiker der beskæftiger sig med forskning (på højere læreanstalt, i virksomhed osv.). - An academic who is employed in research (in higher learning institution, company etc.). --Hekaheka (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


An initialism for a German noun that we haven't got. Nothing obvious on a quick Google search. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


Any takers? Not in Duden. Not in de.Wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an obsolete spelling of Rute (rod). If attestable under either spelling, the entry should be at the h-less spelling, and this should be made an {{obsolete spelling of}} like other German words with th (roth, thun, etc.). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Easily attested and the entry now has enough citations. - 14:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


For the inflection. The genitive could be *iūrisiurandi, cp. respublica and Talk:iusiurandum#Inflection. In New Latin texts iurisiurandi and jurisjurandi do occur as well as iusiurandi, but are not necessarily inflected forms of iusiurandum. If they are forms of iusiurandum, iusiurandi could be incorrect or less correct. - 03:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

L&S gives some references for inflection with "jurisjurandi" etc. In not-so-good editions which use i for the consonant j it does appear as "iurisiurandi" etc. (eg. The institutio oratoria of Quintilian with an English translation by H. E. Butler, vol. II, 1921, in V, VI). So this form is attested.
In Seyfert's grammar (from 1800) "jusjurandi" and "jusjurando" are mentioned with refs. However, he says that it were changed in some editions and in the texts at thelatinlibrary none of the given refs has "jusjurandi" or "iusiurandi" etc. He furthermore explains the etymology like this: jusjurandum isn't derived from jus (law, right) but is related to Jovis (the god Jupiter, or the genitive thereof) and would be the same as Jovisjurandum (dictionaries have this word but it might be doubtful, and BTW, jurandum in Plautus' Cistellaria is doubtful).
BTW: rosmarinus has a later declension with genitive rosmarini and olusatrum (from olus) has genitive olusatri. - 01:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It's now cited as a medieval declension. As a Classical or Late Latin declension, other cites would be needed.
By the way, P. Stotz states that ancient Latin had "iusiurandi" and "iusiurando": "... ius iurandum ,Eid` ist allmählich zu einem kompakten Ausdruck zusammengerückt. Vom Rhetor Seneca an sind Flexionsformen iusiurandi und iusiurando belegt. Im MA ... erscheint ein Verbum iusiurare ,schwören`." (Peter Stotz, Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Zweiter Band: Bedeutungswandel und Wortbildung, p. 482). But he doesn't give any source or ref. The texts of Seneca at thelatinlibrary don't have these forms, and google books hadn't any either when searching for e.g. "nemo iusiurando" (changed from "nemo iure iurando") or "cum iusiurandi vim" (changed from "cum iuris iurandi vim") or the same but with j. Maybe Stotz meant "Since the time of Seneca the rhetor" (i.e. 'since 1st century BC-AD') instead of "Since Seneca the rhetor" (meaning 'Seneca himself and later people used the forms'), or maybe he he meant the type of inflection in general which could be attested by another word like rosmarinus. - 19:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: inner fibers of corn stalks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "chef, head cook". Ordinarily, one would use some specification, like køkkenchef (kitchen boss) or chefkok (boss cook).__Gamren (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

DDO seems to have it, and the two given cites could be durably archived. - 08:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
DDO does not have it, and the two given citations are for another sense.__Gamren (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad, sry. English chef is a false friends to French and some Germanic languages. - 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Torrent file. A torrent file is normally called a 種子文件 or 種子檔案. Is 種子 used for the file, or is it just a seed, just like in English (BTW, missing sense?)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can verify- I think it is a pretty common usage. GB 下載 種子 returns sufficient results. Wyang (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: This book defines 種子 as "提供下載的用戶", which is similar to the definition of seed ("a machine possessing some part of the data") from the Glossary of BitTorrent terms. Is this a different sense? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a different sense, and should be placed above the "torrent file" sense, which is an extension of it. Wyang (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


Unclear sense needing citation. ばかFumikotalk 14:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If you checked native Japanese dictionaries [57] you could have found a usage example "甘いマスク" that gets plenty of Google hits. —suzukaze (tc) 06:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


The usual Irish word for Jacobite is Seacaibíteach. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This could be an older word, used at the time? —CodeCat 19:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
w:Jacobitism has "Séamusachas" and "Séamusaigh". Could they be the Scottish terms "Seumasachas" and "Seumasaich" converted into Irish? - 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's eminently plausible, but is it attested? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Google's only results for Séamusach, Séamusaigh, Seamusach, Seamusaigh are wikipedia, wiktionary and wiki clones (including glosbe.com/ga/en/S%C3%A9amusach see glosbe.com/partners). The term "Séamusach" or "Séamusaigh" could occur in an old document or an old book, but it seems to be more likely that the term got added to wikipedia based on the Scottish term, then to wiktionary and was copied elsewhere. The Irish term could be Séamus + -ach while the Scottish could be Seumas + -ach.
From wikipedia's version history: Irish "Seacaibíteachas" and Scottish "Seumasach" were added on 26th February 2012 in wikipedia, without reference or explanation. On 31th March 2012 the Scottish got changed into "Seumasachas" with the explanation "Seumasach is a Jacobite, Seumasachas is Jacobitism". Scottish "Na Seumasaich" was added on 17th December 2015 in the table. On 2nd May 2016 Irish "Na Séamusaigh" and on 12th May 2016 Irish "Séamusachas" got added without source or explanation. - 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


RFV Spanish etymology - bandol doesn't appear to be a Spanish word. -WF

This was in the time of Old Spanish (1500s), which I am not an expert in. I think bandol was an Old Catalan word (modern bàndol), which includes the Catalan diminutive suffix -ol (Modern Spanish -uelo). That in turn from Old Spanish bando. I would change the etymology to something like this:
From earlier form bandollier, from Middle French bandoulliere, from Old French bandouliere, from Old Spanish bandolera, bandolero "guerrilla", from Catalan bandolera (feminine derivative of bandoler, “member of a band of men”), from bàndol "faction, party" (diminutive suffix -ol), from Old Spanish bando (faction, party). —Stephen (Talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


An Esperanto neologism meaning sister directly borrowed from Proto-Italic? I got zero hits in Tekstaro. Additioally, this word collides with the verb sori. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If it exists, it is surely borrowed from Latin, French, or other Romance languages, not directly from Proto-Italic, so the etymology should be adjusted. But I can't find any uses either—I see a couple of mentions on Google Groups [58] [59] (one gives French sœur as the etymology), and one use of the sense derived from sori [60], but no uses of the sense in question. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


Two mentions on google books, no results in the National Corpus of Polish. First 6-7 pages of results in Google(with quotation marks) comprise EN→PL dictionaries and lists of translations of EN IT terms(there is one actual use on page 5). Mistrz (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Rare, significantly less common than "oprogramowanie ukladowe", but it is in use:
http://www.packardbell.com/pb/pl/PL/content/windows10-eligible-models "może być konieczna instalacja dodatkowego oprogramowania, mikrooprogramowania lub aktualizacja systemu BIOS"
http://www.packardbell.com/pb/en/GB/content/windows10-eligible-models "your system may require additional software, firmware, and/or a BIOS update"
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/pl/gts/pdf/ZP_IBM_Rozszerzone_Wsparcie_Techniczne_dla_sieci_SAN_i_pamieci_masowych_arch.pdf -- 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
First link looks good, I've added the citation, packardbell one is not durably archived and the IBM one is a bit doubtful, since it is an annex to a legal contract and the „mikrooprogramowanie” there is a part of legal terms definition, defined as „oprogramowanie układowe”; further uses within that document are a requirement to form a legally binding contract, so it might be treated as a mention, IMHO ;) – even if we would count it as an use instead of mention, it's still not durably archived, so 2 more uses are needed(Polish is a well documented language). Mistrz (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Supposedly the shinjitai form of 齟齬. —suzukaze (tc) 02:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Dutch for a "decorative German or Dutch-style piece of furniture that combines aspects of a wardrobe, curio, and cabinet", the kind of furniture that is called a "shrank" in English. This was removed by a user who said "Removed all the references to the Dutch language. Pennsylvania Dutch is a German descendant not a Dutch one." However, Pennsylvania German's descent from German rather than Dutch does not prevent the Dutch from also having a word "shrank". The question is whether they actually do or not... - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Native schrank (with expected sch- instead of English sh-) apparently does exist, but it does not have the meaning found at shrank. — Kleio (t · c) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: hoisin sauce. A quick Google search shows that it's absolutely not hoisin sauce. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be some sort of seafood sauce used in Western cuisine. In this menu, it is translated as crustacean sauce (salsa di crostacei). I did find some uses meaning hoisin sauce, like this (English version) and this. I'm just unsure if these uses are influenced by Wiktionary and/or sites that use Wiktionary info. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


German noun. Not in Duden; not in de.Wiktionary. Would surely have a plural if it exists. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is in Duden: www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Hall_Klang_Laut
Is in DWDS: www.dwds.de/wb/Hall
Is in Adelung's: www.zeno.org/Adelung-1793/A/Hall,+der or www.woerterbuchnetz.de/Adelung?lemma=hall
Is in Grimms' DWB: www.dwds.de/wb/dwb/Hall or www.woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB?lemma=hall
Is somewhat in canoo (with inflection - which can be incorrect -, without definition): www.canoo.net/Hall?lookup=caseSensitive
Is not in de.Wikt - but who cares?
Just searching for "der Hall des Donners" gives enough Google Book results to attest this word.
Dictionaries mention a plural "Halle", but the plural is rare and the dictionaries say so too. Donnerhall has a plural Donnerhalle (e.g.: "laute Donnerhalle" or "grosse Donnerhalle" in a poem "An Gott", "Stürme, Blitz und Donnerhalle", "werden Donnerhalle / Eure Worte", "Und fernher zittern Donnerhalle"), but finding the plural Halle for Hall is more complicated as there is also a feminine Halle. - 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Cited. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


AFAIK, we mostly use ดรัมเมเยอร์ for drum major. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


The word "стяг" originates from russian poetic "стяг", which is currently subsitute for "флаг". In belarusian "сцяг" is used. However I found three references:

    • 2006, Сяргей Макей
      З намі бог і стяг над намі. [61]
    • 2012,
      Ужо ў першай пяцігодцы былі пабудаваны швейная фабрыка “Стяг індустрыялізацы” і панчошна – трыкатажная фабрыка “КІМ” у Віцебску. [62]
    • 2016,
      У складзе аб'яднанага войска ВКЛ і Кароны Польскай мужна змагалася і Ваўкавыская харугва пад сваiм стягам з галвою ваўка пасярэдзiне палотнiшча. [63]

At the same time this word is not present in any dictionary. So I think that this word doesn't meet the attestation criteria. --Jarash (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The term shouldn't be included as Belarusian. The citations 2 and 3 have other misspellings - індустрыялізацы (індустрыялізацыі) and галвою (галавою). BTW, "Russian" and "Belarusian" should be capitalised. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added two more quotations, for a total of four. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Neat, thanks.__Gamren (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


Two hits on Google Books, zero hits on Google Groups, and one hit on Google Scholar (as a part of a transliteration of the English movie title "The Big Swindle", which is normally transliterated as "ビッグ・スウィンドル" instead) and the character sense fails WT:FICTION. Nibiko (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Chinese — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

[64]-- 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: self-righteous and holier-than-thou people. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

[65]-- 21:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
[66]-- 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've changed the definition a bit. It should be cited now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Resolved. Wyang (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Liu An. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


I find no evidence of this term. —JohnC5 04:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, pretty obviously a joke entry derived from Disney. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
    You don't vote in RFV. --WikiTiki89 16:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've speedied the entry, since it is probably an invention, but the RFV is still in effect and if it turns out to be citable, it will be restored. --WikiTiki89 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Variant of 刀? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


There is a Google Groups discussion here, which may include a sort-of-usagey example, but I cannot load it.__Gamren (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

vu esas plezure aceptata[edit]

Ido for "you're welcome". —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

[It is here] 10:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Volapük words relating to sans-culottism[edit]

nenkülot, nenkülotik, nenkülotan, hinenkülotan, jinenkülotanGranger (talk · contribs) 10:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Is this Classical or Old Latin? —CodeCat 17:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW it appears in many texts on la.wikisource ([67]) DTLHS (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Even used as late as Noctes Atticae.. seems like an archaism that remained popular in literature. — Kleio (t · c) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)